Guess the grade on the 1872 Two cent piece....part one of a long story...more added

coinlieutenant

Edited to add story.

As some of you have seen on the bst board, I am helping my father put together one of the finest known mixed proof/mint 1872 sets.
This coin, he found and a the Santa Clara show in November. I was off doing whatever I do at shows, probably looking for deals, when he came up and told me that he found a very nice raw 1872 two cent piece. It was at a fellow dealers table that I knew to be a good honest guy. When my dad showed me the coin, I was very impressed at first glance. The coin was super original, red and brown, with good eye appeal. I graded the coin raw to be a MS64RB. The coins surfaces were very clean but as on most original copper, had a layer of oxidation that subdued the luster. The dealer was asking 2000$. Sheet was 1750$. For a key date business strike that was totally original to boot, I told him to buy it and that I would send it in to get graded for him at NGC.

The dealer he bought it from was a copper specialist and after I handed the check to him, I asked him what he graded the coin. He said he thought it was a MS64RB which made me feel better a bit. He is after all the specialist and while I feel like I can grade fairly well, I am still learning. Showed it to four other dealers just for an opinion as I was on the way to NGC's table. Every one of them, with no prior prodding from me, called the coin a MS64RB.

Anyway, saw the grades posted on the NGC dealer page a week ago...NGC called the coin a PF63 RB. Now, for those of you that know the series, a business strike is much rarer than a proof in UNC grades and the coin is worth only about 450$ on the sheet. Of course, I wasnt happy and felt that I was right about the attribution of the coin as a business strike. So I called Rick Montgomery at NGC and asked him to look at the coin himself. He kindly said that he would since it hadnt been mailed out yet.

He called me later that day and said that the coin exhibited characteristics of both proof and business strikes and that NGC had to go with the conservative estimate.
While still unhappy since I thought that certain characteristics made it obvious of its business strike status, (i.e. weak denticles on the right obverse and other areas, not a full strike, lack of doubling on the date) I can understand them covering their backs and being conservative. I was about to get off the phone when Rick told me something that I did not understand nor agree with. He said that if I sent it into NCS to be conserved that they would be able to better tell the coins attribution as the layer of oxidation prevented it. He also said that the coin would probably jump in grade to a 64...

Now...this at first peeved me something terrible. I have since come to terms that I cant do much by feeling sorry for myself (read: grading ego) or my dad.

So, my first question to you is:

1. Based on the crappy pictures you cant tell anything, but how do you view the coin. It is semi prooflike on the obverse.

2. How do you feel about the dilemma that my father is in now that there is a financial incentive to "conserve" an original key date piece of copper. In other words, what do you think about NCS providing the service that they do and the repercussions that it has upon the coin market.

3. You two cent experts out there, any idea on how I can find documentation that it is or isnt either business strike or proof definitively? I mentioned some of the attributes that I looked at above but NGC obviously needs more. Rick mentioned one attribute that I was not aware of. He said business strike coins have consdierable die striations. He said this one has some but not enough to be sure it is a proof.


Please note, this is not a rip on NGC, I am just trying to get to a solution to this problem. The dealer that I bought it from will buy it back for a bit less than my dad paid for it and if the attribution is proved wrong, perhaps all of it.

Thanks for the help.
V.r,
coinlieutenant

my3cents

obverse looks pretty nice but the reverse has either a very weak strike or some wear. I'd guess MS62 on the obverse and VF-40 on the reverse with a net of AU-53.

just my 3 cents

edited to add: it might say "cleaned", too if it's in an ANACS slab.

lordmarcovan

Looks like either a nice slider in the 55-58 range, or an MS62 RB. I'm not sure which.

Russ

MS63RB.

Russ, NCNE

coinlieutenant

for the night owls...

Coinhusker1

It appears the first two posters did not read your story, or you may have added it after they responded.

From the pic, it is hard to tell if it was a proof, given the toning and brownness of the coin. Also, the denticles do not appear to "pop" of sharpness like a typical Proof shows. (And that is my "not-a-2 cent expert" observation). From your story, sounds like NGC is doing a CYA on the grading guarantee.

Have you considered submitting to PCGS instead?

