How bad does a fingerprint need to be?

lkeigwin

I recently sent this 1915-D Lincoln 65RD to PCGS for a spot review. I heard back, "I ran this through the grading room twice and it 65’d both times." PCGS said the obverse is a 65+ or 66, and the reverse looks better than the photo. Net, 65RD.

Below is the cent.

Another example I did not submit because I really just love it is the 1916 Lincoln, also below. Again, a print, but not a disturbing one (to me).

My question is, just what penalty does a fingerprint impose? Some are worse than others, obviously. But isn't this '15 unforgivable? I want to believe it was slabbed before the print evolved. Still, it's not market-acceptable to my mind and I am shocked PCGS found it okay for a 65RD.

What do you say? I hope I don't get banned for bringing this up. PCGS has been great with me about spot reviews. I'm just a little perplexed.
Lance.

GrumpyEd

The prints don't kill them but maybe they should be RB or even 64RB. If I tried to sell them as 65RD I'd feel the need to mention the print and expect to settle for less than a cleaner 65RD so with that in mind I think they aren't 65RD.

veryfine

When it comes to any kind of "blemish" on a coin and its negative impact, my answer is always, "it depends."
The fingerprint visible in your example results in a minor toning pattern and even less so for the 1916. I like both of them, but, of course, I'd prefer that the fingerprints were not there. Apparently, the grading services do not consider them a major negative with regard to eye-appeal, considering the abundant certified examples of MS 65 and higher examples with obvious fingerprints. If I were to grade the 1915-D, I might give it an MS-64 +, but I don't have the coin in front of me, so it's an educated guess on my part. At the MS-65 grade level, I do not like these distractions, but if the coins is superb in other ways, I might overlook them.

It is very common to see fingerprints on many original, uncleaned, undipped "classic" MS coins. There are those, however, who run from any fingerprinted coins, yet the joke is on them. Countless original coins are toned due to human hand to coin contact. There may not be an obvious print patterns, but they could be toned as a result of acidic oils from human handling, smudged across the surface.

The 1915-D is attractive and the assigned grade of MS-65 is not surprising to me.

Myqqy

Perhaps it doesn't really matter what the grading room says, as the market will recognize the offending prints and automatically deduct at least 1 grade point in money for the coin being sold?
All i know is... i HATE freakin' prints- it's the molestation of innocent coins by dim witted people with oily fingers....

Tiny

OK Call me Goofy but I's Like The Fingerprints, the bigger the better. I agree
with "veryfine" in that the touch to the coin can cause tone and that is my
favorite thing for a coin to have. What if ya could match the prints left on a
coin to some famous person, wouldn't that be cool?

Frankcoins

<< <i>OK Call me Goofy but I's Like The Fingerprints, the bigger the better. I agree
with "veryfine" in that the touch to the coin can cause tone and that is my
favorite thing for a coin to have. What if ya could match the prints left on a
coin to some famous person, wouldn't that be cool?


>>



On mpst silver coins such as this, the fingerprints have PREVENTED toning.

stman

<< <i>An existing fingerprint=an original unmessed with coin since it hasn't been removed >>



Where does this info come from? And I see you mentioned the old...... The fingerprint attests to the originality. I definitely don't agree with this myth IMO.
Not talking about this coin the OP showed. These statements sound like dealer hype to me. I've heard it many times before as they try and justify the distraction.

stman

<< <i> if it is still on the coin it means the coin wasn't cleaned in recent times and that I definitley appreciate. >>



OK, "recent" times, I can go along with. But to make a blanket statement that any fingerprint attests to the originality is a bit of a stretch.

stman

ricko

I do not like fingerprints on coins. Very distracting, ugly. Like going to a restaurant and being seated at a dirty table - yuck. Cheers, RickO

PerryHall

<< <i>I do not like fingerprints on coins. Very distracting, ugly. Like going to a restaurant and being seated at a dirty table - yuck. Cheers, RickO >>



Agree. Finger prints are ugly and show careless handling by a previous owner.

coinnut

<< <i>

<< <i>I do not like fingerprints on coins. Very distracting, ugly. Like going to a restaurant and being seated at a dirty table - yuck. Cheers, RickO >>



Agree. Finger prints are ugly and show careless handling by a previous owner. >>





I agree with both statements. I won't buy a coin with a fingerprint.

TPRC

For some reason, fingerprints don't bother me much. I stay away from them generally though because they do bother lots and lots of folks. On the two coins above, I am surprised that the first isn't a RB and also the second, just because of the minor print.

tahoe98

...in time, the coin will morph into brown. it will cease being noticeable.

veryfine

<< <i>

<< <i>I do not like fingerprints on coins. Very distracting, ugly. Like going to a restaurant and being seated at a dirty table - yuck. Cheers, RickO >>



To be serious, all coins have fingerprints on them, some you see because they weren't dipped and some you don't see because they were lucky and some you don't because they were unlucky and were dipped. >>


There is a lot of truth to this statement.

SeattleSlammer

OK Call me Goofy but I's Like The Fingerprints, the bigger the better.



