The after images look great. What ever they did worked, but IMO should have disclosed what was wrong, if possible and how they conserved it. Maybe it's a trade secret, don't know. What are your planning to do with it?
<< <i>I'm not so certain the original color ever came from the putty. It looks like natural toning to me.
If based only the photos, I'd have to agree. But I saw the coin in person at Long Beach, it looked much different that in the photo, and there's no doubt that it was puttied.
And for those of you that think you learned something from the images in this thread, forget about it. >>
Andy is correct that the photos don't tell the full story. I had the coin at Long Beach and showed it to several forum members. Most agreed that the coin had something done to it. That said, quite a few of those same people still said it looked nice and good enough to resell as is.
In doing the images of the coin before sending it to PCGS, I just did a straight on shot under normal lights. I tried a few other shots at angles and with less light to try to pick up what was on the surface a little more, but none really showed anything different. Under the lights, the coin looked pretty decent which is why I didn't notice an issue before I originally sold it and which is why it doesn't look too bad in the photos here. At Long Beach, one dealer that looked at it showed me to hold it up away from the lights and to tilt it almost a full 90 degrees from the way you'd normally look at a coin and in doing so you could easily see a thin layer of lighter haziness across most of the reverse and a good portion of the obverse and it was pretty ugly. I tried to capture that in a photo but couldn't get it. Again, I don't know enough to say for certain that it was putty so I'll defer to those who know better like Andy and CAC.
<< <i>At Long Beach, one dealer that looked at it showed me to hold it up away from the lights and to tilt it almost a full 90 degrees from the way you'd normally look at a coin and in doing so you could easily see a thin layer of lighter haziness across most of the reverse and a good portion of the obverse and it was pretty ugly. . >>
That's exactly it. Once you see the putty on a few coins it's actually hard to miss...once you get "used to it". Now I check virtually every gold coin I see the same way: steep tilt in the slab. I still see quite a number of $10 Indians and $20 Libs with putty....in auctions especially.
<< <i>i once showed a 1908 au58 $10 indian that i believed to be puttied to david hall at a pcgs show during the ask the expert thing he does.
i said, "is this puttied?"
he looked at it and said, "yeah, but why do you care? it's au58!"
Sounds like HRH thought he was talking to a dealer, not a collector. That, or he just wasn't thinking. Happens to the best of us. >>
well, it caught me off guard at first, but do i think that he was trying to make a valid point. i only posted it as food for thought because i thought this case is a similar scenario.
I believe that the phrase "it's been puttied" is an overused assessment and is sometimes incorrectly used to describe other conditions.
As cases in point, I have found that Dahlonega gold pieces that have original skin often have a hazy or subdued appearance. Go back and look at David Aker's descriptions of the Pittman gold coins, which had been stored in their original paper auction envelopes. Mr. Akers described many of these pieces as having a dull, hazy appearance (from decades of storage).
I also remember that Doug Winter noted that gold proofs with original skin often have a hazy appearance. Today, it's very rare to find a gold proof with original surfaces.
In my opinion, older pieces that were "worked on" with foreign substances have a "blatantly obvious" appearance (since they've had time to "turn"). If one has to stare at an older piece for 10 minutes (trying to decide if the piece has been worked on or not), it's likely OK.
<< <i>i once showed a 1908 au58 $10 indian that i believed to be puttied to david hall at a pcgs show during the ask the expert thing he does.
i said, "is this puttied?"
he looked at it and said, "yeah, but why do you care? it's au58!"
Sounds like HRH thought he was talking to a dealer, not a collector. That, or he just wasn't thinking. Happens to the best of us. >>
well, it caught me off guard at first, but do i think that he was trying to make a valid point. i only posted it as food for thought because i thought this case is a similar scenario. >>
I bet if it were cracked out and resubmitted it would be put in a problem no-grade slab or body bagged.
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
<< <i>everyone keeps saying "putty" but is that a Fact or Opinion? could it have been nose grease, ketchup, lipstick, spraypaint, or just plain ole toning?
i dunno, can't tell from a picture >>
This. We've been throwing around a lot of "likely" and "probably" here but unless I missed it, I don't see where PCGS actually said it was puttied. Also as I said before, I'm still trying to see any significant change in the coin before/after other than the disappearance of the toning.
