I will not let this tick me off, I will not let this tick me off, I will not let this tick me off, I
ColonialCoinUnion
Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭
ColonialCoinUnion
Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭
Comments
Is that your coin?
<< <i>Token MS-63 BN
Is that your coin? >>
If it was my coin I would be dancing like a young girl in a meadow of flowers.
Russ, NCNE
Then how about this picture?
3 "DAMMIT BOYS"
4 "YOU SUCKS"
Numerous POTD (But NONE officially recognized)
Seated Halves are my specialty !
Seated Half set by date/mm COMPLETE !
Seated Half set by WB# - 289 down / 31 to go !!!!!
(1) "Smoebody smack him" from CornCobWipe !
IN MEMORY OF THE CUOF
JimP
(Can anyone say "Fully graded"?
Ray
<< <i>So whatta ya ticked off about?
Ray >>
I'm ticked off that NGC, by grading this stuff so absurdly liberally, is literally flooding the market with pretend uncirculated coins and thereby devalueing the few legitimately uncirculated colonial coins that actually do exist. I'm also ticked off that most people familiar with NGC's reasonably good grading of Morgan Dollars, for example, might assume that their grading of colonials is also 'reasonably good'. In reality, its unbelievably liberal for no apparent reason.
The coin in question above was described like this just 1 month ago at Stack's:
1783 Georgius Triumpho. Choice Extremely Fine for sharpness. B.7. 114.0 gns. 27.9 mm. About 1.3 mm. thick. A second example. This piece is slightly darker in color, being more olive brown than the preceding. Fairly typical surface quality, some roughness, a few areas rougher than usually seen, principally on Washington's forehead. Very early state of the reverse, the die apparently unbroken, quite unlike that seen on the preceding, and an interesting piece, accordingly. These are usually found in the broken state of the reverse, and to find one that is perfect is quite unusual, to say the least.
My opinion is that perhaps Stack's was a tad conservative and this coin could be called AU50. It can't possibly be called uncirculated let alone MS63 by even the most remote stretch of a vivid imagination.
And Laura Legend is really suggesting that PCGS should let NGC coins into the registry? So that this coin could be the 'pop top 1/0 coin? What a frickin' joke.
I will not let this tick me off, I will not let this tick me off, I will not . . .
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
BTW, I'm glad that you're not letting it tick you off...
Then they should display it at their tables at all the shows.
<< <i>PCGS should buy that coin.
Then they should display it at their tables at all the shows. >>
I agree with you. They might also consider printing out this thread, folding it into the shape of a giant paper airplance and rocketing it to Laura Legend post haste.
I hate it when you see my post before I can edit the spelling.
Always looking for nice type coins
my local dealer
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
<< <i>I agree with you. They might also consider printing out this thread, folding it into the shape of a giant paper airplance and rocketing it to Laura Legend post haste. >>
Why should they do that?
<< <i>Were they not made as well back then and maybe that was uncirculated? I find it hard to believe a respected service like that would grade something that off. >>
Your comments summarize nicely why this ticks me off so much. You have made a leap in logic that I'm sure many others have as well - which is that if respected grading service NGC has called this coin uncirculated, well then it must be.
Whatever respect NGC has earned was not earned based on their grading of colonial coins.
The coin has no original luster, obvious wear and a number of surface marks and nicks. Granted they weren't made as well as Jefferson nickels, but if this coin is an MS63, then pretty much every Georgius Triumpho would be considered uncirculated.
<< <i>
<< <i>Were they not made as well back then and maybe that was uncirculated? I find it hard to believe a respected service like that would grade something that off. >>
Your comments summarize nicely why this ticks me off so much. You have made a leap in logic that I'm sure many others have as well - which is that if respected grading service NGC has called this coin uncirculated, well then it must be.
Whatever respect NGC has earned was not earned based on their grading of colonial coins.
The coin has no original luster, obvious wear and a number of surface marks and nicks. Granted they weren't made as well as Jefferson nickels, but if this coin is an MS63, then pretty much every Georgius Triumpho would be considered uncirculated. >>
Is there some way you could complain to NGCs graders?
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
Look at the rims!!! Come on!! Not the same coin.
(could this be a unjustified attempt to smear NCG???)
<< <i>I would'nt let it piss you off...because IT IS NOT THE SAME COIN!!!
Look at the rims!!! Come on!! Not the same coin.
(could this be a unjustified attempt to smear NCG???) >>
I agree with you that the look to be two totally different coins but I still agree with ColonialCoinUnion about the grade, absolutly out of wack. I doubt its an attempt to smear NGC. I don't really care too much though.
