PCGS Grade Results - A YN Perspective and Some Frustrations with Variety Attribution
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,500 ✭✭✭✭✭
I sent a series of 8 coins in to hosts mid July, where they were received on 7/18. After the long wait, the results popped yesterday!
I figured this could be a good opportunity to share how my I tend to decide to send coins for grading as a YN, and what I look to get, as well as a few concerns. This will be a long one, but grading results are always a learning experience for me, so I like to share that when I get a chance.
First, the coins and grades! The shared orders page is here to see the TrueViews if you desire. https://www.pcgs.com/shared-orders/order-details/22741656
Line Items Cert # PCGS # Description Grade Region TrueView®
1 1 45335794 5977 1938 25C PR65 USA
2 1 45335795 569466 1938 5C Re-Engraved Obv Design FS-402 PR66 USA
3 1 45335796 6801 1964 50C Accented Hair PR67 USA
4 1 45335797 5981 1942 25C PR65 USA
5 1 45335798 3338 1937 1C, RD PR66RD USA
6 1 45335799 6700 1959 50C PR67 USA
7 1 45335800 4180 1942-P 5C Type 2 PR65 USA
8 1 45335801 3915 1913 5C Type 1 Genuine AU Details (92 - Cleaned) USA
I'll do a coin by coin breakdown, with reasoning and my grades.
1) 1938 25c, I graded it PR66 (point high). This is an amazing gem, and the TrueView does it no justice in my opinion (would have liked to see the reverse contrast, this will become a theme below). It is head over heels nicer than the 1942 quarter that will come later, so the 65 shocked me slightly. It was a former ANACS 65 as well. This coin is going into my registry set ATS, so the grade doesn't particularly matter here. Current value appears to be around $200-300, Ebay and auction sales have a wide spread. There are two light hairlines above IGWT. Here's my photo:
2) 1938 5c, I graded it PR66 (correct). It appears that the 402 and 403 varieties hop around on PCGS's attributions (both dies appear in both categories) which is generally ok as the values are similar enough to one another. Should this change, it could be a problem. However, this was an Ebay purchase for $108, so this is a great coin for me with a current market value of $430 or so. The TrueView on this coin turned out great, I really like it!
3) 1964 Accent Hair, I graded it PR67 (correct). Just a simple cherrypick here, I'm in it about $50 with grading, market value is $150 or so. TrueViews look great!
4) 1942 25c, I graded it PR64 (point low). This was a surprise! The coin has a pretty nasty patch of hairlines in the left obverse field, so the grade was not expected. I didn't even see it as a solid 64. The coin does have some nice contrast, so there could have been a bump for that. The TrueView shows the detail on the coin quite nicely, though I would have liked it to show the contrast. I paid $130 for it, but I wanted it in a holder for my personal collection, so I don't anticipate seeing it for quite some time. The detail and any contrast is exceptionally rare on these proofs.
5) 1937 1c, I graded it PR65CAM (point low, no CAM). This was a former NGC PR65 coin, so the contrast bump to 66 is a nice surprise, though somewhat expected if it hadn't gone CAM. Values for a nicely contrasted 66 and a 65CAM are pretty similar, so this coin is worth around $850 based on recent GC sales. I'm in it about $320. The TrueView for this coin was the most disappointing, I had requested that they show the contrast, and the TrueView was one of the reasons I sent this coin to PCGS anyways. To get a good price for this coin, the contrast needs to be shown. The few spots on the coin hardly show up in hand, and PCGS agrees as they likely would have never handed out a 66 if they were obvious. I'll get a bit deeper into this later.
6) 1959 50c, I graded it 65CAM (two points low, no CAM). This was the coin where I was surprised, but not surprised. There was a major two point contrast bump here, and I know there are three or four pretty bad hairlines in the upper right obverse field. You can't miss them. I don't think I've ever seen a 67 with hairlines like that, so the only reason for the bump must have been the contrast. The TrueViews are disappointing on this one as well, I had hoped they'd show the contrast market value is around $130 with good pictures, I have about $90 in this coin. Values are similar for a 67 and a 65CAM with good pictures.
7) 1942 T2 5c, I graded it 65 (correct). This was a former ANACS 66, I had cracked it and dipped it for hopes of a CAM. It was a good lesson for me. All said and done, this is a nice coin, though it has some haze in the fields. I'm not sure what I'll do with this one. I'll come out about $60 or so in the hole, but not everything turns out.
8) This was the most disappointing coin in the batch. I'm quite sure all of you are now wondering why on earth I sent in a AU Details 1913 T1 nickel. I graded it UNC Details Polished, DDR FS-1802 (Grade off, no attribution). The lack of an attribution shocks me. I'm going to include a series of images that show the doubling and compare them to attributed examples. The TrueView on this coin is fantastic, which I find just a little bit ironic 
.