KurtHorn

I have an 1863 dime where I have the same type of situation. I have finally accepted mine as a proof. It is really hard to tell from your pics but,.. It does exhibit some of the needle sharp details found on proofs. I think you should crack it and send it to PCGS or ANACS. Good luck, that's one of those tweeners that can hurt.

-Kurt-

MrEureka

72's are tricky. Some of the restrike proofs look like striated PL uncs. Anyway, I'll try to get you a definitive answer on your coin...

nwcs

62rb is what I'm thinking

Conder101

Looks like a business strike to me, there are too many areas that are not fully struck up an the surfaes just don't look like a proof to me. What does the edge look like? This isn't a coppernickel coin and the bronze should have been soft enough to have form a sharp squared edge if it was a proof.

coinguy1

I would think that NGC should and would have the expertise to distinguish a Proof from a business-strike, even in the (often difficult) case of an 1872 Two Cent Piece.

Equally, if not more bothersome to me - it seems like a copout (and another example of the tail wagging the dog) that NGC recommended the coin be sent to NCS for conservation and in order that they be able to make the business-strike vs. Proof determination.

Two thumbs down.

JadeRareCoin

coinlieutenant and I have already discussed this coin in detail. Based on our last couple of conversations, I was leaning toward "proof". However, now that I get to see some pictures of the coin, I am leaning more towards "business strike".

There are numerous factors for that determination, but the "smoking gun" for me is the position of the date. Compare your coin's date with any 1872 proof Two Cent. It's just as Breen stated: the proof's date is very close to the ball. While your business strike's date appears to be close to the ball, it certainly seems a touch farther away than the proof. Also, the relative position of the other digits seems different.


....more later.

Dennis

JadeRareCoin

.....I also think that NGC was just being lazy on this submission. They took the easy road (at your expense).

EagleEye

The proof 1872 has a diagonal die line in the horizontal shield lines, it looks like a stair-step of lines. I believe it is on the entire proof production. The MS pieces usually have some die cracks (but not always). Also the edge is sharp on the proofs.

originalisbest

Whatever you do, do NOT let them "conserve" it.

Bleeeeeeeeeeeeeccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhh!

coinlieutenant

Any thoughts on NCS's copper. I agree that the coin could be a candidate for conservation, but I am loathe to do that on a coin where it is not necessary....

originalisbest

It does not really need it = LEAVE IT ALONE, to me.

If the coin in question has a big, festering, growing green spot on the center of the obverse - that's one thing.


Otherwise, leave it be.

As car guys would say - you can restore a car again, again, again and again.


But it's only original once.

coinguy1

John, why would you have the coin conserved by NCS?

So that NGC could then attribute it correctly? NGC should be able to do that anyway.
So that NGC could grade it accurately? NGC should also be able to do that anyway.

Your current situation is a perfect example of one of the things that disturbs me about the NGC/NCS connection. In far too many cases NGC is no longer doing its job independently from considerations associated with NCS business.

coinlieutenant

Mark,

Part of my question was playing devils advocate.

The other part is of course the grade game. I can understand why they called the coin a 63 if it is a proof. I told him that and said..."you surely wouldnt call it a 63 if it is a business strike would you?...the coin should be graded differently if it is a MS coin?"

He replied that it would still be a 63 either way...but that again NCS might help that.

My dad of course paid 64 money for it on my advice and wants it in a 64 holder...that is the other part of the question and why it at least has to be considered.

John

Russ

That coin sure looks like a business strike to me. Compare it to this example, which is graded as a business strike:





(Images courtesy Mike Printz)

Russ, NCNE

coinlieutenant

Russ,

I am holding the coin in hand and I am pretty sure that it is the same obverse die.

Problem is that some proofs were struck from the b.s. dies...

J

JadeRareCoin

Talk about coincidence:

I just picked up a client's 1872 Two Cent coin that is graded as NGC MS-64 RB (same grade as your coin). I will post images later. His coin has die cracks, which makes it easier to say "business strike", but there are similarities to your coin. Can you please post more images of your coin? How about a close-up of the date. I am not so sure that B.S. dies were also used on proofs for the 1872 2-Cent issue, after doing some digging....

TheLiberator

This is very interesting. Especially since I recently aquired a raw 1872 two center.

msch1man

I don't have near the knowledge of those who have already responded to the question of whether or not the coin is a proof or a business strike (so I don't have anything to add to that debate), but I find it pretty bothersome that sending the coin to NCS would make coin a 64..."the coin would probably jump in grade to a 64..." I also find it surprising that this would be openly admitted by NGC.

