Offered for discussion, relevant to the recent questions about dipping/alteration.
originalisbest
Posts: 5,971 ✭✭✭✭
Offered in the current Legend auction, a Newman Quarter described as:
Legend 1920 Newman quarter
"25C 1920 PCGS MS66FH CAC EX NEWMAN
From the famous Eric Newman Collection, this piece is unquestionably original, undipped, and unaltered. The surfaces are super clean, satiny and untoned, while a surprisingly strong luster beams from all over. Miss Liberty and the details are exceptionally struck. You can clearly see all the shield rivets. The eye appeal is awesome!"
No doubt the eye appeal is indeed awesome, but the coin might better be described as "mostly original-ish" -- it most certainly has been dipped, and altered from its appearance in Heritage, when it was in its NGC shell:
Same quarter, pre-dip, at Heritage in November 2013
Not to bag on the coin, or the auctioneer, but it shows the folly of speaking in absolutes about any coin's originality. No one's perfect. FWIW, I much prefer the undipped version that is now lost for good -- note the absence of what was (IMO) a beautiful mottled toning on the reverse. The obverse used to have a toning spot atop Liberty's head that is now absent... but the toning spot on the upper left shield and just to the left of Liberty, in the field, weren't budged by the dip (and again, IMO) unnecessary conservation of the surfaces.
So we're left with a coin that's still attractive, but not as much as it once was, to my eyes. Bottom line: be careful how much blind faith you put into auction descriptions. No matter who does the describing.
Legend 1920 Newman quarter
"25C 1920 PCGS MS66FH CAC EX NEWMAN
From the famous Eric Newman Collection, this piece is unquestionably original, undipped, and unaltered. The surfaces are super clean, satiny and untoned, while a surprisingly strong luster beams from all over. Miss Liberty and the details are exceptionally struck. You can clearly see all the shield rivets. The eye appeal is awesome!"
No doubt the eye appeal is indeed awesome, but the coin might better be described as "mostly original-ish" -- it most certainly has been dipped, and altered from its appearance in Heritage, when it was in its NGC shell:
Same quarter, pre-dip, at Heritage in November 2013
Not to bag on the coin, or the auctioneer, but it shows the folly of speaking in absolutes about any coin's originality. No one's perfect. FWIW, I much prefer the undipped version that is now lost for good -- note the absence of what was (IMO) a beautiful mottled toning on the reverse. The obverse used to have a toning spot atop Liberty's head that is now absent... but the toning spot on the upper left shield and just to the left of Liberty, in the field, weren't budged by the dip (and again, IMO) unnecessary conservation of the surfaces.
So we're left with a coin that's still attractive, but not as much as it once was, to my eyes. Bottom line: be careful how much blind faith you put into auction descriptions. No matter who does the describing.
0
Comments
Very old, original, undipped, white coins do exist, but there probably aren't that many of them.
On this piece, the coin is certainly not one I'd like to see dipped. That said, I don't see the original toning pattern as all that attractive..... not uncommon at all in this issue.
Any chance it's just a difference in photography technique? The Legend photos seem to be "off" again in this auction, excepting the gorgeous Sunnywood pieces.
<< <i>Interesting.
Very old, original, undipped, white coins do exist, but there probably aren't that many of them.
On this piece, the coin is certainly not one I'd like to see dipped. That said, I don't see the original toning pattern as all that attractive..... not uncommon at all in this issue.
Any chance it's just a difference in photography technique? The Legend photos seem to be "off" again in this auction, excepting the gorgeous Sunnywood pieces. >>
Not a chance that photography accounts for the differences. As to the original toning that's now lost to the ages, I found it much more attractive than the present appearance, but what's done is done.
But I'm guessing the Legend cataloger is not attempting to deceive, rather they saw Newman on the label and thus assumed and printed "original surfaces". Of course, I could be wrong.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>Yah, it does look to have been dipped.
But I'm guessing the Legend cataloger is not attempting to deceive, rather they saw Newman on the label and thus assumed and printed "original surfaces". Of course, I could be wrong. >>
If memory serves, "the cataloger" (gee, who could that be?) went on record as saying that many of the coins in
the Newman sale were not original. At the very least, it would have been fairly easy to check the archives
before printing the word "unquestionably", doncha think?
<< <i>Doesn't even look like the same coin does it? I'm guessing they won't change it when they learn of their mistake in the description though (assuming it is indeed the same coin). >>
I can say with 100% certainty that it is the same coin. Look at the marks on the leg, not to
mention the residue of some toning spots on the shield and just right of the head.
<< <i>
<< <i>Doesn't even look like the same coin does it? I'm guessing they won't change it when they learn of their mistake in the description though (assuming it is indeed the same coin). >>
I can say with 100% certainty that it is the same coin. Look at the marks on the leg, not to
mention the residue of some toning spots on the shield and just right of the head. >>
Agreed -- let us safely say, you can "assume it's the same coin" -- because it is. That isn't (or it shouldn't be, anyway) in question.
