<< <i>"Previously from Stack's sale of the Robison Collection, February 1982, Lot 1889."
Am I the only one who's curious what this coin looked like in the 1982 catalogue!? >>
I have the catalog with photos and the coin was described: "A choice brilliant proof with golden and iredescent toning." In the black and white photo there is no evidence of any dark toning except for a slight wisp of a dark area below the eagle. The color plate shows the coin with mostly all light golden color with no darker toning or other colors present. It brought $13000.00
There seems to be a different mark on the first coin, under the 1 in the date, nad on the second there is a mark under the 8. Too many similarities for it not to be the same one though I guess.
AKA kokimoki the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt [L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
<< <i><< think PCGS will make any attempt to try to buy back this Frankenstein? >>
Why should PCGS buy this coin?
Russ, NCNE >>
yeah, you're right. Slab all the rare AT coins, because hey, they're market acceptable! the fact that its former home was an NCS slab with a 'Cleaned' designation shouldn't stop anyone from paying big bucks and adding it to their PCGS set registry, should it? >>
You appear to be a little confused. This coin was in a PCGS holder BEFORE it was doctored. It is now raw.
I had to do a double-take when I saw this coin in the upcoming Stack's auction. Thought it might have been re-re-done but it appears to just be in the photography. Apparently, coins such as this can disappear into major collections and not reappear for months!!
I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector. Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
I had to do a double-take when I saw this coin in the upcoming Stack's auction. Thought it might have been re-re-done but it appears to just be in the photography. Apparently, coins such as this can disappear into major collections and not reappear for months!!
Par for the course for Stacks to auction coins like this one. Yes, it's the same coin, and as far as I am concerned, it's a bad AT job and is damaged goods.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
im on the fence. i am leaning to the yes its the same. but not 100%. If it is, i dont care what the reason, it was stupid. It was a beautiful $1 before. now it has that cleaned look.
after staring at the shot with all three, it looks like a progression in the effects of lightly cleaning. It looks like the same coin to me. interesting, very interesting.
The third set of images is from this week's Stack's auction and, in my opinion, is the third reincarnation of the coin in just 18 months. It realized $92,000 raw in the Dr. Tony Prestera sale in June, 2007 (2nd set of images). Based on that prior auction description, it also appears to have developed reverse die cracks in the meantime!
6/20/07 - "The reverse die is perfect, there being no trace of die cracks anywhere in the fields."
<< <i>Look at the tiny tick just to the right of the 4th star. It is clearly visible on both coins. It would defy even the most vivid imagination to suggest coincidence, particularly with the similar marks on the reverse. >>
Let me get this straight. The coin as seen in Robison sale was the second coin illustrated, the image of the coin that is pale and washed-out looking? The other image with the pretty peripheral rainbow toning is then the after picture; after being doctored?
If this is true, and the initial coin was NCS cleaned, and then toning was put on the coin and it is now raw and not holderable, it seems the coin went from one NO grade situation to another. Seems as though the major grading services are indicating they won't holder the coin.
Also, the "before" picture seems to me to be a dipped out/cleaned coin that isn't pristine for a 170 year-old silver coin; in fact, most unmessed with coins that old will be quite tarnished/toned, maybe even black and hardly recognizable.
My point is that neither situation is ideal, but many of these very rare old coins have been messed with before (were those individuals that cleaned and dipped such coins also "coin doctors?"). I don't like the idea of artificial toning being put on the coin for purposes of deception or trying to cover over defects, but the toned coin does have more basic eye appeal over the non-toned coin (if I asked my non-collecting wife to tell me which one looks nicer to her, almost without a doubt she would pick the toned coin).
Not only is the known AT not listed, it looks like it received a grade bump to PCGS PR64 from PCGS PR63 from NCS Improperly Cleaned.
Since HA says they "seek feedback from experts before the descriptions and authentication are finalized," my suggestion is to:
(1) mention the AT in the desciption (2) mention the CSNS Signature (Heritage, 4/2006), lot 2164 $19,550 sale. The current description only lists the Jan 3, 2007 sale "Ex: FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2007), lot 1052, where it brought $46,000. (#11444)"
HA should be willing to disclose the doctoring given that they are a member of the PNG and the PNG has now added disclosure of doctoring to the PNG Code of Ethics. I'm hoping HA will do the right thing.
