I have several QC coins, which is my biggest pet peeve with PCGS, but have never had the guts to resubmit. For one thing I would lose the variety attribution and it is just too expensive. And the coin is what it is so why put more money into it.
Yeah I'm also from the instagram community and a big player in it along with many others... this is a good friend of mine and I applaud him on all 3 coins upgrading! I think the walker is badass, they rarely tone and even more rare to see at the end of the toning cycle... if you think about it... that coin was amazing with colors throughout at one point in time! As well with the others, going from QC to UNC and AU to UNC! Good job Amrare! Keep on the good work
I don't get the backlash on the submitter. His coins came back in a grade that he didn't agree with, resubmitted them and they graded. Name me a dealer who has never resubmitted a coin? Name me a collector who doesn't have a coin where they believe if it was resubmitted it would grade higher?
@AmazonX said:
I don't get the backlash on the submitter. His coins came back in a grade that he didn't agree with, resubmitted them and they graded. Name me a dealer who has never resubmitted a coin? Name me a collector who doesn't have a coin where they believe if it was resubmitted it would grade higher?
Calm down people, put the pitchforks away.
There was only one with a pitchfork in the whole thread!
@DIMEMAN said:
I have several QC coins, which is my biggest pet peeve with PCGS, but have never had the guts to resubmit. For one thing I would lose the variety attribution and it is just too expensive. And the coin is what it is so why put more money into it.
I don't handle varieties that often, but is there a way to get the coin in the right plastic and then pay for a reholder/variety attribution once the grade is finalized? It still sounds like a pain, but it would save the variety attribution fee on multiple submissions and might work out mathematically in the long run.
@AmazonX said:
I don't get the backlash on the submitter. His coins came back in a grade that he didn't agree with, resubmitted them and they graded. Name me a dealer who has never resubmitted a coin? Name me a collector who doesn't have a coin where they believe if it was resubmitted it would grade higher?
Calm down people, put the pitchforks away.
There was only one with a pitchfork in the whole thread!
And he poked himself with it at that
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Insider2 said:
I see a difference. The top set, strictly graded, are in the PCGS Secure Plus slab. The coins in the bottom row are not so if the coins were sent in within several months:
The Secure holder coins are graded more strictly.
The grading teams may be different.
Secure Plus coins that are "straight graded" should be worth more money than regular label coins.
I haven't noticed any premium for secure plus holdered coins. On another note, why do you think these coins are graded more strictly? The only practical difference should be the sniffer and any grading differences would seemingly only hinge on whether there was some residue not visible to the naked eye (e.g. fresh putty) as a general statement.
Interesting thread.... coins are cracked and resubmitted all the time.... and often bragged about it here on the forum... a search will show you thousands of cases. For the multi-thousandth time, grading is subjective!! As such, it is an opinion, by humans, at a point in time. We all know that coins can upgrade - or even downgrade - on re-submission. This is simply a documented case showing the reality of grading. This is the world we live in at this time. Cheers, RickO
@cameonut2011 said: "I haven't noticed any premium for secure plus holdered coins."
That's interesting. I'm not a coin dealer so you should know. IMHO, sooner or later there WILL be a premium for Secure Plus coins just as has happened with CAC coins. So...we'll see what the future brings.
@cameonut2011 asked: "On another note, why do you think these coins are graded more strictly? The only practical difference should be the sniffer and any grading differences would seemingly only hinge on whether there was some residue not visible to the naked eye (e.g. fresh putty) as a general statement."
Really? I should think it would have been obvious to any numismatist with your qualifications that when a coin goes from a "detailed" slab to a "straight grade" holder, it was graded more strictly the first time! This is not an opinion. News flash: I can find a problem with just about 70% of any vintage coin I examine. Nevertheless, the dealers/TPGS standards/and the coin market dictate that I keep my personal preferences to myself.
Regarding the WLH, I don't know if the sniffer can identify corroded coins with no original surface. I do know this: Very often a TPGS will put the least damaging "problem" on a label or use weasel words like "smoothed" (a tooled surface to remove corrosion, graffiti, or damage) to cause the least damage to the submitted coin's value. In this case, they may have given the scrape on the sun more attention than it deserved when they graded it the first time. Net graded?
As for "blue" copper...heh, heh, do you really wish to open that can of worms?
@MsMorrisine said:
surprised on the 3cs QC
not surprised on the cent QC as that blue is still under heavy debate. perhaps pcgs took a cue from EagleEye and says it is MA.
on the walker, machine damage? where?
but that dark coloring is butt ugly. if the YN likes it then ok, just don't pay big money for that because it will be hard to sell later. in fact, I'd pay impaired money for it.
I'm thinking maybe a label error on the machine damage label; could they have wanted it to read "environmental damage" regarding the terminal toning?
Tough to grade coins, especially the 3c piece. It would never happen with gold, especially the higher denom. ones. Minor issues or subjective things like toning can get a second opinion. Who knows where the lines get drawn on subjective things?
The only real "upgrade" is the AU details to 62. The "questionable color" moniker is always pretty fluid. After all, it's "questionable color" not "definitely fake color" or "artificially toned". One grader thought the color original, the other grader wasn't sure.
@jmlanzaf said: "The "questionable color" moniker is always pretty fluid. After all, it's "questionable color" not "definitely fake color" or "artificially toned". One grader thought the color original, the other grader wasn't sure."
I do not speak for any TPGS; however, this is what I've been told. Big companies have virtually every thing they do and print checked by attorneys. So, rather than say a coin is counterfeit or artificially toned a weasel word, in this case "questionable," offers them a layer of protection.
