THE INFAMOUS J-398 PR67DCAM PCGS

parkave · February 3, 2003 2:33AM

For anyone interested in viewing the coin from the "THREAD OF DEATH"

VIEW

Graded PR67DCAM PCGS

mrfred · February 3, 2003 2:35AM

could you please post the URL for the 'thread of death'? I'd like to read it.

tradedollarnut · February 3, 2003 2:39AM

No, you wouldn't!

Didn't one of those just sell at the last Bowers auction for even more $$ in a lower grade?

RKKay · February 3, 2003 2:40AM

As I said in the Thread of Death, I can't post images, so I've sent an image to a third party to post. What sold in Bowers was a J1149, and it hammered at $14k.

mrfred · February 3, 2003 2:40AM

- ok, maybe I am better off. After all, it is lunch hour and I am supposed to get back to work...

truthteller · February 3, 2003 2:41AM

That's actually a very lovely coin. I was expecting a lot worse.

TRUTH

boiler78 · February 3, 2003 2:45AM

Bob- I thought this issue was resolved and the wounds were healing. Why pick at the scabs?

Russ · February 3, 2003 2:46AM

I have a hunch this is the start of Thread Of Death II.

Russ, NCNE

Coulport · February 3, 2003 2:48AM

Yep, totally mishandled.
Nothing but digs and scratches. NOT!

ANACONDA · February 3, 2003 2:49AM

Rick has asked me to post this picture of the j-398. I cropped it.

keets · February 3, 2003 2:49AM

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

al h.

parkave · February 3, 2003 2:50AM

Boiler78.

I made a promise to show the scans, many board members requested it. Issue totally resolved and no hard feeling either way.

boiler78 · February 3, 2003 2:51AM

Russ
You are right again!

tradedollarnut · February 3, 2003 2:54AM

That's what happens when you grade a coin in 5 seconds and don't use a glass!

Edited to add: This is the coin I was thinking of in the last Bowers auction:

1865 Transitional Dollar

agfox · February 3, 2003 2:59AM

Her poor hand has been beaten by a stick !

Nice close up btw

wondercoin · February 3, 2003 2:59AM

"That's what happens when you grade a coin in 5 seconds and don't use a glass!"

Ms. Liberty must have fought one heck of a battle!!

That is though a wonderful pattern design in aluminum - I just love aluminum patterns!!

Wondercoin

truthteller · February 3, 2003 3:00AM

I'm a bit at a loss. Anaconda's post looks like a copper piece, Bob Green's looks aluminum. There is a small white speck on the copper coin and a light hit on the cheek. ?????????

TRUTH

tradedollarnut · February 3, 2003 3:02AM

Same coin. Insufficient light will cause a coin to come out looking like copper in a digital photo.

gmarguli · February 3, 2003 3:02AM

The PCGS reason for R67 will be: It's a big coin. It's old. It's rare. The scrapes are small.

I've got a modern coin that I submitted only for the color. The reverse has a bunch of scrapes on the wings. The cameo was scraped off the hits were so bad. It's in a PCGS PR68DCAM slab.

Placid · February 3, 2003 3:05AM

So what should this coin be graded?
Are you going to try to sell it as is or get it regraded first?

ANACONDA · February 3, 2003 3:05AM

Would anyone like the voice of reason here?

Good. (I heard one small voice in the back of the room.)

The issue here should not be whether or not the coin is attractive/good or unattractive/bad. "In matters of taste, their can be no disagreement."

Also, scans can tell the story you want them to tell, within reasonable parameters.

The issue here is the lesson we should all learn. When dealing with people (notice i am not making a distinction between dealers and non-dealers) a return privilege should always be addressed, preferably in writing. It is ok to sell coins "as is" and it is ok to conclude their is a return privilege, under most circumstances.

It is always, simply best to get the terms in writing. I, personally, only very, very rarely sell a coin "as is". They are coins.....art....not soybeans. And when selling "as is" that understanding should definately be in writing. Just my opinion.

adrian

SageRad · February 3, 2003 3:05AM

It sure looks like a strong coin. I do not collect patterns and do not know their market, but it sure looks pretty!

Thanks for posting the object of the "Thread of Death." If it ever comes to auction will it get the ex-Thread of Death pedigree? Or maybe reslabbed in a new holder which indicates its colorful history?

tradedollarnut · February 3, 2003 3:12AM

The coin is attractive and I don't think that was ever an issue. I remember the issue with the coin being whether or not PCGS appropriately compensated for the hits on Liberty. Just like the issue with the "snotty nose" DMPL Morgan a while back was whether or not PCGS appropriately compensated for the planchet flaw in front of Liberty's nose.

Since grading is an art and not a science, coins like these will forever be open to interpretation according to our own preferences. To some, hits or planchet flaws are more important than to others. To me, a slightly weak strike is not particularly troublesome, whereas to PCGS it limits a coin to MS64. It's all in our preferences, and there is no formula that will result in the true grade!

