Looks like it's on the plastic like the scratch on the obverse. PCGS almost never makes any mistakes whatsoever. Unless they have an ex-NGC/ex-ICG/ex-ANACS graders in training. That is why re-submits are important.
<< <i>Looks like it's on the plastic like the scratch on the obverse. PCGS almost never makes any mistakes whatsoever. Unless they have an ex-NGC/ex-ICG/ex-ANACS graders in training. That is why re-submits are important. >>
okay, now that the Kool-Aid bowl has been spiked, let's get back to the question was brought up before: how in the heck do two graders and a finalizer miss this sort of thing?
On BS&T Now: Nothing. Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up! Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
<< <i>Looks like it's on the plastic like the scratch on the obverse. PCGS almost never makes any mistakes whatsoever. Unless they have an ex-NGC/ex-ICG/ex-ANACS graders in training. That is why re-submits are important. >>
okay, now that the Kool-Aid bowl has been spiked, let's get back to the question was brought up before: how in the heck do two graders and a finalizer miss this sort of thing? >>
Perhaps it was puttied over and the putty has since turned???
<< <i>Looks like it's on the plastic like the scratch on the obverse. PCGS almost never makes any mistakes whatsoever. Unless they have an ex-NGC/ex-ICG/ex-ANACS graders in training. That is why re-submits are important. >>
okay, now that the Kool-Aid bowl has been spiked, let's get back to the question was brought up before: how in the heck do two graders and a finalizer miss this sort of thing? >>
Perhaps it was puttied over and the putty has since turned??? >>
Putty; interesting. The putty could have de-adhered and simply fallen off. Interesting theory. Sounds more plausible than a gaggle of graders missing a giant grafitti X mark.
<< <i>Putty; interesting. The putty could have de-adhered and simply fallen off. Interesting theory. Sounds more plausible than a gaggle of graders missing a giant grafitti X mark. >>
But that just leads to another question that needs answering: How did a "gaggle of graders" (PROFESSIONAL graders) all miss the putty???
It all boils down to a simple, reasonable explanation: PCGS does NOT examine every coin as well as they should. What's scary is that PCGS is obviously the best of all of the TPGs out there... and if they aren't doing their job as well as it should be done, just how poorly are the other TPGs doing theirs? Yikes!
I do not know how coins are graded, but unless they inspect every one very closely under a microscope, I could imagine that putty could be missed. This is based on the assumption that a good putty job has gotten by graders before...and that graders don't use high powered microscopes on every coin. Lots of assumptions there.
I don't think i've seen any putty in person, but I have looked at lots of coins under a microscope to check out the surface that makes cartwheel luster. Metal at that magnification has a pretty specific look. I'd love to see what putty looks like at that mag...but not wanting to pay for a doctored coin myself, I guess i'll never know.
From a technical standpoint, I would cut them some slack, realizing that the doctors can do a darn good job. Chilling, actually. Enough to make me very sad.
From a marketing standpoint...yeah, i'd agree that the best in the business ought not to make a mistake like this. But mistakes are made and that is what insurance is for...i've heard that PCGS stands behind their grades and will compensate folks who run into issues like this.
And your comment about other grading companies and how well they do? Well. Hmm. I'd agree. I hope none of my non PCGS nor PCGS coins develop the alphabet fever!
interesting thread. i guess my only thoughts is that heritage pictures are notorious for showing off some problems while completely hiding others.
notice how the scan shows the X perfectly, but none of the hairlines that heritage easily shows.
convincing argument for putty but i am not sure yet. i need to look at the teletrade pics again.
edited to add: teletrade clearly shows the "X" but not the hairlines heritage shows.
heritage may very well have taken a shot of the coin not showing the X at the right angle. since the coin is cheap, relatively speaking, heritage does not have a description. sigh..
But that just leads to another question that needs answering: How did a "gaggle of graders" (PROFESSIONAL graders) all miss the putty???
Putty jobs are done expressedly to fool the graders, and if well done, will fool the graders. As I have said here before, there is a cottage industry of taking MS-62 $20 Libs, puttying them up a little bit, and getting them into 63 and 64 holders.
<< <i>If it was putty wouldnt the remains of the putty still be in the slab? >>
I had the same thought. I find it inconceivable that if this X were puttied, that there wouldn't be some trace of the putty still adhering to the X. >>
I bet if we had the coin in hand we could figure out where the putty is now.
