A Little More Eye Candy From TOREX - The Result

bosox · November 17, 2005 10:16AM

The answer was no.

PCGS has deemed this not worthy of a 65 red. I sent it in the ICCS holder and specified the minimum grade as 65 Red. I now have three ICCS coins in 65 Red (1859 N9, 1891 LDLL, and 1894), all tough dates, all better than the coins in my registry set, all deemed unworthy by PCGS.

My Original Post:

But will it cross? Yes, or No?

A little bit of a weak obverse strike and some tiny hits on the reverse. The faint white lines and the white specks are on the holder. The couple of tiny black flecks are on the coin.

ajaan · November 17, 2005 10:19AM

I think it will cross if sent in the ICCS holder. Probably will even make the RD designation.

Nice coin. Are you my partner for the Christmas swap?

wybrit · November 17, 2005 10:25AM

spinaker2000 · November 17, 2005 11:04AM

Nice, even if it is red!

1960NYGiants · November 17, 2005 12:08PM

Oh man, you've got me slobberin' all over my keyboard again.

I still think you're my long lost uncle!!!!!

I think it will cross.

Gene

MacCrimmon · November 17, 2005 12:12PM

IMO, no legit reason that it should not cross as a 65RD.

Very nice bronze and nice image too.

bosox · November 17, 2005 12:58PM

Okay guys. If I tell you that the PCGS pop is 1 in 65 red and 1 in 66 red, does it still cross?

MacCrimmon · November 17, 2005 1:18PM

<< Okay guys. If I tell you that the PCGS pop is 1 in 65 red and 1 in 66 red, does it still cross? >>

The only notable speck is by the "C" in Victoria; maybe 2-3 microspecks on the lower neck, and another 3-4 in the field in front of the face.

If the cheek doesn't have much in the way of any hairlines, then I still say 65. It looks full red....is the image true color?

The weakness is only very slight.....still a 65.

Do you have either of the other two......we should really make PCGS do side-by-sides when things might be very close.

bosox · November 17, 2005 1:26PM

Accurate on the specks.

No hairlines. True color.

The curl over the ear normally has two struck hairlines in it. Missing with the weak strike.

I'm just fussing because PCGS has been very tough on 65 reds lately.

My best other one is 64 RB. Click the link in my sigline to see it.

docday2003 · November 17, 2005 1:29PM

very nice.

bosox · November 17, 2005 1:34PM

Thanks, Doc. Did you ever find that '32 nickel upgrade?

MacCrimmon · November 17, 2005 1:36PM

<< I'm just fussing because PCGS has been very tough on 65 reds lately. >>

I know what you're saying, I really do.

They just went 65RD on one of my farthings, and there is no way it's not a 66, even with two spots (where's GCL when you need him?)......it's a shame the PCGS graders don't have our collective expertise.

I also find it incredible that your Canadian beauties seem to be quite devoid of spots. I can find Swiss bronzes which are spot-free, but the larger British bronzes (pre-1889) seem to be very problematic in this area......maybe I just haven't been lucky enough yet!!

bosox · November 17, 2005 1:41PM

Regarding spots, it depends upon the date. Some pristeen examples can be found, for the right money, of certain dates. Try finding a 1859 W9/8, a 1859 DP1, a 1859 DP2, or a 1900 (no H) in a spot free 65. BTW Doc has a DP2 in 65 RB that I'd really like to see.

ajaan · November 17, 2005 8:33PM

Still think it will cross at MS65 RD

docday2003 · November 18, 2005 8:36AM

<< Thanks, Doc. Did you ever find that '32 nickel upgrade? >>

Yes, I have a nice one, but need to send it to PCGS to get it officially graded. Thanks for remembering

docday2003 · November 18, 2005 8:37AM

<< Regarding spots, it depends upon the date. Some pristeen examples can be found, for the right money, of certain dates. Try finding a 1859 W9/8, a 1859 DP1, a 1859 DP2, or a 1900 (no H) in a spot free 65. BTW Doc has a DP2 in 65 RB that I'd really like to see.

