Some grades, posted quickly, with commentary and pictures for comment.

keets

First, the order with a few brief opinions, followed by some pictures. This was an economy submission and date received was June 14th, so it went through rather fast, wouldn't you say??!!??

Order #20110396 / Submission #3562633
Line # Item # Cert # PCGS No. CoinDate Denomination Variety Country Grade
1 1 13817325 4188 1956 5C US PR65-----These first 10 Jeffersons graded about what I had expected and are for my toned set, with all of them having concentric tone from
2 1 13817326 4190 1958 5C US PR65-----time spent in Capital holders or 2X2 flips, the case for the post 1970 coins. I'm convinced that the graders at PCGS don't especially
3 1 13817327 4192 1960 5C US PR65-----care for toning on these Proofs which impairs the brilliance, but that's OK 'cause the coins are sweet.
4 1 13817328 4192 1960 5C US PR66
5 1 13817329 4193 1961 5C US PR65
6 1 13817330 4196 1964 5C US PR65
7 1 13817331 4199 1967 5C SMS US MS67
8 1 13817332 84205 1972-S 5C US PR65CA
9 1 13817333 84206 1973-S 5C US PR66CA
10 1 13817334 94225 1990-S 5C US PR67DC
11 1 13817335 3577 1864 2C Large Motto US Questionable ColorRB-----Looks to me like album color so it'll go back on a regular submission for a better look.
12 1 13817336 3583 1865 2C US Altered SurfaceRB-----What??? Where??? Please tell me what you think was altered on this one.......................
13 1 13817337 3903 1905 5C US PR64-----I had bought this raw as a PR65, the color is a bit better than the picture shows, a nice example for my Nickel Coinage set.
14 1 13817338 5076 1941 10C US PR67-----Not much to say about this, it came out of an NGC PF67 holder and is a beautiful gem.
15 1 13817339 9333 1923-S 50C Monroe US Questionable Color-----I'm baffled here, why would a coin be AT'd to look like this??It was cracked out of a SEGS MS64 holder.
16 1 13817340 9259 1935-D 50C Boone US MS65-----Another crackout, this one from an ANACS MS65.
17 1 13817341 6755 1989-P 50C US MS64-----Don't ask me why anyone would want this coin graded, but the local dealer asked me to submit it for a customer.

11 1 13817335 3577 1864 2C Large Motto US Questionable ColorRB-----my only concern with this was some possible PVC on the reverse.



12 1 13817336 3583 1865 2C US Altered SurfaceRB-----since it's an FS#2C-002.5 I'll just send it to NGC along with the 1864. Perhaps they'll see things differently.



13 1 13817337 3903 1905 5C US PR64




14 1 13817338 5076 1941 10C US PR67



15 1 13817339 9333 1923-S 50C Monroe US Questionable Color



Those are the only pictures of the submission I have, don't worry about hurting my feelings with an opinion on the BB's. I'm still learning, still a work in progress. Enjoy and thanks.

Al H.

jmski52

I like the Liberty Nickel, and that Mercury Dime is a Killer!

DHeath

That is fast Al. I'd be curious to see what you think of the results with coins in hand again. Nice dime, BTW

fcloud

Love the '05 and the dime.

keets

That is fast Al. I'd be curious to see what you think of the results with coins in hand again. Nice dime, BTW

hey Don, there's no need for me to wait since i've owned them all and been able to give each careful consideration prior to submitting. what's telling for me is that the two crackouts, the 1941 Merc and the 1935-D Boone, both holdered at the same grade.

my only concern for the BB's was where they'd grade. the Monroe is tough past MS63 and both two-centers had some verdigris which i suspected might be PVC, yet the graders didn't think so, instead questioning the color and suspecting some alteration. the 1864 came out of a Capital holder that it looked like it'd been stored in for quite awhile, with the 1865 i wonder if they thought there was some tooling done at the date, as absurd as that sounds, simply because i can't imagine where else they. i assume that if they suspected something like a wash with MS70 to bring about that blue they'd have said questionable color. both coins are hairline free.

as for the Monroe, it has nothing more than mottled brown tone with a very, very faint purple tint if it's angled properly in the sunlight. it strikes me as a coin that spent time in an envelope. of all the coins that graded the sole puzzler is the 1905 Lib Nickel since i had it pegged as a mid-grade PR65, good strike and no impairments with attractive color. the 64 grade seems a point low to me, but the coin isn't going anywhere soon.

Manorcourtman

4 1 13817328 4192 1960 5C US PR66
5 1 13817329 4193 1961 5C US PR65
6 1 13817330 4196 1964 5C US PR65
7 1 13817331 4199 1967 5C SMS US MS67
8 1 13817332 84205 1972-S 5C US PR65CA
9 1 13817333 84206 1973-S 5C US PR66CA



What were you thinking here? What a waste of $$. At obvious attempt at sarcasm gone bad, edited for such!!

tmot99

The only place on the second 2-cent that would have concerned me is the horizonal lines of the shield. That yellow stripe is not normal. I wonder if they though something was done there, whether it was or not. I would have to see the coin in-hand.

DHeath

Al, the color on the 64 2 center is funky if the pics are accurate. JMO I don't see anything wrong with the 1865, but if I were looking at it in hand, I'd look hard under the toning to see if there was evidence of work. The surface looks pretty dead for a coin with so much detail. Again, JMO second guessing the BB. The nickel needs another shot unless its hairlined under the toning. Good luck.