Zoins: those are the images that I remember - thanks! Stark white and improperly cleaned is AT'd and not only goes 63 - but is subsequently upgraded to 64! Sad!
Thanks for spotting this TDN! I was wondering when and how we would see this coin reappear. I don't think many of us were expecting it would get a grade bump to PR-64 or even be in a problem free holder.
It would be good to hear from PCGS on this.
It will also be good to see what happens to this now that the PNG is involved in doctoring and HA is a PNG member.
Per HA's request for additional information, I've informed them of the prior 2006 NCS sale and the change in appearance so hopefully they will update the auction description.
Disturbing. How's that sniffer doing? And the imaging? It makes mistakes? Or can a human over-ride the sniffer and imaging results? What is the net result of this sort of thing? The listing says it is "an original", and the word original is employed another way ("original period"), but it is not said to BE original I guess "toned" says a LOT.
Comments
<< <i>"Previously from Stack's sale of the Robison Collection, February 1982, Lot 1889."
Am I the only one who's curious what this coin looked like in the 1982 catalogue!? >>
I have the catalog with photos and the coin was described: "A choice brilliant proof with golden and iredescent toning." In the black and white photo there is no evidence of any dark toning except for a slight wisp of a dark area below the eagle. The color plate shows the coin with mostly all light golden color with no darker toning or other colors present. It brought $13000.00
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Join the NRA and protect YOUR right to keep and bear arms
To protest against all hunting of game is a sign of softness of head, not soundness of heart. Theodore Roosevelt
[L]http://www.ourfallensoldier.com/ThompsonMichaelE_MemorialPage.html[L]
K S
<< <i><< think PCGS will make any attempt to try to buy back this Frankenstein? >>
Why should PCGS buy this coin?
Russ, NCNE >>
yeah, you're right. Slab all the rare AT coins, because hey, they're market acceptable! the fact that its former home was an NCS slab with a 'Cleaned' designation shouldn't stop anyone from paying big bucks and adding it to their PCGS set registry, should it? >>
You appear to be a little confused. This coin was in a PCGS holder BEFORE it was doctored. It is now raw.
Russ, NCNE
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Then again... there are so many other areas that do match... that it makes it questionable. >>
I disagree. It's 100% for sure the same coin.
I see the light ! Okay ?
What is questionable is the actions of those who tamper with coins. Just to shed some light on things being questionable.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I had to do a double-take when I saw this coin in the upcoming Stack's auction. Thought
it might have been re-re-done but it appears to just be in the photography. Apparently,
coins such as this can disappear into major collections and not reappear for months!!
Conder Token Gallery https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMCiunai6NjOxoo3zREkCsAnNm4vONzieO3u7tHyhm8peZmRD_A0MXmnWT2dzJ-nw?key=Rlo2YklUSWtEY1NWc3BfVm90ZEUwU25jLUZueG9n
Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.
<< <i>It's baaaack!
I had to do a double-take when I saw this coin in the upcoming Stack's auction. Thought
it might have been re-re-done but it appears to just be in the photography. Apparently,
coins such as this can disappear into major collections and not reappear for months!!
>>
OK, I'll bite, what is the 3rd image?
In this coin's case, the toning did not properly cover all of the coin's damaged surface areas consistently.
This this the hallmark of artificial toning?
At least this was what jumped out at me.
Comments?
Look at top dead`center outside rim, small nick 1st coin, count 7 dentils CW, note mark @5:00 under 7th dentil.....not on 2nd coin
2nd coin....star #1, count 7 dentils CCW, note mark outside rim...not on coin 1
many more differances like this exist
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
reincarnation of the coin in just 18 months. It realized $92,000 raw in the Dr. Tony
Prestera sale in June, 2007 (2nd set of images). Based on that prior auction
description, it also appears to have developed reverse die cracks in the meantime!
6/20/07 - "The reverse die is perfect, there being no trace of die cracks anywhere in the fields."
Conder Token Gallery https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMCiunai6NjOxoo3zREkCsAnNm4vONzieO3u7tHyhm8peZmRD_A0MXmnWT2dzJ-nw?key=Rlo2YklUSWtEY1NWc3BfVm90ZEUwU25jLUZueG9n
<< <i>Look at the tiny tick just to the right of the 4th star. It is clearly visible on both coins. It would defy even the most vivid imagination to suggest coincidence, particularly with the similar marks on the reverse. >>
thats the tick i noticed...same coin.
