Large cent just came back with an "altered surface" designation... I disagree, opinions?

WilliamF

I can't see it, what am I missing here?
Pics of the raw coin, and then compared with the TV, in my opinion this is completely original...

Cert#45919745. -Genuine - UNC Details (94 - Altered Surf.)

for the record, I know that there is a stain on the reverse that most of you won't like, Right now I'm primarily asking about the designation it got.
I'm all ears...

(edited to add the grade)

MFeld

I don't see what they were referring to.

ricko

I do not see any specific points that I would recognize as altered surface. The hair detail is quite crisp and detailed - if it was tooled, it is extremely well done and recolored. I do not say that is the issue, just an observation without evidence. Perhaps you should call for clarification. Cheers, RickO

Maywood

@ricko said: The hair detail is quite crisp and detailed - if it was tooled, it is extremely well done and recolored.

If it was tooled the "no grade" would be 98 – Damage/Tooled or something similar.

The OP had a different "no grade" result: 94 – Altered Surfaces
--- An altered surface call will be made if PCGS discovers anything has been added to the surface of the coin to either "improve" its appearance or to cover marks, scratches or other surface damage. Surface alteration methods include adding the following materials: dental wax, putty, lacquer, nose grease, etc. "Thumbing" is the application of a putty-like material to fill in marks, scratches, and other defects or to haze over portions of the coin. Coatings (such as lacquer), while intended to protect coins, result in a No Grade, as it becomes impossible to determine the quality of the underlying surfaces.

Just looking at the images of the coin I can see a couple areas on both sides which don't look right. In short, the color doesn't seem to "fit" with the surface condition. If you open the bottom image in a another window where it's much larger you might see what I mean.

ricko

@Maywood... Thanks for the clarification, I thought tooling was part of altered surface definition. Cheers, RickO

Maywood

Me too until I looked up to check.

oldabeintx

Perhaps they thought the luster was inconsistent with the lack of wear, but then I would think they would have called it cleaned, or if the color doesn't seem right that would have been the designation. I'm at a loss.

PerryHall

Hard to tell without examining it in hand with good lighting and magnification. Maybe they thought it was dipped and retoned but that's only a guess.

Jzyskowski1

My dime has “questionable color” as its designation. Seems they have a section for that. I’m learning so appreciate the post. I think it looks pretty original but I’m not the expert 😁
Interesting to watch and learn. Thanks

jedm

@Maywood said:

Just looking at the images of the coin I can see a couple areas on both sides which don't look right. In short, the color doesn't seem to "fit" with the surface condition. If you open the bottom image in a another window where it's much larger you might see what I mean.

Under her nose and chin? I don't see anything on the reverse that compares to that.

braddick

I bet if that was sent in raw and requested for the removal of the black speck on the reverse (at 11:00), it would be curated and graded into a regular holder.
I have heard of other "problem" coins being treated by PCGS and graded regularly.

Jzyskowski1

@braddick said:
I bet if that was sent in raw and requested for the removal of the black speck on the reverse (at 11:00), it would be curated and graded into a regular holder.
I have heard of other "problem" coins being treated by PCGS and graded regularly.

Like the idea but wonder if they would notice the coin as it’s kinda an unusual bird and catch the resubmitting. Maybe, as mentioned, having a little conservation happening they change their mind 🧐

Type2

Looks like a spot was removed under the cent on the reverse, Nice coin though.

braddick

Between that large cent being graded and upon its return for curation and subsequent entering the grading room, the graders will have seen and graded hundreds if not thousands of coins.
It will not be remembered or even thought of.

WilliamF

@Type2 said:
Looks like a spot was removed under the cent on the reverse, Nice coin though.

Actually that spot under the T in CENT only shows up in the Trueview, I do not remember it being there when I sent it in and you don't see it in the raw photo...
Is there any possibility that it came in contact with something in the grading process that caused some sort of reaction with the surfaces? I know that's far fetched and they probably have strict protocols they're supposed to follow, but it almost seems like a couple spots appeared on the surface sometime in the 3 months it was at PCGS...

silverpop

you paid for a expert opinion you got one, yeah not what you wanted but when paying for a opinion expect the unexpected cause graders see things we don't or overlook

WilliamF

Dont know if this will help but here's a few more pics I took when it was in hand, I just dont see anything that would indicate this was altered in any way, the only thing that doesn't look original is the faint fingerprint but thats not even the problem here...

