Options
Can i get a second opinion on my PCGS submission? (Photo's Posted)
STONE
Posts: 15,275 ✭
I just received results from my pcgs submission and its an absolute joke.
Not only were they all genuined (when only 2 of the 6 should have been), but
some of the reasons the coins were genuined are headscratching, not to
mention the grade details given on 2 coins are WAYYYYY off.
What recourses do I have here?
Not only were they all genuined (when only 2 of the 6 should have been), but
some of the reasons the coins were genuined are headscratching, not to
mention the grade details given on 2 coins are WAYYYYY off.
What recourses do I have here?
0
Comments
EAC 6024
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
EAC 6024
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>I just received results from my pcgs submission and its an absolute joke.
Not only were they all genuined (when only 2 of the 6 should have been), but
some of the reasons the coins were genuined are headscratching, not to
mention the grade details given on 2 coins are WAYYYYY off.
What recourses do I have here? >>
Resubmit and pay again, maybe they could get it right the second time around?
Hoard the keys.
bob
Keep us informed.
<< <i>If at first, your grades don't fit, then of course you must resubmit. I'm a poet and didn't know it.
But your feet show it - they're long fellows!
Eric
1) 1876 IHC (No Photo) Unc Details (Questionable Color)
My opinion: Yes, this is exactly as expected
My complaint: This is the second time I submitted this coin. The first time I submitted it
the coin came back with significantly different surfaces (both color and texture) from the
state and condition I submitted it to PCGS. A subsequent letter to Don Willis was ignored!
2) 1821 Large Date AG details (cleaned)
Sorry, no pic. Picked this up at the Dallas ANA (1821 JR-2 (R6))
My Opinion: VG, totally original crusty surfaces; at the very LEAST G-6
3) 1835 VF-details (cleaned)
My Opinion: Crusty, circ-cam VF-30/35; NOT A SINGLE hairline on it!
4) 1836 EF-details (damage or tooling)
My Opinion: Crusty, original EF-40+ piece --> Where the HECK is the DAMAGE or TOOLING??????
5) 1837 AU-details (cleaned)
My Opinion (and the opinions of every single JRCS member I have shown this coin to):
Nicely toned, original, AU-55 (+/-) piece.
6) 1804 F-details (damage or tooling)
My Opinion: Yes, the coin is damaged, but exhibits VF+ details (VF-30 to me) even though some
of the damage may obscure some of the details!
My Recommendation to PCGS: Look at YOUR PCGS Photograde! This shows WAYYYY more
details than a Fine! (PCGS Photograde screenshots shown below)
JH
Proof Buffalo Registry Set
Capped Bust Quarters Registry Set
Proof Walking Liberty Halves Registry Set
EAC 6024
Edited to add the details on the d. bust quarter reverse is vg at best and that is what brought your grade down. As well as now I too see the the cm engraved on the 1836 as others have stated. All genuine grades deserved as far as I can see.
type2,CCHunter.
<< <i>#4 has initials carved on the lower obverse
JH >>
I see where you're seeing something, but if those are initials then they would be SOOOO small.
You could be right though, but I have my strong doubts!
3 obverse seems to have been cleaned to try and get rid of those two spots perhaps, 1 under the eye and the other on the chin.
My Opinion: Crusty, circ-cam VF-30/35; NOT A SINGLE hairline on it!>>
halo effect around the stars earned the 'cleaned' designation for ya IMO (yes, that is being tough on it, i agree)
>>4) 1836 EF-details (damage or tooling)
My Opinion: Crusty, original EF-40+ piece --> Where the HECK is the DAMAGE or TOOLING??????>>
the initials CM carved to the right of the date.....i think they got this one right
>>6) 1804 F-details (damage or tooling)
My Opinion: Yes, the coin is damaged, but exhibits VF+ details (VF-30 to me) even though some
of the damage may obscure some of the details!
My Recommendation to PCGS: Look at YOUR PCGS Photograde! This shows WAYYYY more
details than a Fine! (PCGS Photograde screenshots shown below)>>
pockmarks in the fields and wildly uneven wear hold this back in my opinion.....i agree they were tough on the whole submission....any i didnt comment on, i saw your point
better luck next time
www.brunkauctions.com
And then there is this as others have pointed out:
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>I agree with the two cleaning grades as well as the damaged on the draped. The 1836 I can't really say for sure but the black spots are not attractive. Sorry better luck next time.
Edited to add the details on the d. bust quarter reverse is vg at best and that is what brought your grade down. >>
1) on the DBQ - do you not see how strong those wing feather details are?
2) Where do you see evidence of cleaning on the 1835 and 1837?
EAC 6024
<< <i>I agree with PCGS's assessment of cleaning on #3.
And then there is this as others have pointed out:
That's a pretty skilled engraver to make those small "initials"!
#3 Looks to me to have some abrasive scratches going across the obverse field.
#5 Would need to be seen in hand, But I bet it has been cleaned. It's a higher grade coin maybe if it was a G graded coin they may have let it slide.
Tooled: yes- as shown.