Russ

<< <i>4 1 13817328 4192 1960 5C US PR66
5 1 13817329 4193 1961 5C US PR65
6 1 13817330 4196 1964 5C US PR65
7 1 13817331 4199 1967 5C SMS US MS67
8 1 13817332 84205 1972-S 5C US PR65CA
9 1 13817333 84206 1973-S 5C US PR66CA

What were you thinking here? What a waste of $$. But you wouldn't be the first!!! >>



You probably should have read his post.

Russ, NCNE

Manorcourtman

Did thanks. Toned modern crap is worthless, haven't you read about moderns lately.

tmot99

<< <i>Did thanks. Toned modern crap is worthless, haven't you read about moderns lately. >>



But it's a run that he likes and wants. Who, exactly are you, to judge what he should spend his money on? Stick to the question that was asked in the OP.

TomB

I think this is a far more informative and useful thread than most any other grades received thread I have read.

Type2

WoW, All nice if you would like to off the BB just let me know I'll Pick it up from you.

TwoSides2aCoin

Popeye wasn't the only one who was seeing Olive Oil

coinkat

I like the 1905 V... and the Merc, the 1864 2 seems to be album toning and I like the look of it. I would have said 65 on the 1905 and 67 seems right on the Merc. I think the toning pattern around the rims UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and even 2 CENTS on the 1865 is suspect... I don't have the good fortune of seeing the coin in hand. As for the Monroe, that needs to be seen in hand to offer constructive comments.

leothelyon

Very nice keets!


Leo

SkyMan

LOVE that Merc!

keets

Don-----when they get back i'll try to get some better pictures of the Two Cent pieces.

What were you thinking here? What a waste of $$. But you wouldn't be the first!!!
Manorcourtman-----as Russ said, my thinking is explained in my post(s). believe me, i knew what to expect from the graders which is why i valued all of the coins on lines 1-10 at $18 each, the cost of the submission fees. what i'll do is try to get some good images of the group(easier said than done for me sometimes!!) when they come home and then i'll PM to alert you so you can comment on the coins themselves and not the thought behind the process which is clear: as toned coins, these are much nicer than any i've found from the series, they were relatively inexpensive, were holdered for storage/protection and uniformity of appearance in my personal set.

i could understand that sending for encapsulation a $3 coin with the expectation of a high grade or for profit with the results i received being construed as foolhardy, but that wasn't the reasoning.

Popeye wasn't the only one who was seeing Olive Oil..........................well, that's always an option.

RedneckHB

#12 has been cleaned. Probably then cleaned again with MS70 to give it some color. Altered surfaces is another term for cleaned.

keets

the MS70 was a thought i'd had as alluded to in a previous post and i wondered why they chose the stated reason they used instead of "cleaned" as you said. your post makes sense, though. the coin itself is more Brown than the purple/red in the picture, that's my fault, and i was surprised that they'd call it RB. it's a Brown coin.

RedneckHB

Keets, I dont think they called it RB. That was just the designation number they used when logging the coin into their system.

jobiwan115

<< <i>Altered surfaces is another term for cleaned. >>



This is the first time I've heard this - I thought 'altered surfaces' meant someone had done some tooling to the coin, like adding a mint mark to up the value, or polishing or whizzing the coin. The submission I did about 6 weeks ago had 2 coins bb'd for these reasons. Do they use the terms interchangeably??

cohodk, I'm not questioning your knowledge, I'm sure you know a lot more than me. Just looking for a bit more in the way of explanation.


keets, hope this isn't a hijack on my part. Those are some really nice coins, I especially like that V nickel.

eagle7

Great Thread! I too like the PR67 Merc!

keets

hope this isn't a hijack on my part.

discussion is a good thing, no hijack that i see.

from the PCGS website and the page titled Lingo:
-----alteration
A coin that has a date, mint mark, or other feature that has been changed, added, or removed, usually to simulate a rarer issue.

-----questionable toning
Term to describe the color on a coin that may not be original. After a coin is dipped or cleaned, any subsequent toning, whether acquired naturally or induced artificially, will look different than original toning. PCGS will not grade coins with questionable color.

it would seem to me that PCGS suspected something other than that Two-Cent Piece being cleaned/rinsed/dipped or whatever, they obviously think it had some type of tooling done to it somewhere or else they used the wrong term from their own dictionary.

TwoSides2aCoin

Al, this coin bodybagged twice. The first year I sent it, it came back with "PVC residue".
The second time (still untouched by me or doctored in any way) I re-submitted ... it returned "altered surface".

I believe that PVC residue alters the surface and is basically the same difference.

Something probably tipped the graders, which puts up an alarm and the consensus vote was "altered".
I personally feel the 1865 is a victim of "alteration".
That is why there is a gold colored strip showing in the shield. I think it already saw the Olive Oil or a chemical to remove foreign substance.
Just my opinion, Al... I could be wrong about that, but the darkness around the devices and the surfaces being splotchy just give a grader second thoughts and you know what they say about "DOUBT". If there is the slightest doubt, don't do it !


Joe

RedneckHB

<< <i>

<< <i>Altered surfaces is another term for cleaned. >>



This is the first time I've heard this - I thought 'altered surfaces' meant someone had done some tooling to the coin, like adding a mint mark to up the value, or polishing or whizzing the coin. The submission I did about 6 weeks ago had 2 coins bb'd for these reasons. Do they use the terms interchangeably??

cohodk, I'm not questioning your knowledge, I'm sure you know a lot more than me. Just looking for a bit more in the way of explanation.


keets, hope this isn't a hijack on my part. Those are some really nice coins, I especially like that V nickel. >>



In my experience, "altered surfaces" is oftentimes used as a catch-all. Cleaning a coin does alter its surface, some cleaners are more harsh than others. Many times a body bagged coin will have more than 1 problem, the most obvious is the reason for the bag.