1797 $2.5 Before and after .
1peter1223
Posts: 130 ✭✭✭
After
Yes it is the same coin .
1
1peter1223
Posts: 130 ✭✭✭
Comments
I recognized it because i had it on watch list before it sold at auction .
.
Successful BST transactions- Bfjohnson, Collectorcoins, 1peter223, Shrub68, Byers, Greencopper, Coinlieutenant
That’s not good.
and therin lies the reason why pops get so outta whack and why we have so many resubs.
if the tpgs did with coins like they do with currency, well, numismatics would be a very different landscape indeed.
oh, how you ask? well, since pcgs has the ability and has scanned coins that provide "fingerprints" based on scans of the obv/rev surfaces, they can know if a coin has been in before and why may have happened to it (accelerated toning/altered devices etc)
i won't/don't need to say more, you get the point.
Here are better up close pics
Genuine fake dirt added.
Greed is part of human nature.
I don't think it's the same coin as the cleaned example had better surfaces.
It's the EXACT SAME coin . Here are some close up pics when it was up for auction as "cleaned" .
One of a few reasons why I like CAC.
My YouTube Channel
There seems to be a cottage industry of people who can help others get valuable problem coins into straight grade holders.
Definitely same coin. Interesting.
When I was in NJ... I had an 1815/ half dollar with a hole in the top of the coin. I frequented a shop in the town I lived in... We discussed so much... The owner of the shop had been in business since Dinosaurs roamed the earth... He told me he knew a guy in Philadelphia that could fill the hole and take care of the coin to get it into a straight holder. I called BS... He then pulled out 4 or 5 Bust coins (all silver) that had all received the treatment. He had before and after photos. It was so disillusioning for me...
Fast forward a few years and I was in Chicago at a pretty big dealer there in Chicago.. I had a 1912 MPL that had been bagged for cleaning and one of the guys in the shop tool the coin and rubbed some stuff on it... Not going to be too specific here... The coin was then submitted and came back 5RB...
These rather innocuous anecdotes are minor to what exists out there...
Learn to grade... Learn what you are looking at/for. This was my biggest lesson in the collections I built. You guys know...
Incredible things out there.
Ding on the 2nd 7 shows it to the be the same coin. I don’t think it has been dirtied but cracks and graded again. To be honest I grade it xf48 and wouldn’t blink at it in an AU53 NGC holder if sold at pcgs 45+ money
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I would say
One of the "many" reasons I like CAC
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
Wait for auction number three when it CACs
Latin American Collection
TNFC (ebay listing) is in the Orlando, Florida area. This is a huge black eye for NGC grading.
Why? Were you unaware that both major grading companies sometimes award straight grades to coins that they previously details-graded and vice versa?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Without being able to examine the coin in person it’s hard to condemn it from these pieces. As @Mfield said, sometimes coins are “details” graded at one point and given straight grades at another time. This can be especially true for early coins which have often had something done to them.
The only comment I can make is that the coin looks to be over graded in the “AU-53” photos. It looks more like an EF than an AU.
Many coins are what I call "borderline coins." They may be very lightly cleaned or have a very minor problem. Some days they may straight grade while on other days they may details grade. They are right on the borderline between market acceptable and market unacceptable. It does seem that graders are more tolerant of problems on very old coins and very rare coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Agreed. And as I’ve posted many times previously, sometimes, the decision whether to straight-grade or details-grade a coin can be as or more difficult and subjective than the one regarding what straight grade to assign.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is not the first instance of a details coin becoming straight graded... It will not be the last. As indicated above - @PerryHall - and @MFeld - there are borderline cases. Also, opinions vary and coins can be 'improved'. Cheers, RickO
Why does this upset so many people?
How often has some member here posted about cracking a coin out and getting a higher grade on re-submission along with a green sticker after another trip to CAC?? How many threads are started about coins with haze, PVC, unsightly tone or other grade limiting surface distractions with results of self-conservation and the straight-grade result? This is just the way the Hobby functions.
There are ways of treating coins to redevelop skin. Not sure how its done on gold as I mostly handle silver, nor am I sure that it was done here at all, the pics aren't good enough to say for sure.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
There is "cleaning" that can never be covered up and other instances that are on the line of acceptability. Many people have given their experiences of coins that straight grade after a resubmission without doing anything to the coin, so clearly that is subjective. There has been a big problem with coin doctors who employ very toxic chemicals, or lasers to get better grades and that is a big problem. I know one seasoned dealer who was told by NGC to not send them any more lasered coins. However if you look at enough auction listed coins you will see enough problem coins to make it hard to bid on them unless you see them in person.
