Did NGC screw the pooch on this one?

coinpictures · January 6, 2006 10:08AM

Not a coin I'm really interested in, but it struck me as odd.

From NEN's web site, this is a New Zealand 3d, 1942. NGC MS67. While the toning is nice, how can a coin make 67 with an obverse that fugly? You've got a huge bagmark/gouge on the cheek, the lustre break along the chinline, something going on due south of the second "E" in George, and what appear to be remnants of a fingerprint at 5:30.

Granted, it's a cheap coin, but still...

ajaan · January 6, 2006 10:14AM

I be the coin is nicer in person. That said, no way is it a MS67 if that scratch is on the cheek, and it looks like it is.

wybrit · January 6, 2006 10:16AM

Perhaps the scratch is on the holder? I just sold an 1839 penny that looked like it was covered with scratches, but they were mostly on the slab.

Otherwise, there is no way a 67 is merited.

21Walker · January 6, 2006 10:20AM

I'm with you coinpicture unless the obverse scratch is on the holder.......hard to tell from a pic much more from a pic in the holder................Rick

Aethelred · January 6, 2006 10:25AM

The problem along the chin-line looks like softness in strike to me. I am not sure what that is just below the second "E" but it could be on the holder, ling or just an unusual break in the toning. The area below the bust might not be a fingerprint, it could just be another break in the toning.

All of that said, the bagmark on the king's cheek is clearly on the coin and there is no way such a small coin with such a large mark could grade 67! There is also what looks like a bagmark just above the "1" in the date. NGC screwed up!

JamminJ · January 6, 2006 11:02AM

The mark on the cheek may be a strike-through which won't lower the grade.

wybrit · January 6, 2006 11:42AM

I'll have to disagree with some of my esteemed colleagues on this one. The image of the coin itself is out of focus in the picture, but the "scratch" almost appears to be in focus. Methinks the holder itself is the focal plane and thus the scratch is on the holder.

It could also be a digital artifact. Occasionally I have had these show up in my pictures at the most awkward times where a defacing mark truly is not there, either on the holder or the coin.

If NEN is watching this thread, perhaps when can get the real story.

The mark on the cheek may be a strike-through which won't lower the grade.

Interesting. I need an education on the concept of "strikethrough." It appears for a different reason than does a bagmark, but why is the result considered to be different in the end? It is still a detraction.

JamminJ · January 6, 2006 12:25PM

<< <i>Interesting. I need an education on the concept of "strikethrough." It appears for a different reason than does a bagmark, but why is the result considered to be different in the end? It is still a detraction.

>>

A strikethrough is when something gets between the die and planchet during the striking process. When that thing is a bit of thread, espacially thicks ones from canvas/burlap sacks, it often looks like a scratch. The way to tell is a scratch will have raised metal on at least one side or end while a strike through will not. As with most photos you can't really tell which it is.

Since strikethroughs are mint made and not post strike damage they usually do not affect the grade.

wybrit · January 6, 2006 12:27PM

Thanks!

ManyQs · January 6, 2006 12:35PM

<< <i>The mark on the cheek may be a strike-through which won't lower the grade. >>

Ah, come on folks. This one is easy. No problem with that "mark" on the cheek. Because there's a matching mark on the other cheek.

Did NGC screw the pooch on this one?

Comments