No telling what the grader's thought about the Lincoln. We've had this discussion before. Since high grade copper can be altered to pretty blue iridescence, no harm done as long as it is not too blatant. The graders were not around to see how/when/where it happened. Perhaps the "blue" toned down a bit from the first submission.
Comments
I'd love to see what CAC would do with them.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The Walking Liberty half has terminal toning and the color on the Lincoln is funky. Both would be dead on arrival if submitted to CAC IMHO.
I have several QC coins, which is my biggest pet peeve with PCGS, but have never had the guts to resubmit. For one thing I would lose the variety attribution and it is just too expensive. And the coin is what it is so why put more money into it.
Yeah I'm also from the instagram community and a big player in it along with many others... this is a good friend of mine and I applaud him on all 3 coins upgrading! I think the walker is badass, they rarely tone and even more rare to see at the end of the toning cycle... if you think about it... that coin was amazing with colors throughout at one point in time! As well with the others, going from QC to UNC and AU to UNC! Good job Amrare! Keep on the good work
I've been in those shoes before and someone helped with my laziness
I don't get the backlash on the submitter. His coins came back in a grade that he didn't agree with, resubmitted them and they graded. Name me a dealer who has never resubmitted a coin? Name me a collector who doesn't have a coin where they believe if it was resubmitted it would grade higher?
Calm down people, put the pitchforks away.
There was only one with a pitchfork in the whole thread!
I don't handle varieties that often, but is there a way to get the coin in the right plastic and then pay for a reholder/variety attribution once the grade is finalized? It still sounds like a pain, but it would save the variety attribution fee on multiple submissions and might work out mathematically in the long run.
And he poked himself with it at that
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I haven't noticed any premium for secure plus holdered coins. On another note, why do you think these coins are graded more strictly? The only practical difference should be the sniffer and any grading differences would seemingly only hinge on whether there was some residue not visible to the naked eye (e.g. fresh putty) as a general statement.
Interesting thread.... coins are cracked and resubmitted all the time.... and often bragged about it here on the forum... a search will show you thousands of cases. For the multi-thousandth time, grading is subjective!! As such, it is an opinion, by humans, at a point in time. We all know that coins can upgrade - or even downgrade - on re-submission. This is simply a documented case showing the reality of grading. This is the world we live in at this time. Cheers, RickO
@cameonut2011 said: "I haven't noticed any premium for secure plus holdered coins."
That's interesting. I'm not a coin dealer so you should know. IMHO, sooner or later there WILL be a premium for Secure Plus coins just as has happened with CAC coins. So...we'll see what the future brings.
@cameonut2011 asked: "On another note, why do you think these coins are graded more strictly? The only practical difference should be the sniffer and any grading differences would seemingly only hinge on whether there was some residue not visible to the naked eye (e.g. fresh putty) as a general statement."
Really? I should think it would have been obvious to any numismatist with your qualifications that when a coin goes from a "detailed" slab to a "straight grade" holder, it was graded more strictly the first time! This is not an opinion. News flash: I can find a problem with just about 70% of any vintage coin I examine. Nevertheless, the dealers/TPGS standards/and the coin market dictate that I keep my personal preferences to myself.
Regarding the WLH, I don't know if the sniffer can identify corroded coins with no original surface. I do know this: Very often a TPGS will put the least damaging "problem" on a label or use weasel words like "smoothed" (a tooled surface to remove corrosion, graffiti, or damage) to cause the least damage to the submitted coin's value. In this case, they may have given the scrape on the sun more attention than it deserved when they graded it the first time. Net graded?
As for "blue" copper...heh, heh, do you really wish to open that can of worms?
I'm thinking maybe a label error on the machine damage label; could they have wanted it to read "environmental damage" regarding the terminal toning?
He should submit them several more times just to make sure
Interesting results.
In my opinion:
1) Trime is AU, but natural.
2) Walker is BU, and natural. Possibly ED tho.
3) Lincoln looks AT to me.
@YN looks at a coin and says "That's harsh" when he reads the label.
Pays up. Thrice.
Pays off. Thrice.
Cashes out and loses $150 after fees.
Grins copiously.
@YN is offered contractor funding of $5,000 by @ColonelJessup.
@ColJ loses $1250 on $12,500 total purchases/sales.
@YN frown lessens as @ColJ grins and hands him another $10K.
Tough to grade coins, especially the 3c piece. It would never happen with gold, especially the higher denom. ones. Minor issues or subjective things like toning can get a second opinion. Who knows where the lines get drawn on subjective things?
I have a 1919 lincoln cent with the same look grades MS63BR
In today's world one MUST think out of the box !
The only real "upgrade" is the AU details to 62. The "questionable color" moniker is always pretty fluid. After all, it's "questionable color" not "definitely fake color" or "artificially toned". One grader thought the color original, the other grader wasn't sure.
@jmlanzaf said: "The "questionable color" moniker is always pretty fluid. After all, it's "questionable color" not "definitely fake color" or "artificially toned". One grader thought the color original, the other grader wasn't sure."
I do not speak for any TPGS; however, this is what I've been told. Big companies have virtually every thing they do and print checked by attorneys. So, rather than say a coin is counterfeit or artificially toned a weasel word, in this case "questionable," offers them a layer of protection.
No telling what the grader's thought about the Lincoln. We've had this discussion before. Since high grade copper can be altered to pretty blue iridescence, no harm done as long as it is not too blatant. The graders were not around to see how/when/where it happened. Perhaps the "blue" toned down a bit from the first submission.
This should be a good reminder that collectors must have sufficient knowledge of coins to best evaluate their condition ('grade').
This post reminds me of "Gary from Instagram"
Latin American Collection
Now I got a headache.
It does have that annoying "Dawson's Creek vibe."
