Do the BN, RB and RD designations for copper vary based on the coin type?

ColonialCoinUnion

Do, for example, 1932 Lincoln Cents and 1794 Large Cents both need to exhibit the same percentage of original red remaining in order to called RB?

I'm not sure how PCGS does it, or if they have a written policy, but I think the designation should be a relative one based on the coin type.

This would mean that a Large Cent with a small amount of original red (say 5 - 10%) would be called RB because the overwhelming majority of Large Cents exhibit no red at all. To merely call such a coin BN, doesn't recognize the fact that it is exceptional vs others of its type.

For a Lincoln Cent, the standard would be 30% or so in order to be called an RB, and so on.

Does that make sense?

coinguy1

Yes, in my opinion, the major grading companies are more lenient when assigning the "RB" and "RD" color designations for certain early copper coins. In my experience, this is especially true for the "RB" designation.

Gonfunko

IMO, the grading services should use 4 color designations - Red, Red & Brown, Brown & Red, and Brown. The "Brown & Red" is for coins that aren't red or brown, but are closer to brown and don't really deserve to be called RB. I also believe that the amount of red required differs from series to series based on the age of the coins.

coinguy89

Im not too big of a fan on the color designations on coppers, I think they are kind of corrupt and misleading.

ColonialCoinUnion

I have an unc. Connecticut Copper, circa 1787, with about 5 - 10% original red in the letters and devices on each side, which has been given the BN designation just like another of my unc. Connecticut coins which is 100% B-R-O-W-N.

Somehow, someway, that ain't right.

coinguy89

<< <i>I have an unc. Connecticut Copper, circa 1787, with about 5 - 10% original red in the letters and devices on each side, which has been given the BN designation just like another of my unc. Connecticut coins which is 100% B-R-O-W-N.

Somehow, someway, that ain't right. >>



Well I can't see how a 1909-S V.D.B can get a MS-66 grade and be BN, to me BN is wear. That's why I don't believe in it, and if and when I collect early coppers I will not follow those listings and become victim to them. I don't really care if others think they're good, IMO, I don't like them, and will keep that mentality until changes are made. Maybe i'll make my own scale.

Gonfunko

<< <i>I have an unc. Connecticut Copper, circa 1787, with about 5 - 10% original red in the letters and devices on each side, which has been given the BN designation just like another of my unc. Connecticut coins which is 100% B-R-O-W-N.

Somehow, someway, that ain't right. >>



This is a prime example of the need for a Brown-Red designation.

mgoodm3

<< <i>I have an unc. Connecticut Copper, circa 1787, with about 5 - 10% original red in the letters and devices on each side, which has been given the BN designation just like another of my unc. Connecticut coins which is 100% B-R-O-W-N.

Somehow, someway, that ain't right. >>



Like any grade, you've got average and highend for grade. The Connecticut with some red would be a high-end coin by color. I have a RB proof IHC that is about 99% red. think about it in buying terms, you'll get it cheaper as a BN than as a RB.

LincolnCentMan

IMHO, both of the major grading services are more giving on the RD designation for the tougher early lincolns, than they would be for the 1934-1958 portion. I've often seen 64RD that I felt would go RB in the later dates. I've seen 65RD's that would have probably been 64RB if graded on the same standard as the late dates.

David

centmaster

<< <i>[Well I can't see how a 1909-S V.D.B can get a MS-66 grade and be BN, to me BN is wear. That's why I don't believe in it, and if and when I collect early coppers I will not follow those listings and become victim to them. I don't really care if others think they're good, IMO, I don't like them, and will keep that mentality until changes are made. Maybe i'll make my own scale. >>



NO, no, no. Brown color is aging, not wear. Following your logic, rainbow toned coins have wear, also. I know your comment was said partially with tongue in cheek, but I defy you to look at a glossy brown high grade large cent or early Lincoln and not say it's beautiful. Most lustrous brown copper used to be full red, but was stored in an environment that turned it brown.

shylock

The color designations for copper may be the most subjective aspect of grading when it comes to coins that are 10-20% brown or have 10-20% red remaining, especially when you consider the time a grader has to look at them. Just a few of the variables that make this designation so tough:

-Who can actually figure out the percentage with any degree of accuracy?
-What if all the red exists along the rims, which covers a lot of territory, but all the focal areas in the center are brown?
-Does woodgrain count as "brown" even though it was part of the coin's color when struck?
-What about burgandy toned coppers -- how deep can red tone before it crosses the line to brown?

It's hard to imagine any area of coin grading that relies more on gut feeling and could easily change from one submission to the next. I once asked this question in the Q & A forum when Rick Montgomery was the answer man. His answer left me just as confused, but confirmed it was a very subjective process based more on feeling than any written guidelines.

MrEureka

Do the BN, RB and RD designations for copper vary based on the coin type?

As far as I've noticed, no. Obviously, others disagree. I guess the guy to ask is HRH.

coinguy1

Andy, have you seen some of the "RB" Wreath, Liberty Capped and Draped Bust Large Cents that I made indirect reference to? To be fair, though, perhaps they "turned" in the holders.