My Saddle Ridge Hoard $20 - True View - What happened?
rip_f
Posts: 368 ✭✭✭✭
Like many coin collectors, I was intrigued by the news of the Saddle Ridge Hoard discovery back in 2014. So much so that I registered myself with Kagin’s and was able to land a nice looking, “reasonably priced” double eagle.
When I first learned about True View a year or so ago, I started looking up some of my coins.
This one of my S R H $20 was a bit perplexing. It didn’t look like the pictures I took of the coin I received back in 2014.
So my questions concern the sequence of the processes our host puts a coin through.
This coin appears to have been first TV photographed, then conserved, then photographed for the Kagin sale (glamour shot), then graded and slabbed.
Is that normal? Or unique to this group of coins? Or per the owner’s or Kagin’s wishes?
.
The first pictures I took after unboxing (bad phone pics,) looked like this:
.
.
The stains (on the TV image – that I wasn’t aware of at the time) started to reappear in 2016:
.
.
And this is a more recent picture (2020) :
.
.
The evolution within the slab in the 7 years in my sdb raises a whole other set of questions....
Comments
Interesting...
Conservation makes sense. Didn't know they provided conservation service on that hoard.
Wouldn't it make sense to leave the coin in its natural state for the sale?
Edited to add: Nice part of gold history you have there. Pretty piece.
Whats the grade (i don't really want to look it up..)?
Do you have the Kagin images?
It appears to be improving with age IMO..🤔
I don't think copper spotting disappears on its own.
Yeah, the hoard was in rusty cans and required quite a bit of conservation, IIRC. Fortunately, with gold, it's reasonably straightforward to do that chemically without disastrous consequences. I also recall that Kagins did the conservation.
I'm sure you can see it in-hand better than we can, but it looks pretty good in the last photos. How exactly do you think it has changed?
This was a very interesting hoard that got significantly less interesting once it was conserved and promoted (IMO).. how cool would it have been to aquire the entire stash in the original can?
I wish I had screenshots of the Kagin images, or the lot description .
It gave no specific grade, just said AU, as I remember.
I like the coin, but I was disappointed to see the label when it arrived --
Cleaning - AU Details
The lot description never mentioned anything about cleaning.
My understanding is that the finders cleaned some of the coins.
fwiw, based on these 2 images, i'm not certain that coin in the tv, is your coin.
those big digs on the cheekbone and going to the eye are pretty unmistakable.
so your first task, unless i am mistaken because some of those images are not very useful, is for you to look at your coin in-hand and compare some of the marks in the TV.
the digs on the cheek/eye do not seem to match from these 2.
even more telling is the star
The coins were found in rusty cans or the remnants of cans and probably highly mineralized ground.
Kagin’s conserved the coins
Before they handled the hoard the finders cleaned a number of pieces and I think those coins ended up in
PCGS Genuine holders
No grade for example
1889-S $20 had 69 Genuine pieces
and few a hundred MS pieces
I was hoping someone here would have an idea or might have seen it before.
I don't have enough experience with slabs in long term storage after the conservation process (or in metallurgy) to make an educated guess.
That's what Mr Kagin told me at an ANA Show. This coin was at the top of one of the cans and she scrubbed the dirt off on her shirttail to see what it was.
I see marks in the field next to the first star in the lower left of the obverse in the Trueview that do not show in the other pics. Doesn't look like the same coin to me either.
I am also not convinced that these are the same coin, for a number of reasons. Most obviously, the hits on the face look quite a bit different.
They do not appear to be the same coin to me as well. As others have noted the first star in lower left is very different between TV and the coin in holder. In holder the star has a fairly noticeable hit in the center. The star in the TV is perfect. Also the TV field to the right of that star has a hit and the coin in holder has nothing there. Very strange. They did not match up TV's and coins in holders very well.
Successful BST with BustDMs , Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino (CBH's - 37 Die Marriage's)
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
I have had a couple of trueviews not match the actual coin. I assume that it's because the image was swapped as part of the uploading process. Since coins on the same submission typically have sequential PCGS cert numbers, you might search +/- 5 numbers away from your cert number and see if there is a closer match.
john
Looking at the pictures of the slab and the True View they are the same coin; but the True View does not show the scratch under the fifth star. And where did that dark spot above the "T" in STATES on the True View come from? It's not on the slab.
I don't understand why the True View photos don't show the grade, one cannot guess a grade just from looking at a photo. Of course, if one wants to, the grade can always be found by checking the PCGS certification verification; but, I would not use a True View to guess the grade.