ChrisH821

Obverse field looks a bit funky but I'm not sure if it's die wear or not.

JBK

It sure was "in hand".

Where in the world could that fingerprint have come from? 🤔

The spot under the T in "cent" certainly does not appear to be there pre-submission, but based on the way you were handling the coin I'm not sure why you would suspect that PCGS might have caused it.

I am no expert on grading or copper, but that area under the chin and in front of the neck keeps catching my eye.

tincup

@JBK said:

It sure was "in hand".

Where in the world could that fingerprint have come from? 🤔

The spot under the T in "cent" certainly does not appear to be there pre-submission, but based on the way you were handling the coin I'm not sure why you would suspect that PCGS might have caused it.

I am no expert on grading or copper, but that area under the chin and in front of the neck keeps catching my eye.

Yeah... that may be the issue.

humanssuck

Looks like someone tried to smooth out graffiti under "cent" on the back?

Maybe emerald can explain how the number 5 got there?

Crypto

looks like corrosion was removed around the TAT of states and then MS70'ed.

coinbuf

The field in front of the portrait and around/over the date look unnatural. Not sure what happened there but I'd bet that is the area the graders are concerned with. Perhaps smoothed or thumbed, just look off.

WilliamF

@JBK said:

It sure was "in hand".

Where in the world could that fingerprint have come from? 🤔

The spot under the T in "cent" certainly does not appear to be there pre-submission, but based on the way you were handling the coin I'm not sure why you would suspect that PCGS might have caused it.

I am no expert on grading or copper, but that area under the chin and in front of the neck keeps catching my eye.

The fingerprint was already there, the seller is a member here as well and if you like I can ask him to confirm that for you... , I'm not sure if you noticed or not but I'm holding it by the rims.... I took those pictures a few minutes before putting it in a (non-pvc) flip and putting it in the mail to PCGS

The_Dinosaur_Man

There may be a combination of factors contributing to the opinion of altered surfaces. The pitting on the lower left obverse field appears similar to some coins that have been "whizzed" while the scratches beneath "CENT" on the reverse are suggestive of having been made deliberately. I like the coin as original too, though I suspect that the graders weren't without doubt and played it safe.

Catbert

My eye was drawn to the orangy coloration of the dentils surrounding the reverse spot:

Perhaps evidence of some attempt to address the spot.

WilliamF

@Catbert said:
My eye was drawn to the orangy coloration of the dentils surrounding the reverse spot:

Perhaps evidence of some attempt to address the spot.

Do you think they'd give it an "altered surfaces" designation based solely on that spot?
Pretty sure I've seen details graded coins where it mentions specific spots but it doesn't say the whole surface is messed up... I obviously don't know enough about what to look for because I wouldn't have sent this in if I didn't think it had a good chance of straight grading

Catbert

I was referring to the orange area, not the spot exclusively. The orange area may not be consistent with the rest of the toning on the piece. Just a supposition since I don't have the coin in hand.

asheland

I almost wonder if there's a spot removed or a bagmark smoothed away...

rhedden

Yep, Catbert beat me to it. Someone tried to remove the spot. If you look closely at the dentils, they are brown all the way around the coin, except near the black spot. Someone probably put a drop of acid or "dip" on a Q-tip and tried to hit that spot without touching the rest of the coin.

WilliamF

@rhedden said:
Yep, Catbert beat me to it. Someone tried to remove the spot. If you look closely at the dentils, they are brown all the way around the coin, except near the black spot. Someone probably put a drop of acid or "dip" on a Q-tip and tried to hit that spot without touching the rest of the coin.

I've seen plenty of coins where it notes "corrosion removed" but that doesn't give it an "alt. surfaces" designation, you see that on laquered/thumbed/greased coins...
Whats different here?

WilliamF

I'll gladly admit that I don't know enough about grading, I am learning valuable stuff from this thread already, I'm just trying to understand the designation because it doesn't seem correct, I wouldn't be surprised if they had given it a details grade for the carbon spot but they didn't...

rhedden

They failed to remove the corrosion? The altered surfaces would be for the stripped area around the spot that is missing the patina.

You could try putting it in a paper envelope for 10 years and seeing if the natural color comes back; copper coins have a way of retoning themselves after some time.

woodmiser

I am looking and comparing the shape and size of the lips and the size of the nostril--the length

WilliamF

@woodmiser said:
I am looking and comparing the shape and size of the lips and the size of the nostril--the length

??