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
<< <i> Look at the five or so little pits overlapping the truncation of the bust at 6 o'clock on both images. they have the identical damage/contact marks. >>
Yes, the pits are in the same place, but there appears to be a slight rim clip at 8:30 on the obverse that can also be seen on the reverse at 9:30.
Futhermore, the strike quality of the letters and denticles don't match. It's not the same coin.
None the less, I did notice that coin in an NGC MS63 holder the other day and agreed that it didn't look MS.
<< <i>I would'nt let it piss you off...because IT IS NOT THE SAME COIN!!!
Look at the rims!!! Come on!! Not the same coin.
(could this be a unjustified attempt to smear NCG???) >>
How can you see the rims? They are hidden by the NGC holder in the color photos above. The black and white photo of the coin was taken by Stack's when it was raw. The denticles and thickness of the border that you CAN see are identical on both coins, and this is significant. Early American coins were struck from crude dies and are irregularly centered by nature. Centering is an excellent way to match coins to plates, as it turns out. Go ahead - check all of the other Georgius Triumphos you can find anywhere and see how many match the centering on this one.
After you've finshed that, please explain the marks on the forhead and at 6 o'clock on the neck which are identical.
Most telling, however, is the lack of a die break on the reverse. 99.9% of all Georgius Triumphos look like this on the reverse:
See that vertical line to the left of the seated figure? Go check every other Georgius Triumpho ever sold at auction and then tell me how many are without a diebreak. I'll wait here.
So you think this NGC coin, which has just been slabbed and come on the market now about a month after the Stack's auction, and which is an exact match for centering and distinguishing marks and which exhibits the same incredibly rare early die state with no die break on the reverse is a different coin? Boy, what a coincidence!
But I'll go you one better than that. See this new coin with the die break on the reverse that I've posted above? Well, it was also in that same Stack's auction a month ago and it was the lot immediately following the coin with no die break (lots 250 and 251 in Stack's Ford II sale in May). And now it is being sold immediately following the no die break coin in the current Bowers July auction (lots 32 and 33). I'd say thats one AMAZING coincidence.
While I agree with you regarding the VERY generous grading of the NGC coin (looks AU at best), it is not the same as the Stack's coin.
Forget the rims for a momont. Look at the reverse. The heads on the reverse figure are shaped very differently (different die states), the arms and hands are much thinner on the Stack's specimen, and the lettering is very different. Look at the letter "O" on both sides of the coin.
Not the same coin.
<< <i>ColonialCoinUnion,
While I agree with you regarding the VERY generous grading of the NGC coin (looks AU at best), it is not the same as the Stack's coin.
Forget the rims for a momont. Look at the reverse. The heads on the reverse figure are shaped very differently (different die states), the arms and hands are much thinner on the Stack's specimen, and the lettering is very different. Look at the letter "O" on both sides of the coin.
Not the same coin. >>
Boy some people are just hilerious, makes a post acting like he knows something about colonial coins and then it turns out the most common die charictaristics clearly show they are not the same coin and he still does not even realize it. If it was not so funny it would be sad.
Are you saying this is or is not the same coin???
<< <i>ColonialCoinUnion,
While I agree with you regarding the VERY generous grading of the NGC coin (looks AU at best), it is not the same as the Stack's coin.
Forget the rims for a momont. Look at the reverse. The heads on the reverse figure are shaped very differently (different die states), the arms and hands are much thinner on the Stack's specimen, and the lettering is very different. Look at the letter "O" on both sides of the coin.
Not the same coin. >>
Shamika -
I disagree. I believe the variations you see - such as the head shape - are the result of the angle, lighting and quality of the pictures. But I respect your view.
<< <i>
<< <i>ColonialCoinUnion,
While I agree with you regarding the VERY generous grading of the NGC coin (looks AU at best), it is not the same as the Stack's coin.
Forget the rims for a momont. Look at the reverse. The heads on the reverse figure are shaped very differently (different die states), the arms and hands are much thinner on the Stack's specimen, and the lettering is very different. Look at the letter "O" on both sides of the coin.
Not the same coin. >>
Shamika -
I disagree. I believe the variations you see - such as the head shape - are the result of the angle, lighting and quality of the pictures. But I respect your view. >>
I agree with ColonialCoinUnion on that, two different photos, with different cameras, lighting, film, angles, and all sorts of other stuff can and will change an image dramatically.
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
<< <i>Boy some people are just hilerious, makes a post acting like he knows something about colonial coins and then it turns out the most common die charictaristics clearly show they are not the same coin and he still does not even realize it. If it was not so funny it would be sad. >>
Thanks for you contribution Rotated. Obviously you are much more familiar with the 'common die characterisitics' of the different versions of Georgius Triumpho coins than I am.