I'll have the coin in hand tomorrow after a visit to the sdb.
I've only looked at it a couple times since I saw the trueview last year, but the location of the staining and its re-emergence in the slab in those same spots leaves no doubt in my mind that they are the same.
The area on the reverse of the trueview with the most severe staining - the first T in STATES has, in this picture, evidence that they worked extra hard there and left it shinny.
.
SRGH
1865- S. $20
11 coins
6-genuine probably cleaned by the finders
1-40
4-53’s
The TruView and the slab coin are different coins. Certain marks (i.e. the star) are clearly different. Cheers, RickO
agree, why same cert#?
What you are seeing that “looks extra shiny” is the luster in that picture. It is not from cleaning the stain. They are different coins, zero doubt. The lower left star is an obvious and definite difference
@spacehayduke .... I cannot answer definitively, however, I would 'guess' it was a handling mix up with the pictures....could also have been a coin mix up.... Can likely be resolved with telephone and picture emails. Cheers, RickO
2014 flashback! Your post made me go look at mine, it's still the same - the picture and the coin. The coin is graded MS-63:
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Yup. Star 1 and vicinity, reverse rim near the 2nd T in TWENTY stick out.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Well, with the coin now in hand, and under more magnified scrutiny than I’ve ever given it before, I must say – the coin has been seriously abused and could use another session with the conservationist!
Oh, and by the way, those of you who contend that it’s not the coin in the True View – are correct!
Thanks, and sorry for doubting you.
Obviously a mis-labeled photograph.
@Regulated (Dave McCarthy of Kagins) did all the conservation work. Trial and error was needed. Dave and I have conserved many 10K+ coins for each other, though none as challenging as those in this very unusually environmentally-affected group.
David "revealed" to me that it took a total of five separate chemicals and a couple of specially devised processes to get "non-disastrous consequences" from coins that already had, what would be for many, disastrous impairments. NOT straightforward. The key, as is usual in conservation, is as much in what and how much you leave on as in what you take off.
I don't like how your coin is turning darker. The more frost on a coin, the more original surface of any kind, the more effective conservation will be. Some of the older SSCA $20's are blotching up again, and we're talking 65's and 66's. The newer SSCA process seems less chemically-oriented (as I understood the process when described on this website) and consequently the topmost molecules less disrupted.
This is a prime example of the imposibility of trusting pictures of coins.
Especially here, where we’re dealing with a coin that’s been buried 100 years, harshly cleaned, and then physically and chemically conserved.
The subtle changes that can be created by a slight tilt of the coin or a change to the lighting, or both, have convinced me to hesitate for a minute or two before making a “no doubt in my mind” call ever again!
if we do enough image comps and go out on a line, we all get nailed eventually. i'm not accustomed to making mistakes with images comps but i've been fooled a couple times in as many months.
i'm just happy we have part of the puzzle.
when someone does the cert # run up/down, the real TV may come to light.
Either way your coin was damaged when cleaned
OK - I did the cert # run up/down and found the correct TrueView. It was one digit off.
.
.
.
I think I'd like to keep the other one!
.
well done!
Thanks everyone for the advice.
The coin in hand - in the right lighting - shows most of the rust stains seen in the TV re-emerging on the obverse. The reverse is almost rust stain free.
Knowing its history, I really like the coin, but sorta wish I'd splurged the extra $1000 + for a MS specimen.
Now that the TV mystery is solved, back to my original questions.
Is the sequence of events normal?
This coin appears to have been first True View photographed, then conserved (by Kagin’s I’m told), then photographed for the Kagin sale (glamour shot - they sure didn’t use the TV!), then graded and slabbed.
Does PCGS require the TV to be of the pre-conserved coin?
And since I’m fairly new here, do our hosts ever chime in on issues like this? Explain the sequence and maybe even correct certification mismatches?
PCGSPhoto may be able to fix the TV for you, but I'm not sure of their requirements
"chime in?" not really
@ColonelJessup
Interesting info. I’d love to have been a fly on the wall during that process. Coin conservation is an art with processes and secrets that are pretty closely guarded. In reality, the chemistry is usually pretty simple (with a larger margin of error with gold than with silver), but the knowledge and experience about what to try and what not to try - that’s the real trick. Oopsies can get expensive pretty quickly.
@PCGSPhoto could probably straighten out the cert # mixup.
The OP images indicate "grade" 92.
