French 5 Francs bought Raw at CICF just came back fron PCGS
bidask
Posts: 14,017 ✭✭✭✭✭
Guess the grade?
I manage money. I earn money. I save money .
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
0
Comments
<< <i>How about MS64
Does it look like a 64?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
--Severian the Lame
<< <i>
<< <i>How about MS64
Does it look like a 64? >>
I try not to grade off pics, but could have gone 65 or so. I can only see a couple of small marks on the obverse and the reverse looks clean. I will be like everybody else and ask you if you got it trueviewed
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>The coin looks nice. However, given the pattern of toning, which seems to indicate a wipe at some point in the past, it seems peculiar for the coin to have garnered an MS grade. I guess the rubbing off of the toning of the obverse didn't produce any wear.
I saw no rubbing on this...I think pcgs would have caught that.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How about MS64
Does it look like a 64? >>
I try not to grade off pics, but could have gone 65 or so. I can only see a couple of small marks on the obverse and the reverse looks clean. I will be like everybody else and ask you if you got it trueviewed
Did not get true view, but coin is better in hand...i am new at picture taking.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
President
PCGS CoinFacts - the Internet Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins
www.CoinFacts.com
The graders may have held it back from an MS65 due to the toning pattern around the legend, "LOUIS", and across the lower neck area.....I dunno, though. Does it have a few too many very fine hairlines from slipping around in a bank bag? Maybe they thought the lustre just wasn't quite "there".
Anyway, I like it, and I know almost exactly what that toning colour looks like in hand. IMO, it definitely has not had the toning "rubbed off". This is a typical pattern of "outlining" around the portrait and legends which I have seen on hundreds of coins all the way from groats to shooters.
<< <i>I saw this coin in "real life". It's a beauty and much nicer than the image indicates. Great coin. >>
Gee, thanks Ron!
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i> I know almost exactly what that toning colour looks like in hand. IMO, it definitely has not had the toning "rubbed off". This is a typical pattern of "outlining" around the portrait and legends which I have seen on hundreds of coins all the way from groats to shooters. >>
here is an example of mine that has the same toning pattern. NGC MS65
<< <i>Well, you absolutely can not really grade from an image, but the label definitely says "64".
The graders may have held it back from an MS65 due to the toning pattern around the legend, "LOUIS", and across the lower neck area.....I dunno, though. Does it have a few too many very fine hairlines from slipping around in a bank bag? Maybe they thought the lustre just wasn't quite "there".
Anyway, I like it, and I know almost exactly what that toning colour looks like in hand. IMO, it definitely has not had the toning "rubbed off". This is a typical pattern of "outlining" around the portrait and legends which I have seen on hundreds of coins all the way from groats to shooters. >>
Far be it for me to differ from all the experts, but I must. And I don't doubt that the coin looks marvelous in hand. Nor do I suggest it has hairlines. Too, I have seen multitudinous examples of toning like this (and the one posted by Doogy). I do feel the toning pattern exhibited is indicative of rubbed off color. How else can such a toning pattern come to exist, I humbly ask you all? It is of no consequence that no rubbing is evident on the coin; that merely means that no mechanical marks betray the rub. Excellent, I say! But how did such a pattern come to be? Consider that. The coin displays a deep original skin on the obverse (and not the reverse, which is interesting but of no consequence; it could have lain in the coin cabinet of a pipe smoker for countless decades, accumulating a film of tobacco on one side while leaving the other virtually unblemished). However, this deep layer of whatever caused the toning (my guess is in fact tobacco smoke; I've seen this on many an old collection coin) is no longer uniform, is it? Why wouldn't the thick skin exist all over the coin? Tobacco smoke is also easy to rub off, as I found out once after buying an old coin with such a tone to it, and when I touched the surface, the magnificent toning started to come off. Going further, I experimented a bit and took a very soft cloth and rubbed the coin a bit more. More toning came off, and the result was exactly what Bidask's coin looked like. The point is that the toning exists only in the deep, protected areas of the coin between the legends and in the lower areas of the design, exactly in the areas which are inaccessable from a light rub. The coin is untoned, or silver-colored, in only the areas which are accessible to a rub: the high points. No low point is clean (except the very center of the coin, in the ear canal and points behind the ear), and all high points are silver-colored. How else can it be physically possible to acquire such a "toning" pattern?
