I have a tough time sometimes seeing the cleaning on a coin so I have purchased a few over the years. I sold my raw 3 leg Buffalo nickel that had been cleaned for $400 and an 1844 Half that had a light whizzing for $600 last year. Both went to dealers that were happy to point out the cleaning. Unfortunately the dealers that I bought them from didn't point out the cleaning to me. I break out the loupe for every coin purchase now and look much closer for signs of cleaning. Even for slabbed material.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@PerryHall said:
There are problem coins in straight graded slabs. The most famous is the 1870-S gold $3 which is unique and is cleaned with obvious graffiti.
True, but now you are getting into "market acceptability". I'm probably or potentially in the minority but consider your example "market acceptable". There isn't another available. Another one is the unique 1898 "Single 9" ZAR pond. It has the first owner's initial's engraved on the obverse (small but noticeable) and is in an NGC MS-63 holder. I don't think it should be "details" graded either. I consider both entirely different from any coins where numerous or many are available, either in similar quality or otherwise.
So, if a coin has a hole drilled in it, the grading services should ignore it and give it a straight grade if it's the finest known and unique? I disagree. Grading should be consistent within the series and rarity shouldn't be used as a grading factor.
If it’s very rare, maybe it’s important to know the exact grade instead of a general term.
Why not "Details AU53 HOLED"?
Agree, the holder should be consistent and describe the coin above all else. The market can determine the value.
I have a handful of coins in my 7070 type set that wouldn't sail to a straight grade. I can think of about 7 like that -- two of them are coins I bought ~40 years ago when I was ten or eleven years old. In the other cases I can think of they are coins I purchased raw within the last fifteen years, knowing what the issues were and finding them acceptable for my purposes and feeling the detractions such as they are were appropriately priced in.
Agree, the holder should be consistent and describe the coin above all else. The market can determine the value.
Mark
It's subjective, I admit. I used the EAC example and this is the US Forum, but the biggest gripe I have is with the TPG applying a US centric standard to non-US coinage when they have absolutely no clue what's "market acceptable" to those who predominantly buy it. And no, they often don't.
There are some defects I agree usually make a coin not "market acceptable". I state "usually" because even with holed coins, Spanish colonial "royals" (as an example only) almost exclusively come this way. No, it wasn't made this way and yes, it's a defect. The buyer's know this (they aren't blind) and do penalize the price without the TPG telling them the obvious. I think it's PCGS that also straight grades (or has) some chop marked coins. That's also PMD.
The absolute worst to me is with cleaning. I own and have seen other coins in my primary interest (and other non-US series) with better ("original") surfaces vs. early US federal coinage (mostly early copper) where my series is in a "details" holder but the US isn't.
With EAC, I assume (but don't actually know) it's due to this reason. I infer EAC has the biggest influence on the market price, which is why I have no problem with "problem" coins of this series in "straight" graded holders. I'm not the buyer of this coinage, so my opinion of "market acceptable" is irrelevant.
Concurrently, the coinage I collect is likely overwhelmingly scarcer or a lot scarcer date-for-date versus practically any US series. (Something like 90% to 95% of the time, at least.) So yes, when there aren't hardly any other comparable coins available, I don't think it makes any sense to "details" grade this type of coin for this reason. I'd "net grade" it as is done by local collecting in the country of origin or where it's primarily collected (Spain for mine).
@PerryHall said:
There are problem coins in straight graded slabs. The most famous is the 1870-S gold $3 which is unique and is cleaned with obvious graffiti.
True, but now you are getting into "market acceptability". I'm probably or potentially in the minority but consider your example "market acceptable". There isn't another available. Another one is the unique 1898 "Single 9" ZAR pond. It has the first owner's initial's engraved on the obverse (small but noticeable) and is in an NGC MS-63 holder. I don't think it should be "details" graded either. I consider both entirely different from any coins where numerous or many are available, either in similar quality or otherwise.
So, if a coin has a hole drilled in it, the grading services should ignore it and give it a straight grade if it's the finest known and unique? I disagree. Grading should be consistent within the series and rarity shouldn't be used as a grading factor.
If it’s very rare, maybe it’s important to know the exact grade instead of a general term.
Why not "Details AU53 HOLED"?
Agree, the holder should be consistent and describe the coin above all else. The market can determine the value.
Mark
I like this idea, but there must be a reason they don't do it.
A few WAG's would be a heavily corroded coin that was buried for years, might be tough to give a grade.
Or "AU" looking coin that has knife cuts all over it, would be tough to determine circulation hits from intentional damage.
You see where i'm going. They probably picked a "safe" option to cover their butts, not knowing what may come through the door. Too many variables.
How would they grade something like this if a customer sent it in and they had to put a number to it?
@PerryHall said:
There are problem coins in straight graded slabs. The most famous is the 1870-S gold $3 which is unique and is cleaned with obvious graffiti.
True, but now you are getting into "market acceptability". I'm probably or potentially in the minority but consider your example "market acceptable". There isn't another available. Another one is the unique 1898 "Single 9" ZAR pond. It has the first owner's initial's engraved on the obverse (small but noticeable) and is in an NGC MS-63 holder. I don't think it should be "details" graded either. I consider both entirely different from any coins where numerous or many are available, either in similar quality or otherwise.
So, if a coin has a hole drilled in it, the grading services should ignore it and give it a straight grade if it's the finest known and unique? I disagree. Grading should be consistent within the series and rarity shouldn't be used as a grading factor.