>>

I really do need to get a scanner!

bosox · January 2, 2006 11:22AM

TTT

coinpictures · January 2, 2006 11:25AM

PCGS doesn't consider that red? I betcha they would grade lightside like that red all day long... it's antidarkside bias, I tell ya!

Suckage.

docday2003 · January 3, 2006 7:38AM

did they specify what grade they thought it was? ie 64 RD or what?

Clankeye · January 3, 2006 7:45AM

<< did they specify what grade they thought it was? ie 64 RD or what? >>

I don't think they do that. You pretty much get DNC (did not cross).

1jester · January 3, 2006 8:06AM

PIGS doesn't know how to grade, plain and simple.

1960NYGiants · January 3, 2006 12:01PM

I can't believe that didn't cross. Bummer.

Time for a Presidential review or maybe Ron Guth?

Gene

oreville · January 3, 2006 2:33PM

Amazing your 1859 did not cross!

This 1920 cent was graded by PCGS as MS-66RD!!

docday2003 · January 3, 2006 3:13PM

I once sent in a ICCS 5¢ silver in MS67, which DNC. I emailed them, and asked what the grade was that they had assigned it. They responded with the grade of MS66. Maybe I got lucky, but when I asked, they answered.

SYRACUSIAN · January 3, 2006 4:46PM

The answer was no. PCGS has deemed this not worthy of a 65 red. I sent it in the ICCS holder and specified the minimum grade as 65 Red. I now have three ICCS coins in 65 Red (1859 N9, 1891 LDLL, and 1894), all tough dates, all better than the coins in my registry set, all deemed unworthy by PCGS.

I'm with Gene on this, a Presidential Review and Ron Guth are the only way to go.

This is not a so and so case, this coin is 99.99 red and should be the highlight of your registry set, not excluded from it.

coinpictures · January 3, 2006 11:36PM

The only thing I can think of (unless I misread): is it possible that they are saying it will not cross NOT due to the RD vs. RB but rather 64 vs. 65, i.e., they would grade it as 64RD? I had been assuming it was due to a 65RD vs 65RB, not 65RD vs. 64RD...

docday2003 · January 4, 2006 12:28AM

<< The only thing I can think of (unless I misread): is it possible that they are saying it will not cross NOT due to the RD vs. RB but rather 64 vs. 65, i.e., they would grade it as 64RD? I had been assuming it was due to a 65RD vs 65RB, not 65RD vs. 64RD... >>

that's what I think is happening

bosox · January 4, 2006 9:30AM

I sent an e-mail asking how they graded it (beyond DNC). HRH asked his staff to try to find out and let me know, which was nice of him. It would be nice to understand where they were coming from on this one.

ajaan · January 4, 2006 9:38AM

Rob, was the coin imaged in the ICCS flip?

bosox · January 4, 2006 9:39AM

Yes.

ajaan · January 4, 2006 9:46AM

The faint scratches on the reverse are probably on the flip then.

bosox · January 4, 2006 9:55AM

Don - The faint white lines and the white dust specks are on the flip. As I said originally, a slightly weak strike and a few very small marks in the reverse letters (so small they don't show on the photo) are the only things I can say against this coin. - Rob

ajaan · January 4, 2006 9:56AM

PCGS screwed you on that coin. No doubt MS65 RD IMO.

bosox · January 4, 2006 10:02AM

IMO it fell victim to two things:

1. The recent trend by PCGS to be very hard on high grade Canadian.
2. Their bias against ICCS holdered coins. (ICCS has a similar bias against PCGS graded coins IMO).

I didn't (and don't) have the cajones to cut it out and submit it.

ajaan · January 4, 2006 10:11AM

I was going to say, submitted raw I bet it gets MS65 RD. But it is a risk. Nice coin either way.

A Little More Eye Candy From TOREX - The Result

Comments