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, you absolutely can not really grade from an image, but the label definitely says "64".
The graders may have held it back from an MS65 due to the toning pattern around the legend, "LOUIS", and across the lower neck area.....I dunno, though. Does it have a few too many very fine hairlines from slipping around in a bank bag? Maybe they thought the lustre just wasn't quite "there".
Anyway, I like it, and I know almost exactly what that toning colour looks like in hand. IMO, it definitely has not had the toning "rubbed off". This is a typical pattern of "outlining" around the portrait and legends which I have seen on hundreds of coins all the way from groats to shooters. >>
Far be it for me to differ from all the experts, but I must. And I don't doubt that the coin looks marvelous in hand. Nor do I suggest it has hairlines. Too, I have seen multitudinous examples of toning like this (and the one posted by Doogy). I do feel the toning pattern exhibited is indicative of rubbed off color. How else can such a toning pattern come to exist, I humbly ask you all? It is of no consequence that no rubbing is evident on the coin; that merely means that no mechanical marks betray the rub. Excellent, I say! But how did such a pattern come to be? Consider that. The coin displays a deep original skin on the obverse (and not the reverse, which is interesting but of no consequence; it could have lain in the coin cabinet of a pipe smoker for countless decades, accumulating a film of tobacco on one side while leaving the other virtually unblemished). However, this deep layer of whatever caused the toning (my guess is in fact tobacco smoke; I've seen this on many an old collection coin) is no longer uniform, is it? Why wouldn't the thick skin exist all over the coin? Tobacco smoke is also easy to rub off, as I found out once after buying an old coin with such a tone to it, and when I touched the surface, the magnificent toning started to come off. Going further, I experimented a bit and took a very soft cloth and rubbed the coin a bit more. More toning came off, and the result was exactly what Bidask's coin looked like. The point is that the toning exists only in the deep, protected areas of the coin between the legends and in the lower areas of the design, exactly in the areas which are inaccessable from a light rub. The coin is untoned, or silver-colored, in only the areas which are accessible to a rub: the high points. No low point is clean (except the very center of the coin, in the ear canal and points behind the ear), and all high points are silver-colored. How else can it be physically possible to acquire such a "toning" pattern?
hmmm.....very good points you make! I have no opinion one way or another, as i'm clueless as to truly how this toning took on this look, both on his coin and mine. If Ron is still around this thread, maybe he can give his two cents on how this toning pattern happens?
Doug
My point is simply that toning can be manifested in some very strange ways, and that without human intervention.
Consider this. If the coin in question got that way by cleaning, without leaving a dead give away, then why didn't the cleaner finish the job? I believe the coin is original.
<< <i>I have seen many strange toning patterns that I cannot explain. For example, one pattern seems to be quite common, and that is the dark bluish tone extending around the periphery of a coin, BUT between the coin edge and the tops of the letters around the edge, toning is not present. It is almost as if the toning "shot" outward from the center of the coin at a low angle, and the letters "blocked" it from reaching the edge. Can anyone explain that pattern? How does it occur? I haven't had anyone give me a rational explanation for how such a toning pattern get created, but I'd be foolish to suggest that some previous owner selectively rubbed the toning away from these areas, and yet decided to leave the rest.
My point is simply that toning can be manifested in some very strange ways, and that without human intervention.
Consider this. If the coin in question got that way by cleaning, without leaving a dead give away, then why didn't the cleaner finish the job? I believe the coin is original. >>
I'd like to see an example of the type of toning you're referring to before I proffer any explanations about how it might have occurred and if it relates at all to the pattern of toning displayed on Bidask's coin and the coin Doogy posted. Of course I'd be the first to agree that there are myriad ways that toning is formed, and we're discussing the type exhibited by the two aforementioned people's coins. As to your question about how a coin might have been cleaned without leaving a dead giveaway, and why didn't the cleaner finish the job, well, I've tried to explain but I'll do so again. First of all, I'm not talking about chemical cleaning, which would tend to cover the whole surface of a coin, but rather mechanical removal of the layer of toning on the high surfaces, but not the lower points of the coin. I've described how I've been able to duplicate this exact pattern of toning, and I'll provide some pictures below of two different coins (I don't have one of the coin I described in my earlier post, because I sold it back to the dealer I bought it from immediately after discovering the layer of smoke on the coin) I did the same thing to. In any case, it seems more than likely that removal of the toning by rubbing with a soft cloth leaves such an insignificant amount of mechanical wear on the coin as to be undetected. I wonder myself if such rubbing would be picked up by an electron microscope, but so far I haven't heard of their use by TPGs. Under 16 power, however, the evidence of rubbing is nonexistant.
