Do You Think CACG or NGC Would Straight Grade This?
Luxor
Posts: 603 ✭✭✭✭✭
The famous and ultimate rarity 1870-S $3.00 gold from the Harry W. Bass Jr. collection (among other famous pedigrees) was graded by PCGS not all that long ago as a SP50 "893 Engraved". I'm wondering if this piece would also receive the same preferential treatment at the other two major services, as the coin clearly has grafitti on the reverse and under normal circumstances would be considered a problem coin and get a details grade. It's no secret that quite a few rarities get preferential treatment when it comes to straight/details grades and is that fair and unbiased 3rd party grading? Can I send in a 2026 silver eagle that I took a nail and scratched digits in the reverse field and expect the same straight grade treatment? How do you feel about coins that are very rare or expensive getting treated differently than all others?
-
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Comments
Yes, the coin got preferential treatment. Any/most other coins would have gotten a graffiti details grade. NGC probably would have done the same. CACG, I'm not sure as CAC seemingly rejected it.
For a totally unique, 1 of 1 (at least, perhaps, until the cornerstone is jackhammered), it doesn't really matter. Honestly as a collector of much more modest means, I'd rather see this in an "honorary" straight-graded holder.
I understand people griping because almost any other coin would receive a graffiti grade, even if it was proven someone at the mint carved it, but eh, everyone knows what this coin is.
During lot viewing for this auction I got to examine this coin in hand. They had two or three beefy security guards surrounding me while I did. Still the most expensive numismatic treasure I've "handled".
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
This happens from time to time with non-ultra rarities also.
And other rarities:
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I'm glad someone else posted the Dexter 1804 Class I Dollar. It has a D engraved in one of the clouds. PCGS straight graded it as PF65. If I recall correctly, TDN showed the coin to John Albanese who said it might sticker as a CAC PF 64. If that is the case, I wouldn't be surprised to see CACG also willing to make exceptions.
Maybe @tradedollarnut can correct me if my recollection is wrong.
If PCGS straight graded the 1870-S $3, I would assume NGC will and possibly CACG. It's a billboard coin with no competition or comparison in grade, so there is little harm in straight grading a coin like that. You see comparative grading aka loose grading on rare dates. If most of the population is problem graded, they will tend to grade looser.
The small punched D's aren't detail worthy in my opinion.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
As well-known as these coins are, as a TPG I believe I would nonetheless put some sort of qualifier on the label. “Owner provenance punched/engraved”, perhaps.
The 1870-S half dime has received preferential treatment, IMO. It was first offered at auction as AU55. It eventually found its way into an NGC MS63 holder. When I got to examine it in hand in 2019, I (and others present) agreed with the original AU rating. It was in a PCGS MS64 holder with green bean at that time.
Collector of Liberty Seated Half Dimes, including die pairs and die states
Seems silly since the grade is largely irrelevant. No justification that makes sense. IMO.
Have you tried submitting it for a CAC review first? Not my coin but here is another example of a coin with details that not only straight graded but also received a green sticker.
I am amused at the thought of any coin being guarded by two or three beefy security guards while it is on public display.
It would be interesting to talk with one or more of the security guards [while they are off duty] and have them tell what they think of their job assignment [including the little round piece of metal they are guarding and the persons who are all very excited about the little round piece of metal].
I imagine that the security guards would have some interesting things to say [ditto if instead of coins the object they are guarding is jewelry, art, antiques, rare books, etc.].
As for the topic of this thread, no one rule or set of rules will ever be applied in the same manner. The reason for this is because humans are involved. Humans are motivated by different things. Persons in a position of authority who make decisions about how a rule is to be applied [or not applied] in a specific situation will make decisions about whether or not a rule should apply based upon the specific person's needs, wants, desires and motivations. If applying the rule to a specific situation would produce a result that is contrary to the needs, wants, desires and motivations of the person making the decision, that person will likely not apply the rule (and come up with a reason that rationalizes the decision to not apply the rule). If applying the rule to a specific situation would produce a result that is not contrary to the needs, wants, desires and motivations of the person making the decision, that person will likely apply the rule.
The information contained in the preceding paragraph is a long winded description of the phrase:
Rules For Thee But Not For Me
which is used in daily discourse when an outcome adverse to the average citizen somehow is not applied to persons occupying a higher station in life.
That 3200 is Mint made, and thus does not fall into the categories of the other coins posted.
Coin Photography
Most of them are police officers or retired officers that do it for extra income. My uncle was a state trooper and used to do stuff like that. He was a coin collector himself, so he would have enjoyed a coin show assignment very much.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
Persons occupying a true higher station in life are the happiest people. Station in life as not measured by how fat the bank account is or how famous, how important the person might be regarded by their followers, that is.There are in existence truly happy people that have gobs of money and plenty of fame. That's not usually the case,however.
Oprah Winfrey suddenly popped into my mind. Prime example of what I'm talking about. Having gobs of money and fame didn't define Oprah Winfrey as occupying a higher station in life. What defined Oprah, setting her apart from so many entertainers, was her enormous generosity extended to people less fortunate than herself. Oprah Winfrey is a happy person in life. Happy is the highest station. It doesn't get any better than that.
Yes
I think the standards should be the same for everybody.
edited to add... If your standards aren't the same for everybody, you don't really have standards. Unless "It depends..." is considered a standard.
The services are at liberty to treat certain coins a little differently than ordinary coins. The 1870-S $3 is UNIQUE for crying out loud. Only a very few collectors can realistically say they own or have ever owned a unique coin worth millions of dollars. This league of well-heeled collectors or dealers who can afford to own a rarity such as the 1870-S $3 can make their own rules far as I'm concerned. My feelings are not hurt.