@DelawareDoons said:
Send to NCS. They're miles better than PCGS Conservation in this professionals humble opinion.
Especially if Dave Camire does the conservation. However, your quarter looks terminal. I'd trade out of it.
Pretty much all Proof Washington Quarters from the date range seem to look like that. Are you sure that's PVC? I think TomB is right but I'm open to more info.
@DelawareDoons said:
Send to NCS. They're miles better than PCGS Conservation in this professionals humble opinion.
Especially if Dave Camire does the conservation. However, your quarter looks terminal. I'd trade out of it.
Pretty much all Proof Washington Quarters from the date range seem to look like that. Are you sure that's PVC? I think TomB is right but I'm open to more info.
Not the one's I see. IMO, the coin is environmentally damaged beyond fixing. There may be PVC haze on it also. It will probably be dull and uglier if dipped. The scratch in the head (?) may become more obvious too.
@DelawareDoons said:
Send to NCS. They're miles better than PCGS Conservation in this professionals humble opinion.
Especially if Dave Camire does the conservation. However, your quarter looks terminal. I'd trade out of it.
Pretty much all Proof Washington Quarters from the date range seem to look like that. Are you sure that's PVC? I think TomB is right but I'm open to more info.
Not the one's I see. IMO, the coin is environmentally damaged beyond fixing. There may be PVC haze on it also. It will probably be dull and uglier if dipped. The scratch in the head (?) may become more obvious too.
Would this be covered by the PCGS guarantee? I don't understand why they would have slabbed what you describe as a problem coin.
@DelawareDoons said:
Send to NCS. They're miles better than PCGS Conservation in this professionals humble opinion.
Especially if Dave Camire does the conservation. However, your quarter looks terminal. I'd trade out of it.
Pretty much all Proof Washington Quarters from the date range seem to look like that. Are you sure that's PVC? I think TomB is right but I'm open to more info.
Not the one's I see. IMO, the coin is environmentally damaged beyond fixing. There may be PVC haze on it also. It will probably be dull and uglier if dipped. The scratch in the head (?) may become more obvious too.
Would this be covered by the PCGS guarantee? I don't understand why they would have slabbed what you describe as a problem coin.
I probably did not express my opinion clearly enough so let me write to you as a "brother" collector:
1.PCGS is a top TPGS.
PCGS has seen the actual coin and not an image.
My opinion is as good as anyone posting in an online chat room. That means simply read it and file it into the trash can BECAUSE everyone posting here has an opinion.
My opinion is exactly that and I'm standing by it; however, my opinion should mean absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to anyone at PCGS.
You asked for opinions. The image of your coin is ugly to me. Nevertheless, in hand it may be very attractive. I have no idea what it is graded (or I missed that part). I could never understand why the grade is not included in the image myself.
Finally, I'd put that coin or one like it into my teaching set BUT I'M NOT RICH ENOUGH TO BUY ONE so consider yourself very lucky to have it.
@ProofCollection asked: "Or should I force PCGS to do what I already paid them to do or pay me out under the PCGS Guarantee?"
LOL, You may wish to read their guarantee. At the Conservation Services I worked for, you PAY FOR THE EXAMINATION WHETHER A CONSERVATION IS DONE OR NOT!! Some coins look worse when conserved PROPERLY. Most folks being paid for a professional conservation have experience. THE BEST OF THEM KNOW WHEN TO LEAVE A COIN AS IS. That way, the conservation fee was really worth it.
PS I'd be interested to learn what the PCGS guarantee says about conservation.
@ProofCollection asked: "Or should I force PCGS to do what I already paid them to do or pay me out under the PCGS Guarantee?"
LOL, You may wish to read their guarantee. At the Conservation Services I worked for, you PAY FOR THE EXAMINATION WHETHER A CONSERVATION IS DONE OR NOT!! Some coins look worse when conserved PROPERLY. Most folks being paid for a professional conservation have experience. THE BEST OF THEM KNOW WHEN TO LEAVE A COIN AS IS. That way, the conservation fee was really worth it.
PS I'd be interested to learn what the PCGS guarantee says about conservation.
Yep, sometimes a conservators best move is to put the coin back in the flip and move onto the next one.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I'm not changing my opinion just a Clarification: The 1936 Proof cannot be restored to its original brilliance.
IMO, numismatic "Environmental Damage" (ED) is anything that 'naturally" caused a chemical reaction to the material composition of a coin. For example, toning (oxidation) is considered to be ED by some well known chemists; however, I'm not in that group UNTIL the surface becomes etched - near the black range of color. Therefore, coins as the 1936 Proof quarter are not considered to be problem coins by professional dealers/grading experts.