Why DE-VALUE a coin's worth by doctoring ? I'm COINfused by this whole thing.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
If this is true, and the initial coin was NCS cleaned, and then toning was put on the coin and it is now raw and not holderable, it seems the coin went from one NO grade situation to another. Seems as though the major grading services are indicating they won't holder the coin.
Also, the "before" picture seems to me to be a dipped out/cleaned coin that isn't pristine for a 170 year-old silver coin; in fact, most unmessed with coins that old will be quite tarnished/toned, maybe even black and hardly recognizable.
My point is that neither situation is ideal, but many of these very rare old coins have been messed with before (were those individuals that cleaned and dipped such coins also "coin doctors?"). I don't like the idea of artificial toning being put on the coin for purposes of deception or trying to cover over defects, but the toned coin does have more basic eye appeal over the non-toned coin (if I asked my non-collecting wife to tell me which one looks nicer to her, almost without a doubt she would pick the toned coin).
What says you?
Same coin, AT, and the practice sucks. K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>Somebody's got some big cojones - that second coin imaged fetched $63k in a PCGS PR64 holder.
It appears that a coin doctor now favors Gobrecht dollars .... that PISSES ME OFF! >>
you heard it here first, Bruce is not a fan of the colorized version
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>Anyone still have these images? >>
maybe some investigative work going backwards can be started with the links
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN02311788-oz.jpg
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN02311788-rz.jpg
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN84855840-oz.jpg
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN84855840-rz.jpg
.
<< <i>
<< <i>Anyone still have these images? >>
maybe some investigative work going backwards can be started with the links
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN02311788-oz.jpg
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN02311788-rz.jpg
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN84855840-oz.jpg
http://www.stacks.com/img-coin/AN84855840-rz.jpg
. >>
Looks like if you just change "www" to "prior" they should work; the first one did at least.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Http://coins.ha.com/common/view_image_only.php?img=http://images.ha.com/lf?set=path%5B8%2F6%2F3%2F9%2F8639556%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D
http://coins.ha.com/common/view_image_only.php?img=http://images.ha.com/lf?set=path%5B8%2F6%2F3%2F9%2F8639559%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D
<< <i>Hmmmm
Http://coins.ha.com/common/view_image_only.php?img=http://images.ha.com/lf?set=path%5B8%2F6%2F3%2F9%2F8639556%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D
http://coins.ha.com/common/view_image_only.php?img=http://images.ha.com/lf?set=path%5B8%2F6%2F3%2F9%2F8639559%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D >>
HMMMMMMM!!!!
<< <i>That 1838 and the current 1839 could be twins. Since we know for a FACT the 1838 is AT, what does that say about the 1839? >>
The "current 1839" is ex-PCGS 10940048, ex-NCS 5027707-003 - Known AT.
Current: HA Sale 1175 Lot 11002 PCGS PR-64
Jan 3, 2007: HA Sale 422 Lot 1052 PCGS PR-63 10940048
Apr 27, 2006: HA Sale 404 Lot 2164 NCS Improperly Cleaned 5027707-003
Not only is the known AT not listed, it looks like it received a grade bump to PCGS PR64 from PCGS PR63 from NCS Improperly Cleaned.
Since HA says they "seek feedback from experts before the descriptions and authentication are finalized," my suggestion is to:
(1) mention the AT in the desciption
(2) mention the CSNS Signature (Heritage, 4/2006), lot 2164 $19,550 sale. The current description only lists the Jan 3, 2007 sale "Ex: FUN Signature (Heritage, 1/2007), lot 1052, where it brought $46,000. (#11444)"
HA should be willing to disclose the doctoring given that they are a member of the PNG and the PNG has now added disclosure of doctoring to the PNG Code of Ethics. I'm hoping HA will do the right thing.
It seems like market acceptable wins in the AT question
It would be good to hear from PCGS on this.
It will also be good to see what happens to this now that the PNG is involved in doctoring and HA is a PNG member.
<< <i>You would think that any PNG member would be required to make a full disclosure >>
Good for a chuckle, or perhaps a smirk.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Eric
<< <i>Still no change to the auction description. >>
My guess is they might update all the auction descriptions and photos at the same time. Here's to hoping.