I thought that they were all struck from the same dies and that the dies used cracked early on during the striking of the coins. So a very few coins were made before the die cracked and exhibit no vertical die break on the reverse. Based on my own research and review of hundreds of these coins and all significant colonial auctions and literature since 1971, I would say there are no more than 5 examples known without the vertical crack.
The great majority were struck after the crack and exhibit the large break on the reverse.
There are no known variations in lettering, hand thickness, head shape, etc. that have ever been described by Breen or any other colonial authors through the years.
So I guess Breen and the others would be hilarious too?
I'm not sure what RotatedRainbows is trying to say, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert with this series.
I love the history so I always check out the images in catalogs, on-line auctions, and the occasional coin show that I might visit. I'm also aware of the many limitations these coins had with regards to minting qualities. But comparing two different images isn't rocket science.
If a collector can grade a series, he is making mental comparisons whether one knows it or not.
Whether or not the coins are the same is really irrelevant to what NGC has done in this case. I like NGC, but they sure appear to have blown it with this coin and I suspect the series as a whole (look at Fugio cents).
<< <i>
<< <i>Were they not made as well back then and maybe that was uncirculated? I find it hard to believe a respected service like that would grade something that off. >>
Your comments summarize nicely why this ticks me off so much. You have made a leap in logic that I'm sure many others have as well - which is that if respected grading service NGC has called this coin uncirculated, well then it must be.
Whatever respect NGC has earned was not earned based on their grading of colonial coins.
The coin has no original luster, obvious wear and a number of surface marks and nicks. Granted they weren't made as well as Jefferson nickels, but if this coin is an MS63, then pretty much every Georgius Triumpho would be considered uncirculated. >>
What you have recognize is that NGC has market graded this coin. This gets into the arguments about "EAC (Early American Coppers Club) grading” vs. commercial grading. If this coin were graded by EAC standards, it would probably be an AU-58 or AU-55.
BUT chances are the selling price would be about the same. What has happened is that pricing guides like the Gray Sheet have “dumbed down” their prices to reflect the loser standards. If you look at the price of a 1916-D dime in VF, it might look cheap, BUT you don’t get what collectors of my generation thought of a VF coin. Twenty years ago a VF Mercury dime had all of the lines coming down on the ax, and they were pretty sharp. Today you get NONE of the lines in the center of ax and few of them on the sides – yesterday’s VG.
The advantage to have this overgraded NGC coin is that the lower standard has become the NEW standard, and the prices in many guides reflect that.
I know this seems seedy, and perhaps it is, but those are the rules by which we play today. One little dealer like I am can’t buck it. I can only explain the situation to the customer and show him if possible what he would have to pay under the grading standards. The prices would be substantially higher.
Eric
I really wish I could see a better photo of the reverse, but for the time being I'll defer to ColonialCoinUnion's experience and agree that it is the same coin.
Peace!
But in Breen's (my book; page 133, chapt 14), Breen seems to imply that all the coins came from a broken die, but there is the possibilty that a few were struck before the die broke though. Breen also doesn't seem to mention any coins better than Extremely Fine as being around.
But Breen wanted more info about any "non-collector" accumulations that may have been around.
Then with a google search http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinText/WASHTriumpho.html he seems to state that before the dies were cracked or damaged that there may have been a few struck.
Here is a good story about it. http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinIntros/WASHTriumpho.intro.html
Then here they show one http://www.goldbergcoins.net/catalogarchive/20040124/chap0035.shtml#
and here http://www.goldbergcoins.net/catalogarchive/20020218/chap002.shtml#045725
I would normally assume that after the die clash or whatever caused the dies to crack, that the face of liberty was probably mashed in, obscuring it, as all the coins I saw, liberty doesn't have much of a face. So unless the original British minters actually just simply made a crappy die with no face on liberty, then there is something really wrong there with a obscured liberty face on a coin that was minted before the die(s) cracked.
But it seems all the photos I have seen of this coin, liberty is pretty much faceless. So it must have been a cheap poorly made die they used to make the tokens with.
So I can't say I really found anything that definitely would point me to thinking it was a fake. But I do think I would disagree with the grading though. I don't think anyone could have really graded these types of tokens above XF-something.
I just don't see in the picture or plate images that they are the same without the same pics or the coin, coins in hand!
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
Back to the issue at hand, the Georgius Triumpho in the color photo is grotesquely over-graded. I am more sad than mad about NGC's grading opinion. I am also embarrassed for them. Can't they see what this does for their credibility? They obviously don't care. And let's talk about the size of NGC's balls; giant coconuts. I mean, the coin in question was well documented in a very recent auction as EF-40, which it is, imho. Now.......1 month later......it's MS-63? Man.
