I agree with Russ that the "o/s" designation is a good idea, albeit imperfect. IMO, the major grading services stay clear of getting into that argument by purposely not adding extraneous information and letting the buyer judge for him/herself by the appearance if that is a coin worth purchasing. The "o/s" designation is a positive way of listing information on the holder. Negative things like ANACS and SEGS use are probably not a good idea in the marketplace for PCGS and NGC.
I am of the opinion that a "OS" desig may dissuade some individuals from cracking/dipping a coin. But regardless of the coins value or slab, there will always be those individuals that either do not care or are willing to take the risk (financial loss) for the potential financial gain.
The analogy here is how many times do we hear of someone being murdered for a few dollars knowing there is a death penalty for the crime? The answer? Too many times (even once is too many). But again, there are those desperate, foolish idiots out there that don't care about the penalty---only the reward if they get away with it.
There are those who will dip a $10 coin for a $3 profit and there are those who would do the same for a $10k+ profit. No label designation can or will stop these people.
Everything starts and everything stops at precisely the right time for precisely the right reason.
<< <i>I find it odd that almost everyone here universally condemns what happened to this coin. At yet, at the same time, the market greatly rewards going for the "dip and flip" strategy. So what's the deal--
* Is everyone on this board just an erudite, elitist snob?
* Is everyone here simply lying
* Are we all-knowing and everyone else is dumb?
Somehow, you have to explain why this forum seems to decry the dipping practice while the market as a whole seems to endorse it. Doesn't connect. >>
I'm not against ALL dipping, but I do think that it is done WAY too frequently. If a coin has an ugly spot or toning, it's a candidate for a dip IF a person who is well versed in the subject thinks that it will help.
I had a 1925-D quarter eagle that had a big copper spot on the recessed portion of the Indian's neck. Although the basic grade of the coin was MS-64, its eye appeal will really impaired by the spot, and it’s market value was considerably reduced. I sent the coin to NCS. They dipped it and removed the spot and per my instructions forwarded it to NGC when it got an MS-64.
Was the resulting coin as good as an “original” MS-64? No. The coin had that “glossy luster” that most advanced gold collectors don’t like, which results from the NCS treatment. Was it more attractive? On balance, yes. Was it worth more? Definitely yes, but it was not worth the full MS-64 bid; it was worth a discounted price. I sold it to another dealer and was happy with the result.
The coin that started this string was a beautiful Trade Dollar that had great eye appeal. The ONLY reason to dip it would be if you were one those “white coins only” freaks who think that Mint State silver should always be the original color. I doubt that most experienced collectors, dealers or conservers would have supported the decision to dip that coin because IT WAS GREAT THE WAY IT WAS.
Dipping, like every other conservation technique, must be done judiciously. If it’s not, one can end up with a disaster like this coin.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I, too, deplore what happened to the trade dollar that started this thread. Bottom line, though, it went for better than 54,000.00 (including juice) so the guy didn't exactly lose his shirt on the deal. I guess a couple of people liked it better than anyone here.
JimP
Just because I'm old doesn't mean I don't love to look at a pretty bust.
And the coin has reappeared .... downgraded to MS63 at NGC. If purchased at MS63 money, a good value was received .... but I doubt the auction buyer did very well!
could this be re-attributed? even the neophytes (like me), can pick out the distinctive markers (rim dings or small field ticks) on the coin from one auction to another, regardless of the toning or grade at the time.
since the coin "had" it's pedigree in the earlier auction, could one get either NGC or PCSG to compare the coin to the photos of it when given the Norweb pedigree? forgetting the dark period, it *is* still the same coin, in perhaps different condition.
even if the toning will take the good part of a lifetime to redo properly, i'm assuming, it's still a 'nice' coin to own.
one question regarding the NGC slabs, would PCGS body bag this? or do they keep sending it back 64 or less?
Was this coin dipped (rather poorly IMHO) by a dealer just to make $ ? Or an unknowledgeable collector? I've seen some coins benefit by conservation, but this is trully a sad case.
<< <i>This mad lust to strip a coin of its protective coat
in order to make a higher grade is very sad. We are
merely the caretakers of American Coinage. It is an
obligation to protect our heritage thru taking care
our coinage for future generations of collectors. Because
everyone seems to be doing it, does not make the practice
right. >>
This is very well said and should be the response to any post when someone defends, advocates for, or condones any attempt to alter a coin to make $. And $ is really the only reason anyone does it regardless of what is claimed here.
PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain.
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
the coin doctors are just giving most collectors exactly what they want.
show an original silver coin and the majority say it is ugly. go figure.
they are selling a coin i suppose. the color or lack of color is all dictated by the market.
plus add in the fact that many many coin collectors just love to mess with coins too!
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
Yup. PCGS has to share part of the blame.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
Yup. PCGS has to share part of the blame. >>
PCGS and NGC are most to blame. It is the end result of higher holders that motivate the dippers and strippers. If PCGS and NGC were to reward originality this would have never happened. But don't expect the TPGs to change regardless of what they may say. Dipping + stripping + reward = submissions.
If one considers that total number of coins graded, a new and improved business model might be separating originality from marginal coins that have obviously been enhanced. I believe there would be plenty of resubmissions if an original surfaces designation was at stake. Further, I think an o/s designation would go further in terms of placing an emphasis on the coin, identifying the appropriate and accurate state of preservation which, in my view, is far more important than whether the coin is currently in NGC or PGCS plastic
We have completely lost sight of the fact that it is about coins. Original coins really need to treated with greater respect by TPG- as well as collectors and dealers.
For those that want a dipped out white coin- go buy a dipped out white coin as there seems to be an ample supply that unfortunately is increasing. Leave the original examples for those that appreciate them for what they are and not for what they could grade.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
Yup. PCGS has to share part of the blame. >>
PCGS and NGC are most to blame. It is the end result of higher holders that motivate the dippers and strippers. If PCGS and NGC were to reward originality this would have never happened. But don't expect the TPGs to change regardless of what they may say. Dipping + stripping + reward = submissions. >>
I agree.
I've been saying this for years.
The TPG's place too much emphasis on Luster and NO emphasis on original toning (without much luster).
Hence, this is a perfect recipe for the prevalence of 'Dippers'.
"Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
Glad to see this thread brought back to life, as I have only been a member for a short time. It's sad to see the what's been done to those coins just for a higher grade and more $$. I like the idea of an "original surfaces" designation.
just wait until this temporary round of conservative grading ends for both services, and they start their gradeflation see-saw again. More and more original coins will suffer this fate, when their grading loosens again.
I agree with Fatman, Bear, and I like coinkat's solution. I'm convinced an original surfaces designation will help prevent the tragic practice of dipping original coins for financial gain. Have you read any of Weimar White's books? Unfortunately there are too many people that apparently believe the stories claiming that many early type coins were stored in ways that protected them from toning. For example; how many numismatists believe that early silver coins minted from the late 1700's to the late 1800's like bust or liberty seated dollars survived sealed in containers that prevented all or nearly all toning? I am aware of the uncirculated half dimes or dimes that were sealed in glass and remain virtually untoned, but I believe this type of storage was extremely rare. The coins and comments in this threat are excellent examples and should be shared with all numismatists to illustrate the problem and help educate them. Flame On
I wasn't registered then, was lurking, but apparently not lurking enough. I never saw this thread back then, and after seeing what was done to this coin (I'm not a fan of toners, but with that said...), that coin looked great, then turned to a total POS. I may one day (doubt it, very seriously, though) be able to own a coin of the magnitude it was at one time. This was one of those coins that, as has already been mentioned numerous times, WAS a piece of history, now it's just a POS, as I said. Whoever had charge of 'The Medio/Da Costa Gomez Collections' certainly should be considered one of America's 'Dumbest Criminals'. It really is NOTHING short of a crime to have stripped that original skin from that coin.
Here again, I prefer my coins as close to tone-free as possible...sometimes it's inevitable I have to settle for a lightly/slightly toned coin, and that's just fact, but it's a no brainer which version of thids coin I would prefer. Since the dip & strip, that coin is so dull and undesirable, it really isn't funny. The progresssion from pleasingly toned NGC 64, at 46K plus, to a stripped, lifeless raw coin (which I have NO idea how it sold PERIOD, let alone for 54K plus, just 6 months later...wow, just realized it took less than 6 months to go from 'prom queen' to 'crack-whore' for that coin), then getting an NGC 63.....NOW it resides in a PCGS 64 holder????????
Is this what is meant by 'market grading'? If so, SELL EVERYTHING, as the market (coin market, obviously) is in SEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRREEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSS TROUBLE!
If this coins 'provenance' is this well documented (thread is just a couple weeks away from being 5 full years old, and this thread had alot of action back then), does anyone think our hosts should get this wretched thing off the market, and simply put it in a 'Genuine' holder?
