the marks on both sides are most likely, IMO, "test marks" inflicted in 1822 or 1823 or 1824, probably during one of the few times the coin was actually spent at face value, where, before accepting the coin, it was proven to be solid silver by digging or scratching both sides. Obviously, no collector would make these marks on such a coin (to what purpose would they?), the marks either had to happen either accidentally (they don't look accidental, especially the reverse marks) or by intent, and if the intent isn't grafitti (again, no pattern to the marks and no regard for how they make the coin look) then they must have been test marks.
Lots of early coins have them in various forms, usually a scratch or X mark, or zig-zag scratches or small digs, just like these.
They are almost always "genuined" by PCGS when this severe. A "test mark" argument is the only conceivable excuse for holdering such a coin with a grade (like chop marks on Trade dollars) and, like chop marks, it should be noted.
A simple MS61 grade on such a coin is going to be very controversial, as the comments in this thread suggest.
Interestingly, it is easier to "forgive" test marks on early coins the lower the grade, particularly if they are smaller and blend in with the other circulation wear and marks. On a high grade coin such as this, I really have a tough time seeing it in a PCGS holder with a grade.
On a high grade coin such as this, I really have a tough time seeing it in a PCGS holder with a grade.
But wait... according to some here, evidently it doesn't matter if it's a "test mark" , scratch, gouge, or a D-10 ran over it; as long as it has the right pedigree from one of the "beautiful people" all that stuff should be either minimized or ignored, right? Heck, why not call it a 65? It's not like the probable consumer can't afford it... just call the gouges something fancy, like "rare unauthorized adjustment marks".....
Anachronism - check it out in your Funk and Wagnall's (er... Wikipedia)
Maybe today a genuine holder would be "better". Like many others of lesser stature, this coin's "holdering state" has been "grandfathered in" because it was originally graded that way and not broken out subsequently.
PCGS has a very thorough library of auction catalogues including Norweb. If this coin, or any other identified as having such a traceable pedigree, were to be sent in for a pedigree designation, and pointed in the right direction, the pedigree could again be placed on the insert. Done it myself, actually once with a coin from the same auction. The egotist who put his own name on the pedigree probably did not even know it was ex:Norweb. I thank him for my score.
If this were an 1889-CC S$1, I'd take the same Maalox as many others indicate. But it's not. NO ONE buys coins of this stature sight-unseen. Actually nobody buys much else but generics sight-unseen. Even an 1889-CC S$1 in MS61 is nothing like a generic.
Do you want ideological purity? Or do you want a viable grading system with many specific individual considerations either date, denomination, mint, or otherwise related? The many is actually a very minute fraction of a percentage of what's out there.
If I owned it and was describing it, I'd start off with the pedigree and then add
"considering how rare it is, I can understand a 61 grade even though it's a little messed up. It's got wholesome original surfaces, full detail, and has some virtues that I think more than compensate for its not-so-minor problems. If you're interested, I'll send you an image. After we discuss it a bit more, if we're operating on the wave-length I can send the piece to you. "In hand" is the only way you can make your own evaluation. And since this coin is trickier than most, let's talk about more after you have a look-see". If I was an auction rep I'd pre-qualify the buyer's knowledge, intent and desires.
This treatment is appropriate for many many other coins. Sounds just like what you'd want any conscientious and useful dealer to say.
MS67 81-S Morgans can trade SUS.
Every 1804 S$1 is, IMNSHO, inaccurately graded. Outrageous! Amazing how many have learned to cope. What IS wrong with those people?
How many here showing outrage are involved in a market for such RARE coins. Maybe you're horrified at the potential losses you would bear in participating in that domain. Don't blame you, but I have very little sense that your opinion is one I would consider seriously in this instance unless it is tested by experience.
You can consider me arrogant (join the crowd) but in this instance I'm simply sure. Arrogance is defensive. I paid for my knowledge, value it, and am bored with being politically correct.
Bambi's mother died! Deal with it.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
<< <i>This is not he kind of coin that ends up in a joe Schmuck collection so the whole impartiality argument flies out the window. Appling the rules one grades Morgans or modern coins with is doing a disservice to coins like this. There is no doubt that the damage hurts the value but it doesn't change the fact it is a condition census rarity with pl surfaces >>
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
Consistency is what I think most of us want, and this holdered coin is not consistent with what most of us experience with coins with similar suffering from similar wear/problems/flaws/damage (however you chose to characterize it).
No I don't have a problem with PCGS grading it as they did.
