Are these two 71 CC $1's the same coin ??
CarsonCityGold
Posts: 1,856 ✭
A fellow board member pointed out these 2 coins to me. Do you think they are the same coin? Sorry, I don't know how to post the images here in the thread and had to link them.
71CC $1 sold in July 2005 Heritage ANACS - Tooled, Cleaned
71CC $1 in current ANR Auction PCGS VF30
71CC $1 sold in July 2005 Heritage ANACS - Tooled, Cleaned
71CC $1 in current ANR Auction PCGS VF30
0
Comments
ANACS EF details, cleaned/tooled (July 2005):
PCGS VF-30:
Next question: who thinks the coin will sell for more in the ANR auction than it did in the Heritage sale? I say the coin will sell for at least 50% more (maybe 100% more) now at ANR in the PCGS holder than it did before.
Edit:
A savvy numismatist could probably make a fortune buying net graded ANACS stuff and moving them to PCGS slabs. PCGS is very forgiving about slabbing net-graded rare coins.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
Grading is subjective, but tooling is not. The coin was either tooled or it was not tooled. Of course, there is "market acceptable" tooling and "not market-acceptable" tooling and therein lies the subjectivity.
<< <i>Remember that grading is subjective.
Grading is subjective, but tooling is not. The coin was either tooled or it was not tooled. Of course, there is "market acceptable" tooling and "not market-acceptable" tooling and therein lies the subjectivity. >>
Good point RYK.
<< <i>I just did overlays and they were exact. >>
You had to do overlays to match up those tell-tale black dots?
<< <i>A savvy numismatist could probably make a fortune buying net graded ANACS stuff and moving them to PCGS slabs. PCGS is very forgiving about slabbing net-graded rare coins. >>
But....but...I thought PCGS was the most conservative and everything else is junk?
with software I am unfamilar with and would prefer to speak in absolutes then
say I'm 99% sure. I guess proving something rather then saying something.
Even if it is obvious.
This overlay shows both auction pics. 25% Heritage and 75% ANR.
And this one 75% Heritage and 25% ANR.
Is this a case where rarity is considered?
The more people understand the realities in TPG grading, the better the hobby will be. The TPG myths currently have the lemmings stepping off the cliffs.
<< <i>Can someone point out where the tooling is? I can't. I'm not saying it wasn't tooled, I just can't see it. >>
I can't see where the coin was tooled either.
?????????
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
Beats me. At shows, ANACS looks under coins under a microscope. I am sure that this is far more revealing than a digipic on the internet. Heritage graders must have agreed that the coin was tooled; otherwise, they would have submitted the coin to PCGS.
My personal anecdote is far less dramatic but equally revealing. My first gold coin was an 1890 quarter eagle purchased for me as a gift from Stack's in 1977, described as "Satin-like AU". (Aside: to this day, I don't know whatthehell "satin-like" means).
When I got back into coins in 2002, I brought the coin to the ANACS booth at the local show for valuation. He indicated that the coin had been cleaned. He showed me the very light hairlines, and I agreed. I had it slabbed by ANACS anyway: "AU details: Net grade XF-45". A year later, I had to fill up my PCGS "free" Collectors Club grading order, so I cracked the coin out of the ANACS holder and submitted it to PCGS. PCGS slabbed it: "AU-58". For my quarter eagle, the monetary difference between net XF-45 and AU-58 is miniscule. For the example in the OP, it is substantial.
Russ, NCNE
Whoever thinks those two coins are not the same, must be "a few sandwiches short of a picnic".
Dizzy, you are correct. One is a $4300 coin and the other an $8600 coin.
Buy the coin, sell the holder.
<< <i>Buy the coin, sell the holder. >>
More like buy the holder, sell a different holder!
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Under the I and A in AMERICA looks a bit suspicious.
If I were to GUESS at where tooling might be, use the magifier feature on the second link and look above the nasty dots. Sorta random marking there. .....maybe.....
I know...... I ...... tooled an 1871 seated dollar that is now in a 66 holder. Got it as a noob and (against good advice) tried removing a line (which BELONGED there) with an ....... ERASER !!!