Below is a scan of a 1950 Canadian dollar, which had a bad layer of PVC on it when I bought it. I gave it an acetone rinse, but also rubbed it with my fingers while doing so. The abrasive action of my fingers was able to remove the layer of whatever was on the coin, but as you can see, only on the higher points of the coin, similar to the toning effect displayed by the two coins previously posted in this thread. This dollar shows how mechanical abrasion affects only the high points of a coin when lightly rubbed.
The next coin is a beautiful 1963 Canadian dollar which displays wonderful golden toning. I'd never seen such a color on a coin before, and gave it an acetone bath to make sure it wasn't contaminated by PVC. During the process, the toning started to come off the high points as I rubbed it with my fingers. The results are below: the exact same pattern of toning (albeit not the same colors) as the previously posted coins.
Here's a 1960 5 Shilling piece from South Africa. Once again, it was covered in PVC when I bought it, but it had an exquisite color to it. When I gave it an acetone bath with mechanical rubbing with my fingers, a lot of the beautiful toning came off, but as usual, only on the high points, leaving the lower, protected points untouched. The resultant toning pattern is shown here:
This 1992 10 Peso proof silver commemmorative from Cuba was housed directly in a PVC flip when I bought it, leaving a thick slimy layer of residue on it, but underlying this was exquisitly colored toning. I knew the only course of action to save the coin was to remove the PVC, hoping the toning would be left intact, but when I did so, giving it a good rubbing with my fingers when it was in the acetone, the bulk of the color came off as well. As seen below, a bit of toning was left in the protected areas of the letters and devices.
And finally, I present these two Canadian dollars, dated 1965 and 1966, both gifts from a noted forum member, and both from the same collection. I received both in mylar 2 x 2 holders, and have never touched either. Both show similar colors and toning patterns, though one has significantly more color than the other. Notice how both show mechanical rubbing, leaving silver-colored high points, and have toning left undisturbed in the low points. How am I so sure that mechanical rubbing was involved (besides my own experience in effecting such a toning pattern)? It's clear that the coins were touched, as fingerprints are readily available to see, as are rubbing marks (not wear, mind you, but streaks of white cutting into the toned areas, and once again, leaving the protected areas unaffected).
So, we can see that the toning pattern of the two coins posted by Bidask and Doogy are not only clearly similar to known rubbing incidents, but also that such patterns are remarkably prevalent in the numismatic world.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
That was not my question. I grant as obvious that a person could indeed do so. I asked only one question, which remains unanswered, and which was,
"If the coin in question got that way by cleaning, without leaving a dead give away, then why didn't the cleaner finish the job?"
The part about cleaning without leaving a dead giveaway was intended to lend more strength to my rhetorical question. That is, he was able to accomplish cleaning up to a certain point without leaving a telltale mark. So why not finish? Why stop at a point that leaves the coins at its ugliest possible condition?
If you do not take the one previous question to be rhetorical as intended, that is, the answer (to me) was obvious and as such no answer was required, then I'd be very pleased to hear your answer.
While your presentation was thorough and quite informative, (I actually appreciated and valued all the information you provided), still, you answered a question I did not ask, and you did not answer the single question which I did indeed ask, rhetorical though it was.
<< <i>The coin looks nice. However, given the pattern of toning, which seems to indicate a wipe at some point in the past, it seems peculiar for the coin to have garnered an MS grade. I guess the rubbing off of the toning of the obverse didn't produce any wear.
I am totally amazed that someone can make this comment and the ones that followed about a coin that they have never had in hand. The only way to know about this French 5 Francs is to have owned it for the 150+ years that it has been around and watched the way it toned. Just my two cents.3Mark
<< <i>
<< <i>The coin looks nice. However, given the pattern of toning, which seems to indicate a wipe at some point in the past, it seems peculiar for the coin to have garnered an MS grade. I guess the rubbing off of the toning of the obverse didn't produce any wear.