For me the criteria for certification should be: Is it genuine? Does its grading improve or weaken the study, value and expansion of interest in numismatics? Is there enough of a bias involved in grading a given coin so as to badly effect the reputation of companies charged with doing so by dealers and customers? The fact that the coin business will attract strong bids for coins like this tends to indicate a universal interest in it. Who is harmed?
If I woulld have submitted it it would have been.I just got back a coin that naturally toned from 1916 to present and it was a deep tone on the reverse and they called it enviromental damage.
If I woulld have submitted it it would have been.I just got back a coin that naturally toned from 1916 to present and it was a deep tone on the reverse and they called it enviromental damage. >>
PCGS considers excessive toning to be environmental damage, and sometimes it is.
Answer to the question - Yes without doubt I believe it should have BBed. If I bought that coin sight unseen I would be very disappointed with what I received.
Very interesting thread. Sounds like some forum members think there is nothing wrong with PCGS being inconsistent with their grading standards.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
1. This coin does not belong in a "problem free" holder with a grade and no notation of the damage 2. This coin belongs in a holder with the significant problems silently "net graded", AND SO DO MANY MANY OTHER "GENUINE" coins, or 3. "We'll make an exception for this particular coin" because of this coin's significance, provinance and/or the identity (connections) of the submitter
any other possibilities?
ps. my bet is 3. and my opinion is, whichever of the 3 it is, there's no escaping the conclusion that "something is wrong about this"
<< <i>Very interesting thread. Sounds like some forum members think there is nothing wrong with PCGS being inconsistent with their grading standards. >>
Nothing wrong? ... or rather that we accept reality. Hmmmmmm.
<< <i>Very interesting thread. Sounds like some forum members think there is nothing wrong with PCGS being inconsistent with their grading standards. >>
I mentioned the "grandfathered-in" situation before.
Large Cents aren't graded the same as Early S$1, let alone an 1804 with the emissions dated that year having their own special subset of standards and hierarchy. Pre 1840 proof of almost anything are treated with special consideration, as are specimens.
Southern gold has strike, planchet issues and alloy issues, as do the CC's. With their various idiosyncratic variances from the P-mint exemplar, they never look as good. They're "as made". Made differently.
I think that anyone involved in any of these areas would be the ones to most easily grasp different determinants of virtue and fault. They've been working against the misconceptions of those who judge all coins by the standards of the change in their pocket. So the perversities of production and preservation have already taught them to rationalize sometimes dramatic inconsistencies."
Let's not get into the semiotics of the grading scale.
This quarter is a coin with special stature within a venerated series. And considered difficult enough to locate that it gained more wide-spead attention. A minor classic rarity. At one time a lot of knowledgeable people really liked this coin, and a lot. Many still find much to value in it that cannot be described in a precise notation.
Special coins get special grades? I share in your sense of outrage.
The Dexter-Dunham 1804 S$1, graded PCGS PR64 in the very late 80's and bought for just under a million by perhaps Hugh Sconyers.
There is a D, clearly owner-made, punched into a reverse cloud.
About 10 years ago I bought at a Stacks sale a 1792 Silver Disme ex: Parmelee(1891). VF details, two quite noticeable scratches obv. field but toned over even at that early date.
There are only 3 known. This is 2nd finest. An issue that appears once a generation. Or two. Incredible history and historicity. The sense of the room was that it was net VG 8 to 10 and thought grade barely semi-relevant. Much less than the best, much more than the worst. What did the number matter?
I know I'm going to extreme, as intended, to definitively put too fine a point on it.
It's not the precision "zero defects" engineering of rocket science. How does one quantify the panoply of visual excitations evoked by a fine Hawaiian shirt?
Nothing wrong? There is something wrong with everything in this material world. "There's a crack in every thing that God has made" Starts with our limited perceptions. Rationalization is a survival skill and tool. It promotes integration. A Manichean world-view illuminates but part of the path we walk and makes the rest invisible.
Where is Ralph Nader? Writing catalogue descriptions?
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Pedigree affects price; I get that- it's been that way forever. That's how most major auction houses made their reps. That's not the issue. What I and some others have a problem with (although surprisingly, not quite as many as I thought, including some who imo very much SHOULD share this view) is that they also (evidently) affect the GRADE given.
Using the hyper-rarities mentioned, if they'll still bring the same money regardless, then why should the TPG then not be accurate with the grade rather than potentially generate bad PR as far as having a double standard and thus casting a shadow over their reputation as far as grading consistency?
Perhaps there should now be a separate issue of the ANA Grading Standards book- the Pedigreed Coin Grading Standards Edition...?
