Restoration-noob question. Do they mark the restoration area when they make a recommendation?

stawick

Hi,
So in my recent order I received my gold proof Kennedy 50c and 2016 gold 100th anniv 50c came back with stickers recommending restoration. My 1st encounter with this since starting my PCGS membership in 2020.
I noticed some red on the Kennedy half (and after peeling back the sticker - on the 2016 gold 50c). Is this how they normally indicate restoration areas?
Thx.

As they stand they graded 69. Not too shabby.

Namvet69

There are some very knowledgeable members who have experience with your coin surface conditions. Peace Roy

stawick

Yup. I figure it may just be a mark they make to save time when (if, but I will) I send it for restoration - a new service to me. Might just be standard practice (on gold coins)? I could see the small red mark on the Kennedy right away since it wasnt covered by the label, and knew it wasnt there when I sent it in. I didnt see the mark on the walk lib half until I peeled back the label a bit. (I knew that dark-ish blemish was there when I sent it in, but have no idea how it got there. From the mint originally that way.)

Namvet69

I don't know what the red spot is on the JFK, sure looks like it has splatter shape. The WLH looks more like an impurity issue. IMO. Good luck. Peace Roy

Rexford

No, they’re not purposefully marking coins for any reason

stawick

OK Thx.
Curiouser and curiouser. They definitely were not sent in with the red on them. I just hope restoration handles that.

stawick

Well, these were sent in for restoration. I noted the red marks. It HAS to be some sort of identification, as it is exactly around the imperfections, and definitely wasnt there before. We'll see what the end results are upon return (in months, maybe April??).

Namvet69

So what were the original contaminants on those two spots, that you wanted removed? Were they carbon spots or something else?

stawick

@Namvet69 said:
So what were the original contaminants on those two spots, that you wanted removed? Were they carbon spots or something else?

I havent a clue. It was never disclosed to me, just had the recommendation sticker. I know the dark spot(s) were there (didnt really catch the Kennedy half). I never cracked the capsule the mint sent them in originally.

Rexford

@stawick said:
Well, these were sent in for restoration. I noted the red marks. It HAS to be some sort of identification, as it is exactly around the imperfections, and definitely wasnt there before. We'll see what the end results are upon return (in months, maybe April??).

It doesn’t have to be and isn’t any sort of identification, it’s ridiculous to suggest that TPGs would graffiti a coin they felt needed conservation, in order to indicate that it needs conservation. It’s not their coin to mess with and they would be held liable for this if they did so. Those spots were either already on the coin when subbed or developed naturally in the time it was at the TPG.

stawick

@Rexford said:

@stawick said:
Well, these were sent in for restoration. I noted the red marks. It HAS to be some sort of identification, as it is exactly around the imperfections, and definitely wasnt there before. We'll see what the end results are upon return (in months, maybe April??).

It doesn’t have to be and isn’t any sort of identification, it’s ridiculous to suggest that TPGs would graffiti a coin they felt needed conservation, in order to indicate that it needs conservation. It’s not their coin to mess with and they would be held liable for this if they did so. Those spots were either already on the coin when subbed or developed naturally in the time it was at the TPG.

OK, so maybe it developed when the capsules were opened and exposed them to air. Oxidation around the original mark would make more sense. The stand-out of the redness threw me off.

I wasnt thinking anything such as graffiti but more like a reversible way they might indicate these were already inspected and might expedite the restoration process. ie, They wouldnt have to verify them again. (But that would probably require precision to be exactly around the blemish.)
But yeah, no guarantees these would get sent back in, so why would they do that?

In any event, we'll see how the restoration process pans out.
Thanks.

JBK

I agree with those who say that PCGS would not mark the actual coin.

You have either "copper spots" from localized concentrations of copper in the alloy, or there is some kind of contaminant on the surface. Either way, based on your observation that it has gotten worse, I am not sure the damage is done progressing.

I'm glad you're happy with 69s, and I probably would be, too, but there are lots of 70s to be had for most modern collector issues, so a 69 with spotting is not exactly eye candy to most people.

What I really wonder is if PCGS felt that conservation was necessary to stabilize something, or if they felt the grade would improve.

stawick

Yeah, I'm starting to see what you guys are saying. In the hi res TrueViews I think I even saw a couple other spots in other areas. So it may be spotting or some sort of toning developing? dunno. The impurities were probably there, but on the transfer to the holder they may have become more visible.
My main experience is with proof coins, and except in 1 case (on a recent-ish Silver Eagle) I never crack the capsules open. So I'm just not familiar with any impurities or anything like this. It just threw me.
I had 1 other case, my 2020 4-coin gold Eagle proofs (I posted in another thread), they didnt grade all that well, and a couple came back with a haze I never noticed before. I'm thinking that could've also been from initial exposure to air when they were transferred to holders. I had them for like 20 years before I sent them in for grading; my new mission in the last 2+ years, heh.

Thanks all.