Ownership bumps grading opinions.
peacockcoins
<< <i>Ownership bumps grading opinions. >>
Not always. I'm my own harsh critic and I'm strict about grading my raw coins on the conservative end.
Even though there is a concensus by the board members on the results of my grades, there aren't consistent standards at PCGS.
I have WAY worse looking Bust Dimes which received grades from PCGS. That's all I'm saying, and therefore my expectations of
prior so-called "standards and expectations" were not met here.
Yes I will be calling tomorrow for a second opinion.
I have NO idea what my other submission results will look like!
EAC 6024
The initials on the 1836 aren't concealed in the design details - they are in plain view and should preclude a straight grade every time.
I think the 1837 looks like it could grade based on the image.
As for the 1804 25c, in my experience, when a coin is that unevenly worn (either from damage, or strike, or both) it will not receive a grade consistent only with the sharpest areas. It will be netted based on its overall appearance.
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>What do you think about the obverse on the 1837? Mostly around stars 11 &12. >>
That was my only, albeit minor, concern. I've probably shown this piece to 8-10 collectors and several attributed the toning to being in an Album.
None thought it was cleaned, although I never insinuated the idea (primarily because I never suspected it either!)
The 1804 quarter is average graded because the reverse is WAY lower than obverse.
I thought coins that are cleaned have hairlines on them??? This one doesn't!
The initials on the 1836 aren't concealed in the design details - they are in plain view and should preclude a straight grade every time.
They are still VERY tiny. I will let this one go since I never noticed it.
I think the 1837 looks like it could grade based on the image.
Appreciated, but I guess PCGS didn't think so
As for the 1804 25c, in my experience, when a coin is that unevenly worn (either from damage, or strike, or both) it will not receive a grade consistent only with the sharpest areas. It will be netted based on its overall appearance.
That's pretty silly! What's the point of the details grading if even the details grading is netted down?!?
<< <i>
<< <i>What do you think about the obverse on the 1837? Mostly around stars 11 &12. >>
That was my only, albeit minor, concern. I've probably shown this piece to 8-10 collectors and several attributed the toning to being in an Album.
None thought it was cleaned, although I never insinuated the idea (primarily because I never suspected it either!) >>
I agree, very minor, but I bet that is what they saw. Reverse looks good and I bet will grade at some point.
EAC 6024
<< <i>
<< <i>I agree with the two cleaning grades as well as the damaged on the draped. The 1836 I can't really say for sure but the black spots are not attractive. Sorry better luck next time.
Edited to add the details on the d. bust quarter reverse is vg at best and that is what brought your grade down. >>
1) on the DBQ - do you not see how strong those wing feather details are?
2) Where do you see evidence of cleaning on the 1835 and 1837? >>
1) the legend is worn in middle almost no unum left as well as other spots even if the feather details are there they rest is not.
2) the 1835 has the halo as well as hairlines I can see in your pic. The 1837 has a few very light hairline and being a BS it will usually get deemed cleaned now a days in an attempt to protect TPG's best interest in their grade guarantee.
type2,CCHunter.
I suppose I was unfairly harsh on my criticism of a couple pieces shown.
You guys did see things I missed
I will call PCGS tomorrow for a 2nd opinion because frankly I don't see how I can lose here!
appreciate you sharing
i'm surprised the 37 didn't grade out AU something, the rest look right to me
the 25c does have VF details but was net graded to F details for the damage. An expensive curve for submitters of problem coins.
the 36 has a great look, darn those initials.
i bet the 35 was completely stripped at one time and was artificially re-toned.
having said all that, doesn't mean i wouldn't like to own some of them and/or them all
.
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
<< <i>The 1835 has hairlines in your photo. >>
That was my first impression as well.
It's often tough to remain objective about your own coins, but PCGS usually gets it right, and it benefits everyone if they remain as
conservative as possible.
Still some nice coins, though..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I see this in both your 1835 and 1837 dimes.
Do I agree they should be called cleaned? No...but that is the way PCGS is calling these right now.
Also, definite tooling (engraved initials) on the other dime.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
and also "circ-cam as well.
<< <i>Do I agree they should be called cleaned? No...but that is the way PCGS is calling these right now. >>
For a reference point, I have shown the below photo to a PCGS grader and had the response that depending on the severity of the cleaning, the coin could still grade problem free. This example seems pretty severe to me and the coin was graded problem free. How they did not BB it is beyond me.
I submitted an 1823/2 Bust dime along with a nice (AU+) 1829 Bust half dime not long ago, and they both came back as damaged (bent). I can't see anything wrong with them. Then I decided to try the half dime again, and it came back as cleaned ??? WOW !!!
<< <i>As for the 1804 25c, in my experience, when a coin is that unevenly worn (either from damage, or strike, or both) it will not receive a grade consistent only with the sharpest areas. It will be netted based on its overall appearance.
That's pretty silly! What's the point of the details grading if even the details grading is netted down?!? >>
I don't think it's silly at all. IMO, a damaged coin with perfect, even VF detail should not be graded (or "Details" graded) the same as a damaged coin with extremely uneven detail where some parts are arguably VF, and other parts are flat as a pancake.
Coin Rarities Online