<<< why should the TPG then not be accurate with the grade rather than potentially generate bad PR as far as having a double standard and thus casting a shadow over their reputation as far as grading consistency? >>>
When you're pretty much the only "game" in town, you may cast any shadows you like.
<< <i>When you're pretty much the only "game" in town, you may cast any shadows you like. >>
Did NGC go out of business?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Comments
It's a nice CBQ and although the obverse gouge isn't harsh the reverse muckety muck is.
Lots of early coins have them in various forms, usually a scratch or X mark, or zig-zag scratches or small digs, just like these.
They are almost always "genuined" by PCGS when this severe. A "test mark" argument is the only conceivable excuse for holdering such a coin with a grade (like chop marks on Trade dollars) and, like chop marks, it should be noted.
A simple MS61 grade on such a coin is going to be very controversial, as the comments in this thread suggest.
Interestingly, it is easier to "forgive" test marks on early coins the lower the grade, particularly if they are smaller and blend in with the other circulation wear and marks. On a high grade coin such as this, I really have a tough time seeing it in a PCGS holder with a grade.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
But wait... according to some here, evidently it doesn't matter if it's a "test mark" , scratch, gouge, or a D-10 ran over it; as long as it has the right pedigree from one of the "beautiful people" all that stuff should be either minimized or ignored, right? Heck, why not call it a 65? It's not like the probable consumer can't afford it... just call the gouges something fancy, like "rare unauthorized adjustment marks".....
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
Maybe today a genuine holder would be "better". Like many others of lesser stature, this coin's "holdering state" has been "grandfathered in" because it was originally graded that way and not broken out subsequently.
PCGS has a very thorough library of auction catalogues including Norweb. If this coin, or any other identified as having such a traceable pedigree, were to be sent in for a pedigree designation, and pointed in the right direction, the pedigree could again be placed on the insert. Done it myself, actually once with a coin from the same auction. The egotist who put his own name on the pedigree probably did not even know it was ex:Norweb. I thank him for my score.
If this were an 1889-CC S$1, I'd take the same Maalox as many others indicate. But it's not. NO ONE buys coins of this stature sight-unseen. Actually nobody buys much else but generics sight-unseen. Even an 1889-CC S$1 in MS61 is nothing like a generic.
Do you want ideological purity? Or do you want a viable grading system with many specific individual considerations either date, denomination, mint, or otherwise related? The many is actually a very minute fraction of a percentage of what's out there.
If I owned it and was describing it, I'd start off with the pedigree and then add
"considering how rare it is, I can understand a 61 grade even though it's a little messed up. It's got wholesome original surfaces, full detail, and has some virtues that I think more than compensate for its not-so-minor problems. If you're interested, I'll send you an image. After we discuss it a bit more, if we're operating on the wave-length I can send the piece to you. "In hand" is the only way you can make your own evaluation. And since this coin is trickier than most, let's talk about more after you have a look-see". If I was an auction rep I'd pre-qualify the buyer's knowledge, intent and desires.
This treatment is appropriate for many many other coins. Sounds just like what you'd want any conscientious and useful dealer to say.
MS67 81-S Morgans can trade SUS.
Every 1804 S$1 is, IMNSHO, inaccurately graded. Outrageous! Amazing how many have learned to cope. What IS wrong with those people?
How many here showing outrage are involved in a market for such RARE coins. Maybe you're horrified at the potential losses you would bear in participating in that domain. Don't blame you, but I have very little sense that your opinion is one I would consider seriously in this instance unless it is tested by experience.
You can consider me arrogant (join the crowd) but in this instance I'm simply sure. Arrogance is defensive. I paid for my knowledge, value it, and am bored with being politically correct.
Bambi's mother died! Deal with it.
<< <i>This is not he kind of coin that ends up in a joe Schmuck collection so the whole impartiality argument flies out the window. Appling the rules one grades Morgans or modern coins with is doing a disservice to coins like this. There is no doubt that the damage hurts the value but it doesn't change the fact it is a condition census rarity with pl surfaces >>
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
For me the criteria for certification should be: Is it genuine? Does its grading improve or weaken the study, value and expansion of interest in numismatics? Is there enough of a bias involved in grading a given coin so as to badly effect the reputation of companies charged with doing so by dealers and customers? The fact that the coin business will attract strong bids for coins like this tends to indicate a universal interest in it. Who is harmed?
<< <i>Should PCGS have bodybagged/genuined this coin?
Heritage Link - 1822 25/50c Bust Quarter >>
If I woulld have submitted it it would have been.I just got back a coin that naturally toned from 1916 to present and it was a deep tone on the reverse and they called it enviromental damage.
