Reviving old topic on Lincolns -- The difference between Red/Brown and Red with Color

DMWJR

About a year ago, we had a good debate about colorful toning yielding a R/B designation. I just ran across this coin for sale on the Heritage site:

1910 Proof Lincoln PCGS RED

It's a new holder and the coin has a LOT of toning, but it is in a RED holder. By the way they want a premium for it too!

clackamas

If the color is red (not the original color but toned red) then many times PCGS will give the RD designation. I would call that coin RB from the pic. This is such a judgement call its tough to put into a set definition.

michael

looks like a liner 65++/66 to me with the carbon on the reverse also a liner red coin too


it is a really intreging coin it is better than proof 65 but not a proof 66 and the color is well better than red brown but not red either

i guess a compromise would be proof 65 red


michael

RBinTex

"RB" all day long.

TimListon

Doug you know how I feel about the subject. I have a number of very colorful matte proofs that don't have any "brown" on them, just color. Check out my 1916 sitting in a 66RB holder, my coin is obviously redder than the 1910 you uncovered. My 1915, PCGS didn't know what to do with it, it is almost all deep blue on the obverse and as lustrous as matte proofs get, they gave it a 67BN (brown!). Beautiful coin. I'm hoping by 2009 my matte proof sets get the respect they deserve, my oldest daughter starts college the following year......

DMWJR

Michael, I agree with you.

Tim, you are the primary reason I posted this thread.

I have another question. If I have a coin that has "turned" in the holder, will PCGS reholder it in the same grade? I wondered if this coin had been in an older holder, toned deeper, and then somebody reholdered it. Would PCGS say "hold on a minute, we can't put that coin back in a 66red holder?"

TimListon

Michael is right, the 1910 is RB, I have seen many cents (matte and otherwise) with more red than that, sitting in RB holders. And the specks on the back, too numerous and too sizeable to warrant the 66, in my opinion. You're left with 65RB (albeit PQ), a $600 coin. Little wonder it's still for sale although somebody will probably spring for that holder someday (and probably pass me in the registry with it).

Doug I don't have a clue what PCGS would do if presented such a coin in an old holder, to be reholdered. And I'm not sure why anyone owning such a coin, overgraded in an old holder, would want it reholdered in the same grade, except perhaps to avoid the perception that the coin is in fact overgraded and obviously "trapped" in the old holder. That makes me think PCGS should just refuse to reholder it at the same grade. But if they do that, are they liable for the initial grading "error"?

In my opinion it is more likely that the specks appeared after being holdered, than the coin darkened after holdering. Carbon specks seem a more likely outcome of the handling than darkening, and copper is so touchy. But who knows. Not me. You and I have both seem some pretty spotty coins in PCGS and NGC holders at auction over the last couple years, coins that seemingly must have turned in the holder.

DMWJR

The reason I am so curious is that the toning looks like it would have taken a long time to occur naturally like that (and it is natural). Therefore the person who holdered it at PCGS had to be looking at a Lincoln with significant toning, even if it turned even more after it was put in the blue holder.

I'm just trying to figure it out before I throw in the towel and say that this was just a mistake which does happen at PCGS from time to time.

My best guess is that you could find a true 66red right now for about $3k. This one is certainly not a $4k coin, but I would be glad to pay $600 for it!!!

MoneyLA

Unfortunately for color coin enthusiasts, Lincolns have the extra burden of meeting a "red" or "red brown" or suffering a "brown"designation.

Silver coins don't have that "burden" and are either nicely, colorfully toned or not.

The problem for Lincoln and other copper collectors is in the "definition of grades." With wide interest in color toning, perhaps a new category of CT (color toned) should be added to RD/RB/BN designations?

cheers, alan mendelson

shylock

The same coin looks a little more red in a previous auction and the lighter image shows a lot more problems on the reverse. Heritage's "full slab" pics of copper can be very dark but that one sure looks RB.

DMWJR

It is really amazing how different the coin looks in those pics.

merz2

Doug
I have to agree with everyone.That coin if sent in now would be given RB.As to grade,I'm of the opinion PCGS would downgrade it because of the spots.

jacktheknife

The discussion about red vs. red-brown is great. However, to even discuss this issue as it pertains to a particular coin based on a Heritage image is fruitless. I am in disbelief as to how and why they continue to post these images.

Jack

dpoole

That, gentlemen, is Red/Brown...and very pretty.

Have we really had this discussion before?

DMWJR

Well, we have had a very thorough discussion on RB/color designations on copper in the last two years. This coin just sort of revived the topic to me.

I agree with you on the pictures. Which picture accurately portrays the coin? I have no idea. Mark Feld had a snappy post on the coin forum recently showing the problems with reading too much into internet pictures.

Dave MS68 had a really cool 1940 PR67 with awesome color on it earlier this year. It was in a RED holder also.

I wish I knew where the line was that pushed a "red w/color" over into a "red/brown" designation.

I think Tim has the right approach dollar wise. A "red w/color" in a RB holder is much cheaper than a "red w/color" in a RED holder, and much prettier in most cases.

I still like RED though.

