A perfect example of how a high grade expensive proof can become a dog after it's holdered (large im
Russ
Posts: 48,514 ✭✭✭
This coin is listed in the Heritage auction and is graded PR69DCAM:
Growing those ugly milk spots after removal from the proof set packaging is an all too common problem on these, and one that I've suffered myself. When the coin goes in for grading, it's pristine and beautiful. A few months to a year later, and it has grown ugly spots.
This is why I now give a quick light dip to every proof before submittal to remove any latent surface contaminants and stabilize the surfaces. None of those that have been stabilized first have ever developed spotting.
Russ, NCNE
Growing those ugly milk spots after removal from the proof set packaging is an all too common problem on these, and one that I've suffered myself. When the coin goes in for grading, it's pristine and beautiful. A few months to a year later, and it has grown ugly spots.
This is why I now give a quick light dip to every proof before submittal to remove any latent surface contaminants and stabilize the surfaces. None of those that have been stabilized first have ever developed spotting.
Russ, NCNE
0
Comments
What do you use for the dip?
<< <i>What do you use for the dip? >>
eZest and neutralize with 99% isopropyl alcohol.
Russ, NCNE
That's one that PCGS should buy back (and redip and resell).
<< <i>(and redip and resell). >>
It wouldn't be a "re-dip". If it had been dipped before, the spots would not be there. Now it's too late. They will not come off with a dip.
Russ, NCNE
I have no experience with this stuff. Is there any conservation technique to return this coin to its 69DCAM state? Or will the coin end up on DH's desk next to a 63 Lincoln cent?
Agree with myqqy (fellow Steelers fan). It makes a good argument for buying older holder coins (modern and classic).
<< <i>Is there any conservation technique to return this coin to its 69DCAM state? >>
There is none that I know of that will completely remove this type of problem, known as milk spotting. I've had some success with NCS reducing them, but even they seem unable to completely remove them.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>How will it affect the value now that it's developing the milk spots. Or is it still going to sell at full value. >>
Normal value range on these is $1200 to $1500. Last year, there was a spotted one listed on eBay and I said I thought it would bring around $800 or so. I wasn't even close. It brought over $1500.
In the case of this coin, it's reserved at $2000. Unless some nut comes along, I don't think it will sell. BUT, the force has been strong in pop top early date proof Kennedys lately, so who knows?
Russ, NCNE
To what do you attribute this, Russ?
Someone buying the holder, not the coin?
Someone who is only concerned about registry standing?
Someone who does not see/understand the spotting?
Clearly, at the very best, the coin with spots is low-end for the grade.
<< <i>Normal value range on these is $1200 to $1500. Last year, there was a spotted one listed on eBay and I said I thought it would bring around $800 or so. I wasn't even close. It brought over $1500.
To what do you attribute this, Russ? >>
Mercury rising in conjunction with Venus precipitating a state of cognitive dissonance in the bidders.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Mercury rising in conjunction with Venus precipitating a state of cognitive dissonance in the bidders. >>
Hmmm...
I'm lost.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
This coin used to be a PCGS PR 69 DCAM. I bought it sight unseen. Thankfully PCGS stood by their guarantee. This coin has the largest downgrade pointwise I've received.
al h.
<< <i>i don't think what you're seeing is milkspots, they don't develop over time >>
They are, and they certainly do.
Russ, NCNE
al h.
Your instinct is correct. Somebody might hurt themselves with that coin. Who knows why. Even though it's in plastic, it isn't invisible. Russ only put up one coin, but it's really not difficult to find tons listed that have turned in everyone's holder, sometimes due to a bad dip, and sometimes from natural causes. I suppose the grade guaranty affords some protection, but I'd only buy that coin if I stole it and intended on gambling with NCS.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
My understanding with franklins is that the spotting is probably the result of the washing formula the mint used on the plachets- I would think the same would hold true for 64 kennedys??
This coin used to be a PCGS PR 69 DCAM. I bought it sight unseen. Thankfully PCGS stood by their guarantee. This coin has the largest downgrade pointwise I've received
Carl- what was the grade given after it downgraded?
al h.
That Lincoln is now a PR RD 65 DCAM. It is a shame as the cameo contrast is superb.