<< <i>
<< <i>Im curious about why so many people say this coin is fine as is, >>
It's in a PCGS slab so it must be fine. >>
hahahaha
<< <i>
<< <i>Should PCGS have bodybagged/genuined this coin?
Heritage Link - 1822 25/50c Bust Quarter >>
If I woulld have submitted it it would have been.I just got back a coin that naturally toned from 1916 to present and it was a deep tone on the reverse and they called it enviromental damage. >>
PCGS considers excessive toning to be environmental damage, and sometimes it is.
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>Bambi's mother died! Deal with it.
Put another way, "provenance talks, sheeeeeet walks"
But don't you send in a similarly 'damaged' 1822 25C 25/50C MS61 PCGS. B-2, R.5 found in a hidden drawer of a period, antique dresser.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
EAC 6024
1. This coin does not belong in a "problem free" holder with a grade and no notation of the damage
2. This coin belongs in a holder with the significant problems silently "net graded", AND SO DO MANY MANY OTHER "GENUINE" coins, or
3. "We'll make an exception for this particular coin" because of this coin's significance, provinance and/or the identity (connections) of the submitter
any other possibilities?
ps. my bet is 3. and my opinion is, whichever of the 3 it is, there's no escaping the conclusion that "something is wrong about this"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Very interesting thread. Sounds like some forum members think there is nothing wrong with PCGS being inconsistent with their grading standards. >>
Nothing wrong? ... or rather that we accept reality. Hmmmmmm.
<< <i>Very interesting thread. Sounds like some forum members think there is nothing wrong with PCGS being inconsistent with their grading standards. >>
I mentioned the "grandfathered-in" situation before.
Large Cents aren't graded the same as Early S$1, let alone an 1804 with the emissions dated that year having their own special subset of standards and hierarchy. Pre 1840 proof of almost anything are treated with special consideration, as are specimens.
Southern gold has strike, planchet issues and alloy issues, as do the CC's. With their various idiosyncratic variances from the P-mint exemplar, they never look as good. They're "as made". Made differently.
I think that anyone involved in any of these areas would be the ones to most easily grasp different determinants of virtue and fault. They've been working against the misconceptions of those who judge all coins by the standards of the change in their pocket. So the perversities of production and preservation have already taught them to rationalize sometimes dramatic inconsistencies."
Let's not get into the semiotics of the grading scale.
This quarter is a coin with special stature within a venerated series. And considered difficult enough to locate that it gained more wide-spead attention. A minor classic rarity. At one time a lot of knowledgeable people really liked this coin, and a lot. Many still find much to value in it that cannot be described in a precise notation.
Special coins get special grades? I share in your sense of outrage.
The Dexter-Dunham 1804 S$1, graded PCGS PR64 in the very late 80's and bought for just under a million by perhaps Hugh Sconyers.
There is a D, clearly owner-made, punched into a reverse cloud.
PCGS 1804 $1 Proof Damaged Dexter-Dunham (third finest nnown)
About 10 years ago I bought at a Stacks sale a 1792 Silver Disme ex: Parmelee(1891). VF details, two quite noticeable scratches obv. field but toned over even at that early date.
There are only 3 known. This is 2nd finest. An issue that appears once a generation. Or two. Incredible history and historicity. The sense of the room was that it was net VG 8 to 10 and thought grade barely semi-relevant. Much less than the best, much more than the worst. What did the number matter?
I know I'm going to extreme, as intended, to definitively put too fine a point on it.
It's not the precision "zero defects" engineering of rocket science. How does one quantify the panoply of visual excitations evoked by a fine Hawaiian shirt?
Nothing wrong?
There is something wrong with everything in this material world. "There's a crack in every thing that God has made"
Starts with our limited perceptions. Rationalization is a survival skill and tool. It promotes integration. A Manichean world-view illuminates but part of the path we walk and makes the rest invisible.
Where is Ralph Nader? Writing catalogue descriptions?
What I and some others have a problem with (although surprisingly, not quite as many as I thought, including some who imo very much SHOULD share this view) is that they also (evidently) affect the GRADE given.
Using the hyper-rarities mentioned, if they'll still bring the same money regardless, then why should the TPG then not be accurate with the grade rather than potentially generate bad PR as far as having a double standard and thus casting a shadow over their reputation as far as grading consistency?
Perhaps there should now be a separate issue of the ANA Grading Standards book- the Pedigreed Coin Grading Standards Edition...?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
When you're pretty much the only "game" in town, you may cast any shadows you like.
<< <i>When you're pretty much the only "game" in town, you may cast any shadows you like. >>
Did NGC go out of business?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
It's a rare coin and I'm sure it was given some forgiveness.