My submission predictions...with results coming shortly
Barberian
Posts: 3,724 ✭✭✭✭✭
I submitted 10 coins for Gold Shield action at the FUN show. Some of these coins were grabbed in haste under very poor privacy and lighting conditions. The rush was because the time was around noon, I had a 1.5-hour drive ahead of me to get to FUN, and the tellers could not pull my SDB out from the framework. So, two tellers got a hammer and screwdriver and were working with great effort to unfree it for 10-15 minutes. I was quite disturbed by the entire scene. The trip getting to FUN was a fricking gauntlet. I got caught in traffic, missed my turnoff, and then had to walk slowly like a tight-assed, tin soldier 200 yards and up three flights of stairs to reach a restroom. I mentioned this in my show report. The "Penny Lady" took my picture and I looked grim and frazzled. Next FUN show, I'll be better prepared.
Anyway, here's my predictions based upon grades I assigned to these coins in my notes. Unfortunately, I only have seller's photos for one of these coins. That's one of the reasons I'm submitting them for grading.
1844-P WB12: "EF45, Nice!" - It has some splotchy dark spots but also some beautiful toning that I hope the Trueviews capture.
1845-P WB4: "Dipped but retoned with mottled toning, nice!" - I normally avoid dipped coins but I made an exception for this surprisingly tough date.
1866 50C WB-3 Motto DDO: "EF40, Nice toning!" - From memory, it has atypical, olive to loden brown/green toning.
1876-CC 50C WB12 Medium CC: "VF35" - The seller wouldn't take $180 in a BIN OBO as a near EF. He posted it again as a true auction and I won it for $170. I have shared this seller's picture and that story before here. The coin has interesting pale gray-green and light pink toning and my guess is it may have been dipped and/or put in a soft flip or strange environment.
I was referring to this coin when I recently asked if there were any special considerations in grading CC SLHs. The E in LIBERTY is weak, but the coin otherwise looks like a solid VF35 to me.
1980-P 50C: "VF25, nice toning" - a duplicate coin. I cannot recall what it looks like.
1881-P 50C: "VG8, cleaned" - Another coin I cannot recall. I expect this duplicate to be a "details" coin as I grabbed it by mistake. I struggled to see my coins because the safe door blocked the lighting in the no-privacy (!) viewing area. Totally unsatisfactory, and I need to move my coins back to the other branch bank 10 miles further away that had private rooms.
1884-P 50C: "nicely toned VF30 but with lots of hits" - off eBay about 3 years ago for $700 (=cheap).
1885-P 50C: "EF40, thick, light tan-cream fading to blue toning, DO (Dick Osburn) loved this coin" -
I wasn't crazy about the toning. This was back in the day when I loved dark toning and Dick Osburn had lots of SLH for sale but no photos. I had trouble interpreting his descriptions and learned quickly that his descriptions did not match my tastes well. A lot of coins were returned. I kept this one because I thought he'd cut me off if I returned more coins. I've since changed my mind and think it's a really nice coin with interesting toning. Trueview has a challenge here to accurately capture this subtle toning, IMO.
1900-O 50C: "VF30" - a choice raw Barber sold by a Brit in a "miscellaneous Halves" backwater of eBay for peanuts ($135). An eBay raw coin 'victory.'
1892-S 50C: "VF30" - a coin with light toning but somewhat dirt-free such that it may have been gently cleaned but lacks hairlines.
So now join the ongoing wait for the grades and Trueviews to be posted.
Comments
@Barberian ... Thanks for an interesting pre-grading assessment of your submission. It will be interesting to see the comparative chart when you get the results. Best of luck. Cheers, RickO
Can’t wait to see how it turns out.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
I did something like this with my Lafayette dollar where some posters thought it was nice and others saw environmental damage. In my opinion, the coin was both, and a toss-up to be straight graded. That's had me thinking about the trade-off between toning and environmental damage, and how TPGs handle this tradeoff.
@ricko, some of this stems from your preference and thinking about original blast-white coins. The coins submitted show minimal environmental damage, but I believe a few have been dipped and one significantly cleaned, so the results will be interesting to me.
Grades were just posted. TrueViews are not posted yet. All straight-graded except one, and I'm actually laughing about that one.
In general, very good results for me, though there are a few that I question.
Oh, and I have not received an email from PCGS saying my grades were ready yet.