TrueView:
My photo:
Attributed Example:
Variety Vista: 
You will notice that the die clash on the reverse under the motto is exactly the same. I will also include cropped photos of the doubling on each photo.
TrueView:
My photo:
Attributed Example:
I just don't quite see how this one was missed. This is a huge problem too because a coin like this gets one shot at the graders. It's essentially worthless in the current holder, but it's a $200 coin in the DDR holder. I can't afford another miss on this coin, so it's stuck. I've got about $100 in it currently, so it's a huge hit and loss on this submission. I'm just frustrated that I had to have this happen and I really hoped that I could have avoided this. Is there any hope PCGS will correct this?
On a happier note, I remember reading that the TrueView department takes a contrasted and uncontrasted photo of each coin, and they could change the TrueView if it was requested. Does anyone know if this is still true? I am really hoping this is the case, particularly as I had requested it in my submission comments. Some of these coins I submitted with a main reason of getting a TrueView, otherwise they probably would have went ATS to save some money. To get disappointing TrueViews is not only frustrating and costs me small amounts of money (that add up quickly for me), but it will likely make selling the coins more difficult when that time comes.
Overall, I wasn't more than a point off on any coin, with the exception of the contrast calls and the two point bump for the 1959 half (never saw that coming, still really don't get it ). Market grading wise, I wasn't off much on these coins as well. I won't really count the 1913 nickel as I believe something needs to change there, and the details grade doesn't affect value too much (UNC and AU Details are similarly priced).
All of the coins were submitted with the intention of keeping for my collection or making a profit on when selling. I'll come out ahead on the submission (profits about 50% of entire acquisition and grading cost), even with the loss on the 1913 nickel. I try to build in safeguards like that when choosing coins to avoid a disaster, and the safeguards worked here. As a YN, grading costs are a huge expense. This is essentially two years' budget, so I need to come out ahead. Small amounts lost add up quick, but one or two good grades can make the submission.
Any questions about this, feel free to ask!
Coin Photographer.
Comments
Did you pay for variety attribution?
There are a small number that get attributed "free" like the 1955 Double Die Lincoln Cent.
Most varieties are not attributed unless you request it and pay the fee.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
Yes, variety attribution was paid for.
Coin Photographer.
I made a mistake on three coins with varieties I submitted earlier this year. I did not fill out the submission form correctly and as a result PCGS did not note the varieties on the slab insert. I resubmitted them at the September Long Beach show, this time with a correctly filled out submission form. The coins came back with the variety information noted on the slab insert (one of the coins, a 1943/2 P MS66FS nickel has a price guide value of about $2,100.00 with the variety designation and as a 1943 P MS66FS coin it has a price guide value of about $90.00, a very wide spread).
The funny thing is that a 4th coin (a 1945 P DDR nickel) that I submitted earlier this year with the same incorrectly filled out submission form did come back from PCGS with the variety noted on the slab insert. Go figure.
I just looked at the Trueview photos of your 8 coins. I really like the photo of the 1938 nickel.
I was hoping that the photos of the coins you mention have frosted devices would have showed the contrast between the fields and devices. No go.
Does your 1959 half dollar, in hand, look similar to this 1959 PF67 (no CAM) half that I had graded last year? (IMO my coin warrants a CAM designation). If so, you may want to submit your coin to our host again.
You have a very good eye for varieties and for grading proof coinage, which is not that easy for most folks to grade.
In my opinion and experience, I have found that recent TrueView (TV) images are often disappointing as all get out and that something dramatic (personnel, lighting, equipment, turnover, etc...) has happened within the PCGS imaging department to result in this drastic lowering of quality for a flagship service. My opinion is also that I would not be quite so quick to point out why your grades do not always match what PCGS grades the coin. It's fine to guess, but parsing these proof grades is not an exact science, especially when your coin is viewed by PCGS graders for a mere few seconds before being passed onto the next step in the process. Within this grade window I would think that two-points difference is essentially matching in grade, even though the value might be off.
Lastly, your images make me think the Buffalo might be circulated, but it also could simply be lighting. However, I have had the same thing happen with varieties at PCGS and it makes me mad as heck. My best (worst?) example was a fairly well known variety on a classic coin that I purchased from a dealer whom nearly everyone here would recognize if I shared the name. This is someone routinely recognized for their eye and savvy in buying and grading coins. He saw the coin as the variety immediately and sent it to PCGS perhaps a half-dozen times without getting the attribution and then when I picked the coin up from the case his first words to me were that it had failed at PCGS so many times for the attribution. I purchased the coin, sent it in again for variety attribution where again it failed and then I sold the coin. The person who bought it from me then sent it in for variety attribution and it received the attribution! The variety was clear as day. It was far more obvious than the one on your Buffalo.