<< <i>If it was putty wouldnt the remains of the putty still be in the slab? >>
I had the same thought. I find it inconceivable that if this X were puttied, that there wouldn't be some trace of the putty still adhering to the X. >>
there does seem to be some grey specs floating around in the slab. i need to compare the spec locations to the heritage shot now.
Frankly, I would like to see the coin and slab and would pay the buyer whatever he paid for the coin, so long as it is not ridiculous (and a nominal shipping charge), for it.
I'm going to second the putty or foreign substance vote. >>
Excellent detective work. Now we need to put "CAC" in the title of this thread, so more folks will read it. >>
Robert, you just love to stir the CAC pot. Actually, this thread might be an endorsement for the CAC.
All the pot stirring aside, my guess is this coin was putty practice. The 1878-S $2.5 is a common date so why cover up the X. I too would love to see this coin in hand.
<< <i>The 1878-S $2.5 is a common date so why cover up the X. I too would love to see this coin in hand. >>
With an "X", the coin is worth melt. In a 58 holder, it's worth another $150-250 dollars. For a few minutes work per coin, and working on a twenty coins at a time, it's worth one's while to do so.
<< <i>Putty; interesting. The putty could have de-adhered and simply fallen off. Interesting theory. Sounds more plausible than a gaggle of graders missing a giant grafitti X mark. >>
But that just leads to another question that needs answering: How did a "gaggle of graders" (PROFESSIONAL graders) all miss the putty???
It all boils down to a simple, reasonable explanation: PCGS does NOT examine every coin as well as they should. What's scary is that PCGS is obviously the best of all of the TPGs out there... and if they aren't doing their job as well as it should be done, just how poorly are the other TPGs doing theirs? Yikes! >>
I have a good friend who is a PCGS grader.They all 3,look at each coin for about 20-30 seconds or less,give opinions(grades)and coin goes to FINALIZER.That is how each coin is graded.
Great coins are not cheap,and cheap coins are not great!
<< <i>But that just leads to another question that needs answering: How did a "gaggle of graders" (PROFESSIONAL graders) all miss the putty???
Putty jobs are done expressedly to fool the graders, and if well done, will fool the graders. As I have said here before, there is a cottage industry of taking MS-62 $20 Libs, puttying them up a little bit, and getting them into 63 and 64 holders. >>
The numismatic landscape is becoming a pretty scary place nowadays. Coin doctors who can fool the experts. Chinese counterfeit coins in counterfeit slabs. Thank goodness for a message board like this where you have seasoned collectors who share their insights and expertise on a daily basis.
Man, you folks are AMAZING! Just confirms why I lurk around here - an amazing numismatic resource.
So ... now I'm looking for any sign of putty and I can't see anything that looks like flaked-off stuff in the slab. I also can't see any sign of slab tampering. The goobers on the reverse are there, and are visible in both the Heritage and TT photos. there are hairlines around the "x" in the -10deg to 170deg line, but also some that are vertical in direction. The area around the "x" appears "pristine," in a manner of speaking.
I still haven't heard back from PCGS, but will let you know if I do. If someone wants to purchase this gem, I paid $290 to TT delivered and would certainly be willing to pass this along to anyone for the same price delivered. I'd pay for the shipping as long as the recipient promised to keep the newsgroup informed of anything they find out.
Take a look at the 2005 auction pictures - the "X" is obvious. I'd love to hear the full story on this coin! I guess the putty theory is out but it was fun while it lasted.
Either (1) the now obvious damage was NOT so obvious when it made it past ALL the graders.
OR (2) the coin was damaged and somehow ALL the graders totally missed it. I find this hard to believe.
OR (3) when graded, the coin was not damaged at all thereby implying that perhaps someone knows how to crack PCGS slabs open and pulled a switcheroo.
Besides knowing who the original submitter is, PCGS can verify what it looked like when it arrived as well as when it left, that is - provided everything is on camera, as well it should be, here at PCGS.
Only PCGS knows "Why" it was graded provided this IS the same coin.
Assuming that the coin is represented properly in all of the photos, there is one inescapable conclusion, which, of course, cannot be uttered in public.
Comments
I agree. This has gone on too long. Mistakes happen and get fixed easily enough.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
<< <i>Looks like it's on the plastic like the scratch on the obverse. PCGS almost never makes any mistakes whatsoever. Unless they have an ex-NGC/ex-ICG/ex-ANACS graders in training. That is why re-submits are important. >>
okay, now that the Kool-Aid bowl has been spiked, let's get back to the question was brought up before: how in the heck do two graders and a finalizer miss this sort of thing?
