Great looking but problematic Mormon $5 gold on SB

Baylor8670

At first glance, it'd would be easy to like this coin - crazy rare and a great design.

NGC flagged it for scratches which makes sense if you look very closely at the top half of the obverse. It looks like Edward Scissorhands was playing catch with it.

Oddly, the listing has an old PCGS TV pic. They flagged it for QC which I don't think many would argue with. Apparently, a coin doctor tried to hide the scratches via a leather pouch.

I'm surprised NGC missed the QC. I assume/hope PCGS saw the scratches but of course they never list more than one details problem so we can't be sure.

Since the "toning" results from copper reacting with the leather, I believe that conservation would not remove it (not that you would want these scratches more visible).

All that being said, I'm sure it'll go for $50,000+.

https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1DU6TU/1860-mormon-5-k-6-rarity-5-au-details-scratches-ngc

ARCO

A very nice looking Mormon $5.00, scratches nothwithstanding. Probably go well above 50K. "Holiness to the Lord" inscribed with the Deseret phonetic alphabet. What a piece of history.

Typekat

The toning is attractive, and nicely done.

All frontier Territorials should be graded on a curve, IMHO.

coinbuf

@Baylor8670 said:
I'm surprised NGC missed the QC. I assume/hope PCGS saw the scratches but of course they never list more than one details problem so we can't be sure.

Why do you automatically assume that NGC "missed" the QC and PCGS didn't "miss" the scratches? Is it not possible that both firms saw the same things but as you pointed out only call out one defect on the label. Perhaps NGC felt the scratches were more egregious than the tone and thus elected to call that out on the label.

jwitten

Color looks fine to me. I’ve had pcgs say questionable color on a few of my gold toners and they would straight grade the second submission. Ditto for scratches.

Baylor8670

@coinbuf said:

@Baylor8670 said:
I'm surprised NGC missed the QC. I assume/hope PCGS saw the scratches but of course they never list more than one details problem so we can't be sure.

Why do you automatically assume that NGC "missed" the QC and PCGS didn't "miss" the scratches? Is it not possible that both firms saw the same things but as you pointed out only call out one defect on the label. Perhaps NGC felt the scratches were more egregious than the tone and thus elected to call that out on the label.

The answer to your question is simple and I'll be happy to repeat it for you. NGC lists multiple issues (cleaning, rim damage, tooled, e.g.) on a slab label and PCGS does not.

zer0man

Can't put numbers on it, but I suspect intentionally toning by placing the gold in a leather pouch would be quite time consuming. If it is truly artificial color I would suspect another source. If someone more knowledgeable than me can verify I would appreciate it.

coinbuf

@Baylor8670 said:

@coinbuf said:

@Baylor8670 said:
I'm surprised NGC missed the QC. I assume/hope PCGS saw the scratches but of course they never list more than one details problem so we can't be sure.

Why do you automatically assume that NGC "missed" the QC and PCGS didn't "miss" the scratches? Is it not possible that both firms saw the same things but as you pointed out only call out one defect on the label. Perhaps NGC felt the scratches were more egregious than the tone and thus elected to call that out on the label.

The answer to your question is simple and I'll be happy to repeat it for you. NGC lists multiple issues (cleaning, rim damage, tooled, e.g.) on a slab label and PCGS does not.

Yes on rare occasions NGC does list multiple offenders, but not on every coin with multiple issues. From the NGC website with regard to details grading:

"NGC Details grading assigns an adjectival grade to a coin with surface problems based on the amount of wear as a result of circulation. Along with this adjectival NGC Details grade, a description of the surface problem is noted on the NGC certification label. In rare instances, more than one surface problem is noted. See the NGC Details Glossary for a complete list of surface conditions and definitions."

So I'll be happy to repeat myself for you, why do you assume that NGC "missed" the toning. To help you out an acceptable answer could be that NGC didn't find the toning to be QC. As jwitten posted above he has had gold with this color get rejected at PCGS only to be accepted on a latter submission, maybe the toning wasn't deliberate as you have suggested and perhaps it was PCGS that "missed" it with their QC call.

Baylor8670

@coinbuf said:

@Baylor8670 said:

@coinbuf said:

@Baylor8670 said:
I'm surprised NGC missed the QC. I assume/hope PCGS saw the scratches but of course they never list more than one details problem so we can't be sure.

Why do you automatically assume that NGC "missed" the QC and PCGS didn't "miss" the scratches? Is it not possible that both firms saw the same things but as you pointed out only call out one defect on the label. Perhaps NGC felt the scratches were more egregious than the tone and thus elected to call that out on the label.

The answer to your question is simple and I'll be happy to repeat it for you. NGC lists multiple issues (cleaning, rim damage, tooled, e.g.) on a slab label and PCGS does not.

Yes on rare occasions NGC does list multiple offenders, but not on every coin with multiple issues. From the NGC website with regard to details grading:

"NGC Details grading assigns an adjectival grade to a coin with surface problems based on the amount of wear as a result of circulation. Along with this adjectival NGC Details grade, a description of the surface problem is noted on the NGC certification label. In rare instances, more than one surface problem is noted. See the NGC Details Glossary for a complete list of surface conditions and definitions."

So I'll be happy to repeat myself for you, why do you assume that NGC "missed" the toning. To help you out an acceptable answer could be that NGC didn't find the toning to be QC. As jwitten posted above he has had gold with this color get rejected at PCGS only to be accepted on a latter submission, maybe the toning wasn't deliberate as you have suggested and perhaps it was PCGS that "missed" it with their QC call.

Wow. So much confusion to sort through here so I better make a list.

