Putty or toning?

AnkurJ

It might be hard to capture, but I am trying to figure out if the change in color in the fields is just toning from circulation, or putty that has turned.
Any thoughts?
The coin is in a OGH.

Kove

"Putty" often shows up hazy white with a faint blue tint in photos.

The posted photo is not conducive to seeing the telltale signs.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

AnkurJ

<< <i>Is it stickered? >>



No. Hasn't been submitted yet.

CoinRaritiesOnline

I don't think it is possible to be of much help using that photo.

crypto79

If it doesn't sticker are you going to return it? Those pictures don't show surface texture and are not going to help

AnkurJ

<< <i>I don't think it is possible to be of much help using that photo. >>



Oddly enough a straight on photo with a macro lens does not show the color variation I am referring to.

Broadstruck

Are you talking about the difference in coloration within the left and right fields?

AnkurJ

<< <i>Are you talking about the difference in coloration within the left and right fields? >>



Yes.

savoyspecial

Coin looks fine......Move it to BST with a halfway reasonable price and watch it go!

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lcoopie

no way to say, way overexposed

AMRC

I would call there glare.....


Is this thing on?

commoncents05

I find putty easiest to detect when tilting the coin slightly away from the light source.

-Paul

AnkurJ

I just saw that this was up for auction this year. Take a look at images here:

1838

joebb21

<< <i>I just saw that this was up for auction this year. Take a look at images here:

1838 >>




Does not look promising to me

ricko

Would rather see it in hand... but does not look like putty to me.... Cheers, RickO

SaorAlba

The hazy fields around the stars are a bit disconcerting.

BillJones

<< <i>

The hazy fields around the stars are a bit disconcerting. >>



From this picture I have say that I don't care for the coin. Natural coppery toning is not highlighted like that. It blends in with the surface.

lkeigwin

<< <i>I just saw that this was up for auction this year. Take a look at images here:

1838 >>

Did you win that auction or are you considering buying it from the party that did? Apparently you have the coin in hand.

I'm not a fan. But you're cozy with CAC and nearby. Why not ask JA's opinion?
Lance.

RYK

It's definitely not toning.

The real question is whether it is intentionally applied material that has turned or is it the grime and patina that can be seen in 150+ year old gold coins. I favor the former, based on the second photo, but a more decisive determination can only be made with the coin in hand.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Sonorandesertrat

"It's definitely not toning."

maibockaddict

Here is an 1883 S 20 that I thought PCGS had undergraded, but it had some sort of substance on its surface (perhaps of Human origin?) that was perhaps placed there to hide hairlines-And that may be why PCGS gave it a 61 as they were not fooled, yet decided to grade it anyway




The stuff came off with acetone and NGC gave it the 62 that it deserved




I hate to say it, but if you really want to fix the problem (which may be just as simple as removing grease or oil from the coin) you will need to sacrifice the green label and pay a grading fee (I used NGC because my dealer pays the same for either service for this coin, and NGC is cheaper, me thinking of selling soon to buy BUSTIES!)

RYK

Here is an 1883 S 20 that I thought PCGS had undergraded, but it had some sort of substance on its surface (perhaps of Human origin?) that was perhaps placed there to hide hairlines-And that may be why PCGS gave it a 61 as they were not fooled, yet decided to grade it anyway...

I have no issue with the 61 grade for that coin, based on the photo. It likely turned after it slabbed.

People consistently forget that the surface of a coin is not necessarily a constant, and slabbing does not guarantee against the surface changing over time.

maibockaddict

<< <i>Here is an 1883 S 20 that I thought PCGS had undergraded, but it had some sort of substance on its surface (perhaps of Human origin?) that was perhaps placed there to hide hairlines-And that may be why PCGS gave it a 61 as they were not fooled, yet decided to grade it anyway...

I have no issue with the 61 grade for that coin, based on the photo. It likely turned after it slabbed.

People consistently forget that the surface of a coin is not necessarily a constant, and slabbing does not guarantee against the surface changing over time. >>



It is Gold, and the substance came off with acetone. Therefore it had to be on the coin when it was first graded. And I did have a problem with it being in a 61 holder, as the coin was clearly as good as any '62 that I own or have seen, and better than any of the 61's that I own or have seen, this includes both services.

RYK

<< <i>

<< <i>Here is an 1883 S 20 that I thought PCGS had undergraded, but it had some sort of substance on its surface (perhaps of Human origin?) that was perhaps placed there to hide hairlines-And that may be why PCGS gave it a 61 as they were not fooled, yet decided to grade it anyway...

I have no issue with the 61 grade for that coin, based on the photo. It likely turned after it slabbed.

People consistently forget that the surface of a coin is not necessarily a constant, and slabbing does not guarantee against the surface changing over time. >>



It is Gold, and the substance came off with acetone. Therefore it had to be on the coin when it was first graded. And I did have a problem with it being in a 61 holder, as the coin was clearly as good as any '62 that I own or have seen, and better than any of the 61's that I own or have seen, this includes both services. >>


Just because the stuff was on the coin when it was first graded, it does not mean that the graders were able to see it, nor does it provide a reason that the graders judge the coin to be a 61.

maibockaddict

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>Here is an 1883 S 20 that I thought PCGS had undergraded, but it had some sort of substance on its surface (perhaps of Human origin?) that was perhaps placed there to hide hairlines-And that may be why PCGS gave it a 61 as they were not fooled, yet decided to grade it anyway...

I have no issue with the 61 grade for that coin, based on the photo. It likely turned after it slabbed.

People consistently forget that the surface of a coin is not necessarily a constant, and slabbing does not guarantee against the surface changing over time. >>



It is Gold, and the substance came off with acetone. Therefore it had to be on the coin when it was first graded. And I did have a problem with it being in a 61 holder, as the coin was clearly as good as any '62 that I own or have seen, and better than any of the 61's that I own or have seen, this includes both services. >>


Just because the stuff was on the coin when it was first graded, it does not mean that the graders were able to see it, nor does it provide a reason that the graders judge the coin to be a 61. >>



Perhaps, but it was on the coin 4+ years ago when I first got it and did not change in those 4 years and would be very surprised if graders could not see the substance on the coin when it was likely there to improve the appearance of the coin

RYK

You might be surprised, but that is why putty is applied, the graders struggle with it, and this happened all the time in the past, less so today.