If it’s very rare, maybe it’s important to know the exact grade instead of a general term.
Why not "Details AU53 HOLED"?
Agree, the holder should be consistent and describe the coin above all else. The market can determine the value.
Mark
I like this idea, but there must be a reason they don't do it.
A few WAG's would be a heavily corroded coin that was buried for years, might be tough to give a grade.
Or "AU" looking coin that has knife cuts all over it, would be tough to determine circulation hits from intentional damage.
You see where i'm going. They probably picked a "safe" option to cover their butts, not knowing what may come through the door. Too many variables.
How would they grade something like this if a customer sent it in and they had to put a number to it?
Yikes!!
Maybe "PLF 01" or "MDF 01" for Parking Lot Find or Metal Detector Find... maybe even CSRBF-01 (Coin Star Reject Bin Find)
Really maybe PO-01 Environmental Damage if date or coin are even distinguished on those. In one example above, I'd have to believe those collecting coins that are one of a kind or nearly unique would be well aware of the coin's rarity. There would be no reason for the word "Details" on the slab to detract from real value. The coin is what it is and Details label or not the owner still has the unique or extremely rare piece... value will still be what it is.
Of course this comment is coming from someone who would still purchase a details coin. Despite the lion's share of the comments above there are obviously many who feel as I do since they sell every day, especially to collectors who may have budget constraints.
Comments
Excellent discussion on this topic as usual. Here's a coin many have seen before when the subject of net-graded rare coins has come up.
One of my favorites, and the charming hole is probably the reason it still exists. I thought it was a bargain at a fair net grade
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I have a tough time sometimes seeing the cleaning on a coin so I have purchased a few over the years. I sold my raw 3 leg Buffalo nickel that had been cleaned for $400 and an 1844 Half that had a light whizzing for $600 last year. Both went to dealers that were happy to point out the cleaning. Unfortunately the dealers that I bought them from didn't point out the cleaning to me. I break out the loupe for every coin purchase now and look much closer for signs of cleaning. Even for slabbed material.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
nope
I invite you to explore a selection of coins for sale at the link provided below.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/LmQTZyt2cqSrxqc89
Agree, the holder should be consistent and describe the coin above all else. The market can determine the value.
Mark
I have a handful of coins in my 7070 type set that wouldn't sail to a straight grade. I can think of about 7 like that -- two of them are coins I bought ~40 years ago when I was ten or eleven years old. In the other cases I can think of they are coins I purchased raw within the last fifteen years, knowing what the issues were and finding them acceptable for my purposes and feeling the detractions such as they are were appropriately priced in.
Case in point
It's subjective, I admit. I used the EAC example and this is the US Forum, but the biggest gripe I have is with the TPG applying a US centric standard to non-US coinage when they have absolutely no clue what's "market acceptable" to those who predominantly buy it. And no, they often don't.
There are some defects I agree usually make a coin not "market acceptable". I state "usually" because even with holed coins, Spanish colonial "royals" (as an example only) almost exclusively come this way. No, it wasn't made this way and yes, it's a defect. The buyer's know this (they aren't blind) and do penalize the price without the TPG telling them the obvious. I think it's PCGS that also straight grades (or has) some chop marked coins. That's also PMD.
The absolute worst to me is with cleaning. I own and have seen other coins in my primary interest (and other non-US series) with better ("original") surfaces vs. early US federal coinage (mostly early copper) where my series is in a "details" holder but the US isn't.
With EAC, I assume (but don't actually know) it's due to this reason. I infer EAC has the biggest influence on the market price, which is why I have no problem with "problem" coins of this series in "straight" graded holders. I'm not the buyer of this coinage, so my opinion of "market acceptable" is irrelevant.
Concurrently, the coinage I collect is likely overwhelmingly scarcer or a lot scarcer date-for-date versus practically any US series. (Something like 90% to 95% of the time, at least.) So yes, when there aren't hardly any other comparable coins available, I don't think it makes any sense to "details" grade this type of coin for this reason. I'd "net grade" it as is done by local collecting in the country of origin or where it's primarily collected (Spain for mine).
I like this idea, but there must be a reason they don't do it.
A few WAG's would be a heavily corroded coin that was buried for years, might be tough to give a grade.
Or "AU" looking coin that has knife cuts all over it, would be tough to determine circulation hits from intentional damage.
You see where i'm going. They probably picked a "safe" option to cover their butts, not knowing what may come through the door. Too many variables.
How would they grade something like this if a customer sent it in and they had to put a number to it?
Successful BST transactions with....Coinslave87, ChrisH821, Walkerguy21D, SanctionII.......................Received "You Suck" award 02/18/23
Yikes!!
Maybe "PLF 01" or "MDF 01" for Parking Lot Find or Metal Detector Find... maybe even CSRBF-01 (Coin Star Reject Bin Find)
Really maybe PO-01 Environmental Damage if date or coin are even distinguished on those. In one example above, I'd have to believe those collecting coins that are one of a kind or nearly unique would be well aware of the coin's rarity. There would be no reason for the word "Details" on the slab to detract from real value. The coin is what it is and Details label or not the owner still has the unique or extremely rare piece... value will still be what it is.
Of course this comment is coming from someone who would still purchase a details coin. Despite the lion's share of the comments above there are obviously many who feel as I do since they sell every day, especially to collectors who may have budget constraints.
Mark