The result of this grade imprecision is just what Adrian says. Get the return policy clear and steer away from situations where hard feelings, or financial loss, will occur!

truthteller · February 3, 2003 3:16AM

Adrian,

I kinda agree and kinda don't. If there is a return privilege, it must be agree to. If the deal hangs on a very discounted price, where both dealers use common terminology that reflects a 'meeting of the minds', the contract is completed and the deal has been consumated when the check clears and the client receives the coin. Yes, in writing is always the way to go, but having done thousands of deals over the phone, I have yet to sign a contract with any dealer as to the very specific nature of terminology. If, for some reason, there was a "no meeting of the minds", then the deal must be revoked, the expenses paid by the party who felt the deal was not correct. MY 2C

TRUTH

ANACONDA · February 3, 2003 3:21AM

You're right, the terms regarding a return privilege do not have to be in writing to be binding.

It's just best if there is an email that is confirmed or a fax sent summarizing the terms.

There is also what is known as a unilateral mistake. The person making the mistake often takes the hit.

truthteller · February 3, 2003 3:24AM

Agreed!

TRUTH

Dog97 · February 3, 2003 5:42AM

I'll just limit my comments to the coin......
I don't like it as a 67 because of the hits on the forearm and the white spots on the rev.
It's not barking at me or anything like that and the cameo contrast might make up for it in real life.

DCAMFranklin · February 3, 2003 6:00AM

<< <i>Russ
You are right again!

>>

Just a couple of cynics trying to stir things up.

Totally wrong. Everyone doing a fine job of discussing the coin and the trade.

Bob- I really appreciate the opportunity to see the subject of that monster thread. I'm sorry you had to endure this little mess. The other fellow got a real cheap lesson. Just my opinion.

gemtone65 · February 3, 2003 6:16AM

Having lived through the Thread of Death, it's interesting to see a scan of the coin in question. I commend Bob Greene for posting it here.

I venture to guess that few if any of the commenters would call this coin PR67 if they didn't know the PCGS grade. Frankly, based on the results I've gotten with PCGS, if this coin were mine and it came back PR65 I'd be delighted. In fact, I've got patterns graded PR64 that would blow this coin out of the water for eye appeal. The difference seems to be that my coins have some flaws in the fields, whereas this coin's problems seem to be mostly on the figure. But, should a PR67 coin have problems, even with zoom magnification such as Adrian's? I don't think so. I mean, the coin wasn't thrown into a bag after being minted; if it was, given the total mintage, it had to have been a very small bag.

leothelyon · February 3, 2003 7:01AM

The marks look extensive but seem to be very small. But if those marks interfere and show breaks in the frost in the main focal areas, then there is just cause for the return. To me the assigned grade is irrevelant. This coin could be in a MS64 to 67 holder and it wouldn't matter, I would still need to like this coin before adding it to my collection. But maybe I'm mixing oranges with apples here when the price and rarity is playing a heavier role than the cheap coins I collect. Does eye appeal rule here as well?

Leo

braddick · February 3, 2003 9:35AM

Wasn't aluminum more valuable than gold back in the mid 1800's? Also, being a softer metal, I understand PCGS giving the nod to PR67.
Look at some Modern PR67 coins and they have even less- grade wise- eye appeal.

Great coin!
(PS: Show a super CLOSE UP of almost anything and you're in for a shock!)

CalGold · February 3, 2003 9:54AM

Query,

This is another good example of the problem of grading from a photo, and dealing with the issue of just how much magnification to use.
Does Parkave's photo make the coin look too good, or does Adrian's make it look too bad? Did the graders fail to use adequate magnification in grading so that they missed the marks on Liberty's arm and head shown in Adrian's enlargement? Or is Adrian's photo over-enlarged so that insignificant marks that don't show as anything more than a luster break at 5x look like a tank ran over Liberty's arm (with shrapnel wounds to the face) at higer magnification?

Something to think about the next time you press that bid button on a pricy item in a no returns internet auction.

CG

KlectorKid · February 3, 2003 10:04AM

More pics good or bad, here are some nick pictures and the whole coin.
Arm
Chest
Cap
Leg
Arm2
Whole

You decide, personally I think its a bit overgraded, but its on the line. PQ 66 or just made it 67?

KlectorKid · February 3, 2003 10:06AM

Note: There are some problems (nicks & scratchs) in the field also but I decided to only take the body scratchs.

oreville · February 3, 2003 3:55PM

Back in the mid 1990's PCGS would have graded this coin definitely a PR65, possibly a PR66, but I doubt it.

A PR65 pattern in aluminum is an outstanding grade and a full gem especially for a proof aluminum. Nearly all of the aluminum patterns that achieved the PCGS PR65 grade back then were superlative coins.

Of course PCGS now grades adding the CAM and DCAM adjectives and perhaps I could see PCGS adding an extra grade for eye appeal. But I can't see a 67 for this coin. However, I think PCGS graded this pattern based on market grading rather than technical grading.

Also there is no doubt in my mind PCGS tolerated the appearance of the marks since they occurred in the cameo areas which makes them appear to be more pronounced than they really are. The fields do seem to be quite nice on the other hand.

I have three PCGS PR65 aluminum patterns $20 J-1254, $5 J-1372 and $10 J-1380 and they are nearly the equal of this pattern in quality except for slightly less cameo contrast. But then again, the grade is not critical since PCGS nor NGC has still not graded any of the same patterns in any other grade.

edited for grammer

THE INFAMOUS J-398 PR67DCAM PCGS

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Leave a Comment