Grading is personal. I don't like the image. If the color was more spectacular in the image or the coin was brilliant, I would like it better.
@Insider3 said:
I'm not changing my opinion just a Clarification: The 1936 Proof cannot be restored to its original brilliance.
IMO, numismatic "Environmental Damage" (ED) is anything that 'naturally" caused a chemical reaction to the material composition of a coin. For example, toning (oxidation) is considered to be ED by some well known chemists; however, I'm not in that group UNTIL the surface becomes etched - near the black range of color. Therefore, coins as the 1936 Proof quarter are not considered to be problem coins by professional dealers/grading experts.
Grading is personal. I don't like the image. If the color was more spectacular in the image or the coin was brilliant, I would like it better.
Yes. IMO, the coin is much less attractive than the dark image. I would not attempt to conserve it and would get rid of it. I would not want that in my teaching set after all.
So what are you trying to prove? Some people may have a different interpretation of the words outstanding, exceptional, and above average as applied to a coins eye appeal. As far as I'm concerned (which I'm not), none of those terms apply to this coin:
Neither do above average, very pleasing, pleasing. or rather attractive. To me, your coin is unattractive. Apparently, according to your samples GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE must be the case for others.
My point is just that a large percentage of these coins have a similar appearance and PCGS has no problem slabbing and guaranteeing them and not labeling them Details. Is it possible this is just a form of grim or toning?
@ProofCollection said:
My point is just that a large percentage of these coins have a similar appearance and PCGS has no problem slabbing and guaranteeing them and not labeling them Details. Is it possible this is just a form of grim or toning?
NO, I don't think so.
@mr1931S said:
Acetone is what I use to remove PVC contamination.
AFAIK, acetone will remove the "wet-like," haze, soft green, and fresh wet PVC but should have little effect on the tan stains on that quarter.
@PerryHall said:
How can you tell that the white haze is PVC rather than dip residue from a dip that was improperly rinsed?
I know the answer to this one. Dip residue is brown.
Is that what you see in the pictures of the quarter and/or Peace Dollar? Can dip residue be removed? What kind of "dip" is it? Ezest or MS70 or something else?
@PerryHall said:
How can you tell that the white haze is PVC rather than dip residue from a dip that was improperly rinsed?
I know the answer to this one. Dip residue is brown.
Is that what you see in the pictures of the quarter and/or Peace Dollar? Can dip residue be removed? What kind of "dip" is it? Ezest or MS70 or something else?
No. I commented on what another member wrote. Look, I want any Proof made after 1936 to be brilliant & mirrorlike in my collection. I only have . No haze unless it is like the Bluish haze on Proof Ikes. If not brilliant, rainbow toning is fine. I have a few - all in the 1960s on. Your stained quarter is probably worth more than all of mine, nevrtheless, I don't want it. It is a personal thing.
If you have the money, crack it out and send it to a TPGS for conservation. It should teach you a lesson and answer most of your questions. I hope it works out for you in a good way.
Small update: I took the advice here and submitted the quarter to CAC and asked JA what's up with it. I got a red sticker back with "PVC" on it. Last year I did have a coin come back from CAC with a sticker that said PVC - call me. I called and spoke to JA and he said the coin had PVC but it was not fixable. So going off the fact that none of these stickers said 'call me' or terminable PVC, I decided to go for it.
After reassuring myself that the Peace should re-grade at MS63 pretty easily, I decided to crackout them and try some acetone. I believe it worked beautifully. The coins look great with tons of luster and no surface damage from the PVC as far as I can tell.
Then the quarter. I am letting it soak in the acetone overnight but so far it looks fabulous, like a brand new quarter. I can't grade proof coins worth a crap but I am optimistic for an upgrade. But even without the upgrade, if I can just keep the same grade it'll be worth it. These will be off to PCGS on Tuesday hopefully.
1) I haven't looked, but what is the value of the coins, per current going rates/PCGS Price Guide? Investigate if grade guarantee/buyback can come into play here. When the last owners purchased PCGS/CU, they bought the outstanding liabilities as well and had to have factored in for some of this.
2) Depends on what the current owners believe. Previously, with the previous president of PCGS, I was directly told by DW on a coin I was going to send back in with PVC, that it was inert and so it wouldn't change anything and wasn't worth sending in to get anything done.
Obviously, it looks like yours caused continued issues after slabbing though. So I would contact them and talk about options, including the grade guarantee.
In the past, when I had to work deal with a coin through grade guarantee, I was given 2 choices, when they agreed to the issue:
1) They paid me the difference between the grade it was as I sent it back to them at guide/current value (Or what I paid if I had proof and it was reasonable) and what they deemed the new grade AND I would get the coin back at the new grade.