Interesting thread...please keep us posted with any further info. that definitively shows that it is a proof or a business strike.

Mark

BigE

John, I don't know too much about these either, but I do think it's great the selling dealer is working with you. I wonder what his feelings would be about conservation, you might own it if you do it. Maybe ask him if he will still work with you if you send it somewhere else. Good luck to you------------BigE

IrishMike

From Walter Breen:

1872 Business strike characteristics. Date slants down with the 2 nearer the border than 1. Obverse rim break at 8:30, reverse cracks at "UNIT" and from ribbon to final A.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JadeRareCoin

Obverse rim break at 8:30, reverse cracks at "UNIT" and from ribbon to final A.

Not all 1872 business strikes have die breaks. To further complicate matters, some business strike examples have P/L surfaces.

The position of the date is of real interest to me. Breen suggests in his book on proof issues that there were 2 reverse dies and 1 obverse die. I cannot find any documentation that states that the proof dies were used to strike business strike 1872 2 Cent coins, or vice versa. Looking at 1872 3 Cent Nickels, we now know that there were 17 working dies for the business strikes and 2 die pairs for the proof issues, and the proof dies were not used to produce business strikes.

I will post images after my next meeting....

JadeRareCoin

Just talked with Allan Gifford, the author of The Ultimate Guide to U.S. Three Cent Nickels. We were discussing minting procedures for the year of 1872. The proofs were struck on a screw press, whereas the business strikes were struck on a hydraulic press. The difference in pressure and strike quality between the screw press and hydraulic presses is obviously distinguishable.

What's my point? Well, I think that the soft strike of coinlieutenant's 1872 is further evidence that his coin is a business strike.

I am guessing that NGC was "spooked" by the lack of die breaks on cl's 1872 2 Cent Piece.

Dennis

Russ

<< <i>Breen suggests in his book on proof issues that there were 2 reverse dies and 1 obverse die. >>



Do either of the proof reverse dies have an incomplete D as is the case with coinlieutenant's coin?

Edit: Just answered my own question. The proof reverse dies do have an incompete D.

Russ, NCNE

JadeRareCoin

Do either of the proof reverse dies have an incomplete D as is the case with coinlieutenant's coin?

The broken "D" is on both the proof and business strike dies, as they were produced from the same master die.

IrishMike

<< <i>Obverse rim break at 8:30, reverse cracks at "UNIT" and from ribbon to final A.

Not all 1872 business strikes have die breaks. To further complicate matters, some business strike examples have P/L surfaces.

The position of the date is of real interest to me. Breen suggests in his book on proof issues that there were 2 reverse dies and 1 obverse die. I cannot find any documentation that states that the proof dies were used to strike business strike 1872 2 Cent coins, or vice versa. Looking at 1872 3 Cent Nickels, we now know that there were 17 working dies for the business strikes and 2 die pairs for the proof issues, and the proof dies were not used to produce business strikes.

I will post images after my next meeting.... >>



Sorry if I left you with the wrong impression that all of them have die cracks or breaks, but what Breen says I believe is that at least one of the varieties does and I posted this info so cl could check.

JadeRareCoin

Sorry if I left you with the wrong impression that all of them have die cracks or breaks, but what Breen says I believe is that at least one of the varieties does and I posted this info so cl could check.

Mike, no problem. I know that Breen can be vague at times, but at least he gives us pieces to the puzzle. I am glad that you posted that information, as I had not yet checked Breen's Encyclopedia.

If coinlieutenant's coin had die breaks, then it would be in an MS holder right now. Here are 2 more pieces to the puzzle, imho: his coin is semi-prooflike on the obverse and does not have any die cracks. To me, that suggests an early strike from a fresh set of working dies.

EagleEye

There is also a doubled die obverse, doubling on the motto mostly. The Doubled die is certianly MS.

Also:
The coin that Russ posted looks like the same die as the coin in question.

BigE

Coinlieuteneant, I have a question. If all the experts here said the coin was a MS 64RB, but the grading companies would not certify it that way, would you keep it?-------------------BigE

coinlieutenant

Guys,

Thank you so much for all of the leg work. I just got done with graduation and am running around like an idiot trying to get things tied up.

