I dont see a problem. Do you?

QuarterCollector

Just got a few grades back from PCGS. I was shocked on this coin. PCGS says "tooled" . I dont see it. Can anyone point it out?

Tom

lordmarcovan

The hair looks mighty sharp, but no, I don't see it either.

It was a very good job, I guess.

Nice looking coin, regardless.

But where's the circular die break? I can't recall seeing a high grade 1820 without the stars joined by that circular break.

tightbudget

Maybe some of those spots in the field left of Liberty's portrait have been diminished?

savoyspecial

i'm guessing stars #1 and perhaps #2

lordmarcovan

Aha- y'all might be onto something, there.

When I read the word "tooled", my mind automatically went to the sort of tooling that is done to touch up details like Liberty's hair (which is usually fairly obvious). I didn't even think about the more common "tooling to remove some crud" sense of the word.

Walmann

Appears to be a faint "after image" of the die break from the 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock stars.

MsMorrisine

shottaker

<< <i>The hair looks mighty sharp, but no, I don't see it either.

It was a very good job, I guess.

Nice looking coin, regardless.

But where's the circular die break? I can't recall seeing a high grade 1820 without the stars joined by that circular break. >>



Non "horde" coins are out there without the die breaks. Looks like its partially there from 10-2 oclock. Without seeing it in person cant tell what they see, but its extremely well struck. Almost too well struck especially in the ear/eyes area. Looks like a proof in the central obverse region with typical strike characteristics in the fields/stars area.
Coin looks tremendous though. I'd probably have someone take a very close look at it. Maybe a couple of old timer eac members since I see you're a member. Sometimes they have semilocal meetings. How bout the third side? Any signs of a repaired rim bruise? Also the date needs a close look. The dates not altered as this coins a 1820 but it looks a lil off. Cant quite put my finger on it, maybe some tooling there. Cant tell without seeing it in person and even then I'm not the god of large cents by a mile. My eyes are more experienced in other series, and are a little bit noobish with large cent characteristics.

TheRegulator

Looks like it is an 1820 N-13. Notice anything missing???

Apparently, the die breaks have been tooled away. My first thought was that the fields were tooled and smoothed down, perhaps to minimize some corrosion. The obverse color does not match the reverse color, which looks more original.

Looking at my copy of The Cent Book, by Wright, it looks to be the 1820 N-13, less the die breaks...

lordmarcovan

<< <i>Almost too well struck especially in the ear/eyes area >>

I suppose that is what subconsciously caught my eye, too.

Zoins

<< <i>Looks like it is an 1820 N-13. Notice anything missing???

Apparently, the die breaks have been tooled away. My first thought was that the fields were tooled and smoothed down, perhaps to minimize some corrosion. The obverse color does not match the reverse color, which looks more original.

Looking at my copy of The Cent Book, by Wright, it looks to be the 1820 N-13, less the die breaks... >>

Nice research.

Bochiman

The eye caught my eye....as well as the ear

coindeuce

What TheRegulator wrote...the fields have been smoothed.

doh

<< <i>the fields have been smoothed. >>




The obv fields don't look right to me...

NumisOxide

<< <i>Looks like it is an 1820 N-13. Notice anything missing???

Apparently, the die breaks have been tooled away. My first thought was that the fields were tooled and smoothed down, perhaps to minimize some corrosion. The obverse color does not match the reverse color, which looks more original.

Looking at my copy of The Cent Book, by Wright, it looks to be the 1820 N-13, less the die breaks... >>


Nice catch. Didn't think about that! Why would someone do that,though?

Rob85635

I don't see anything wrong. I agree that the fields between the stars on the upper half of the obv look odd, I thought mild toning but maybe that is it? I see stars savoyspecial is talking about, there are only a couple stars with dents, could that be tooling? The only other thing I could think of (I don't know this series at all) would maybe be the reverse denticles between 6:00 and 10:00. A few of them look a little odd, but that is a guess.

Sure looks good to me. Magnification is the only way I can see solving this one. The tooling is very good, but why would anyone mess with this coin? It's a beut.

SirAnthonyAC

That coins looks amazingly well struck... it could be (as others have said) that the die breaks appear to have been tooled away.

Honestly though, I don't have an example any where near that quaility to compare

Freaking GREAT looking coin either way though!

Edited to add: silly question but, could it possibly be a VERY early strike, before the die crack became more prevalent? Is that possible? Could it be the first strike using the die that someone put aside?

Zoins

I agree this is a nice looking coin.

How would you prefer PCGS handle this, and like, coins:

(1) Gennie
(2) Gennie with reason spelled out on holder
(3) Net grade
(4) Details grade
(5) Body bag

golfer72

Why cant PCGS just tell you exactly what is wrong with the coin? If its tooled where its tooled. What is so difficult about this?

ambro51

I see a running depression line between the top stars, that would be the tooling, The color blends just look "off" on the reverse, so I guess it was tooled, smoothed and recolored.

......I think great 'moneymaker' for the home team would be a short one paragraph note from the finalizer on exactly what the conclusion on a problem coin was. charge for it...it would be worth it.

yellowjacket

Now I see the "problem." From stars 4 through 10 you can see where the die cracks have been removed...I think.

PCGS uses a microscope to ID these problems...while it's most difficult to see them on a forum image.

Thanks for sharing.
Garrow

lordmarcovan

In answer to Zoins:



<< <i>(4) Details grade >>



Would be my pick for how I'd best like to see PCGS handle "problem" coins. But the current "genuine" holder is at least a big improvement over the bodybag, where one ended up with nothing for the money. At least now you get authentication and a plastic slab for your fees.

relicsncoins

<< <i>Why cant PCGS just tell you exactly what is wrong with the coin? If its tooled where its tooled. What is so difficult about this? >>



I'm guessing for every problem free coin they get, they get 2 or 3 problem coins. I think it would greatly bog down the system if they had to explain what the exact problem was with each problem coin. My guess is, it would double the time it takes to get coins through the system.

shorecoll

If someone removed the die breaks, it could have been in the "good old days" when people wouldn't buy "problem" coins. Think of how many thousands, or hundreds of thousands of coin polishing cloths were sold before many, err some of us were born.

BillJones

Here is an 1818 large cent for comparison. This one is graded MS-63, brown.




I think that the 1920 large cent was "tooled" in fields. It appears to me that the fields had spots or perhaps some roughness removed. The luster looks great on the reverse, but the obverse has a dull, flat look.

BillJones

The die variety is 1820-13. It is an R-1.

According to John Wright all known examples of this variety, including a single Proof, have the die break through the date and all of the stars. I think that those who have pointed that this feature is mosly missing on this piece are correct.

Wright also notes that the coin is usually well struck, so I don't think that the sharp hair detail is a problem. Usually when the hair has been messed with, it's pretty obvious.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

Some carbon flecks were probably scratched off.

UtahCoin

Maybe the curls at the back of the neck, and the curls above 2 in the date?

Just a guess.

yellowkid

I find this thread most interesting and a nice break from the whining which seems to have become prevalent on the board. This is why I came to this site, thanks all for your input!!

richardshipp

I agree... very interesting thread. Still a very nice looking coin IMO.

Edscoin

I don't understand why someone would try to remove the die break, Unless they were trying to fake another scarcer variety?

HTubbs

Tooled or not, I like it...Too bad PCGS doesn't give a brief synopsis of why they felt a coin should be called "tooled",etc.