Is this an example of a coin doctor shooting himself in the foot? 1830 Uncirculated Dime

numisma

Here's an example of where a coin doctor loses money. The coin in question is an 1830 JR-2 Bust Dime. It sold in September, 2005 for $1,897 when it was in an old PCGS holder graded MS-64. It just sold again in the recent FUN auction at Heritage for $1,380, this time in a new PCGS MS-63 holder. The coin has been dipped between auction appearances. Do you think that this was a case of "coin doctoring gone bad", or a case of PCGS downgrading a coin and paying the owner the price difference?

MrEureka

What do you think of the coin as shown in the old holder?

CheeseGuy

I think it has more to do with the plastic than anything. I honestly think it looks better now than in the old holder

dunerlaw

I think its nice for a 63.

TwoSides2aCoin

where is the ZIPPER across the lip emotion ?

clw54

Cool, it's more affordable now.

Aegis3

Looking at the big Heritage pics, I'm not convinced it was dipped in between the sales. I think the difference in brightness is just due to Heritage picture inconsistencies.

RYK

I do not care for the coin in any holder.

TwoSides2aCoin

<< <i>I do not care for the coin in any holder. >>



I do not care for the coin in any chemical

keets

i wonder what it looked like 15-20 years ago when it was originally slabbed?? it may have changed in the holder and PCGS "fixed" the problem and reimbursed the owner. actually, i would suspect that it had probably been dipped and improperly rinsed before being placed in the rattler which accounts for the ugly tone. let's face it, 165 year old silver coins aren't supposed to be/rarely are white without help.

crispy

<< <i>I think its nice for a 63. >>



Perhaps the dipping uncovered some imperfections. The risk you run when you dip a coin. If I bought the coin as a dipped 63, I'd be nervous that it might start that cr@p retoning or spotting that comes with improper dipping.

Cladiator

numisma

<< <i>What do you think of the coin as shown in the old holder? >>



Looked like crap. I think that the coin is nicer now.

I posted this because it reminded me of a coin that someone tried to "enhance" and upgrade at PCGS a couple of years ago. The coin (a merc) blew-up on the guy and he ended up losing well over $20,000 on the attempt. It was already in a 66 holder, but he wanted a 67. Never got it back into a 66 holder.......

keets

assuming that the pictures are accurate and the differences we see aren't lighting, it would tend to debunk a couple of long held myths; that conservation enhances value and that the old rattler holder coins were conservatively graded.

this all assumes that the coin didn't change in the holder so there's plenty of room for second guessing.

ColonialCoinUnion

The coin looked terrible in the before picture. Now, it may have turned in that old rattler, or it may have looked like that to begin with, but in any case this was a homely coin that may have benefited from a dip or an NCS treatement or the like.

The after picture may be better, or it may be worse, its hard to tell in these shots. Obviously the grade is lower, but that can be a transient thing.

In any case, this doesn't not look like the kind of coin doctoring that I personally detest, which is when a nice originally toned coin is dipped white, upgraded one point and sold for more than it did the first go 'round.

joeyuk

With the same cert. # I guess whatever happened to it happened at PCGS.

longtimecollector

Good pick up on the cert number....... My guess is that it went back to PCGS under the "Grade Guarantee" and was downgraded a notch. The coins owner probably put a few shekels in his pocket courtesy of PCGS, and then sold the coin. Possibly for a profit ???? Who knows what the "Grade Guarantee" paid out !!!!

And all things considered, I like it better in the 63 holder, but I still don't "like" it

commoncents05

<< <i> With the same cert. # I guess whatever happened to it happened at PCGS. >>



Good point! I think you're right.