I know I have rambled, but it's that 'just got in a car accident' confusion/trauma...from where it all began to where it is now (I don't know how it managed a 64 with our hosts, NOR do I have ANY clue how it sold for more as an ugly, lifeless raw coin than it did 6 months earlier as an otherwise attractively toned, original coin in a reputable holder). Someone earlier in this thread said they believed it could cross....I agree, in it's original condition, it very well could have crossed. I'm sorry for rambling....but I blame the whole demise of a great coin on whoever had control of 'The Medio/Da Costa Gomez Collections' (does anyone know them/of them/any info on them?). There should be a warrant issued for him/them. This poor coin has been through so much bad shyte, someone should melt it to put the poor thing out of it's misery.
Ummmm, unless I'm misreading the "Prices Realized", the coin went from being a beautiful $43,700 coin to a POS $54,650 coin. Don't get me wrong, I FAR prefer the looks of the original coin. Still, the dipper got what he/she wanted. To put it mildly, that is a shame.
There is going to come a time...soon I hope.....when private collectors will become mini museums--like SUNNYWOOD i.e.-- and buy a coin that is not just shiney but with outstanding toning---and keep the thing and display it.
Buy the coin for what it is...not what it could become in another holder. Pay the price to keep it in it's current condition. It's hard to take the profit motivation out of coins but somewhere down the line the spread between SHINEY coins and ORIGINAL coins is going to skyrocket.
The spread between enhanced shiny coins and attractively toned originals has already skyrocketed. Nice toning wins out. Unfortunately most toned coins don't fit that bill, never did...at least not until they were dipped once and secondary album toning became the rage. What has been left behind are the majority of original coins that are just ok or slightly negative in eye appeal due to toning subduing the luster. The latter were perfectly acceptable in the pre-1990 markets. But over time the collecting public has been told to pursue white coins, and why not follow along since the TPG's have tended to reward those with higher grades.
Designating a coin "original surface" will not help until the preference for dipped coins changes. While I can see dipped Morgans, Peace dollars, Walkers, Mercs, Washingtons, SLQ's, and other 20th century silver being acceptable if the luster has not been dulled in the process. But as a rule, 18th and 19th century silver coins just don't look natural in a pure white state. And most of those early coins that are white do have a definite reduction or dulling of the original luster.
I can still remember the attractive original gem MS66 James Stack 1901-s quarter getting dipped out in the late 1980's in order to secure a windfall profit as the coin doubled in price when it graded out MS67 ($120K to $250K). I wonder if that coin has since turned brown or had multiple dippings in order to keep it white? That coin was basically considered the epitome of gem/original/pedigreed 1901-s quarters from 1975 to 1988. Yet it had to be dipped out to stay at the top in the new grading order when it changed hands after 8-9 years. It was previously sold in 1980 for approx $90K to dealers Bob Rose and Ron Iskowitz. If the new/dealer owner didn't dip it, a future one would have. Doesn't make it any better. The great irony of the situation is that the new owner of the coin made $125K for a couple weeks of work. Their downside was almost nil. The former owners held the coin for most of that decade and made $30K on the coin.
I look forward to the day when somebody ttt's this thread with a link to an auction in which the same coin is offered in a 65 holder. I could be a few years out, but it will be fun.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Comments
I agree with Russ that the "o/s" designation is a good idea, albeit imperfect. IMO, the major grading services stay clear of getting into that argument by purposely not adding extraneous information and letting the buyer judge for him/herself by the appearance if that is a coin worth purchasing. The "o/s" designation is a positive way of listing information on the holder. Negative things like ANACS and SEGS use are probably not a good idea in the marketplace for PCGS and NGC.
Dan
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
The analogy here is how many times do we hear of someone being murdered for a few dollars knowing there is a death penalty for the crime? The answer? Too many times (even once is too many). But again, there are those desperate, foolish idiots out there that don't care about the penalty---only the reward if they get away with it.
There are those who will dip a $10 coin for a $3 profit and there are those who would do the same for a $10k+ profit. No label
designation can or will stop these people.
<< <i>I find it odd that almost everyone here universally condemns what happened to this coin. At yet, at the same time, the market greatly rewards going for the "dip and flip" strategy. So what's the deal--
* Is everyone on this board just an erudite, elitist snob?
* Is everyone here simply lying
* Are we all-knowing and everyone else is dumb?