TimListon

If I had bought RD mattes ten years ago I'd be liking them too. RDs have increased in value a lot more spectacularly than my RBs in that time period. For someone assembling a set today, on a budget, the RBs are beautiful and affordable. Really nice RB matte proofs are just as attractive as RDs I think. But I do hope (selfishly) that they become less affordable. I think they are headed higher, you don't see many 65RB or 66RB matte proof cents being offered at today's prices. Thanks Doug for firing up the thread. I'm probably the poster child for RB matte proof cents.

merz2

Tim
I would agree with you.You are definitely the poster child for RB's.

TomB

It's hard to believe that those are images of the same coin, however, it is obvious that they are. My opinion is that the coin did not turn in the holder and that those flyspecks on the reverse look as though they have been there a long time.

The color designations for copper are the worst qualifiers in all of TPG grading as far as I am concerned. They also appear to be the least consistent as the services play fast-and-loose with color. I am delighted that there is such a strong following for RD coins because I know that there will be folks who buy spotted, streaky, low-end coins for big money simply because someone else (PCGS or NGC) tells them the coin is desireable. These folks have no business buying up superb, fresh and wonderfully toned matte proofs.

Tim, I will have to check out the image of your 1916, but your 1915 sounds like my 1912. The 1912 is slabbed as PCGS PF65BN but is likely a PF66 and is definitely not BN; it is purple and blue. Here is a compressed image of my 1912.

DMWJR

Tom, that is one cool coin, but I think it is brown all day long -- not because of the color -- but because of the surface of the copper under the color.

How about this one for comparison. It may not delight Tim to know that it is in a 67 RED holder. I know it is not an MPL, but it is a Proof Lincoln, and the same arguement can be made in the 36-42 series (and later if you care to carry it on out).

Typetone

This one got a RD.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/oldattachments/1910lincolnpr.jpg">

TimListon

Hey nice pictures fellas! My biggest frustration is that I don't have decent photos of my matte proof sets, especially the colorful stuff. I'd pay to have someone take nice pictures of the sets. Takers?

Doug I have no problem with your 1940 in a red holder. To me, if the underlying surfaces are not "disturbed" by the toning, it's red. Or at least it's NOT red-brown. Lincoln business strikes as you know have a cartwheel luster like other business struck denominations (say a Walking Liberty Half). With the silver, you can get a "tint" if you will of color but the full cartwheel is undisturbed. So no reduction in grade or in value. In fact, perhaps an increase in value. But the Lincolns, you put the same "tint" on one and bingo, red-brown, and the value is cut at least 50%. But that tint (sometimes colorful) is a LOT different than the red-brown designation you would get if the cent were more heavily oxidized and had at least some surfaces that are fully oxidized. A 65 brown business struck Lincoln is one that is absolutely uncirculated but probably does not display a cartwheel, way too oxidized for that. A nice 65 red-brown business stuck Lincoln still has a full cartwheel. We all know the difference. Silver doesn't really get "fully oxidized" the way copper does I guess.

Now the matte proof cents don't have nearly the same cartwheel effect. I'm no expert but my guess is that the coruscation imparted by the first strike of the matte proof is removed by the second strike. The second strike makes the cent look just like the die (so no flow lines, etc.), some dies were pretty granular, so the cartwheel is just not there, at least not nearly as fully as you see on a business strike. But with the matte proof cents, you can still easily see when the surfaces are not really disturbed by the toning, the surfaces still glisten. When that's the case, that's when I object to the red-brown designation (and the reduction in value). What you are saying about Tom's coin I think is that the surfaces might not just be tinted, but in fact may be more heavily oxidized than that, and that the original surfaces are not really visible. It's hard to tell from the picture. I've sold a couple matte proof "seconds" (actually "thirds" in my case) on eBay and what I have always tried to is take a picture that shows the glistening surfaces, so that the buyer knows the coin is probably pretty attractive.

I'd probably give Tom's coin the benefit of the doubt. That color was often imparted by the sulphur in those original envelopes. But did it get so heavy that the original surfaces are largely obscured? Then it's brown.

So there you have it, my diatribe in full. I know, you still like RED.

TomB

My comment as to my 1912 not being BN was made in jest as it really could not be anything but BN using the current designations. The real intent in showing it was to show that a superbly toned coin in BN is often overlooked by those who collect by color designation, even though a coin designated RD need not truly be red.

The image also is a bit darker than the coin in-hand, and the coin has a very nice glistening effect on its surfaces. It is definitely not burnt.

sliderider

It's possible the coin may have been brighter at some point but darkened in the holder a bit. Slabs aren't air tight, so contaminants can still get in and cause coins to change color. If it really gets bad, I'd have to go for a grade guarantee on something like that. It doesn't matter so much with early copper, because of them are dark brown to black anyway, but for moderns to be dark, is not as acceptable.

DMWJR

I agree with you Tom. I think your coin is beautiful. It also illustrates a nice brown coin with color. The 1940 (which is not my coin) shows a nice red coin with color. The 1910 first shown should probably be red/brown with color if the first photo is accurate. The second photo of the same coin might make me retract that statement and agree with the red designation on the holder. That's the best I can say without seeing it in hand.

At best, this is an inconsistent issue with the TPG's. Tim stated my point much more eloquently and precise than I did. I think it could form the basis for proper designation. There is a difference between a brown w/color and a red w/color.

As Tim stated, the oxidation of the coin goes more to red vs. brown designation, and has nothing to do with "color."

michael

tomb

your colored gem matte proof lincoln is superb


michael