Good luck on the submission. If I had to guess, I would think you are a little tighter than PCGS so you will be pleased. Let us know when they come back and please post images.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
D'OH! I just noticed that you posted the grades were received and you did well overall. Congratulations!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I'm in the middle on average. Out of ten coins, 5 were undergraded by me, and 4 were overgraded. The only coin I got correct was the coin for which I forgot to add the Sheldon grade from my notes (EF40 for the 1845).
The coin I have noted as "cleaned" in my notes straight graded. Another coin that an expert/seller gushed over was "details - cleaned." I have to look at this coin again because I don't recall seeing any hairlines on it. It has atypical cream-beige and light blue toning that I didn't like initially and suspected it had been dipped. However, I've come to like it more and am eager to take another look at it.
I'm still waiting for the TrueViews to be posted, and it looks like it will be tomorrow. I'll give a sneak preview of the one coin I have photos for:
1876-CC 50C WB12 Medium CC: "VF35" - The seller wouldn't take $180 in a BIN OBO as a near EF. He posted it again as a true auction and I won it for $170. I have shared this seller's picture and that story before here. The coin has interesting pale gray-green (loden green) and light pink toning and my guess is it may have been dipped and/or put in a soft flip or strange environment.
I was referring to this coin when I recently asked if there were any special considerations in grading CC SLHs. The E in LIBERTY is weak, but the coin otherwise looks like a solid VF35 to me.
PCGS XF40 - I'm surprised and delighted by this grade. Based upon auction results, 76-CCs double in value from VF35 to XF40. However, I doubt this coin will sticker as an XF40. What do I know?
I'll post grades with the Trueviews when the TrueViews are posted.
Anyway, here were my predictions based upon grades I assigned to these coins in my notes. Now, I'll list the PCGS grades and Trueviews below with my predictions in two posts, staring with the first five. All of these coins have been edited (increased exposure, decreased contrast, tinkered with color) to approximate the coin in hand, BUT, I'm way off for some of them at the moment. That's evident for the 1876-CC. Most of the TrueViews are off as well.
1844-P WB12: "EF45, Nice!" - It has some splotchy dark spots but also some beautiful toning that I hope the Trueviews capture.
PCGS XF40 - a nice looking coin, shows some reflective surfaces suggesting that might have been dipped long ago and has retoned to a schmutzy, "original" look with orange and red highlights. The reverse pops like a EF45. I'd sticker it, but what do I know. Opinions welcome!
1845-P WB4: "Dipped but retoned with mottled toning, nice!" - I normally avoid dipped coins but I made an exception for this surprisingly tough date.
PCGS XF40 - Apparently, I didn't give my predicted grade above, but I have "EF40, dipped, retoned, nice" in my notes.
1866 50C WB-3 Motto DDO: "EF40, Nice toning!" - From memory, it has atypical, olive to loden brown/green toning.
PCGS VF35 - I like this coin with its darker toning on the date, some stars, and lettering, and is a candidate for CAC approval. It's a strong VF35, IMO.
1876-CC 50C WB12 Medium CC: "VF35" - The seller wouldn't take $180 in a BIN OBO as a near EF. He posted it again as a true auction and I won it for $170. I have shared this seller's picture and that story before here. The coin has interesting pale gray-green and light pink toning and my guess is it may have been dipped and/or put in a soft flip or strange environment.
I was referring to this coin when I recently asked if there were any special considerations in grading CC SLHs. The E in LIBERTY is weak, but the coin otherwise looks like a solid VF35 to me.
PCGS XF40 - I'm surprised at this grade. Tough to capture the gray to loden green color with orange-pink highlights.
1980-P 50C: "VF25, nice toning" - a duplicate coin. I cannot recall what it looks like.
PCGS VF30 - looks like some old cleaning on the obverse right field, nicely toned with attractive dark lettering on the reverse.
1881-P 50C: "VG8, cleaned" - Another coin I cannot recall. I expect this duplicate to be a "details" coin as I grabbed it by mistake. I struggled to see my coins because the safe door blocked the lighting in the no-privacy (!) viewing area. Totally unsatisfactory, and I need to move my coins back to the other branch bank 10 miles further away that had private rooms.
Added: The good news is this coin is nicer than how I described it above. Though this coin has some pitting, it has only a few hairlines, and it has acquired a two-tone look and some rim toning.