-Paul

rhedden

The first auction price was pushed up by the "OGH effect." Bidders competed for the coin because several people thought they could dip it and get the coin into a 65 holder. Someone dipped it, and now they have a cleaned coin with gunk on the face that won't be coming off any time soon. Now nobody wants it, except as a low-end 63 with poor eye appeal. I'm surprised it even got slabbed after the dipping.

keets

Someone dipped it

yeah, PCGS. despite what many believe, PCGS has the capability to conserve coins, they just don't do it as a means of generating income, only in cases like this where the guarantee comes into play.

longtimecollector

Rhedden...... THE CERT # IS THE SAME !!!!!!!! If anyone dipped it, it was PCGS If it had been purchased by a collector / dealer / crackout artist, dipped, and submitted raw, the cert # would be different...........

numisma

This is what I said in the OP: Do you think that this was a case of "coin doctoring gone bad", or a case of PCGS downgrading a coin and paying the owner the price difference?

I didn't think to look at the cert number. I agree with others that sometimes it is okay (even necessary) to curate a coin. I am just amazed at times how curating can lower the technical grade.

mozeppa

<< <i>Someone dipped it

yeah, PCGS. despite what many believe, PCGS has the capability to conserve coins, they just don't do it as a means of generating income, only in cases like this where the guarantee comes into play. >>




Keets ....what you are saying is ....that pcgs DOES have a clinic?

joeyuk

<< <i><< Someone dipped it

yeah, PCGS. despite what many believe, PCGS has the capability to conserve coins, they just don't do it as a means of generating income, only in cases like this where the guarantee comes into play. >>



Keets ....what you are saying is ....that pcgs DOES have a clinic? >>



I'll say yes. I sent in a circ. 1879 CC Morgan. I took before/after pics. The mint mark area was defiantly
touched up. Most likely while checking if it was a added mint mark but a dramatic improvement.


EDIT TO ADD PIC.

sTONER

it had to be a pcgs downgrade,, they used the same cert numbers,,

keets

Keets ....what you are saying is ....that pcgs DOES have a clinic?

not exactly, but i do know that in the past they have conserved/returned coins to people i know which had been sent in under the guarantee. whether conservation was performed by PCGS at their facility or farmed out i can't say. also, as joeyuk mentioned about the supposedly "touched up" area on his coin, i know an individual who claims his coin(s) had areas which appeared to have been checked to verify AT/NT. i assume PCGS has the technology to do whatever's necessary, they just don't advertise the fact.

ziggy29

<< <i>Rhedden...... THE CERT # IS THE SAME !!!!!!!! If anyone dipped it, it was PCGS If it had been purchased by a collector / dealer / crackout artist, dipped, and submitted raw, the cert # would be different........... >>

Good eye. Might this have been sent to PCGS for downgrade review, and PCGS downgraded it to 63, reslabbed it as such and perhaps paid the difference between 63 and 64 to the submitter?

If so, it may have been dipped before going in the rattler and turned a bit from a bad dipping after ward?

PinnacleRarities

<< <i>With the same cert. # I guess whatever happened to it happened at PCGS. >>



Absolutely. PCGS would have had to do this as the coin still has the same cert.

longtimecollector

I'm guessing the pops on this don't grow very quickly....... Anyone with too much time on their hands want to go back thru the pop reports and see if they were ever adjusted ?????????????????

TwoSides2aCoin

This is an example .... a great example. It makes me smile seeing posts like this. I don't know if any feet have holes in them, but this post is just awesome for enlightenment purposes. I hope you young numismatists are takin' notes.

Leave originality alone

Bochiman

I wouldn't want the coin in either views.

rhedden

I didn't notice the cert. #. I wonder if the coin developed that awful stain some time after it was slabbed in the OGH? Maybe someone dipped it in the 1980s and improperly rinsed it. PCGS slabbed it in the rattler while it was looking nice, and it subsequently turned into a "monster" toner (literally, it is monstrous) over the years. If the coin was re-submitted under the grade guarantee, I would not blame PCGS for dipping it with the permission of the owner. The crud didn't come off, and they re-slabbed it in the lower grade. That's what I would guess may have happened. Is there any other possibility?