Sure glad I didn't use Secure Plus!

lkeigwin

There are a couple of special rules with Secure Plus. One is you cannot do crossovers. If it's already slabbed you have to accept a crackout at PCGS, and associated risks. Another is no genuine holders, just bodybags. Maybe there are other differences besides the obvious laser imaging stuff...can't remember.

I decided to play it safe and do a cross with the regular service on an 1803 large cent, ANACS VF25. Cross at any grade (which means no bodybags, if it won't cross). Today I learned it was not gradable for "environmental damage".

The coin was a modest one, with signs of pitting and slight corrosion. But no worse, I figured, than a 1795 I have, PCGS XF40. Or many other early ones I have seen. The TPG's are a little forgiving on early copper, I felt.

Wrong again. I've been wrong a lot lately, the missus says.

Here are the two coins for comparison.

In your opinion, should I try again with the 1803 or submit the 1795 for a grade review under PCGS's guarantee? Or, just give up? (Yes, I know some will say "who cares about the slab? Leave it alone." But I prefer PCGS slabs for lots of reasons so let's not go there.)

Maybe I should submit them together for an honest eye-to-eye comparison?
Lance.

Environmentally damaged


Acceptable at PCGS (XF40)

coinpictures

The problem is that you're expecting consistency...

crypto79

crack and it should be fine

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

<< <i>The problem is that you're expecting consistency... >>

ricko

Cheers, RickO

drwstr123

Don't get me started.

poorguy

Crack and submit. I wrote a bunch down here about what I feel about the graders at both NGC and PCGS but decided not to post it. This isn't my house. This is PCGS's house. I know when to keep my mouth shut. Just go read my show report on the link in my sig line re the incident with the 1893-O Dollar.

WaterSport

The problem is that you're expecting consistency...
Ain't that the truth...

All I can say is my son started a low grade large cent collection about 8 years ago when he was 10. I went through his book and mistakenly using current red copper standards listed each coin on a spread sheet noting its defects and why it would not grade vs. acknowledgment that it would grade. (Understand that that the goal here is to have a father/son cent collection from present to 17??)
Starting with those that “would grade” I began sending them in 5- 10 at a time. Needless to say, after trying to understand any resemblance of what was acceptable, I gave up and sent ALL but the Obviously dented, HEAVELIY scratched, etc coins. The results with poor pictures can be seen. But for the sake of me I still cannot figure out why the 1818 did not grade. Take a look at the 1830 and 1812 also.

Large Cent Collection

WS

notwilight

1803 isn't as early, or as hard to find in good condition, as 1795. Add the 17xx coolness factor... That said, I think your coin is very borderline and can probably make it into a holder.

The obv of the 03 has areas, esp around the breast, that look raised instead of pitted. Is this corrosion on top of the surfaces? It almost looks like a rusted die but I'm not aware of severe rust pitting of dies in 03.

JMHO. --Jerry

lkeigwin

<< <i>1803 isn't as early, or as hard to find in good condition, as 1795. Add the 17xx coolness factor... That said, I think your coin is very borderline and can probably make it into a holder.

The obv of the 03 has areas, esp around the breast, that look raised instead of pitted. Is this corrosion on top of the surfaces? It almost looks like a rusted die but I'm not aware of severe rust pitting of dies in 03.

JMHO. --Jerry >>

Thanks for the feedback. When it comes back from PCGS I'll take another look. All I have now are the images. I will likely crack it and keep it with my other raw large cents. It's probably not worth more fees to get it slabbed. But I agree that grading very early copper is a little inconsistent.
Lance.

BigRick

The bottom one looks worse (as far as pitting) IMHO.