I am totally amazed that someone can make this comment and the ones that followed about a coin that they have never had in hand. The only way to know about this French 5 Francs is to have owned it for the 150+ years that it has been around and watched the way it toned. Just my two cents.3Mark >>
Personally, I’ll accept Ron Guth’s (coinking) comment over the rest; At least he saw the coin …Although I must admit the 1992 10 Pesos certainly offers a compelling comparison to the 150+ year-old 5 Francs
<< <i>
<< <i>The coin looks nice. However, given the pattern of toning, which seems to indicate a wipe at some point in the past, it seems peculiar for the coin to have garnered an MS grade. I guess the rubbing off of the toning of the obverse didn't produce any wear.
I am totally amazed that someone can make this comment and the ones that followed about a coin that they have never had in hand. The only way to know about this French 5 Francs is to have owned it for the 150+ years that it has been around and watched the way it toned. Just my two cents.3Mark >>
My good sir, I am sorry if I have insulted you, but I'm calling a spade a spade. I've seen this type of "toning" pattern on many coins, and I've been able to duplicate it many times, so why wouldn't I have an opinion on it, or relate such an opinion to other numismatists on a coin forum? You state the obvious that nobody can really determine the grade (which is highly subjective in any case) without seeing the coin in hand and examining it. What I was interested in pointing out is that type of pattern is indicative of a coin having been wiped; I've done it myself. Perhaps you have some other alternative explanation as to how such a coloration pattern developed? This is beside the point, but who hasn't wiped a coin to remove fresh fingerprints, etc? Getting back to the point, you yourself admit the only way for someone to know about the coin is to have owned it himself for the past 150 years and watched it tone. So going by your logic, even TPGs have no right to declare that the coin is "uncirculated", right? Just my two cents.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>"As to your question about how a coin might have been cleaned without leaving a dead giveaway..."
That was not my question. I grant as obvious that a person could indeed do so. I asked only one question, which remains unanswered, and which was,
"If the coin in question got that way by cleaning, without leaving a dead give away, then why didn't the cleaner finish the job?"
The part about cleaning without leaving a dead giveaway was intended to lend more strength to my rhetorical question. That is, he was able to accomplish cleaning up to a certain point without leaving a telltale mark. So why not finish? Why stop at a point that leaves the coins at its ugliest possible condition?
If you do not take the one previous question to be rhetorical as intended, that is, the answer (to me) was obvious and as such no answer was required, then I'd be very pleased to hear your answer.
While your presentation was thorough and quite informative, (I actually appreciated and valued all the information you provided), still, you answered a question I did not ask, and you did not answer the single question which I did indeed ask, rhetorical though it was. >>
My good sir, I tried to answer your question to your satisfaction. Obviously I failed. Please allow me another attempt.
"Why wouldn't the person who cleaned the coin finish the job?" Well, how am I to know? Perhaps he felt the coin was beautiful enough, as many people here have alluded to (me too). Perhaps he wasn't able to polish the coin more without leaving obvious hairlines in the coin? Perhaps he simply didn't think of using a chemical agent (dip) to remove the tarnish? There are many reasons, and I have no way of knowing why the coin was left in this state and not another. Please let me reiterate; I don't think this coin is "in its ugliest possible condition", but in fact it is attractive.
Also, before people aim all their flamethrowers at me, let me repeat that I am not trying to disparage this coin nor the collector, nor his tastes in coins. This is a professional coin board dedicated to discovering and dispensing information. I have done my best to point out what I feel about this coin and many others with similar toning patterns, as well as information and experience I've gathered in over 30 years of collecting. Do I need state the obvious that nobody can grade a coin completely sight-unseen? Do I need to say that my opinion is only my opinion? Do I need to repeat that any grade is merely an opinion? I think in the case of the coins shown here, the TPGs have shown a tendency to declare this toning pattern "market acceptable", which is fine with me. I was merely trying to point out how such a pattern comes into existance. And I'm more than open to anyone to disprove what I've claimed.
Happy Collecting!
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Natural hesitancy on the cleaners part perhaps? I would have been hesitant and I'm not sure I would have had the guts to touch it with my fingers.
Jester is one of the few forum members who will back up his opinion with a great deal of photographic evidence and discussion. Remember, history's jesters (in some cases) were the power behind the fool who held the throne.