The two "No grade" designations that confuse customers the most would be the numerical codes 92 and 98. The numerical code of 92 stands for cleaned. PCGS defines cleaning as:
"Surface damage due to any form of abrasive cleaning. 'Cleaned' covers a wide range of appearances, from a grossly polished coin to one where faint hairlines can be seen only at a particular angle or in only one area on an otherwise perfectly normal coin. This is perhaps the most frustrating of all the No Grades, because subtle cleaning is often difficult to detect in less-than-optimal grading conditions. 'Dipping' (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition."
https://www.pcgs.com/news/you-have-questions-pcgs-has-answers
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Two flies on a wall then
Some of his results did not so much make him happy as give him a sigh of relief. The better the underlying frost, whatever any specific individual coin's underlying surface impairments might have been, the more predictably happier he would be in his results. The MS coins had a great look. The lesser had a great story.
And "oopsies" really suck. And are inevitable. The worse the coins, the closer they are to the front lines of testing of the various "bitches brews". I was discussing this earlier with @Sonorandesertrat and we concluded that some of it was science, some the scientific method, and some a form of "arts and crafts". Most anyone with any insight into the matter, as informed perhaps by high school Chemistry, would also knowledgeably agree. It's not rocket science, but you've still got to put your 10,000 hours in.
Conservationists often do "work" for each other and other dealers on a split- profits basis. So do doctors, and both do favors for collectors.
For all that, we're less generous with our processes. Proprietary knowledge.
LOL, likely a lot of us have re-invented the same wheels.
Every time I talk to someone who "plays" with coins, I put together another piece of how I might keep them as OK as I can or, happily, even make them better.
I would think the TV photographs would be photos of the coin after conservation and grading. The cert photos and comments online would reflect the condition of the coin as grade, stabbed and eventually sold. That said photographs of the coin would be a benefit as documentation detailing what was done to the coin but I dont see what benefit there would be in making them public.
I agree, and that might be true for coins that they grade exactly as received, but it appears to be a different process for coins that will require conservation prior to grading. Or maybe just for the coins whose surfaces will be substantially altered during conservation.
Is the declaration that the coin was cleaned dealing with something that occurred prior to conservation? I always assumed the conservation process was considered preservation rather than cleaning.
You mentioned "I like the coin, but I was disappointed to see the label when it arrived --
Cleaning - AU Details". Was there no mention in auction description that the coin was classified as cleaned? I realize this was a long time ago and you might not remember all the details but the fact that you were surprised at the label makes me wonder if that detail was part of the description when the coin was put up for auction.
I remember when large numbers of these coins first came up for sale on Amazon. The description of the coins offered always included the grade from PCGS anywhere from
Mint State 66+ down to VF 20 pieces
or somewhere thereabouts
I think an 1890-S twenty reached the lofty heights of MS 66+
Pieces that had been harshly cleaned , flawed or damaged
were also sold and described as
PCGS 92, 93 , 98 etc.
Other sites selling the coins at the time would simply state MS66+
down to coins that did not receive a numerical grade that were described as
Cleaned
Some pieces had Environmental Damage and were described as such
Your coin was probably cleaned before David M ever had a chance to properly conserve it at an AU level
Did you buy the coin from Kagin or from a third party?
If Kagin, I would ask them to either correct the label and the True View. Since the coin has "turned" in the holder I would consider asking for a refund.
If a third party, ask PCGS to correct the label and the True View. Mistakes do happen.
Anyone who tries to grade from a TrueView is self-deluded. The images hide marks and hairlines and too often distort color.
They are not true to life, they are glamor shots. I can show you, and we have had displayed here, $20K+ coins that have no resemblance whatsoever to the coin as view in natural light.
Have fun with your coins. (sardonic)
@PCGSPhoto may be able to help with the swapped trueview issue.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
.
This event was a sale, not an auction. Kagin's had sole rights to all of them except a couple the finders kept.
This was a big deal for me at the time. Sort of an impulse decision. I have to admit that at the time I didn't know what a 92 grade meant.
I picked out the coin based on the glamour shot picture and the price.
There was no image of the eventual PCGS label or mention of cleaning, IIRC. I don't think I would have picked one that I knew had the word cleaning on the label.
Yes, I have asked PCGS to swap the pictures for the two TV numbers. Thanks.
Totally correct and a no-brainer. I am disappointed that my expectations are so low that I'm not surprised that only one other reader of this thread agreed
More or less disappointed than recognizing that some people think they can grade from photos?