2) They paid me what they deemed was the value of the coin at the grade I sent it in (or if what I paid for it was different but reasonable and I had proof of that price) and they kept the coin.
That was under HRH (David Hall) so it was awhile ago.
@Bochiman said:
1) I haven't looked, but what is the value of the coins, per current going rates/PCGS Price Guide? Investigate if grade guarantee/buyback can come into play here. When the last owners purchased PCGS/CU, they bought the outstanding liabilities as well and had to have factored in for some of this.
2) Depends on what the current owners believe. Previously, with the previous president of PCGS, I was directly told by DW on a coin I was going to send back in with PVC, that it was inert and so it wouldn't change anything and wasn't worth sending in to get anything done.
Obviously, it looks like yours caused continued issues after slabbing though. So I would contact them and talk about options, including the grade guarantee.
In the past, when I had to work deal with a coin through grade guarantee, I was given 2 choices, when they agreed to the issue:
1) They paid me the difference between the grade it was as I sent it back to them at guide/current value (Or what I paid if I had proof and it was reasonable) and what they deemed the new grade AND I would get the coin back at the new grade.
2) They paid me what they deemed was the value of the coin at the grade I sent it in (or if what I paid for it was different but reasonable and I had proof of that price) and they kept the coin.
That was under HRH (David Hall) so it was awhile ago.
The coins are roughly $800-1000 each. Here's the thing, if you haven't read the whole thread. This is a consumer issue, not really a coin issue. I paid for restoration service. Their website says they WILL remove PVC:
The coin has PVC. They refused to restore it. Now I have done the restoration (so it is too late for any guarantee) and the coins appear to be fine. We'll know in a few weeks if that's the case. So this becomes an issue of PCGS is promising to perform a service, charging for that service, but not actually doing the service.
@Bochiman said:
1) I haven't looked, but what is the value of the coins, per current going rates/PCGS Price Guide? Investigate if grade guarantee/buyback can come into play here. When the last owners purchased PCGS/CU, they bought the outstanding liabilities as well and had to have factored in for some of this.
2) Depends on what the current owners believe. Previously, with the previous president of PCGS, I was directly told by DW on a coin I was going to send back in with PVC, that it was inert and so it wouldn't change anything and wasn't worth sending in to get anything done.
Obviously, it looks like yours caused continued issues after slabbing though. So I would contact them and talk about options, including the grade guarantee.
In the past, when I had to work deal with a coin through grade guarantee, I was given 2 choices, when they agreed to the issue:
1) They paid me the difference between the grade it was as I sent it back to them at guide/current value (Or what I paid if I had proof and it was reasonable) and what they deemed the new grade AND I would get the coin back at the new grade.
2) They paid me what they deemed was the value of the coin at the grade I sent it in (or if what I paid for it was different but reasonable and I had proof of that price) and they kept the coin.
That was under HRH (David Hall) so it was awhile ago.
The coins are roughly $800-1000 each. Here's the thing, if you haven't read the whole thread. This is a consumer issue, not really a coin issue. I paid for restoration service. Their website says they WILL remove PVC:
The coin has PVC. They refused to restore it. Now I have done the restoration (so it is too late for any guarantee) and the coins appear to be fine. We'll know in a few weeks if that's the case. So this becomes an issue of PCGS is promising to perform a service, charging for that service, but not actually doing the service.
.
The term "PVC" is not just used for coins with PVC oil on them.
It is also frequently used to describe coins that have PVC damage on them.
The two cases are not necessarily the same. The PVC oil may have been removed, but the surface etching from that PVC will remain.
@ProofCollection said:
So I saw this CAC quarter roll through Stacks today. I would say if it's been blessed by CAC it is not damaged, and I believe the appearance is similar to my quarter:
Sometimes PVC can only be seen under special light conditions. One cannot determine whether a coin has PVC by looking at a picture.
@ProofCollection said:
Small update: I took the advice here and submitted the quarter to CAC and asked JA what's up with it. I got a red sticker back with "PVC" on it. Last year I did have a coin come back from CAC with a sticker that said PVC - call me. I called and spoke to JA and he said the coin had PVC but it was not fixable. So going off the fact that none of these stickers said 'call me' or terminable PVC, I decided to go for it.
After reassuring myself that the Peace should re-grade at MS63 pretty easily, I decided to crackout them and try some acetone. I believe it worked beautifully. The coins look great with tons of luster and no surface damage from the PVC as far as I can tell.