Just a litle sip.
Fighting the Fight for 11 Years with the big "C" - Never Ever Give Up!
Member PCGS Open Forum board 2002 - 2006 (closed end of 2006) Current board since 2006 Successful trades with many members, over the past two decades, never a bad deal.
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like it's on the plastic like the scratch on the obverse. PCGS almost never makes any mistakes whatsoever. Unless they have an ex-NGC/ex-ICG/ex-ANACS graders in training. That is why re-submits are important. >>
okay, now that the Kool-Aid bowl has been spiked, let's get back to the question was brought up before: how in the heck do two graders and a finalizer miss this sort of thing? >>
Perhaps it was puttied over and the putty has since turned???
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Looks like it's on the plastic like the scratch on the obverse. PCGS almost never makes any mistakes whatsoever. Unless they have an ex-NGC/ex-ICG/ex-ANACS graders in training. That is why re-submits are important. >>
okay, now that the Kool-Aid bowl has been spiked, let's get back to the question was brought up before: how in the heck do two graders and a finalizer miss this sort of thing? >>
Perhaps it was puttied over and the putty has since turned??? >>
My thoughts too.
<< <i>Putty; interesting. The putty could have de-adhered and simply fallen off. Interesting theory. Sounds more plausible than a gaggle of graders missing a giant grafitti X mark. >>
But that just leads to another question that needs answering: How did a "gaggle of graders" (PROFESSIONAL graders) all miss the putty???
It all boils down to a simple, reasonable explanation: PCGS does NOT examine every coin as well as they should. What's scary is that PCGS is obviously the best of all of the TPGs out there... and if they aren't doing their job as well as it should be done, just how poorly are the other TPGs doing theirs? Yikes!
I don't think i've seen any putty in person, but I have looked at lots of coins under a microscope to check out the surface that makes cartwheel luster. Metal at that magnification has a pretty specific look. I'd love to see what putty looks like at that mag...but not wanting to pay for a doctored coin myself, I guess i'll never know.
From a technical standpoint, I would cut them some slack, realizing that the doctors can do a darn good job. Chilling, actually. Enough to make me very sad.
From a marketing standpoint...yeah, i'd agree that the best in the business ought not to make a mistake like this. But mistakes are made and that is what insurance is for...i've heard that PCGS stands behind their grades and will compensate folks who run into issues like this.
And your comment about other grading companies and how well they do? Well. Hmm. I'd agree. I hope none of my non PCGS nor PCGS coins develop the alphabet fever!
I'm going to second the putty or foreign substance vote.
<< <i>Nice work RYK. Take a look here.
I'm going to second the putty or foreign substance vote. >>
Excellent detective work. Now we need to put "CAC" in the title of this thread, so more folks will read it.
<< <i>Nice work RYK. Take a look here.
I'm going to second the putty or foreign substance vote. >>
Holy crud, that's the same coin!
UH OH!
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
are notorious for showing off some problems while completely hiding others.
notice how the scan shows the X perfectly, but none of the hairlines that
heritage easily shows.
convincing argument for putty but i am not sure yet.
i need to look at the teletrade pics again.
edited to add: teletrade clearly shows the "X" but not the hairlines heritage
shows.
heritage may very well have taken a shot of the coin not showing the X at the
right angle. since the coin is cheap, relatively speaking, heritage does not have
a description. sigh..
Putty jobs are done expressedly to fool the graders, and if well done, will fool the graders. As I have said here before, there is a cottage industry of taking MS-62 $20 Libs, puttying them up a little bit, and getting them into 63 and 64 holders.
<< <i>If it was putty wouldnt the remains of the putty still be in the slab? >>
I had the same thought. I find it inconceivable that if this X were puttied, that there wouldn't be some trace of the putty still adhering to the X.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
Broadstruck, you crack me up! Who knew Bloodsport of all things could be applied so effectively to a coin thread?
Love your pics/gifs.
<< <i>
<< <i>If it was putty wouldnt the remains of the putty still be in the slab? >>
I had the same thought. I find it inconceivable that if this X were puttied, that there wouldn't be some trace of the putty still adhering to the X. >>
I bet if we had the coin in hand we could figure out where the putty is now.