Somehow, you have to explain why this forum seems to decry the dipping practice while the market as a whole seems to endorse it. Doesn't connect. >>
I'm not against ALL dipping, but I do think that it is done WAY too frequently. If a coin has an ugly spot or toning, it's a candidate for a dip IF a person who is well versed in the subject thinks that it will help.
I had a 1925-D quarter eagle that had a big copper spot on the recessed portion of the Indian's neck. Although the basic grade of the coin was MS-64, its eye appeal will really impaired by the spot, and it’s market value was considerably reduced. I sent the coin to NCS. They dipped it and removed the spot and per my instructions forwarded it to NGC when it got an MS-64.
Was the resulting coin as good as an “original” MS-64? No. The coin had that “glossy luster” that most advanced gold collectors don’t like, which results from the NCS treatment. Was it more attractive? On balance, yes. Was it worth more? Definitely yes, but it was not worth the full MS-64 bid; it was worth a discounted price. I sold it to another dealer and was happy with the result.
The coin that started this string was a beautiful Trade Dollar that had great eye appeal. The ONLY reason to dip it would be if you were one those “white coins only” freaks who think that Mint State silver should always be the original color. I doubt that most experienced collectors, dealers or conservers would have supported the decision to dip that coin because IT WAS GREAT THE WAY IT WAS.
Dipping, like every other conservation technique, must be done judiciously. If it’s not, one can end up with a disaster like this coin.
JimP
I find it even more appauling that it sold for more the next time around.
"... I went to my Barber, and he was talking about how much money he was making in the market. The next day I pulled my money out and went cash.
I figured if amatuers that didn't even understand what a PEG figure meant could make an easy buck, then something must be wrong."
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Norweb 1878-CC
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
This is very very sad. The coin was lovely with a beautiful origonal
toning.
Camelot
could this be re-attributed? even the neophytes (like me), can pick out the distinctive markers (rim dings or small field ticks) on the coin from one auction to another, regardless of the toning or grade at the time.
since the coin "had" it's pedigree in the earlier auction, could one get either NGC or PCSG to compare the coin to the photos of it when given the Norweb pedigree? forgetting the dark period, it *is* still the same coin, in perhaps different condition.
even if the toning will take the good part of a lifetime to redo properly, i'm assuming, it's still a 'nice' coin to own.
one question regarding the NGC slabs, would PCGS body bag this? or do they keep sending it back 64 or less?
This coin was so beautiful before. I guess you could call this Coin Dr a quack.
interesting story here.
in order to make a higher grade is very sad. We are
merely the caretakers of American Coinage. It is an
obligation to protect our heritage thru taking care
our coinage for future generations of collectors. Because
everyone seems to be doing it, does not make the practice
right.
Camelot
<< <i>This mad lust to strip a coin of its protective coat
in order to make a higher grade is very sad. We are
merely the caretakers of American Coinage. It is an
obligation to protect our heritage thru taking care
our coinage for future generations of collectors. Because
everyone seems to be doing it, does not make the practice
right. >>
This is very well said and should be the response to any post when someone defends, advocates for, or condones any attempt to alter a coin to make $. And $ is really the only reason anyone does it regardless of what is claimed here.
siliconvalleycoins.com
PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain.
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
the coin doctors are just giving most collectors exactly what they want.
show an original silver coin and the majority say it is ugly. go figure.
they are selling a coin i suppose. the color or lack of color is all dictated
by the market.
plus add in the fact that many many coin collectors just love to mess
with coins too!
"jaded view" brought to you by yours truly.
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>While stuff still gets done, the dip and strip risk/reward is not nearly what it used to be. >>
i just got done reviewing the whole thread again and that first
coin in the first post sure got the reward part down pat.
i am sure in a down market it is tougher...
Some good suggestions were made too... 5 years ago (and even earlier) and what has changed?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
Yup. PCGS has to share part of the blame.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
Yup. PCGS has to share part of the blame.
PCGS and NGC are most to blame. It is the end result of higher holders that motivate the dippers and strippers. If PCGS and NGC were to reward originality this would have never happened. But don't expect the TPGs to change regardless of what they may say. Dipping + stripping + reward = submissions.
Unfortunately, I agree with you.
If one considers that total number of coins graded, a new and improved business model might be separating originality from marginal coins that have obviously been enhanced. I believe there would be plenty of resubmissions if an original surfaces designation was at stake. Further, I think an o/s designation would go further in terms of placing an emphasis on the coin, identifying the appropriate and accurate state of preservation which, in my view, is far more important than whether the coin is currently in NGC or PGCS plastic
We have completely lost sight of the fact that it is about coins. Original coins really need to treated with greater respect by TPG- as well as collectors and dealers.