Then the quarter. I am letting it soak in the acetone overnight but so far it looks fabulous, like a brand new quarter. I can't grade proof coins worth a crap but I am optimistic for an upgrade. But even without the upgrade, if I can just keep the same grade it'll be worth it. These will be off to PCGS on Tuesday hopefully.
Neither of those Peace Dollars looked terminal to me. Glad you decided to crack and acetone them. The quarter you need to be careful with as it has more delicate surfaces. Good luck with the sub.
Not very marketable as is are they. Looks like went bad in holder. Possibly exposed to pvc b4 submission. Crack them - dip them quick in and out. Rinse. Dry - soft cloth. Submit to hosts. Or Submit to our hosts as is for conservation service. Good luck.
@DeplorableDan said:
I see Skip was banned again…did I miss something?
He came back without first getting permission and someone here reported him to the moderator who then banned him again. He was actually behaving himself but apparently he had at least one enemy.
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
@Bochiman said:
1) I haven't looked, but what is the value of the coins, per current going rates/PCGS Price Guide? Investigate if grade guarantee/buyback can come into play here. When the last owners purchased PCGS/CU, they bought the outstanding liabilities as well and had to have factored in for some of this.
2) Depends on what the current owners believe. Previously, with the previous president of PCGS, I was directly told by DW on a coin I was going to send back in with PVC, that it was inert and so it wouldn't change anything and wasn't worth sending in to get anything done.
Obviously, it looks like yours caused continued issues after slabbing though. So I would contact them and talk about options, including the grade guarantee.
In the past, when I had to work deal with a coin through grade guarantee, I was given 2 choices, when they agreed to the issue:
1) They paid me the difference between the grade it was as I sent it back to them at guide/current value (Or what I paid if I had proof and it was reasonable) and what they deemed the new grade AND I would get the coin back at the new grade.
2) They paid me what they deemed was the value of the coin at the grade I sent it in (or if what I paid for it was different but reasonable and I had proof of that price) and they kept the coin.
That was under HRH (David Hall) so it was awhile ago.
The coins are roughly $800-1000 each. Here's the thing, if you haven't read the whole thread. This is a consumer issue, not really a coin issue. I paid for restoration service. Their website says they WILL remove PVC:
The coin has PVC. They refused to restore it. Now I have done the restoration (so it is too late for any guarantee) and the coins appear to be fine. We'll know in a few weeks if that's the case. So this becomes an issue of PCGS is promising to perform a service, charging for that service, but not actually doing the service.
.
The term "PVC" is not just used for coins with PVC oil on them.
It is also frequently used to describe coins that have PVC damage on them.
The two cases are not necessarily the same. The PVC oil may have been removed, but the surface etching from that PVC will remain.
Thanks. This should be something that a PCGS restoration expert can determine when they evaluate the coins, right?
Having cracked and treated the coins, there is no apparent (to me) permanent damage. The question is, why was PCGS not willing to do this or is it just too much risk?
I was able to make a video of the quarter, I hope I got it all but it looks WAY better: https://youtu.be/jg1--FvXnqU
OK, it's been a while but results are in! As a recap, I cracked these out and restore them after PCGS refused. Based on these results my conclusion is that PCGS was wrong to deny (but still charge) for restoration on these. Of course, Trueview quality is mediocre.
1927-S
Before (MS63):
After (MS62): Loss of $300 guide value. This is probably the correct grade given the scrape on the cheek, and for that reason it will probably not CAC so I will not send it.
1928 (P)
Before (MS63):
After (MS63): Vastly improved appearance. Will be sending back to CAC.
1936 PR Quarter
Before: PR65
After: PR64: Loss of $200 guide value; however, as PR65 it would have never sold for near guide price anyway so probably a wash or even a gain in retail value as it was very unattractive before.
@alaura22 said:
So, you're out $500 in value, how much you out total, shipping and all the fee's?
Sorry, do you now think it was worth it?
Perhaps you missed my comments or I wasn't clear. I don't believe I'm really out $500 in value. Those coins would not have sold for full retail in the condition they were in and they would have been a tough sell. Now they look great and are marketable and should be eligible for a CAC sticker. I'm in a better place with these now.
I do resent PCGS for not restoring them and making me do it and causing the loss of the MS63 grade for the 27-S. Now that I have it in hand, I don't think it would be wrong to be in an MS63 holder and I may try for a regrade.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
What happens when we buy the coins we like and somebody else doesn't ? We get to hear the problem.
This is an old thread so I don't know if I said this, but the Peace dollars were purchased over 10 years ago before I knew what I know now.