RLSnapper

I collect Late Date Large Cents. Upright 55 is a really common coin. There are many to choose from without spots. This is the N-7 variety the tell being that the date is lightly punched as you can see. It is a rarity 1 coin. This coin on a good day would grade 63. I always try to get 64 or 65 for common coins. As for the altered surface designation I agree someone tried to remove the spot most likely. At least you have an otherwise pretty coin...it could have been worse like my last submission which got stolen in the mail. Perspective.

JimTyler

Someone tried to remove that spot above STATES and discolored the denticles on both side. Unnatural red on both sides of spot.

1madman

The scratch under the E in cent on the reverse, and the coloration around the stars obverse from around 10-12 o’clock look messed with. Sell it, move on, don’t make this coin into a money pit.

jmlanzaf

@Jzyskowski1 said:

@braddick said:
I bet if that was sent in raw and requested for the removal of the black speck on the reverse (at 11:00), it would be curated and graded into a regular holder.
I have heard of other "problem" coins being treated by PCGS and graded regularly.

Like the idea but wonder if they would notice the coin as it’s kinda an unusual bird and catch the resubmitting. Maybe, as mentioned, having a little conservation happening they change their mind 🧐

Given the thousands of coins they look at weekly, no one is going to remember that coin. Imo

MasonG

@jmlanzaf said:
Given the thousands of coins they look at weekly, no one is going to remember that coin. Imo

Besides, what are the odds the coin would end up going to the same graders as before?

MFeld

@silverpop said:
you paid for a expert opinion you got one, yeah not what you wanted but when paying for a opinion expect the unexpected cause graders see things we don't or overlook

Graders also make mistakes and are understandably, far from perfectly consistent. But even if they were perfect, the OP sounds as if he would at least like to understand the source of the details-grade expert opinion that he paid for.

kaz

I see a group of small indentations in front of the throat that don't look right to me.

WilliamF

@kaz said:
I see a group of small indentations in front of the throat that don't look right to me.

What do you mean "don't look right"? Do you think its damage, or possible tooling?
I see what you are referring to but in my opinion those are die markers, this is a pretty late die state and there are striations and other markers all over the coin, thank you for the comment, would you mind expounding a bit? 🙃

MJPHELAN

Can PCGS detect chemicals on the surface? I seem to remember reading about coin "sniffing" technology that they have developed.

LanceNewmanOCC

perhaps we should start sending a link to this thread to everyone en-masse?

ok. i give up looking for the link. here are the pics i snagged for posterity.

@lkeigwin

WilliamF

I appreciate everyones insight and opinions on this, I still don't quite get the designation that they gave it but I think I see where they're coming from.
I will probably not do anything with it for now, I like it an awful lot and the coin itself is still (mostly, except for the spot that appeared under CENT) the same regardless of the designation.
Thanks guys, I still got a long ways to go!

Catbert

Some unsolicited advice. Usually, "but for" coins continue to itch and the best solution is to sell it and find another example that fits your requirements. I've made some purchasing mistakes and it's okay to lose a few hundred to unload it and chaulk it up to tuition payments.

kaz

@WilliamF said:

@kaz said:
I see a group of small indentations in front of the throat that don't look right to me.

What do you mean "don't look right"? Do you think its damage, or possible tooling?
I see what you are referring to but in my opinion those are die markers, this is a pretty late die state and there are striations and other markers all over the coin, thank you for the comment, would you mind expounding a bit? 🙃

Hi, to me they looked like impressions into the metal, made by a tool of some kind. That's what didn't look right to me. But, I am not familiar with series or the various die states, and wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.

DelawareDoons

It's been recolored at a minimum imho.

LanceNewmanOCC

@WilliamF said:
I appreciate everyones insight and opinions on this, I still don't quite get the designation that they gave it but I think I see where they're coming from.
I will probably not do anything with it for now, I like it an awful lot and the coin itself is still (mostly, except for the spot that appeared under CENT) the same regardless of the designation.
Thanks guys, I still got a long ways to go!

.
fwiw, my first thought was this area looks a lil sus. the red showing through and the immediately area surrounding doesn't look natural from the pic.

lkeigwin

I don't see a problem. I'd resubmit it. Or send it to another TPG.
Lance.