<< <i>Would there be any indication that these surfaces may have the likelihood of changing before the coin is removed from the original proof container? >>
Unfortunately, no. Usually, if it's going to happen the milk-spotting has already developed while the coins are still in the packaging and it'll be obvious before you open the celo. But, there are some that look just fine and then after a period of time of being out of the packaging begin to develop the spots from the contaminants on the planchet (mint planchet rinse) that had laid dormant over the years.
Here's another example:
That coin was spot-free PR67CAM when submitted. A year later, that's what it looked like. The spots are exactly of the type and nature frequently found on these before removal from the packaging. I really don't know or understand the underlying chemistry involved; I only know from personal experience that this happens.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>This is why I now give a quick light dip to every proof before submittal to remove any latent surface contaminants and stabilize the surfaces. None of those that have been stabilized first have ever developed spotting. >>
My thoughts as well.
That coin was spot-free and graded PR67 when submitted. A few months later, that's what it looked like.
Russ, NCNE
HRH mentioned this issue either at a luncheon or in a response to a question, either at the Q&A or when he used to drop in here from time to time. it's also been discussed along with the fingerprint issues. though the last coin may have been spot free when submitted, breathing on it would cause condensation or minute water droplets to be deposited on the surface. it might be the submitter and it might be someone at PCGS-----similar to the fingerprint issue. either way, it seems more logical for that to happen and cause the spotting than for a coin to have the possibility of forming Milk Spots from the residue of the Mint planchet rinse after 50+ years in a Mint Cello and only doing so when it's removed.
al h.
<< <i>If your not giving away any trade secrets- How quick do you dip the coin for? >>
If all I'm doing is surface stabilization, no more than five seconds.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>HRH mentioned this issue either at a luncheon or in a response to a question, either at the Q&A or when he used to drop in here from time to time. it's also been discussed along with the fingerprint issues. though the last coin may have been spot free when submitted, breathing on it would cause condensation or minute water droplets to be deposited on the surface. it might be the submitter and it might be someone at PCGS-----similar to the fingerprint issue. either way, it seems more logical for that to happen and cause the spotting than for a coin to have the possibility of forming Milk Spots from the residue of the Mint planchet rinse after 50+ years in a Mint Cello and only doing so when it's removed. >>
It may seem more logical, and it may actually happen. But, it has NEVER happened with any coin I've dipped in advance; only with coins that were not dipped. It has also happened with coins I set aside and never submitted. There is no question in my mind that the problem on the coins I posted is a result of latent contaminants from the mint.
Russ, NCNE
The reason that some develop in the cello and some after is due to the celo itself. A little bit of rub can create minute holes in the cello which can allow enough water vapor/humidity to enter into the package and turn the spots white (not saying this is the same reaction as the fingerprints). The ones that don't turn until after they are removed are probably in better packaging and the coin is not introduced to the environmental conditions to create the spots.
For those who may think I am making any of this up, I worked in a crime lab for a couple of years early on in my career and now sell equipment that tests water vapor permeation through packaging materials like cellophane. For the record, I am not saying this is 100% sure this is why this happens sometimes and not others, but it does make a lot of sense.
milk spots are a strike through of the unremoved rinse residue and actually a part of the coins surface and can't be removed, i think we can agree on that, right?? i recall some members submitting coins to NCS with Milk Spots and the spots were minimized but not removed, leaving an easily visible "shadow" where the spot had been.
i would suggest that the coins you claim to have dipped with no later ocurrence of spots never had them to begin with. they couldn't have been removed without leaving some evidence of having been there, unless you have a technique which is past what NCS knows about.
al h.
<< <i>The superglue that was used to assemble the lenses reacted with the proteins and chemicals in the fingerprint and formed a hard white substance >>
This makes me wonder if slabs are sealed with superglue.
With the fingerprint residue idea, the fingerprint can be removed if it hasn't reacted with the superglue, but once it has reacted, it becomes more difficult to remove. In fact, they frequently develop the prints with the superglue and then dust. They can do a couple of lifts of the fingerprint. Sometimes the later lifts are clearer than the first. If they didn't use the superglue, they would only get one maybe two lifts which is not as good.
In the case of these coins, could it be possible that Russ' stabilization is rinsing the mint's rinse agent before it has time to react with the environmental conditions? Is it possible that NCS cannot remove the already reacted residue as it may be more stable as in the case of the fingerprints? These questions are not to be snotty or retorical. I have absolutely no experience with these spots.
Edited in order to apply the English language.