@ProofCollection The snippet from PCGS restoration you posted says " RESTORATION will remove PVC" not that PCGS will. It is noted somewhere on their restoration notes that the coin will be reviewed so they can determine if they will perform a restoration or not.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Even though you may have lost some theoretical value, the coins look so much better. I wouldn't be unhappy with the result if they were for a collection as they would be much nicer to look at.
@ProofCollection said:
OK, it's been a while but results are in! As a recap, I cracked these out and restore them after PCGS refused. Based on these results my conclusion is that PCGS was wrong to deny (but still charge) for restoration on these. Of course, Trueview quality is mediocre.
Two out of the three dropped a grade after you restored them.
1. Why do you think they dropped? You felt the frist one might have been overgraded in the first place.
2. Could this be the reason why PCGS declined to restore them?
If the 1928 Peace dollar does not pass CAC, my guess is "questionable surfaces" - the area diagonally to the right below the eye on the lady,
@gumby1234 said: @ProofCollection The snippet from PCGS restoration you posted says " RESTORATION will remove PVC" not that PCGS will. It is noted somewhere on their restoration notes that the coin will be reviewed so they can determine if they will perform a restoration or not.
Fair enough, I missed that distinction. Still, I've proven that they could have done it, so why didn't they? I'm not alleging any nefarious motives but they could run quite a scam evaluating and declining restorable coins and charging for it.
@ProofCollection said:
OK, it's been a while but results are in! As a recap, I cracked these out and restore them after PCGS refused. Based on these results my conclusion is that PCGS was wrong to deny (but still charge) for restoration on these. Of course, Trueview quality is mediocre.
Two out of the three dropped a grade after you restored them.
1. Why do you think they dropped? You felt the frist one might have been overgraded in the first place.
2. Could this be the reason why PCGS declined to restore them?
If the 1928 Peace dollar does not pass CAC, my guess is "questionable surfaces" - the area diagonally to the right below the eye on the lady,
RE #1: For the Peace, I think it's just a case where this time around they are assessing the scrape on the cheek differently this time than they did last time. My understanding of their current grading practice is that a significant hit on the devices or fields will make it a 62, so it's just a variance in the grading.
For the proof, the surfaces are way may more visible now. From my experience toning or grime or PVC can hide a lot of surface conditions. For example on a proof coin with a lot of grim or toning, how can you possibly know if there are hairlines hiding underneath? I'm not sure, I am lousy at grading proofs.
RE #2: It certainly could be, but they would have no way of knowing. Seems like this would be a risk with most restorations. For the Peace I certainly think it could be argued that 63 is appropriate as the coin looks spectacular for a 62, IMO.
Having looked again at the 28 Peace in hand, I don't see any possible "questionable surface" there. These are typical marks that per the new substandard Trueviews aren't represented well in the image, but I could be wrong. We will find out I guess.
@TennesseeDave said:
Did you choose E-zest instead of acetone? Looks like a stronger dip was used to me.
@gumby1234 said: @ProofCollection The snippet from PCGS restoration you posted says " RESTORATION will remove PVC" not that PCGS will. It is noted somewhere on their restoration notes that the coin will be reviewed so they can determine if they will perform a restoration or not.
Fair enough, I missed that distinction. Still, I've proven that they could have done it, so why didn't they? I'm not alleging any nefarious motives but they could run quite a scam evaluating and declining restorable coins and charging for it.
@ProofCollection said:
OK, it's been a while but results are in! As a recap, I cracked these out and restore them after PCGS refused. Based on these results my conclusion is that PCGS was wrong to deny (but still charge) for restoration on these. Of course, Trueview quality is mediocre.
Two out of the three dropped a grade after you restored them.
1. Why do you think they dropped? You felt the frist one might have been overgraded in the first place.
2. Could this be the reason why PCGS declined to restore them?
If the 1928 Peace dollar does not pass CAC, my guess is "questionable surfaces" - the area diagonally to the right below the eye on the lady,
RE #1: For the Peace, I think it's just a case where this time around they are assessing the scrape on the cheek differently this time than they did last time. My understanding of their current grading practice is that a significant hit on the devices or fields will make it a 62, so it's just a variance in the grading.
For the proof, the surfaces are way may more visible now. From my experience toning or grime or PVC can hide a lot of surface conditions. For example on a proof coin with a lot of grim or toning, how can you possibly know if there are hairlines hiding underneath? I'm not sure, I am lousy at grading proofs.
RE #2: It certainly could be, but they would have no way of knowing. Seems like this would be a risk with most restorations. For the Peace I certainly think it could be argued that 63 is appropriate as the coin looks spectacular for a 62, IMO.
Having looked again at the 28 Peace in hand, I don't see any possible "questionable surface" there. These are typical marks that per the new substandard Trueviews aren't represented well in the image, but I could be wrong. We will find out I guess.
