Question and a poll on the PCGS "Genuine" service?

dizzyfoxx

Of the following possible results within the "Genuine" designation of a given coin, which one do you consider to be the least offensive? In other words, which one would you say brings down the value the least amount of an otherwise graded coin?

91 Questionable Color
92 Cleaning
94 Altered Surfaces
95 Scratch(s)
97 Environmental Damage
98 Damage

DIMEMAN

I went with QC because it shouldn't even come into play on grading!

My biggest "PET PEEVE" is getting a beautiful toned coin that I bought because I liked the look of the coin....QC!!!! ARGH!

shorecoll

I think there's a lot of variation within QC...rainbow Morgan, recolored Large Cent, or retoned bustie.

TwoSides2aCoin

Good question. Tough answer

Rodebaugh

I pick Other: Code 93 Planchet Flaw.

Why PCGS grades an honest Mint Error planchet flaw coin as genuine details is beyond me.

I could use some clarification on the subject as all of my texts within my numismatic library seem to be missing a rather important footnote.

crypto79

<< <i>I pick Other: Code 93 Planchet Flaw.

Why PCGS grades an honest Mint Error planchet flaw coin as genuine details is beyond me.

I could use some clarification on the subject as all of my texts within my numismatic library seem to be missing a rather important footnote. >>



If a collectible car came from the factory with a bad transmission it will sell for less than one with a good one even if "as made". Defect is a defect

Rodebaugh

<< <i>

<< <i>I pick Other: Code 93 Planchet Flaw.

Why PCGS grades an honest Mint Error planchet flaw coin as genuine details is beyond me.

I could use some clarification on the subject as all of my texts within my numismatic library seem to be missing a rather important footnote. >>



If a collectible car came from the factory with a bad transmission it will sell for less than one with a good one even if "as made". Defect is a defect >>



Price is not of concern. The market will decide that. My concern lies with the misnomer of treating a mint error as if it were a damaged coin.

keyman64

Most of the time a 92 can be 'fixed' by just allowing it to re-tone. A 91 is harder to 'fix.' ...at least that is what I know in my limited experience. I guess a QC could be resubmitted a thousand times or to another TPG to 'fix' that problem.

JustNeedCoins

questionable color is the least for me followed by cleaning

BillJones

There is no firm answer to this poll because each of these defects can range from "It does not both me much at all," to "That coin is so ugly I won't consider buying it."

Baley

it certainly depends on the piece-by-piece, but generally I do not mind contemporary "test-mark" type scratches and digs, from when the coin circulated (to verify that the inside of the coin was gold or silver, too) do not bother me as much as the other, later "messed with" type of "problem coins"

johnny9434

its all pretty offensive to me. im not sure whats least offensive here. jmo

weresteve

Environmental damage is probably the least for me if the coin in question has been buried for a long time, then rediscovered via metal detector, shipwreck salvage or similar means. The aleration to the surfaces can vary and proper conservation makes for an interesting discussion piece.

magikbilly

I dunno - it could seem that half that stuff there can't even be agreed upon in terms of what it is, so maybe ask again...

Eric

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ambro51

They have "gone wild" with this. Especially with colonials that DO have certain aspects that are hallmarks of the variety and completely pre-strike.