Horrified, I ran to my junk box and got a nice smooth circ Walker and began laboriously burnishing the mess I made with the eraser. It was still not like it was, but it was acceptable. As evidenced by its current 66 grade.
lifeless.
Of course, we usually only hear about the ones that "work". I'm convinced there are tons of others that don't.
<< <i>Signifies that ANACS is a better service than PCGS, to be sure. >>
Or ANACS got it wrong about the tooling??
Nobody has pointed out exactly where there is evidence of tooling.
edited to add: Okay... it is embarrassing!
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
PCGS should be called onto the carpet on this IMO!!
<< <i>Where is HRH on this fiasco??
PCGS should be called onto the carpet on this IMO!! >>
MBT, you're giving me a headache.
PCGS never considers rarity an issue to slab the coin or not. There would be a lot more 1794 Dollars in PCGS slabs if that were the case.
My experience would indicate otherwise, but it is purely anecdotal.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
IMO, you are wrong.
Of course, we usually only hear about the ones that "work". I'm convinced there are tons of others that don't.
And if the process were reviewed... there would be a problem if in fact it is all a game. This is over the edge and an issue like this just begs for bigger problems because it clearly reflects that the numismatic community seems to be unwilling to take simple and progressive measures to prevent this type of crap from happening... again and again... it seems that the Numismatic Community needs to do something before someone else does something first that would be far worse. Seriously... is anyone really paying attention to this or doesn't anyone care?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
But no one is supposed to notice it.
And to make matters worse-----the fox's are also guarding the fox's.
<< <i>PCGS never considers rarity an issue to slab the coin or not. >>
Yes they do.
Many of the older coins in slabs that appear undergraded at first glance to a beginning collector have some form of problem that could result in a bodybag if cracked out. I remember Wisconsin bought an AU58 Trade Dollar and cracked it. It was bodybagged on resubmission. He sent it in for Presidential review and HRH stated it was lightly cleaned. I can't remember the exact resolution, but I seem to recall the coin was put back into an AU58 holder.
IMO, there's nothing wrong with the fact this coin is in a PCGS holder. It's not the first and it won't be the last.
As much as I respect your grading skills and overall numismatic knowledge, I really must say I disagree that this coin should have been graded by PCGS. Look at the pictures and perhaps the images have been played with to some degree, but the second image really leaves me with a strong impression that the coins has been enhanced to the point that a BB was appropriate.
The sad reality is, if an exception is made for this coin, then why is the exception not made for the common date that looks as bad as this?
Sorry, but I am not accepting this because it is just plain wrong, inconsistent and intellectually disingenuous which really hurts everyone within the collector community.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You are right, we had that luxury... but do you think the coin was original in the ANACS holder? Did the enhancement really enhance the coin? I still am quite disappointed with this... seriously disappointed.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
FatMan
Master Collector
Posts: 5543
Joined: Nov 2002
Sunday March 12, 2006 10:29 AM
Great Post.
The more people understand the realities in TPG grading, the better the hobby will be. The TPG myths currently have the lemmings stepping off the cliffs
<< <i>I've seen worse holdered. 1871-CC's tend to look like crap warmed over. I dare say that knowing what it was holdered as before is tainting people's perception of the coin.... PCGS didn't have that luxury. >>
I have a hard time believing people would cut ANACS this much slack if the PCGS bodybagged coin wound up in a "problem-free" ANACS holder.
The only reason to get up in arms about it is if you are newbie enough to not know that body bagged coins get slabbed all the time. The major services cut the old coins some slack.... they net grade them all the time. Russ's 2 cent piece got bodybagged and is now in an MS65 holder. Wisconsin's AU58 trade dollar got bodybagged and is now in an AU58 holder. There are thousands of others just like them.
Once you recognize that every single coin out there could possibly have been bodybagged or upgraded or not crossed or whatever ... that's when you stop worrying so much about it and just focus on the coin. The coin is ugly - but it's an 1871-CC ... a very desirable coin. Appreciated it for what it is and don't worry so much about what it is not.