@TennesseeDave said:
Did you choose E-zest instead of acetone? Looks like a stronger dip was used to me.
Yes, a brief ezest dip was also used.
@spyglassdesign said:
Even though you may have lost some theoretical value, the coins look so much better. I wouldn't be unhappy with the result if they were for a collection as they would be much nicer to look at.
I fully understand what you have done here. I think it was a smart move. Those coins in their original state would have been difficult to sell even at a discount.
They look much better and if you do sell them you can cut a clean deal.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan
Update: CAC results are in.
1927-S MS62: CAC
1928-P MS63: Not CAC
1936 PR64: CAC
Overall a victory I'd say. The CAC stickers for the coins that dropped a grade compensates quite nicely.
Comments
It doesn't have to be PVC to be terminal.
Not the one's I see. IMO, the coin is environmentally damaged beyond fixing. There may be PVC haze on it also. It will probably be dull and uglier if dipped. The scratch in the head (?) may become more obvious too.
Would this be covered by the PCGS guarantee? I don't understand why they would have slabbed what you describe as a problem coin.
I probably did not express my opinion clearly enough so let me
write to you as a "brother" collector:
1.PCGS is a top TPGS.
PCGS has seen the actual coin and not an image.
My opinion is as good as anyone posting in an online chat room. That means simply read it and file it into the trash can BECAUSE everyone posting here has an opinion.
My opinion is exactly that and I'm standing by it; however, my opinion should mean absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to anyone at PCGS.
You asked for opinions. The image of your coin is ugly to me. Nevertheless, in hand it may be very attractive. I have no idea what it is graded (or I missed that part). I could never understand why the grade is not included in the image myself.
Finally, I'd put that coin or one like it into my teaching set BUT I'M NOT RICH ENOUGH TO BUY ONE so consider yourself very lucky to have it.
Best Regards from a fellow collector.
LOL, You may wish to read their guarantee. At the Conservation Services I worked for, you PAY FOR THE EXAMINATION WHETHER A CONSERVATION IS DONE OR NOT!! Some coins look worse when conserved PROPERLY. Most folks being paid for a professional conservation have experience. THE BEST OF THEM KNOW WHEN TO LEAVE A COIN AS IS. That way, the conservation fee was really worth it.
PS I'd be interested to learn what the PCGS guarantee says about conservation.
Yep, sometimes a conservators best move is to put the coin back in the flip and move onto the next one.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I don't understand why they would have slabbed what you describe as a problem coin.
They don't see it. That's the difference between PCGS and CAC/CACG.
I'm not changing my opinion just a Clarification: The 1936 Proof cannot be restored to its original brilliance.
IMO, numismatic "Environmental Damage" (ED) is anything that 'naturally" caused a chemical reaction to the material composition of a coin. For example, toning (oxidation) is considered to be ED by some well known chemists; however, I'm not in that group UNTIL the surface becomes etched - near the black range of color. Therefore, coins as the 1936 Proof quarter are not considered to be problem coins by professional dealers/grading experts.
Grading is personal. I don't like the image. If the color was more spectacular in the image or the coin was brilliant, I would like it better.
Does this photo change anything?
So when I said many quarters from this genre look similar, here is a quick list of auctions that took me all of about 60 seconds to compile, and there are many more. I'm not sure all of these quarters are environmentally damaged or as is suggested above, this is something that PCGS is accepting:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1311107/1936-Washington-Quarter-PCGS-Proof-65-from-photo
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1403607/1936-Washington-Quarter-PCGS-Proof-66-from-photo
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1242117/1936-Washington-Quarter-PCGS-Proof-66-from-photo
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1311107/1936-Washington-Quarter-PCGS-Proof-65-from-photo
@ProofCollection asked: "Does this photo change anything?"
Yes. IMO, the coin is much less attractive than the dark image. I would not attempt to conserve it and would get rid of it. I would not want that in my teaching set after all.
So what are you trying to prove? Some people may have a different interpretation of the words outstanding, exceptional, and above average as applied to a coins eye appeal. As far as I'm concerned (which I'm not), none of those terms apply to this coin:
Neither do above average, very pleasing, pleasing. or rather attractive. To me, your coin is unattractive. Apparently, according to your samples GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE must be the case for others.
My point is just that a large percentage of these coins have a similar appearance and PCGS has no problem slabbing and guaranteeing them and not labeling them Details. Is it possible this is just a form of grim or toning?
Acetone is what I use to remove PVC contamination.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
NO, I don't think so.