For those that want a dipped out white coin- go buy a dipped out white coin as there seems to be an ample supply that unfortunately is increasing. Leave the original examples for those that appreciate them for what they are and not for what they could grade.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS rewarded this action, by giving it a higher grade. Until this type of thing stops, people will keep dipping and stripping classics for monetary gain. >>
Yup. PCGS has to share part of the blame.
PCGS and NGC are most to blame. It is the end result of higher holders that motivate the dippers and strippers. If PCGS and NGC were to reward originality this would have never happened. But don't expect the TPGs to change regardless of what they may say. Dipping + stripping + reward = submissions.
I agree.
I've been saying this for years.
The TPG's place too much emphasis on Luster and NO emphasis on original toning (without much luster).
Hence, this is a perfect recipe for the prevalence of 'Dippers'.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
sad.
A bad memory trip from (5) years ago....
Still Sad
Here again, I prefer my coins as close to tone-free as possible...sometimes it's inevitable I have to settle for a lightly/slightly toned coin, and that's just fact, but it's a no brainer which version of thids coin I would prefer. Since the dip & strip, that coin is so dull and undesirable, it really isn't funny. The progresssion from pleasingly toned NGC 64, at 46K plus, to a stripped, lifeless raw coin (which I have NO idea how it sold PERIOD, let alone for 54K plus, just 6 months later...wow, just realized it took less than 6 months to go from 'prom queen' to 'crack-whore' for that coin), then getting an NGC 63.....NOW it resides in a PCGS 64 holder????????
Is this what is meant by 'market grading'? If so, SELL EVERYTHING, as the market (coin market, obviously) is in SEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRREEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUSSSSSSSSSSSSS TROUBLE!
If this coins 'provenance' is this well documented (thread is just a couple weeks away from being 5 full years old, and this thread had alot of action back then), does anyone think our hosts should get this wretched thing off the market, and simply put it in a 'Genuine' holder?
I know I have rambled, but it's that 'just got in a car accident' confusion/trauma...from where it all began to where it is now (I don't know how it managed a 64 with our hosts, NOR do I have ANY clue how it sold for more as an ugly, lifeless raw coin than it did 6 months earlier as an otherwise attractively toned, original coin in a reputable holder). Someone earlier in this thread said they believed it could cross....I agree, in it's original condition, it very well could have crossed. I'm sorry for rambling....but I blame the whole demise of a great coin on whoever had control of 'The Medio/Da Costa Gomez Collections' (does anyone know them/of them/any info on them?). There should be a warrant issued for him/them. This poor coin has been through so much bad shyte, someone should melt it to put the poor thing out of it's misery.
U.S. Type Set
Buy the coin for what it is...not what it could become in another holder. Pay the price to keep it in it's current condition. It's hard to take the profit motivation out of coins but somewhere down the line the spread between SHINEY coins and ORIGINAL coins is going to skyrocket.
Designating a coin "original surface" will not help until the preference for dipped coins changes. While I can see dipped Morgans, Peace dollars, Walkers, Mercs, Washingtons, SLQ's, and other 20th century silver being acceptable if the luster has not been dulled in the process. But as a rule, 18th and 19th century silver coins just don't look natural in a pure white state. And most of those early coins that are white do have a definite reduction or dulling of the original luster.
I can still remember the attractive original gem MS66 James Stack 1901-s quarter getting dipped out in the late 1980's in order to secure a windfall profit as the coin doubled in price when it graded out MS67 ($120K to $250K). I wonder if that coin has since turned brown or had multiple dippings in order to keep it white? That coin was basically considered the epitome of gem/original/pedigreed 1901-s quarters from 1975 to 1988. Yet it had to be dipped out to stay at the top in the new grading order when it changed hands after 8-9 years. It was previously sold in 1980 for approx $90K to dealers Bob Rose and Ron Iskowitz. If the new/dealer owner didn't dip it, a future one would have. Doesn't make it any better. The great irony of the situation is that the new owner of the coin made $125K for a couple weeks of work. Their downside was almost nil. The former owners held the coin for most of that decade and made $30K on the coin.
roadrunner
I prefer coins where the toning is vibrant and the luster is practically dripping off the coin. But thats what makes the world go 'round.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.