PCGS F12 - pretty nice grade.
1884-P 50C: "nicely toned VF30 but with lots of hits" - off eBay about 3 years ago for $700 (=cheap).
PCGS VF35 - apparently no net grading to VF30 for hits.
1885-P 50C: "EF40, thick, light tan-cream fading to blue toning, DO (Dick Osburn) loved this coin" -
I wasn't crazy about the toning. This was back in the day when I loved dark toning and Dick Osburn had lots of SLH for sale but no photos. I had trouble interpreting his descriptions and learned quickly that his descriptions did not match my tastes well. A lot of coins were returned. I kept this one because I thought he'd cut me off if I returned more coins. I've since changed my mind and think it's a dipped coin with interesting retoning. Trueview captured some of the toning but not the overall look of the coin well.
PCGS VF Details Cleaned- I don't see any signs of cleaning in this photo and I don't recall any hairlines on this coin. Anyone see signs of cleaning here? TrueView image is too harsh and needs further editing.
1900-O 50C: "VF30" - a choice raw Barber sold by a Brit in a "miscellaneous Halves" backwater of eBay for peanuts ($135). An eBay raw coin 'victory.'
PCGS VF25 - this coin is a two-tone circulated "gem" Barber half that should sticker with CAC.
1892-S 50C: "VF30" - a coin with light toning but somewhat dirt-free such that it may have been gently cleaned but lacks hairlines.
Added: This coin shows hairlining, but is still market acceptable, IMO. There is a significant drop in quality between the 00-O and this 92-S.
PCGS VF35 - I doubt it will sticker.
@Barberian... Great post and descriptions with the pictures. I do not detect any signs of cleaning on the 1885 in the pictures. Cheers, RickO
I received the coins via Fedex today (silver box). I looked over the 1885 under a stereoscope and can see some evidence of cleaning in streaky changes in color on the right obverse field, but I cannot see any hairlines. These streaks are hard to see but seem to be on the original patina, underneath what's been accreted since. Really subtle stuff that I'll have to show to experienced collectors or dealers to get their interpretation. Of course, I already have a least 2 opinions from graders. The TrueViews don't capture these subtle differences at all. Maybe the graders simply don't care for the unnatural look. I didn't like it either, but I understand why the seller promoted it. It's puzzling right now. If I've learned anything here it's to trust my gut feelings about coins and don't worry what the seller might think if I return yet another coin.
The 80, 81, and 92-S show hairlines (my memory was wrong about the 92-S) but I feel they're 100% market acceptable and worthy of grading; the 80 has a nicely toned reverse with attractive dark toning on the lettering and arrows.
The 1884 has nice, rich color in hand but is a nicked-up coin. It should be slabbed but at a lower grade, IMO. Buyer beware!
The 44, 45, 66, 76-CC, and the 00-O are nice coins with no evidence of cleaning, IMO. The 44, 66, 76-CC are "B" coins in my opinion, with a good chance to sticker. The 1900-O is an "A" coin, a beautiful, two-tone VF25, worthy of a sticker. The TrueView only partially captures its 2-tone look. Its only notable flaws are two spots on the obverse.
I'll add these observations to the post above.
Edited to correct grade.
You did VERY well, sir! It's a shame about the 1885. I think it looks nice, but you said it has some crazy toning, so it probably looks much different in hand. I wish I had the skill to correctly grade many series of coins, and the guts to buy raw and submit them, but on the occasions where I have, I was usually disappointed. That could be because most of us have a tendency to over-grade our own coins. It's best to grade more conservatively, and be pleasantly surprised when the grades come back higher than expected.
You have some true skill for sure! Congratulations on your new additions, and I hope you can resolve the issue on the 1885.
Dwayne F. Sessom
Ebay ID: V-Nickel-Coins
Thanks, but my grading skills are just an illusion. Others, including TPG graders already have argued that I'm clueless about grading. One went out of his way to register and post once here just to offer that opinion. I found it to be amusing thinking about the effort he went through to tell me. I ruffled his feathers.
I just want to learn. That's why I posted this thread. That will be one of the reasons for submitting my coins to CAC. All comments are welcome, even the salty ones. I like hard coaching.
I can see the reasons for the grades. They give the best honest grades they can to submitters.