I haven't tried it, but I was told by someone I know who is a dealer you can dull down an overly bright Gold coin with toothpaste with no ill consequences!
One reason that people get upset is that they’d probably rather not buy a straight graded coin that previously received a details grade. Another is that they might submit a coin for grading, receive a details grade on it, sell it and later see it in a straight grade holder. It’s about perceived unfairness.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Would the coin then be minty fresh?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I think what bothers people is the lurking possibility of the following scenario:
1) Collector submits the coin, and it comes back Details
2) Big dealer / auction house acquires it, and oh, now it's an AU53 at the same service.
If you assumed that the above scenario (conspiracy theory?) played out, you'd have a reason to be upset. However, we have no evidence of who submitted it or what transpired, or if the coin was altered in some fashion in between grading trips.
I'll add that different people can have different opinions of a coin. Take the following 1866 business strike 25c, which was auctioned off at Heritage in 2004-5 in an NCS details holder. Forgive me for borrowing the Heritage photos, but it is for educational purposes.
Here is the same coin as I photographed it this morning, as it resides in my collection.
This coin has die polish lines that NCS mistook for harsh cleaning. PCGS, CAC, Gerry Fortin, and "rhedden" disagreed with their assessment at a later date.
Most if not all MS 1866 business strikes have die polish lines on the obverse, and all of them are flatly struck on the reverse.
That seller is a master at this.
I guess it's the same coin, but if it is, the coin doctor did a heck of a job. I can't down load the reverse of the piece in the AU-53 holder because the poster has something called a "hepig file." I was able to down load the obverse and got this comparison.
Here is the reverse of the coin from the Heritage site.
The coin in the details holder is really wrecked. It has been gone over with an abrasive. Going by the marks that remain, it appears that some person has been able to do an incredible smoothing job on the piece. If that's true the artwork is remarkable. Still that is no way that a coin with no original surface could be graded AU.
Or ... could it be that we are looking at a counterfeit of the original piece that has had the copy dies smoothed? The way things are going with counterfeits these days, anything is possible.
You'll notice that the examples I listed tend to concern things which benefit people first-hand, the perceived "unfairness" tends to concern events which happen to/for someone else. In other words, when it happens to me it's good, when it happens to someone else it's bad. That is illogical.
If people are going to concern themselves with the nuances of the Hobby, shouldn't they have an understanding that it's as much Art as Science?? To that end, complaining about something as expressed by the OP but participating in other things such as multiple re-submissions until a "grading event" takes place which pleases the submitter is a little disingenuous.
From the pictures I posted, I think that more is going on here than a difference of opinion.
I know it's a different date, but here is an 1804 quarter eagle that our hosts graded AU-50. If you think that 1797 $2.50 is three points better than this one, I think you need to brush up on your grading skills.
Here is the Bay reverse:
What are the chances that we are looking at masterful photo/lighting manipulation, and nothing has been done to the coin? Anyone who has photographed coins knows very well that there are viewing angles at which hairlines become less visible. Of course, it's hard to explain the dark streaks on the reverse....