Comments
Maybe it's a trade secret, don't know. What are your planning to do with it?
<< <i>I'm not so certain the original color ever came from the putty. It looks like natural toning to me.
If based only the photos, I'd have to agree. But I saw the coin in person at Long Beach, it looked much different that in the photo, and there's no doubt that it was puttied.
And for those of you that think you learned something from the images in this thread, forget about it. >>
Andy is correct that the photos don't tell the full story. I had the coin at Long Beach and showed it to several forum members. Most agreed that the coin had something done to it. That said, quite a few of those same people still said it looked nice and good enough to resell as is.
In doing the images of the coin before sending it to PCGS, I just did a straight on shot under normal lights. I tried a few other shots at angles and with less light to try to pick up what was on the surface a little more, but none really showed anything different. Under the lights, the coin looked pretty decent which is why I didn't notice an issue before I originally sold it and which is why it doesn't look too bad in the photos here. At Long Beach, one dealer that looked at it showed me to hold it up away from the lights and to tilt it almost a full 90 degrees from the way you'd normally look at a coin and in doing so you could easily see a thin layer of lighter haziness across most of the reverse and a good portion of the obverse and it was pretty ugly. I tried to capture that in a photo but couldn't get it. Again, I don't know enough to say for certain that it was putty so I'll defer to those who know better like Andy and CAC.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>At Long Beach, one dealer that looked at it showed me to hold it up away from the lights and to tilt it almost a full 90 degrees from the way you'd normally look at a coin and in doing so you could easily see a thin layer of lighter haziness across most of the reverse and a good portion of the obverse and it was pretty ugly. . >>
That's exactly it. Once you see the putty on a few coins it's actually hard to miss...once you get "used to it". Now I check virtually every gold coin I see the same way: steep tilt in the slab. I still see quite a number of $10 Indians and $20 Libs with putty....in auctions especially.
jom
<< <i>i once showed a 1908 au58 $10 indian that i believed to be puttied to david hall at a pcgs show during the ask the expert thing he does.
i said, "is this puttied?"
he looked at it and said, "yeah, but why do you care? it's au58!"
Sounds like HRH thought he was talking to a dealer, not a collector. That, or he just wasn't thinking. Happens to the best of us. >>
well, it caught me off guard at first, but do i think that he was trying to make a valid point. i only posted it as food for thought because i thought this case is a similar scenario.
As cases in point, I have found that Dahlonega gold pieces that have original skin often have a hazy or subdued appearance. Go back and look at David Aker's descriptions of the Pittman gold coins, which had been stored in their original paper auction envelopes. Mr. Akers described many of these pieces as having a dull, hazy appearance (from decades of storage).
I also remember that Doug Winter noted that gold proofs with original skin often have a hazy appearance. Today, it's very rare to find a gold proof with original surfaces.
In my opinion, older pieces that were "worked on" with foreign substances have a "blatantly obvious" appearance (since they've had time to "turn"). If one has to stare at an older piece for 10 minutes (trying to decide if the piece has been worked on or not), it's likely OK.
<< <i>
<< <i>i once showed a 1908 au58 $10 indian that i believed to be puttied to david hall at a pcgs show during the ask the expert thing he does.
i said, "is this puttied?"
he looked at it and said, "yeah, but why do you care? it's au58!"
Sounds like HRH thought he was talking to a dealer, not a collector. That, or he just wasn't thinking. Happens to the best of us. >>
well, it caught me off guard at first, but do i think that he was trying to make a valid point. i only posted it as food for thought because i thought this case is a similar scenario. >>
I bet if it were cracked out and resubmitted it would be put in a problem no-grade slab or body bagged.
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
Absolutely! However, I believe that haziness with a bluish tint (as on this coin) is never natural, and most probably exclusive to puttied coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Can you buy coin repair putty? >>
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>everyone keeps saying "putty" but is that a Fact or Opinion? could it have been nose grease, ketchup, lipstick, spraypaint, or just plain ole toning?
i dunno, can't tell from a picture >>
This. We've been throwing around a lot of "likely" and "probably" here but unless I missed it, I don't see where PCGS actually said it was puttied.
Also as I said before, I'm still trying to see any significant change in the coin before/after other than the disappearance of the toning.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012