There's 2 issues now. In the 2005 Heritage photo, the "x" is clearly visible, but the goobers on the rev. are not (although it's not one of their large pics, so it's kind of hard to tell).
Forgive me for being obtuse, but is the "inescapable conclusion" that Heritage doctored the photo (which I have a hard time believing) or that the coin was removed from the holder, filled with putty, and then resealed? -drew
I wonder if the submitter had PCGS photograph the coin after grading? Which raises another question. If a coin like this is graded and slabbed and when the photo is taken and the scratch is then noticed then would it be bb?
There's 2 issues now. In the 2005 Heritage photo, the "x" is clearly visible, but the goobers on the rev. are not (although it's not one of their large pics, so it's kind of hard to tell).
Forgive me for being obtuse, but is the "inescapable conclusion" that Heritage doctored the photo (which I have a hard time believing) or that the coin was removed from the holder, filled with putty, and then resealed? -drew >>
no, I think that conclusion is that PCGS made a mistake. But nothing wrong with that, which is why the PCGS guarantee is there. PCGS will take care of it if asked to do so.
<< <i>Nice thing is that it can (and should) be sent back to PCGS for corrective action. No other company stands behind their product as completely. >>
I'm the Proud recipient of a genuine "you suck" award dated 1/24/05. I was accepted into the "Circle of Trust" on 3/9/09.
<< <i>If you're willing, please send this coin into PCGS for a guarantee review. I'd be very interested to see it "in person."
Thanks and best wishes,
Ron Guth PCGS President >>
Is that X a no no for slabbing? I have seen much worse in slabs and just assumed that the coin was graded accordingly, it looks to be a light surface scratch.
1. Have been exchanging emails with PCGS customer service (Sonia). She's going to send me a submission form to send it in for guarantee review. Emails have been prompt, friendly, and courteous. KUDOs! I also liked that Ron Guth posted to this thread.
2. Got out my daughter's Christmas present, a QX5 DigitalBlue microscope, and started playing with it (ok-ok ... it might've been a present for more than her, 'cause I've had a blast with it!).
2a. Check out these next two pics. First is a 10x shot of the reverse with the light coming from the top at an angle of about 45deg. Amazing what magically disappears! (btw, I haven't played at all with the pics - taken directly by the QX5 and exported to jpg). Second is a close-up of the "x".
2b. Took some close-ups (60x) of the dark spots/verdigris on the reverse.
Whatcha think? The first shot of the reverse leads me to believe that the Heritage photo that didn't show the "x" could simply be a matter of lighting. I'm not intelligent enough to conclude anything from the shots of the verdigris. Are they normal verdigris (whatever that means); are they leftovers of putty?
1. Have been exchanging emails with PCGS customer service (Sonia). She's going to send me a submission form to send it in for guarantee review. Emails have been prompt, friendly, and courteous. KUDOs! I also liked that Ron Guth posted to this thread.
2. Got out my daughter's Christmas present, a QX5 DigitalBlue microscope, and started playing with it (ok-ok ... it might've been a present for more than her, 'cause I've had a blast with it!).
2a. Check out these next two pics. First is a 10x shot of the reverse with the light coming from the top at an angle of about 45deg. Amazing what magically disappears! (btw, I haven't played at all with the pics - taken directly by the QX5 and exported to jpg). Second is a close-up of the "x".
2b. Took some close-ups (60x) of the dark spots/verdigris on the reverse.
Whatcha think? The first shot of the reverse leads me to believe that the Heritage photo that didn't show the "x" could simply be a matter of lighting. I'm not intelligent enough to conclude anything from the shots of the verdigris. Are they normal verdigris (whatever that means); are they leftovers of putty?
Comments? -drew >>
Interesting, that crud looks suspicious but gold coins are not my area.
The first shot of the reverse leads me to believe that the Heritage photo that didn't show the "x" could simply be a matter of lighting.
I would wonder if it more a matter of the angle of the shot or angle of the lighting than the quality of the lighting, but I am a complete knucklehead when it comes to photography (and other things ).
<< <i>The first shot of the reverse leads me to believe that the Heritage photo that didn't show the "x" could simply be a matter of lighting. >>
Yes, you can adjust lighting to show or hide almost anything on a gold coin.
In this case, you would have to set the lighting just right to avoid seeing those scratches...therefore, I find it hard to believe that the photographer would not be complicit with fraud.
In your typical gold coin photo, you see all sorts of things in the digital enlargement that weren't visible to your unaided eye. I do not believe that the photographer somehow missed this in ignorance.
Thank goodness for a message board like this where you have seasoned collectors who share their insights and expertise on a daily basis. Text
Yes, and now I wish we had a committed law enforcement type fraud buster who took the time to investigate and file charges against the "putty people" or other crooks.
Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment. Full effort is full victory. -Gandhi
My guess: PCGS will put it in one of their new 'genuine' coin holders, as the coin indeed is authentic; it just has two scratches. It would probably sell fairly cheaply, but it would probably sell.
Or do folks think that this one wouldn't make a 'genuine' holder? Isn't this exactly what the genuine holder is for or did I miss the point?
Comments
There's 2 issues now. In the 2005 Heritage photo, the "x" is clearly visible, but the goobers on the rev. are not (although it's not one of their large pics, so it's kind of hard to tell).
