The first 51-O may have been dipped at one time and should slab unless those yellowish areas are dip residue that is starting to cause problems.
The 1844 if it was cleaned it was a long time ago and would normally be considered to be original today. But it looks like some one may have recently wiped the coin giving it bad hairlines. That could be the reason it didn't slab.
The second 51-O looks like and old cleaning but I have seen worse slabbed
The 63-S has the dead gray appearance of a dipped circulated coin. Definitely a BB candidate.
The 1850 I don't see anything of a cleaning and I really like the coin. But it is very dark and they probably bagged it for that reason and simply said cleaned.
I kind of wonder if the graders are getting burned out on all the state quarters, proofs, silver and gold eagles etc and they are forgetting what old coins really look like. Subconsiously they are now expecting all coins to have frosty mark free surfaces or proof fields with no hairlines.
I have to agree with Andy. Normal tolerance for seated coins. Are these types of coins for me? No. But I see worse coins in PCGS and NGC holders all of the time. Crossing is a policiticed function. It has less to do with the coin's grade than with other factors.
If I set up my own grading service I'd bag 75% of what is already in holders on Seated material. And if you are buying or grading for yourself that is how to do it. If you are grading for the entire hobby it's sort of ridiculous to reject 80-100% of what gets sent to you.
And there is no question that the expertise at the TPG's today in grading 19th or 18th century coinage is nowhere near what it was prior to 1990.
<< <i>One thing I figured out finally is that circulated coins all have some sort of problems, just from use---
The fact is they are all essentially "net graded" and deciding where to draw-the-line can change:
from grader to grader, service to service, and I kid you not-, most importantly, it's Friday, you're already late, and have to leave for a hot date! >>
You actually think the coin weenies at PCGS get dates on Friday nights??
<< <i>say they bagged even 4 of the 5, it is hard to imagine all 5 ANACS slabbed coins were cleaned to where NGC would slab none of them.
One of the 51 O's came from a Heritage sale where the coin was bid to over $1000. I guess we all were fooled. >>
I think that it is human nature to assign "guilt by association". For the same reason, season submitters often have set-up coins to make a marginal coin look better and grade favorably, your group has a couple of dogs, and they may have dragged down the rest.
<< <i>Personally, if I collected that series, I wouldn't want those coins in holders..... >>
I collect Seated dimes in VF/EF and I much prefer them raw in a Dansco album -- and I did crack out my 1874 dime to put in the album (NGC called it AU-50, but it's more like EF-45). Still, I guess it depends on what your collecting goals are.
Most of the dimes shown seem "market acceptable" to me. Yeah, they aren't super-original for the most part but far, far worse have been slabbed by the majors on many occasions. I think more than anything it's the lack of consistency that's frustrating.
<< <i>The thread title sounds overly harsh and dramatic, based upon the subject matter being disappointing/surprising crossover results with a sample size of only 5 coins.
<<Every one of these coins was easliy a lock.>>
When I see comments like that about the grading of a group of coins (which, in itself, is subjective in nature), I must question the objectivity of the person making the statement. Sorry. >>
my 2¢ First 51-O looks chemically cleaned with the dip retone. 44 is the only one that looks ½ way original. Second 51-O...really can't see anything "wrong" with it. 63-S stains make it look like it was MAYBE chemically cleaned. 50 shows up as bad black picture on my screen???
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
The image of the last coin is simply too dark to make comment, and the other coins have images that are far too low in resolution to state anything definitive. However, my opinion of three of these coins is that they were at least dipped and may very well have offensive hairlines while the 1844 does not looked dipped, but does have an extremely hairlined appearance. In-hand I do not know if they are outside of the typical parameters for TPG certification, but they are not attractive coins.
The 1844 and 1863 look cleaned in the images. They are pretty small images though. Perhaps in hand they look okay. As well, in hand they could all look cleaned. You say they are all a lock, I guess that is not the case. Try again or try another grading service.
Jonathan
I have been a collector for over mumbly-five years. I learn something new every day.