In my opinion, I believe the grading expertise at PCGS has slipped in the last few years and I strongly believe the TV quality has gone down precipitously.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
@SanctionII, the variety was filled out exactly the same as the the 1938 nickel, which also got a specialty attribution.
Here are images of the 1959 half and 1937 cent:
@TomB, thank you for the compliment. You are right about pointing out why my grades don't match, I was thinking it was obvious enough that it was my opinion that it I wouldn't need to expressly state it. However, all reasoning in OP post is my opinion and only my opinion. Thanks for letting me know!
Coin Photographer.
Good job with the submission!
I wonder if those hairlines you noted were really die polish lines?
Thanks! I'll double check when I get the coins back, but based on my memory I would say absolutely not. Die polish lines are extremely rare on proofs, striations are much more common. These were also not striations (though there was a fairly large one on the 1964 half).
Coin Photographer.
Hi,
We in the PCGS Photo Department shoot around 2500 coins a day, and it's tough to get them all right. We have 3 new great people taking photos for us this year, and they're still learning. I monitor feedback like this to help better the results we produce, and rest assured I'll go over these images with the photographer. Luckily they shot some alternate images which will appear online soon.
Thanks
Phil
Radiant Collection: Numismatics and Exonumia of the Atomic Age.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/3232
Phil,
Thank you so much! I really appreciate you taking the time switch some of these these out with alternate photos. I was really pleased with the 1938 5c, 1942-P 5c, and 1913 5c shots, which I think turned out quite nicely.
Coin Photographer.
New TrueViews just popped up, I am much more pleased with the new ones! Here are a few of them:
Coin Photographer.
I share the variety attribution frustration. I’ve sent my 1928-s Buffalo in several times for two feather attribution. It is admittedly a tricky call as this date does not come as a full two feather, with a small portion of feather remaining.
In this past submission I included a written explanation of the various die markers, and how those die markers were present on my coin. I printed versions of all the Truviews available with markups on the die markers. Still no dice.
I sent the piece in on the most recent reconsideration quarterly special. I did get one other variety attribution on a seated quarter, but figured all the coins got a very quick look, as the whole process/turn around was about 3 weeks on a regular submission
Buffalo Nickel Digital Album
Toned Buffalo Date SetDigital Album
Wow! Those updated photos are so much better. Thank you to @PCGSPhoto for jumping in to help here.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Thank you @PCGSPhoto for helping @FlyingAl. That was really kind.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The updated Trueview photos look great. I like the appearance of all three coins.
With respect to the 1959 half dollar, it looks very similar to my 1959 half dollar that graded PF67 (no CAM). They both are gorgeous.
Both my half dollar and FlyingAl's half dollar look (from their Trueview photos) equal to and possibly better in quality than some of the 1959 Cameo proof half dollars displayed on CoinFacts.
The 1936-1942 Proofs FlyingAl has exhibited in his Forum posts are also very eye appealing. If he is putting together 1936-1942 proof sets, they will be of very high quality.
I like the fact that a YN is collecting coins in the same portion of the hobby pool I play around in.
@SanctionII
Thank you so much for the compliment! I think I love these coins just much as you do. The 1959 half is quite eye appealing and I agree that both your coin and mine probably deserved the CAM designation.
I can't wait to get these coins back and play with them under my camera, the 1937 is particularly hard to shoot and I was rushing my shots a little because I wanted to send the coins out.
After quite some time, I have hopefully (the coin should arrive tomorrow) purchased the last needed coin in my 1942 proof set. Should that coin meet my standards, I will make a new thread about that milestone and completion of the set.
Coin Photographer.
FlyingAl.
You are welcome. The compliment is well deserved.
On 10-7-2022 I picked up at a local show a 1942 P PF66 Silver nickel to complete my 1942 Proof Set. I have complete sets for 1939-1942. I eventually will pick up the 1936-1938 sets.
Hey kid, you’re hired.
@FlyingAl... Thank you for an outstanding post. Your critique and commentary are excellent. I really enjoyed reading your detailed analysis and results. Cheers, RickO
You're kidding, right?
@ricko, I'm glad you enjoyed it! Does anyone think there is a chance that PCGS will be able to correct the variety attribution if I point it out to them? I know @keyman64 was able to get one fixed, though it was a bit more obvious than mine.
Coin Photographer.
Nice coins and very good write-up. 👍
Hoard the keys.
Damn right, this YN knows his stuff. I started collecting in 1972, and I use HIM for advice!
Great photos too!
I have sent in a couple of 1913's for the DDR and missed as well. The die erosion is pretty bad on our reverses causing the perceived doubling.
I really like that '37 cent. Great result!
Collector, occasional seller
Duplicate post.
Coin Photographer.
@SethChandler
I'm taking you up on that! I'll call you tomorrow.
Coin Photographer.