1. The logic in your first sentence has much room for improvement. You claim that NGC does not list all issues on every coin with multiple issues then provide a quote from NGC to support your position. The problem is that the quote never confirms your claim. It merely states that it's rare to have coins with multiple issues. It doesn't say that they don't list all noted issues on such coins and it's disappointing that you dishonestly claimed that.

2. Outside of minor issues with copper, 90/10 gold coins do not tone or develop patina. Copper spots on gold coins are natural toning but they look nothing like this coin. Best case scenario is the brownish/red substance on the coin is incidental residue. Worst case scenario is that it's artificial toning of the copper. If it were intentionally added residue, PCGS would have used a different term and NGC wouldn't have slabbed the coin so let's ignore that possibility.

Note - Per the SB listing, these coins may be 22k gold with the remainder silver. Since silver can be artificially toned as well, the exact alloy used shouldn't matter.

3. It's not the color that's the problem. You have to look at what caused it - incidental residue vs. coin doctor residue vs. natural toning vs. artificial toning. Whatever the alloy was, coins that are 90-92% gold just do not look like that from natural toning. Since coin doctor residue and natural toning can be eliminated, that leaves incidental residue and artificial toning and I'm pretty sure PCGS can tell the difference.

Coinbuf, my friend, you have unfortunately convinced me that you do not desire an honest, constructive discussion so I'm going to spare the board any further back and forth between us on this thread or any other.

Married2Coins

Crap! If the coin had a hole in it and Service A said details - AT while service B said details -hole IT SHOULD BE VERY OBVIOUS that one service downplayed the coin's condition.

I've been told by a retired finalizer that ICG would list several problems on a label but their new President, a PCGS Finalizer, has stopped that and limited it to the one worst problem per coin.

Anyone know what ANACS does?

coinbuf

@Baylor8670 said:

@coinbuf said:

@Baylor8670 said:

@coinbuf said:

@Baylor8670 said:
I'm surprised NGC missed the QC. I assume/hope PCGS saw the scratches but of course they never list more than one details problem so we can't be sure.

Why do you automatically assume that NGC "missed" the QC and PCGS didn't "miss" the scratches? Is it not possible that both firms saw the same things but as you pointed out only call out one defect on the label. Perhaps NGC felt the scratches were more egregious than the tone and thus elected to call that out on the label.

The answer to your question is simple and I'll be happy to repeat it for you. NGC lists multiple issues (cleaning, rim damage, tooled, e.g.) on a slab label and PCGS does not.

Yes on rare occasions NGC does list multiple offenders, but not on every coin with multiple issues. From the NGC website with regard to details grading:

"NGC Details grading assigns an adjectival grade to a coin with surface problems based on the amount of wear as a result of circulation. Along with this adjectival NGC Details grade, a description of the surface problem is noted on the NGC certification label. In rare instances, more than one surface problem is noted. See the NGC Details Glossary for a complete list of surface conditions and definitions."

So I'll be happy to repeat myself for you, why do you assume that NGC "missed" the toning. To help you out an acceptable answer could be that NGC didn't find the toning to be QC. As jwitten posted above he has had gold with this color get rejected at PCGS only to be accepted on a latter submission, maybe the toning wasn't deliberate as you have suggested and perhaps it was PCGS that "missed" it with their QC call.

Wow. So much confusion to sort through here so I better make a list.

1. The logic in your first sentence has much room for improvement. You claim that NGC does not list all issues on every coin with multiple issues then provide a quote from NGC to support your position. The problem is that the quote never confirms your claim. It merely states that it's rare to have coins with multiple issues. It doesn't say that they don't list all noted issues on such coins and it's disappointing that you dishonestly claimed that.

2. Outside of minor issues with copper, 90/10 gold coins do not tone or develop patina. Copper spots on gold coins are natural toning but they look nothing like this coin. Best case scenario is the brownish/red substance on the coin is incidental residue. Worst case scenario is that it's artificial toning of the copper. If it were intentionally added residue, PCGS would have used a different term and NGC wouldn't have slabbed the coin so let's ignore that possibility.

Note - Per the SB listing, these coins may be 22k gold with the remainder silver. Since silver can be artificially toned as well, the exact alloy used shouldn't matter.

3. It's not the color that's the problem. You have to look at what caused it - incidental residue vs. coin doctor residue vs. natural toning vs. artificial toning. Whatever the alloy was, coins that are 90-92% gold just do not look like that from natural toning. Since coin doctor residue and natural toning can be eliminated, that leaves incidental residue and artificial toning and I'm pretty sure PCGS can tell the difference.

Coinbuf, my friend, you have unfortunately convinced me that you do not desire an honest, constructive discussion so I'm going to spare the board any further back and forth between us on this thread or any other.

Wow so much anger, ego, and a lack of ability to read and comprehend you have put on display here. Aside from dealing with my children in their preschool days I'm not a licensed professional so I can only suggest that you seek professional help with your first two issues. But maybe we can work through your reading difficulties, let's dive in. You wrote:

"You claim that NGC does not list all issues on every coin"

I made no such claim what I said was:

"Yes on rare occasions NGC does list multiple offenders, but not on every coin with multiple issues"

Please take note of the first word yes which for those that can understand means that I agree NGC does indeed follow their policy and that in some instances they will note multiple issues, just that it is rare and doesn't happen every time that NGC detects multiple issues. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that NGC saw multiple issues on the coin, as we already know this type of coloration is not unusual for gold coins. That is exactly what the NGC policy that I quoted says, so it seems that you are confused.

The one thing you did say that is true is having an honest constructive discussion with you is difficult due to your glaring issues. but I will try one last time. Please read carefully before you reply as this is the third time I've asked you this. Why do you assume what NCG saw or didn't see in the grading room? There is no evidence to support your accusations that the coin was intentionally toned in an effort to hide the scratches.