<< <i>I don't see anything wrong with the fact that the coin was dipped but the description is a load of crap that the cataloguer should be embarrassed about, the coin is misrepresented. >>
OINK
I read it somewhere and have to believe that near ALL coins bought and sold have been `proceeded`
in some way, shape, or form. no one wants a coin that's been cleaned, but is all to happy to have one that
looks really clean, but, was never cleaned. its a bad word in the hobby. conserved, whatever. anyway
buy what you like and like what you buy. whatever floats your boat. just don't buy the hype about anything
The cataloger has to over hype the coin to get the bidders into a white hot nuclear frenzy.
Maybe they will change the description. I do not have any issue with dipping coins but to say otherwise is wrong.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Yah, it does look to have been dipped.
But I'm guessing the Legend cataloger is not attempting to deceive, rather they saw Newman on the label and thus assumed and printed "original surfaces". Of course, I could be wrong. >>
I totally agree with Original Dan. There is no way these people would ever knowingly deceive their clients. These are some of the most honorable people in the coin business. Absolutely.
When they say:
"From the famous Eric Newman Collection, this piece is unquestionably original, undipped, and unaltered."
That is what I believe to be the truth. If they knew for a moment that the coin had been dipped and not original and unaltered as they profess then that would make them not only unethical but liars and there is no way they would do that. No way!
My gosh, man. These are the same people who crusaded against the villainy of the coin doctors. To believe that they would stoop to similar tactics is absurd. I refuse to believe it. They are not cleaning and altering coins without full disclosure to their clients. I know they're not.
I believe it was the lighting.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>Yah, it does look to have been dipped.
But I'm guessing the Legend cataloger is not attempting to deceive, rather they saw Newman on the label and thus assumed and printed "original surfaces". Of course, I could be wrong. >>
I totally agree with Original Dan. There is no way these people would ever knowingly deceive their clients. These are some of the most honorable people in the coin business. Absolutely.
When they say:
"From the famous Eric Newman Collection, this piece is unquestionably original, undipped, and unaltered."
That is what I believe to be the truth. If they knew for a moment that the coin had been dipped and not original and unaltered as they profess then that would make them not only unethical but liars and there is no way they would do that. No way!
My gosh, man. These are the same people who crusaded against the villainy of the coin doctors. To believe that they would stoop to similar tactics is absurd. I refuse to believe it. They are not cleaning and altering coins without full disclosure to their clients. I know they're not.
I believe it was the lighting. >>
Well, I can guarantee you one thing, it ain't the lighting.
All that means is no one's perfect, not that Legend is out to deceive. Nor does it mean they dipped it, though someone obviously did. It boils down to do your own research - and don't believe the hype!
Unfortunately, coins are going to be enhanced, reholdered, stickered and then stickered again.
In this instance, the Newman quarter was graded at a 67 then stickered, apparently it was crossed to a MS66 full head and stickered again. So we have what looks to be green stickers both times even though the grades were different. My question is this, how does CAC account for the Full Head? I suppose I am the only one confused in all of this....
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
CAC should be grading service independent, a coin is either high-end for the grade or it is not, and I recently went through a same experience in trying to cross a CAC NGC coin (and in my eyes also high-end for the grade), and it DNC 3 times. I now have it into grading a third time at a grade lower, and if it crossed I fully expect to get a Gold CAC sticker because if they said it was high end for the grade in a 64 holder, it must then be downright under-graded in a 63 holder.
So, I don't understand why there is no Gold bean on it...and how CAC can say it's high end 67, then it gets downgraded to 66 and still inly gets green sticker.
I mean it obviously has to be cracked out before it's dipped.
It would make more sense if it went through PCGS restoration.
<< <i>Dumb question, but how did it get a dip and keep the pedigree?
I mean it obviously has to be cracked out before it's dipped.
It would make more sense if it went through PCGS restoration. >>
If I had to guess, I would say who ever submitted it to PCGS asked for a conservation and cross over. It makes sense to me.
So, I don't understand why there is no Gold bean on it...and how CAC can say it's high end 67, then it gets downgraded to 66 and still inly gets green sticker.
...and...
how is it that CAC blew this like it did.
This has been stated many times on the Forum.
1. CAC stickers solid for the grade "B coins", as well as "high end for the grade" A coins.
2. CAC puts stickers on coins it is willing to "purchase". Gold stickers go on coins they will purchase at a grade higher than what is on the label.
With consideration for the "willing to purchase" aspect of CAC's business model, how much difference is there between a 66 "A coin" and a 67 "B coin"?
As for CAC, well most of you know I don't think that the service "walks on water" as so many thinks that it does. If they like that coin now as an MS-66, that's their position. I preferred the piece before when its surfaces were original with some nice old time envelope toning.
Let me get back to the question...
How do you green sticker a 67 and put the same green sticker on 66? That makes no sense....if you loved it to purchase as a 67, using your words (e.g. you said a green sticker means they'll buy it at current grade, so MS67), you should then be blown away by it in a 66 holder (maybe 2 green stickers or gold sticker).