I will post better pics later on today. And will try and answer some of your questions specifically,

VR,
John

coinlieutenant

Eric,

To answer your questions, I wont be keeping anything, it is my father's coin and he will have to make the call about the grade/ NCS...all of that stuff.

I am just trying to give him the most options.

Russ,

As far as an incomplete "D", I dont see it. Also, I will add that while my coin isnt fully struck, the pictures make it look weaker than it appears.

John

JadeRareCoin

As far as an incomplete "D", I dont see it.

It's the "D" in "UNITED".

Russ

<< <i>As far as an incomplete "D", I dont see it.

It's the "D" in "UNITED". >>



No tail on the top. Lot's of Two Centers have that characteristic.

Russ, NCNE

coinlieutenant

I see it now that I am at home in better light.

It looks like the same reverse die as well then...

MrEureka

Passing this along from the ultimate specialist:

It looks like a die chip under the G of GOD. This happens on the late state of the MK 3E Proof. If present then the piece is a Novodel Proof.

My personal opinion with respect to 72's is that if the coin has any proof tendencies, then it is a proof. BTW, five years ago, I believed otherwise. Gotta learn something every now and then.

CoinFarmer

Hello All, This is Art, John's Dad and owner of the INFAMOUS 2 Cent piece. Didn't have any idea that this would cause such a controversy. All of your comments, conjectures and opinions have been very interesting, but today in the coin collecting business...we are at the mercy of the grading companies. Being an older collector I remember when they weren't even in the picture. I know they have had their beneficial side but they make many errors and misjudgements just like in the "old"days. We all know about resubmissions and the same coin getting graded higher and lower or even rejected for problems that were "missed" in some other submission. The problem here lies in the fact that it was sold as a MS and may be a proof and the grading company cant decide what it is unless it is "cleaned". Well, I will never allow that....too many good coins have ended up very bad after a "cleaning". I still have not decided about keeping it but with as much publicity that it is getting....it's already got a pedigree. Thanks for all your input and hope all of you will be around if there is a similar problem in the future.

IrishMike

<< <i>Passing this along from the ultimate specialist:

It looks like a die chip under the G of GOD. This happens on the late state of the MK 3E Proof. If present then the piece is a Novodel Proof.

My personal opinion with respect to 72's is that if the coin has any proof tendencies, then it is a proof. BTW, five years ago, I believed otherwise. Gotta learn something every now and then. >>



Wow someone knows their stuff, one of the best things about these boards. Sure looks like a die chip.

coinlieutenant

Andy,

I just louped the coin and there is no die chip under G of GOD.

John

JadeRareCoin

Business strike.

Edited to say: more images available?

kieferscoins

<< <i>The problem here lies in the fact that it was sold as a MS and may be a proof and the grading company cant decide what it is unless it is "cleaned". Well, I will never allow that....too many good coins have ended up very bad after a "cleaning". >>



Are you referring to the old days or experience with NCS? Its totally different with them compared to the old days where each dealer did their own work. NCS will pay for your coin if they screw it up.

Cameron Kiefer

BigE

Yeah, but pay you for a proof or MS?------BigE

tradedollarnut

NCS will pay for your coin if they screw it up.

Really? I think what you mean to say is that if you pay an additional 'insurance' premium then NGC will holder the coin at the current guaranteed grade or pay the difference. However, this doesn't prevent financial loss from selling the guaranteed holder you get back with an ugly coin in it. And, just as important, in this instance the guaranteed grade is no more than PR63RB. So the guaranty is no more than a few hundred dollars at best [ie: the difference in value between PR63RB and PR60BR or so].

coinguy1

John, why not post this on the NGC forum?

JadeRareCoin

NCS will pay for your coin if they screw it up.

Unfortunately, whether a coin is "screwed up" or not is just a matter of opinion. Although you may feel that NCS botched a coin, they may say "hey, looks much better to us". Big gray area, imho.

goose3

Cameron

the way I interpret his comments are that he is not going to let NCS molest an original coin and would prefer to have it remain original.

coinlieutenant

Yes,

I think that is what my dad is saying. He doesnt want to have it "conserved" although I am not sure that it isnt a good candidate for it.

I am still working on the pictures. Very busy here.

John