Forgive me for being obtuse, but is the "inescapable conclusion" that Heritage doctored the photo (which I have a hard time believing) or that the coin was removed from the holder, filled with putty, and then resealed?
-drew
Lafayette Grading Set
<< <i>Hmmm. Gets even more interesting.
There's 2 issues now. In the 2005 Heritage photo, the "x" is clearly visible, but the goobers on the rev. are not (although it's not one of their large pics, so it's kind of hard to tell).
Forgive me for being obtuse, but is the "inescapable conclusion" that Heritage doctored the photo (which I have a hard time believing) or that the coin was removed from the holder, filled with putty, and then resealed?
-drew >>
no, I think that conclusion is that PCGS made a mistake. But nothing wrong with that, which is why the PCGS guarantee is there. PCGS will take care of it if asked to do so.
<< <i>I notice that the “you can’t grade a coin from a photo and have to have it in hand” folks are not weighing in on this discussion.
IMHO, you can't grade a coin from a photo and have to have it in hand!
<< <i>Nice thing is that it can (and should) be sent back to PCGS for corrective action. No other company stands behind their product as completely. >>
If the coin REALLY looks this way I am certain PCGS will remove it from the Marketplace.
What's with this now you see it, now you don't, Magic X?
<< <i>So - Where is this glaringly obvious X?
Yes, that is part of the mystery. The 2007 auction (your picture above) shows no X but the 2005 auction clearly shows the X.
Thanks and best wishes,
Ron Guth
PCGS President
President
PCGS CoinFacts - the Internet Encyclopedia of U.S. Coins
www.CoinFacts.com
<< <i>If you're willing, please send this coin into PCGS for a guarantee review. I'd be very interested to see it "in person."
Thanks and best wishes,
Ron Guth
PCGS President >>
Is that X a no no for slabbing? I have seen much worse in slabs and just assumed that the coin was graded accordingly, it looks to be a light surface scratch.
-Paul
and then looking at the 07 again with that knowledge, it looks like the photoshop brush tool, done not all that
precisely.
Here's an update on this thread.
1. Have been exchanging emails with PCGS customer service (Sonia). She's going to send me a submission form to send it in for guarantee review. Emails have been prompt, friendly, and courteous. KUDOs! I also liked that Ron Guth posted to this thread.
2. Got out my daughter's Christmas present, a QX5 DigitalBlue microscope, and started playing with it (ok-ok ... it might've been a present for more than her, 'cause I've had a blast with it!).
2a. Check out these next two pics. First is a 10x shot of the reverse with the light coming from the top at an angle of about 45deg. Amazing what magically disappears! (btw, I haven't played at all with the pics - taken directly by the QX5 and exported to jpg). Second is a close-up of the "x".
2b. Took some close-ups (60x) of the dark spots/verdigris on the reverse.
Whatcha think? The first shot of the reverse leads me to believe that the Heritage photo that didn't show the "x" could simply be a matter of lighting. I'm not intelligent enough to conclude anything from the shots of the verdigris. Are they normal verdigris (whatever that means); are they leftovers of putty?
Comments?
-drew
<< <i>Folks,
Here's an update on this thread.
1. Have been exchanging emails with PCGS customer service (Sonia). She's going to send me a submission form to send it in for guarantee review. Emails have been prompt, friendly, and courteous. KUDOs! I also liked that Ron Guth posted to this thread.
2. Got out my daughter's Christmas present, a QX5 DigitalBlue microscope, and started playing with it (ok-ok ... it might've been a present for more than her, 'cause I've had a blast with it!).
2a. Check out these next two pics. First is a 10x shot of the reverse with the light coming from the top at an angle of about 45deg. Amazing what magically disappears! (btw, I haven't played at all with the pics - taken directly by the QX5 and exported to jpg). Second is a close-up of the "x".
2b. Took some close-ups (60x) of the dark spots/verdigris on the reverse.
Whatcha think? The first shot of the reverse leads me to believe that the Heritage photo that didn't show the "x" could simply be a matter of lighting. I'm not intelligent enough to conclude anything from the shots of the verdigris. Are they normal verdigris (whatever that means); are they leftovers of putty?
Comments?
-drew >>
Interesting, that crud looks suspicious but gold coins are not my area.
I would wonder if it more a matter of the angle of the shot or angle of the lighting than the quality of the lighting, but I am a complete knucklehead when it comes to photography (and other things
<< <i>The first shot of the reverse leads me to believe that the Heritage photo that didn't show the "x" could simply be a matter of lighting. >>
Yes, you can adjust lighting to show or hide almost anything on a gold coin.
In this case, you would have to set the lighting just right to avoid seeing those scratches...therefore, I find it hard to believe that the photographer would not be complicit with fraud.
In your typical gold coin photo, you see all sorts of things in the digital enlargement that weren't visible to your unaided eye. I do not believe that the photographer somehow missed this in ignorance.
Yes, and now I wish we had a committed law enforcement type fraud buster who took the time to investigate and file charges against the "putty people" or other crooks.
We can only guess.
My guess: PCGS will put it in one of their new 'genuine' coin holders, as the coin indeed is authentic; it just has two scratches. It would probably sell fairly cheaply, but it would probably sell.
Or do folks think that this one wouldn't make a 'genuine' holder? Isn't this exactly what the genuine holder is for or did I miss the point?