Maybe the Newman 67 was gifted by CAC as to its provenance but was really not an A/B coin? That's not new since TPG don't consistently grade either. On the other hand I would definitely be P.O.'d as a collector if they tell me with a green sticker I'll buy this coin at this grade (e.g. 67), I buy it based on their 67 recommendation, but then have PCGS not grade it a 67...so I'd expect CAC to pay 67 money for the coin (E.g. sticker it gold as they originally said they'd pay 67 money for it with a green sticker at MS67).
It was 2 different CAC review instances. Grading is subjective. CAC puts green stickers on the SAME coin (in different holders, at different grades, graded by the same or different TPG) all the time.
You tell me, how much difference is there between a 66 A coin and a 67 B coin?
What grade do you think this SLQ is?
NGC did not give it a FH at 67 and PCGS graded it with a FH but at a 66. Had PCGS graded this one 67 FH, it likely would be in the $20K-$25K range, possibly more.
I still would think the FH and perhaps the overall quality of the strike for that matter made the gamble of crossing worth the submission, however, conservation as part of that gamble was not the best choice.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>
<< <i>Dumb question, but how did it get a dip and keep the pedigree?
I mean it obviously has to be cracked out before it's dipped.
It would make more sense if it went through PCGS restoration. >>
If I had to guess, I would say who ever submitted it to PCGS asked for a conservation and cross over. It makes sense to me. >>
If I owned it my first thought would be "crossover downgrade after designation review and restoration review. Sadly I did not.
Beyond that, I've conserved much more than a million bucks worth of coins in my day, and I usually like the work they can do better than my own. No worries on the coin turning.
"This is hope retching, the world as it is" - Mary Oliver
<< <i>With consideration for the "willing to purchase" aspect of CAC's business model, how much difference is there between a 66 "A coin" and a 67 "B coin"? >>
There are many many 65+ A's that are more desirable than many many 67 B's.
<< <i>To me the most interesting question is how can CAC green sticker the coin as an MS67 (meaning, a A/B coin, top 25%) and then have the coin downgraded to MS66, and then re-sticker the coin again as a green CAC sticker? If they not only saw it as an MS67 coin, but high-end for the MS67 grade, how can this coin not get a Gold CAC sticker in a MS66 holder?
CAC should be grading service independent, a coin is either high-end for the grade or it is not, and I recently went through a same experience in trying to cross a CAC NGC coin (and in my eyes also high-end for the grade), and it DNC 3 times. I now have it into grading a third time at a grade lower, and if it crossed I fully expect to get a Gold CAC sticker because if they said it was high end for the grade in a 64 holder, it must then be downright under-graded in a 63 holder.
So, I don't understand why there is no Gold bean on it...and how CAC can say it's high end 67, then it gets downgraded to 66 and still inly gets green sticker. >>
Do not expect NGC green coins to downgrade at PCGS then sticker gold. With or without a strike designation.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>PQueue, you kind of changed the question...
Let me get back to the question...
How do you green sticker a 67 and put the same green sticker on 66? That makes no sense....if you loved it to purchase as a 67, using your words (e.g. you said a green sticker means they'll buy it at current grade, so MS67), you should then be blown away by it in a 66 holder (maybe 2 green stickers or gold sticker).
Maybe the Newman 67 was gifted by CAC as to its provenance but was really not an A/B coin? That's not new since TPG don't consistently grade either. On the other hand I would definitely be P.O.'d as a collector if they tell me with a green sticker I'll buy this coin at this grade (e.g. 67), I buy it based on their 67 recommendation, but then have PCGS not grade it a 67...so I'd expect CAC to pay 67 money for the coin (E.g. sticker it gold as they originally said they'd pay 67 money for it with a green sticker at MS67). >>
CAC did not see the "same" coin twice. The first time, they saw an original-ish NGC 67. The second time they saw a dipped PCGS 66FH. A green sticker in each instance seems entirely appropriate to me.
<< <i>To me the most interesting question is how can CAC green sticker the coin as an MS67 (meaning, a A/B coin, top 25%) and then have the coin downgraded to MS66, and then re-sticker the coin again as a green CAC sticker? If they not only saw it as an MS67 coin, but high-end for the MS67 grade, how can this coin not get a Gold CAC sticker in a MS66 holder? >>
Keep buying the hype .. Doesn't matter who is grading the coin -- it is opinion and their opinions can change as a person's mood changes .. Some days we are sharper than other days. Some days one may be hung-over or feeling a bit under the weather. .. But at the end of the day it is nothing but opinion du jour.
The same person can see the same exact coin differently on different days .. Period .. So keep feeding the monster and get those stickers on those coins . They need the money more than you do
As a buyer: QualityCurrencycom, tychojoe, AurumMiner, Collectorcoins, perfectstrike, ModCrewman, LeeBone, nickel, REALGATOR, MICHAELDIXON, pointfivezero, Walkerguy21D
Trades: georgiacop50
with the tone in the head area it is easy to see how the graders at NGC may have avoided the FH designation, but how did they miss the center of the coin which was untoned?? and then CAC says they did OK?? please excuse the appearance of my Koolaid addiction but perhaps the only one who got it right is PCGS who comes out looking like a double winner for taking CAC of the hook.