<< <i>
<< <i>If it was putty wouldnt the remains of the putty still be in the slab? >>
I had the same thought. I find it inconceivable that if this X were puttied, that there wouldn't be some trace of the putty still adhering to the X. >>
there does seem to be some grey specs floating around in the slab.
i need to compare the spec locations to the heritage shot now.
<< <i>I know pcgs would be interested if indeed it was a putty job so they can look up who submitted it. >>
Most of the coin docs submit through another party. Nice thought, though.
<< <i>
<< <i>Nice work RYK. Take a look here.
I'm going to second the putty or foreign substance vote. >>
Excellent detective work. Now we need to put "CAC" in the title of this thread, so more folks will read it.
Robert, you just love to stir the CAC pot.
All the pot stirring aside, my guess is this coin was putty practice. The 1878-S $2.5 is a common date so why cover up the X. I too would love to see this coin in hand.
<< <i>The 1878-S $2.5 is a common date so why cover up the X. I too would love to see this coin in hand. >>
With an "X", the coin is worth melt. In a 58 holder, it's worth another $150-250 dollars. For a few minutes work per coin, and working on a twenty coins at a time, it's worth one's while to do so.
<< <i>
<< <i>Putty; interesting. The putty could have de-adhered and simply fallen off. Interesting theory. Sounds more plausible than a gaggle of graders missing a giant grafitti X mark. >>
But that just leads to another question that needs answering: How did a "gaggle of graders" (PROFESSIONAL graders) all miss the putty???
It all boils down to a simple, reasonable explanation: PCGS does NOT examine every coin as well as they should. What's scary is that PCGS is obviously the best of all of the TPGs out there... and if they aren't doing their job as well as it should be done, just how poorly are the other TPGs doing theirs? Yikes! >>
I have a good friend who is a PCGS grader.They all 3,look at each coin for about 20-30 seconds or less,give opinions(grades)and coin goes to FINALIZER.That is how each coin is graded.
<< <i>Xquisite.
<< <i>that was done on the special "take your kid to work and let them grade, day" >>
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
<< <i>But that just leads to another question that needs answering: How did a "gaggle of graders" (PROFESSIONAL graders) all miss the putty???
Putty jobs are done expressedly to fool the graders, and if well done, will fool the graders. As I have said here before, there is a cottage industry of taking MS-62 $20 Libs, puttying them up a little bit, and getting them into 63 and 64 holders. >>
The numismatic landscape is becoming a pretty scary place nowadays. Coin doctors who can fool the experts. Chinese counterfeit coins in counterfeit slabs. Thank goodness for a message board like this where you have seasoned collectors who share their insights and expertise on a daily basis.
<< <i>I think it happened after it was in the slab.
Ray >>
Interesting thought!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
So ... now I'm looking for any sign of putty and I can't see anything that looks like flaked-off stuff in the slab. I also can't see any sign of slab tampering. The goobers on the reverse are there, and are visible in both the Heritage and TT photos. there are hairlines around the "x" in the -10deg to 170deg line, but also some that are vertical in direction. The area around the "x" appears "pristine," in a manner of speaking.
I still haven't heard back from PCGS, but will let you know if I do. If someone wants to purchase this gem, I paid $290 to TT delivered and would certainly be willing to pass this along to anyone for the same price delivered. I'd pay for the shipping as long as the recipient promised to keep the newsgroup informed of anything they find out.
Fun stuff!
-drew
Beyond belief! X should have marked the BB spot...
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
2005 Auction
Take a look at the 2005 auction pictures - the "X" is obvious. I'd love to hear the full story on this coin! I guess the putty theory is out but it was fun while it lasted.
Looks like someone has been playing with the pictures
<< <i>After doing some research, I discovered that Mr. X gets around. >>
Great find. Looks like this is a pretty famous coin after all.
Good question! One that only PCGS can answer.
Either (1) the now obvious damage was NOT so obvious when it made it past ALL the graders.
OR (2) the coin was damaged and somehow ALL the graders totally missed it. I find this hard to believe.
OR (3) when graded, the coin was not damaged at all thereby implying that perhaps someone knows how to crack PCGS slabs open and pulled a switcheroo.
Besides knowing who the original submitter is, PCGS can verify what it looked like when it arrived as well as when it left, that is - provided everything is on camera, as well it should be, here at PCGS.
Only PCGS knows "Why" it was graded provided this IS the same coin.
100 (BTW)