Ed to add: Having said that, I would have gone 63 to 65 on the coin at first photographic glance. As to the poster who asked how anyone could possibly grade from an image, you're likely to put the kibosh on 75% of the threads we see.
is that you end up being governed by inferiors. – Plato
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The coin looks nice. However, given the pattern of toning, which seems to indicate a wipe at some point in the past, it seems peculiar for the coin to have garnered an MS grade. I guess the rubbing off of the toning of the obverse didn't produce any wear.
I am totally amazed that someone can make this comment and the ones that followed about a coin that they have never had in hand. The only way to know about this French 5 Francs is to have owned it for the 150+ years that it has been around and watched the way it toned. Just my two cents.3Mark >>
My good sir, I am sorry if I have insulted you, but I'm calling a spade a spade. I've seen this type of "toning" pattern on many coins, and I've been able to duplicate it many times, so why wouldn't I have an opinion on it, or relate such an opinion to other numismatists on a coin forum? You state the obvious that nobody can really determine the grade (which is highly subjective in any case) without seeing the coin in hand and examining it. What I was interested in pointing out is that type of pattern is indicative of a coin having been wiped; I've done it myself. Perhaps you have some other alternative explanation as to how such a coloration pattern developed? This is beside the point, but who hasn't wiped a coin to remove fresh fingerprints, etc? Getting back to the point, you yourself admit the only way for someone to know about the coin is to have owned it himself for the past 150 years and watched it tone. So going by your logic, even TPGs have no right to declare that the coin is "uncirculated", right? Just my two cents.
Can you point out where in my response I said anything about grading? As far as I can tell, it was graded at a moment in time during it's 150+ years of history. I frankly have no idea how this toning pattern happened (on this coin), but I can certainly state that I have seen it many times.3Mark
<< <i>The toning pattern is a result of the same process that makes acid date Buffalo nickels possible. The metal that flows the most (up into the recesses of the die) becomes work-hardened. Work-hardened metal tones more slowly than metal that hasn't flowed (as far/much.) >>
hmmm......i hadn't heard this before, but it certainly sounds plausible! thanks for sharing
<< <i>
<< <i>"As to your question about how a coin might have been cleaned without leaving a dead giveaway..."
That was not my question. I grant as obvious that a person could indeed do so. I asked only one question, which remains unanswered, and which was,
"If the coin in question got that way by cleaning, without leaving a dead give away, then why didn't the cleaner finish the job?"
The part about cleaning without leaving a dead giveaway was intended to lend more strength to my rhetorical question. That is, he was able to accomplish cleaning up to a certain point without leaving a telltale mark. So why not finish? Why stop at a point that leaves the coins at its ugliest possible condition?
If you do not take the one previous question to be rhetorical as intended, that is, the answer (to me) was obvious and as such no answer was required, then I'd be very pleased to hear your answer.
While your presentation was thorough and quite informative, (I actually appreciated and valued all the information you provided), still, you answered a question I did not ask, and you did not answer the single question which I did indeed ask, rhetorical though it was. >>
My good sir, I tried to answer your question to your satisfaction. Obviously I failed. Please allow me another attempt.
"Why wouldn't the person who cleaned the coin finish the job?" Well, how am I to know? Perhaps he felt the coin was beautiful enough, as many people here have alluded to (me too). Perhaps he wasn't able to polish the coin more without leaving obvious hairlines in the coin? Perhaps he simply didn't think of using a chemical agent (dip) to remove the tarnish? There are many reasons, and I have no way of knowing why the coin was left in this state and not another. Please let me reiterate; I don't think this coin is "in its ugliest possible condition", but in fact it is attractive.
Also, before people aim all their flamethrowers at me, let me repeat that I am not trying to disparage this coin nor the collector, nor his tastes in coins. This is a professional coin board dedicated to discovering and dispensing information. I have done my best to point out what I feel about this coin and many others with similar toning patterns, as well as information and experience I've gathered in over 30 years of collecting. Do I need state the obvious that nobody can grade a coin completely sight-unseen? Do I need to say that my opinion is only my opinion? Do I need to repeat that any grade is merely an opinion? I think in the case of the coins shown here, the TPGs have shown a tendency to declare this toning pattern "market acceptable", which is fine with me. I was merely trying to point out how such a pattern comes into existance. And I'm more than open to anyone to disprove what I've claimed.
Happy Collecting!
I appreciate everyone's comments ( especially Ron's) and take nothing personal on opinions offered..
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.