Comments
The first 51-O may have been dipped at one time and should slab unless those yellowish areas are dip residue that is starting to cause problems.
The 1844 if it was cleaned it was a long time ago and would normally be considered to be original today. But it looks like some one may have recently wiped the coin giving it bad hairlines. That could be the reason it didn't slab.
The second 51-O looks like and old cleaning but I have seen worse slabbed
The 63-S has the dead gray appearance of a dipped circulated coin. Definitely a BB candidate.
The 1850 I don't see anything of a cleaning and I really like the coin. But it is very dark and they probably bagged it for that reason and simply said cleaned.
I kind of wonder if the graders are getting burned out on all the state quarters, proofs, silver and gold eagles etc and they are forgetting what old coins really look like. Subconsiously they are now expecting all coins to have frosty mark free surfaces or proof fields with no hairlines.
The fact is they are all essentially "net graded" and deciding where to draw-the-line can change:
from grader to grader, service to service, and I kid you not-, most importantly, it's Friday, you're already late, and have to leave for a hot date!
Are these types of coins for me? No. But I see worse coins in PCGS and NGC holders all of the time. Crossing is a policiticed function.
It has less to do with the coin's grade than with other factors.
If I set up my own grading service I'd bag 75% of what is already in holders on Seated material. And if you are buying or grading for yourself that is how to do it. If you are grading for the entire hobby it's sort of ridiculous to reject 80-100% of what gets sent to you.
And there is no question that the expertise at the TPG's today in grading 19th or 18th century coinage is nowhere near what it was prior to 1990.
roadrunner
<< <i>One thing I figured out finally is that circulated coins all have some sort of problems, just from use---
The fact is they are all essentially "net graded" and deciding where to draw-the-line can change:
from grader to grader, service to service, and I kid you not-, most importantly, it's Friday, you're already late, and have to leave for a hot date!
You actually think the coin weenies at PCGS get dates on Friday nights??
<< <i>say they bagged even 4 of the 5, it is hard to imagine all 5 ANACS slabbed coins were cleaned to where NGC would slab none of them.
One of the 51 O's came from a Heritage sale where the coin was bid to over $1000. I guess we all were fooled. >>
I think that it is human nature to assign "guilt by association". For the same reason, season submitters often have set-up coins to make a marginal coin look better and grade favorably, your group has a couple of dogs, and they may have dragged down the rest.
<< <i>Personally, if I collected that series, I wouldn't want those coins in holders..... >>
I collect Seated dimes in VF/EF and I much prefer them raw in a Dansco album -- and I did crack out my 1874 dime to put in the album (NGC called it AU-50, but it's more like EF-45). Still, I guess it depends on what your collecting goals are.
Most of the dimes shown seem "market acceptable" to me. Yeah, they aren't super-original for the most part but far, far worse have been slabbed by the majors on many occasions. I think more than anything it's the lack of consistency that's frustrating.
<< <i>
<< <i>Personally, if I collected that series, I wouldn't want those coins in holders..... >>
I think more than anything it's the lack of consistency that's frustrating. >>
Ziggy. I would say you are right on the money with htis comment
Buying top quality Seated Dimes in Gem BU and Proof.
Buying great coins - monster eye appeal only.
<< <i>The thread title sounds overly harsh and dramatic, based upon the subject matter being disappointing/surprising crossover results with a sample size of only 5 coins.
<<Every one of these coins was easliy a lock.>>
When I see comments like that about the grading of a group of coins (which, in itself, is subjective in nature), I must question the objectivity of the person making the statement. Sorry. >>
Well said Mark.
First 51-O looks chemically cleaned with the dip retone.
44 is the only one that looks ½ way original.
Second 51-O...really can't see anything "wrong" with it.
63-S stains make it look like it was MAYBE chemically cleaned.
50 shows up as bad black picture on my screen???
<< <i> I thought anything in ANACS, couldnt get into one of the "biggies"... >>
Not necessarily - ANACS has cheaper Kool-Aide
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Jonathan