AFAIK, acetone will remove the "wet-like," haze, soft green, and fresh wet PVC but should have little effect on the tan stains on that quarter.
Here is another image of the quarter - different lighting and angle, or was it restored already?
Why don't you send a representative coin to JA and ask him his frank opinion as to whether you should try to conserve it or just sell it.
I didn't know he would do that, but I will. Do you just send it in for stickering and include a note or what is the process?
It hasn't been restored (while under my ownership). That was a different photo and I asked the photo guys to switch it out.
I know the answer to this one. Dip residue is brown.
Is that what you see in the pictures of the quarter and/or Peace Dollar? Can dip residue be removed? What kind of "dip" is it? Ezest or MS70 or something else?
Would do a quick 5 sec dip - pat dry with soft cloth then later see if they need some Q tip tap tap work. YMMV
No. I commented on what another member wrote. Look, I want any Proof made after 1936 to be brilliant & mirrorlike in my collection. I only have . No haze unless it is like the Bluish haze on Proof Ikes. If not brilliant, rainbow toning is fine. I have a few - all in the 1960s on. Your stained quarter is probably worth more than all of mine, nevrtheless, I don't want it. It is a personal thing.
If you have the money, crack it out and send it to a TPGS for conservation. It should teach you a lesson and answer most of your questions. I hope it works out for you in a good way.
So I saw this CAC quarter roll through Stacks today. I would say if it's been blessed by CAC it is not damaged, and I believe the appearance is similar to my quarter:
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-18APLR/1936-washington-quarter-proof-64-ngc-cac
Small update: I took the advice here and submitted the quarter to CAC and asked JA what's up with it. I got a red sticker back with "PVC" on it. Last year I did have a coin come back from CAC with a sticker that said PVC - call me. I called and spoke to JA and he said the coin had PVC but it was not fixable. So going off the fact that none of these stickers said 'call me' or terminable PVC, I decided to go for it.
After reassuring myself that the Peace should re-grade at MS63 pretty easily, I decided to crackout them and try some acetone. I believe it worked beautifully. The coins look great with tons of luster and no surface damage from the PVC as far as I can tell.
Then the quarter. I am letting it soak in the acetone overnight but so far it looks fabulous, like a brand new quarter. I can't grade proof coins worth a crap but I am optimistic for an upgrade. But even without the upgrade, if I can just keep the same grade it'll be worth it. These will be off to PCGS on Tuesday hopefully.
1) I haven't looked, but what is the value of the coins, per current going rates/PCGS Price Guide? Investigate if grade guarantee/buyback can come into play here. When the last owners purchased PCGS/CU, they bought the outstanding liabilities as well and had to have factored in for some of this.
2) Depends on what the current owners believe. Previously, with the previous president of PCGS, I was directly told by DW on a coin I was going to send back in with PVC, that it was inert and so it wouldn't change anything and wasn't worth sending in to get anything done.
Obviously, it looks like yours caused continued issues after slabbing though. So I would contact them and talk about options, including the grade guarantee.
In the past, when I had to work deal with a coin through grade guarantee, I was given 2 choices, when they agreed to the issue:
1) They paid me the difference between the grade it was as I sent it back to them at guide/current value (Or what I paid if I had proof and it was reasonable) and what they deemed the new grade AND I would get the coin back at the new grade.
2) They paid me what they deemed was the value of the coin at the grade I sent it in (or if what I paid for it was different but reasonable and I had proof of that price) and they kept the coin.
That was under HRH (David Hall) so it was awhile ago.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
The coins are roughly $800-1000 each. Here's the thing, if you haven't read the whole thread. This is a consumer issue, not really a coin issue. I paid for restoration service. Their website says they WILL remove PVC:
The coin has PVC. They refused to restore it. Now I have done the restoration (so it is too late for any guarantee) and the coins appear to be fine. We'll know in a few weeks if that's the case. So this becomes an issue of PCGS is promising to perform a service, charging for that service, but not actually doing the service.
.
The term "PVC" is not just used for coins with PVC oil on them.
It is also frequently used to describe coins that have PVC damage on them.
The two cases are not necessarily the same. The PVC oil may have been removed, but the surface etching from that PVC will remain.
.
Sometimes PVC can only be seen under special light conditions. One cannot determine whether a coin has PVC by looking at a picture.
I see Skip was banned again…did I miss something?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Neither of those Peace Dollars looked terminal to me. Glad you decided to crack and acetone them. The quarter you need to be careful with as it has more delicate surfaces. Good luck with the sub.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Peace$
Not very marketable as is are they. Looks like went bad in holder. Possibly exposed to pvc b4 submission. Crack them - dip them quick in and out. Rinse. Dry - soft cloth. Submit to hosts. Or Submit to our hosts as is for conservation service. Good luck.
