What do you think caused this damage? UPDATED

llafoe

When you look at the obverse (rim 7:00 and field 10:00) and the reverse (rim 11:00 and field 7:00)... what do you think caused this damage? It's an MS68 that PCGS just cracked-out to regrade and reholder in a Secure Plus holder. To me it looks like it was clamped (the obverse and reverse are 180 degrees out)? If the marks are truly there, I -doubt we would have missed them before submission. We rotate every coin tilting on the axis at each quadrant (that's 8 views per coin)... unless the light is reflecting on the z-axis, I don't see how we could have missed those marks? I hope it's just a peculiarity in the photography because it looks like an MS65 from the photo!

llafoe

commoncents05

I don't think it's damage. I think the blank was uneven before striking, and that unevenness was not struck out. As far as the field at 10:00, it looks like normal marks.

-Paul

canadanz

<< <i>I don't think it's damage. I think the blank was uneven before striking, and that unevenness was not struck out. As far as the field at 10:00, it looks like normal marks.

-Paul >>



Normal marks for a 68? I'm with llafoe. It definitely doesn't look 68 according to the pics.

streeter

Larry, what was being served at the bar that night?

You actually spend money on these? No wonder PCGS likes you.

That's my first last and only comment on moderns

llafoe

<< <i>Larry, what was being served at the bar that night?

You actually spend money on these? No wonder PCGS likes you.

That's my first last and only comment on moderns >>



Great, now I'm going to have to read all your previous and future posts to prove you wrong. Thanks!

llafoe

<< <i>I don't think it's damage. I think the blank was uneven before striking, and that unevenness was not struck out. As far as the field at 10:00, it looks like normal marks.

-Paul >>



I think DW agrees with you.

GrumpyEd

I think what Paul said is right.
The reason you see it now is the photo and lighting is great and it's a huge photo.

I guess we're lucky the grade em then take a photo instead of taking the pic and grading the pic

llafoe

Looks like this is another one to add to my upgrade (at the same grade) list! The year 2000 really sucks for PQ coins!

coinman23885

Unless your images are off, there is no way that the coin is a MS68. I would leave high grade modern coins in their PCGS/NGC holders.

Edited to add: Could you not have submitted it in its original holder for regrade under the new tier? You now have a coin that is worth as much as the pieces in a common bank roll!

llafoe

<< <i>Unless your images are off, there is no way that the coin is a MS68. I would leave high grade modern coins in their PCGS/NGC holders.

Edited to add: Could you not have submitted it in its original holder for regrade under the new tier? You now have a coin that is worth as much as the pieces in a common bank roll! >>



It was in a regular PCGS slab as an MS68, it's now in a Secure Plus slab as an MS68.

BillyKingsley

IF that's a 68, I should probably start flipping my roll searching finds. Dang.

That would be in my to be replaced list in circulation finds...

lcoopie

I don't see 68 or 67

llafoe

I just received this coin in the mail... it appears the PHOTO caused the damage! With coin in hand, there are NO marks at 10:00 on the obverse and 7:00 on the reverse! WTH? Maybe there was a ghost in the photo playing tricks with the photographer?

ModCrewman

That being said. Do you think they gave you the wrong TrueView?

keyman64

Then just edit out the marks with Photoshop so you have images that properly represent your coin in hand and be done....probably what I would do. ....or you can send it back to them and tell them to get it right...they should make good on it....ask for them to pay for the shipping too if it is indeed their fault....or maybe give it to them at the next big show you go to.

llafoe

<< <i>That being said. Do you think they gave you the wrong TrueView? >>



No, the hit above the eye and above the "T" in QUARTER are there...