Goofy!!!!

Elcontador

I have seen six figure coins with huge fingerprints. It appears that they do not detract from a coin's grade. Personally, if I see a coin has a fingerprint, I consider it to be "damaged goods," and avoid it.

paladin

Prints don't bother me. They are part of the history of the coin. I liken them to the lines and scars on a person's face.

TheBigB

Except for a few exceptions, I avoid fingerprints. I also like to give my incoming coins an acetone bath for posterity.

For those of you who don't mind fingerprints, just remind me when I handle your coins.

paladin

An old accidental print is a little different from a new intentional one.

messydesk

I don't mind them if they're not distracting and if they don't consist of corrosion spots. The 15-D in the OP fails both of those tests for me.

PerryHall

<< <i>An old accidental print is a little different from a new intentional one. >>



How can you differentiate an old accidental print from a new intentional print and who would purposely put a print on a coin?

Bankerbob56

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I do not like fingerprints on coins. Very distracting, ugly. Like going to a restaurant and being seated at a dirty table - yuck. Cheers, RickO >>



Agree. Finger prints are ugly and show careless handling by a previous owner. >>





I agree with both statements. I won't buy a coin with a fingerprint. >>



+100

cameron12x

What about the print on this coin?



How badly would it affect the grade?

tradedollarnut

<< <i>

<< <i>An old accidental print is a little different from a new intentional one. >>



How can you differentiate an old accidental print from a new intentional print and who would purposely put a print on a coin? >>



The PCGS MS66 Bust Dollar known as the 'Boston Dollar' has a huge fingerprint in the right obverse field - right over the only marks on the coin. When I owned the coin, I often wondered if someone put that print there on purpose to cover up the chatter. I've seen many the coin where a little fresh fingerprint oil was placed in a strategic spot...

paladin

<< <i>

<< <i>An old accidental print is a little different from a new intentional one. >>



How can you differentiate an old accidental print from a new intentional print and who would purposely put a print on a coin? >>



I only said that because, although fingerprints don't necessarily bother me, that doesn't mean I'd advocate careless handling.

johnny9434

a print can be cool from what ive seen but omg, can it be a freaking eyesore at times

veryfine

<< <i>What about the print on this coin?



How badly would it affect the grade? >>


As I see it, there is no negative effect on the grade.
Great looking coin!

Staircoins

I am not a fan of the '15-D in the OP. It's one of those coins where the viewer picks it up and says "Wow, nice coin!", and then turns it over and says "Awww, if only it didn't have the fingerprint." and then puts it back down.

As for the '16, I find the spots on Lincoln's face to be more distracting than the print on the reverse.

PerryHall

<< <i>a print can be cool from what ive seen but omg, can it be a freaking eyesore at times >>



Agree and that pretty much sums it up nicely.

messydesk

<< <i>What about the print on this coin?



How badly would it affect the grade? >>


Passes both of my tests and does not affect grade.

cameron12x

<< <i>

<< <i>What about the print on this coin?



How badly would it affect the grade? >>


Passes both of my tests and does not affect grade. >>


Cool... what grade would you give this example?

thisnamztaken

<< <i> Personally, if I see a coin has a fingerprint, I consider it to be "damaged goods," and avoid it. >>



Fingerprints on coins = pass.

stman

Realone, I don't chase capped Bust halves anymore but, I recently seen the most original looking early date that was fairly priced. Great eye-appeal except it had an obvious print in the field. Yes, it was an old print but enough that I don't want it. Sometimes I can even see a couple print lines and that's a pass for me as well. And...... sometimes I will even know something might not be a print but it looks similar to one and I pass.

They don't bother some folks like yourself and that's fine. But just know to some like me even if you think it's barely noticeable I see it first thing every time I look at the coin.

golfer72

Those are damn nice Lincolns! Since the prints are on the reverse they matter much less. Surprised nobody mentioned this.

bolivarshagnasty

Lance, I think the grade is consistent with others I have seen with a small patch of toning on an otherwise red coin. On the flip side, wouldn't you be upset if the '16 came back in a 65RB holder? Both coins are nice examples and correctly graded IMHO. Mel
BTW, Receive anything in the mail?

Myqqy

I'm a little surprised that so many folks are hunky-dory with nasty fingerprint oil tatooed into coins...
I think we need a poll! I would like to see what the percentages would be with a large enough sample size. My thinking is that most coins are replaceable to some degree- so if there is a grimy fingerstain staring at you from a coin, then it could be a good idea to KEEP LOOKING! more fish in the proverbial sea!

lkeigwin

<< <i>Lance, I think the grade is consistent with others I have seen with a small patch of toning on an otherwise red coin. On the flip side, wouldn't you be upset if the '16 came back in a 65RB holder? Both coins are nice examples and correctly graded IMHO. Mel
BTW, Receive anything in the mail? >>

Right. I didn't submit the '16. I'm okay with that one. The '15-D print is very prominent and it bothers me. I was pretty sure PCGS would subtract a point for it but PCGS felt otherwise.

Thanks so much for the package, BTW! PM sent.
Lance.