Otherwise - auction blowout.
We’re they like that when bought them?
He came back without first getting permission and someone here reported him to the moderator who then banned him again. He was actually behaving himself but apparently he had at least one enemy.
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
Thanks. This should be something that a PCGS restoration expert can determine when they evaluate the coins, right?
Having cracked and treated the coins, there is no apparent (to me) permanent damage. The question is, why was PCGS not willing to do this or is it just too much risk?
I was able to make a video of the quarter, I hope I got it all but it looks WAY better:
https://youtu.be/jg1--FvXnqU
From what I see, you improved it. Good luck
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Me enjoying this thread:
OK, it's been a while but results are in! As a recap, I cracked these out and restore them after PCGS refused. Based on these results my conclusion is that PCGS was wrong to deny (but still charge) for restoration on these. Of course, Trueview quality is mediocre.
1927-S
Before (MS63):
After (MS62): Loss of $300 guide value. This is probably the correct grade given the scrape on the cheek, and for that reason it will probably not CAC so I will not send it.
1928 (P)
Before (MS63):
After (MS63): Vastly improved appearance. Will be sending back to CAC.
1936 PR Quarter
Before: PR65
After: PR64: Loss of $200 guide value; however, as PR65 it would have never sold for near guide price anyway so probably a wash or even a gain in retail value as it was very unattractive before.
So, you're out $500 in value, how much you out total, shipping and all the fee's?
Sorry, do you now think it was worth it?
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
What happens when we buy the coins we like and somebody else doesn't ? We get to hear the problem.
Perhaps you missed my comments or I wasn't clear. I don't believe I'm really out $500 in value. Those coins would not have sold for full retail in the condition they were in and they would have been a tough sell. Now they look great and are marketable and should be eligible for a CAC sticker. I'm in a better place with these now.
I do resent PCGS for not restoring them and making me do it and causing the loss of the MS63 grade for the 27-S. Now that I have it in hand, I don't think it would be wrong to be in an MS63 holder and I may try for a regrade.
This is an old thread so I don't know if I said this, but the Peace dollars were purchased over 10 years ago before I knew what I know now.
@ProofCollection The snippet from PCGS restoration you posted says " RESTORATION will remove PVC" not that PCGS will. It is noted somewhere on their restoration notes that the coin will be reviewed so they can determine if they will perform a restoration or not.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Even though you may have lost some theoretical value, the coins look so much better. I wouldn't be unhappy with the result if they were for a collection as they would be much nicer to look at.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
Two out of the three dropped a grade after you restored them.
1. Why do you think they dropped? You felt the frist one might have been overgraded in the first place.
2. Could this be the reason why PCGS declined to restore them?
If the 1928 Peace dollar does not pass CAC, my guess is "questionable surfaces" - the area diagonally to the right below the eye on the lady,
Did you choose E-zest instead of acetone? Looks like a stronger dip was used to me.
Fair enough, I missed that distinction. Still, I've proven that they could have done it, so why didn't they? I'm not alleging any nefarious motives but they could run quite a scam evaluating and declining restorable coins and charging for it.
RE #1: For the Peace, I think it's just a case where this time around they are assessing the scrape on the cheek differently this time than they did last time. My understanding of their current grading practice is that a significant hit on the devices or fields will make it a 62, so it's just a variance in the grading.
For the proof, the surfaces are way may more visible now. From my experience toning or grime or PVC can hide a lot of surface conditions. For example on a proof coin with a lot of grim or toning, how can you possibly know if there are hairlines hiding underneath? I'm not sure, I am lousy at grading proofs.
RE #2: It certainly could be, but they would have no way of knowing. Seems like this would be a risk with most restorations. For the Peace I certainly think it could be argued that 63 is appropriate as the coin looks spectacular for a 62, IMO.
Having looked again at the 28 Peace in hand, I don't see any possible "questionable surface" there. These are typical marks that per the new substandard Trueviews aren't represented well in the image, but I could be wrong. We will find out I guess.
Yes, a brief ezest dip was also used.
Yes, overall I'm happy for that reason.
They don’t seem too sellable - they need a dip / best of luck. Perhaps conservation service-our hosts.
I fully understand what you have done here. I think it was a smart move. Those coins in their original state would have been difficult to sell even at a discount.
They look much better and if you do sell them you can cut a clean deal.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan
.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Update: CAC results are in.
1927-S MS62: CAC
1928-P MS63: Not CAC
1936 PR64: CAC
Overall a victory I'd say. The CAC stickers for the coins that dropped a grade compensates quite nicely.