That was my first thought. The first coin was photographed under an incandescent or halogen light which will magnify every hairline scratch while the second coin was photographed under a fluorescent light that usually hides hairline scratches.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
When I've taught coin grading classes in the past, two points that I have stressed that many people, both collectors and dealers, fail to realize are 1) coin grading is a subjective art, and not an objective science, and 2) photography angle and lighting can make the same coin appear vastly different when these are varied. We had two pictures of a 1911 $10 Indian gold Eagle in a slide set years ago that many people in the classes would insist absolutely HAD to be two photographs of two different coins...until we pointed out marks that confirmed that the pictures were, indeed, of the same coin. Here, we have a case of someone who is very bright taking a chance that a coin that had been no-graded on one occasion would be deemed acceptable enough to grade on another occasion, and who was willing to risk tens of thousands of his own dollars on this risk. Most people who collect early U.S. coins realize that most all of them have been cleaned years ago; what constitutes a "no grade" versus a coin that can receive a grade of necessity takes into account the degree of cleaning and if the coin can be accurately graded while taking into account all of its features, attiributes, and blemishes. Old cleaning is one of the blemishes that must be considered. Add into this the fact that both services have various graders, who do not always agree on the grade or even grade/no grade status of a particular coin, and you begin to see the variability/subjectivity of coin grading. Grading is NOT an objective science; it is a subjective art, and seasoned professionals can and do disagree with each other all the time. That's not to say that one or the other is wrong; if I like French dressing on my salad, and you prefer ranch, does that make your choice "wrong"? In any case, I know the individual who submitted this coin for grading, and have seen the coin in question, and all he did was break it out of one holder, put it in a flip, and resubmit it for grading. The surfaces were not altered; dirt was not added; nothing else was done to the coin. He took a gamble that paid off. If there were a mistake, the mistake made in my opinion was no-grading the coin when it was graded the first time; I have held this coin in my hand and I would have graded it. I detect a certain amount of sour grapes among some of those commenting here; maybe if these folks would like to spend the past 2+ decades of their lives studying rare coin grading, they'd be as "smart" as they wish they were...I'm sure most are professionals at their respective professions and businesses, and I doubt they expect the current owner of this coin, or me, or anyone else to be able to be able to perform their professional duties without some serious study. All we have here is a case of someone who was smart enough to recognize opportunity created by the inherent, subjective variability and imperfect nature of coin grading. Stop whining and start enjoying your coins.
rhedden GREAT point and excellent explanation and example.
Don Bosner-
Welcome to the PCGS forum!
As a former ANACS authenticator/ grader and current PCGS authenticator/grader, you bring tremendous experience to share here!
Mike Byers
@dbonser Thanks for the inside view from someone who knows the actual circumstances involved on this coin. That does bring to mind one question: as someone who has seen this coin personally in hand do you agree with the grade of 53? I know it could be unwise to say whether you’d go higher or lower but you can say whether you’d agree or not.
Hi Everyone,
This is Matthew Kleinsteuber for NFC Coins. This morning I was made aware of this thread and after 20 years in the business decided to sign up and post a comment on the forum. The coin in question, a 1797 $2.5, is being very unjustly spoken about as being played with or doctored. We bought this coin in the Heritage sale in an AU details Cleaned holder; it was from the Long Island Collection which had a very nice group of early coins. The coin was broken out of its holder and resubmitted for grading where it came back AU53. The coin has been changed 0% to the coin photo’d in the Heritage sale. As many of you have mentioned, lighting plays a big role in coins and we at NFC use a real camera with a flash in a light box, which can make coins look very different from one photo to another. I welcome anyone who would like to see the coin to come to our office in Winter Springs FL or to see the coin in person next week at Central States. I know that if you look at the coin in person you will 100% agree that it’s the same coin, in the exact same state as purchased in auction- no changes, no doctoring, no conservation. As for some of the comments about the grade of the coin, grading is subjective. The 1797 $2.5 historically has a weak obverse due to the die cracking. As a result, the reverse is taken into account more heavily to determine the true grade and the grade of this wonderful mintage of only 427 - 1797 $2.5 is AU53 . I have attached a link (I hope) as this is my first post to new pics I took on my iPhone and you will see even they don't all look the same, we are also taking new pics for the website so that hopefully its easier for everyone to see that the coin is in no way changed at all.
Thank you for your time
Matthew Kleinsteuber
https://imgur.com/a/uz2iW2K
Coins and digital photos and non-calibrated computer monitors... a trainwreck waiting to happen.
If you read the posts here for a while , you'll realize there's more than can be measured with existing technology.
You might say that the engine is the digital image and the caboose is the monitor. As I have lurked here for year after year, an ongoing debate has been grading from online images. Many members believe it is possible to a high degree while also assessing it as sight-seen. I don't subscribe to either and the comments above by dbonser and NFCCoins would seem to bolster that.
BTW, if you don't know what a caboose is........................
A caboose is just a little blinking light on the back of a train these days!
I'd like to mention something about monitors. 1 major setting people don't consider is brightness. The 1st thing I do when I get a new computer is turn the brightness down considerably. It makes a difference in how things look and boy does it save your eyes!
If I had a nickel for every time someone insulted one of my coins on this forum due to unflattering photos, uh, I'd have a complete set of Buffalo nickels and a wagon full of Buffalo dung too?
FWIW, I’ve known Matt and NFC for many years and they are a regular stop during my FUN show visits. I’ve bought and sold a number of coins with them through the years. If he says it wasn’t doctored, then that’s good enough for me- end of story.