Bill stated that this is an example of "market grading"; a term which I still do not accept. Another possibility is that NGC is completely incapable of grading colonial coins. If that's the case, then they should stick to Morgan Dollars and the likes and NOT take money to grade your colonial coins. I don't think this is the case, however, since the basic requirements of a mint state coin would be the same for the Georgius Triumpho as a Lincoln Cent (e.g. luster, no circulation marks, etc.).
Maybe this should be posted on the NGC forum so that an NGC grader can offer an explanation......
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>Ladies and gentlemen, the 2 different images of the Georgius Triumpho that CCU provided are of THE SAME COIN. The images are misleading due to the photographic techniques used. The black and white images give a different depth perception than the color images. Also, note that the color image has been "elongated" to the point that the details are out of proportion relative to the black and white image. Nuff said.
Back to the issue at hand, the Georgius Triumpho in the color photo is grotesquely over-graded. I am more sad than mad about NGC's grading opinion. I am also embarrassed for them. Can't they see what this does for their credibility? They obviously don't care. And let's talk about the size of NGC's balls; giant coconuts. I mean, the coin in question was well documented in a very recent auction as EF-40, which it is, imho. Now.......1 month later......it's MS-63? Man.
Bill stated that this is an example of "market grading"; a term which I still do not accept. I will give you my opinion: somebody bought the grade on that coin. (as everybody's mouth and eyes open widely while reading this). Yup, that's my theory. Got a better explanation? Do you think that you would get an MS-63 if you submitted that coin? The only other possibility is that NGC is completely incapable of grading colonial coins. If that's the case, then they should stick to Morgan Dollars and the likes and NOT take money to grade your colonial coins. I don't think this is the case, however, since the basic requirements of a mint state coin would be the same for the Georgius Triumpho as a Lincoln Cent (e.g. luster, no circulation marks, etc.).
Maybe this should be posted on the NGC forum so that an NGC grader can offer an explanation...... >>
Be that as it may ( mind you I said may) PCGS lets out a couple FARTS now and then.
Check out this link...MS-66??????
Russ, NCNE
Yes, you are correct. So does ANACS and ICG. I mention NGC just because they graded the coin that's the subject of this thread.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
I've seen the coin in person and have no problem with NGC grading it mint state. It's completely consistent with prevailing (non-EAC) grading standards. While 63 might be a bit of a stretch, I'd crack it from a 58 holder so fast it would make CCU's head spin. Those of you grading the coin from the images should know better.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Those of you grading the coin from the images should know better. >>
It seems to me the principals of this thread HAVE seen the coin in person. As for myself, I didn't address grade, I addressed if it was the same coin in both photos.
Eric
Can anyone tell us what the coin sold for when it was raw?
Can anyone provide some auction records for slabbed examples?
That combination of info might give us an insight as to the coin's true quality.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>How are we going to find out?
Can anyone tell us what the coin sold for when it was raw?
Can anyone provide some auction records for slabbed examples?
That combination of info might give us an insight as to the coin's true quality. >>
It sold for $2300 all in at Stack's. The following coin at Stack's - called 'nearly XF' by Michael Hodder brought $1610. They reside in NGC MS63 and NGC AU58 holders respectively as catalogued in the upcoming Bowers July 2004 auction as consecutive lots 32 and 33.
The two best example of Georgius Triumphos of which I am aware that have come to auction recently are a raw coin described as AU58 that appeared in Bowers November 2001 Flannagan sale as lot 2451 and realized $3,680 all in. Its important to note that that was 2 and half years ago in a market that certainly hasn't gotten any weaker.
Another choice example was a slabbed PCGS AU58 piece that sold in Goldberg's February 2002 Benson II sale as lot 19 and realized $4025.
I saw all of these coins - including the 2 at Stack's - in person before they sold.
There have been many other slabbed coins called AU-something over the last couple of years but in my opinion they were largely overgraded and their prices realized don't mean much. Heritage had a PCGS AU58 and if memory serves it realized $2100 or so in January of this year.
But let me keep going. The coin which is the subject of this thread is a desireable piece by virtue of its early die state regardless of its grade. And its worth more, in my opinion, than a late die state example in the same grade. So if it sold for a measely $2300 to a room full of colonial experts, I'm not sure why anyone thinks it was ridicously undergraded or was ready to crack it out before it even got holdered.
Andy - enlighten me.
I wonder what type of holder it's in today?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.