@Insider2 said:
I personally grade it 65+ (beat up reverse). I'd sell it as a 66+ and I'll bet it is in a 67 slab or 67+.
Any offers?????
That will teach me to magnify a coin's image (when possible) before posting an opinion!
@tradedollarnut said:
All coins are net graded. When the picture seems nicer than the grade, more often than not it’s the picture in error.
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
@tradedollarnut said:
All coins are net graded. When the picture seems nicer than the grade, more often than not it’s the picture in error.
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
Oh....really?
I can’t count the number of coins in TPG holders that have a conservative grade by the remaining details...but have been silently net graded for a slight cleaning
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
In this instance though with such a tough coin what is the alternative? And I don't mean in regards specifically to DLH who could eventually buy a different 1933 $10, just in general. If buying a coin in a tooled slab makes you part of the process what should be done with the tooled coin? Or are you more against this because of the price paid?
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
@tradedollarnut said:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
This is a good discussion to have. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that a coin should essentially be stricken from the record or black listed because of what someone might have done to it, if it is truly rare. I also don't want to create a market for doctored coins.
@tradedollarnut said:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
This is a good discussion to have. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that a coin should essentially be stricken from the record or black listed because of what someone might have done to it, if it is truly rare. I also don't want to create a market for doctored coins.
The coin is graded as a problem coin so at least people know there are issues.
I think it may be worth considering moving coin doctoring into the open like classic car and art restoration. Restoration is an open part of both of those hobbies and their top end items sell for much more than coins do.
In the meanwhile, we are still in the situation where doctors do their work but need to do it in secret with nothing to really stop them. For example, I don't think the PNG really made any progress and it doesn't seem like the PNG doctoring definition changed anything.
I don't mind the coin being a no-grade coin. It's still nice to be slabbed with a TrueView.
Yes.
So if we use @Currin's method of sorting on the grade column to bring the missing coins to the top, it shows these six:
1798 $2-1/2
1798 $5 Small Eagle
1819 $5
1822 $5
1854-S $5
1875 $10
So the 1933 $10 is in the set database now.
Hansen has the 1875 $10 in proof, so that meets the Eliasberg set definition (either business strike or proof counts).
And this matches the 6 non-bold coins in @Currin's latest update. It will be five non-bold soon.
@tradedollarnut said:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
I would argue that there wasn't a blind eye turned here, but there's no need to further discuss it.
I, for one, am glad that the coin is off the market for a very long time, likely to not re-enter, so that a doctor was unable to buy it and work on it.
John Brush President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com email: John@davidlawrence.com 2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
@tradedollarnut said:
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
I would argue that there wasn't a blind eye turned here, but there's no need to further discuss it.
I, for one, am glad that the coin is off the market for a very long time, likely to not re-enter, so that a doctor was unable to buy it and work on it.
There will always be ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacks”, even in coin collecting. Reading some of Tradedollarnut’s post, I have to wonder if he is just envious of Mr. Hansen’s goals and accomplishes so far.
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
It's not like Hansen commissioned the doctoring. The deed was already done when he came along. And knowingly purchased it as such.
Are all the coins that have ever been messed with supposed to disintegrate and disappear? Not at all. They should be accurately described and traded at a discount.
@tradedollarnut said:
All coins are net graded. When the picture seems nicer than the grade, more often than not it’s the picture in error.
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
Oh....really?
I can’t count the number of coins in TPG holders that have a conservative grade by the remaining details...but have been silently net graded for a slight cleaning
That’s the reality
I agree 100%! Unfortunately, that is the disgusting truth. Coins with "market acceptable" problems are still problem coins. Lowering their grade does not make it right and that is not something that goes on with EVERY COIN! Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Value and subjectivity do not belong in an "ideal" grading system. I believe that sometime in the future, AI will correct the mess that has evolved into today's "market grading."
Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
@neildrobertson said:
It's an exceptional example. I'm pleasantly surprised to see some more open mindedness at the high end of the market for details coins. Details should be treated more like an asterisk than a strikethrough. Each one should be considered on its own merit and valued on its own merit.
@yosclimber said:
So if we use @Currin's method of sorting on the grade column to bring the missing coins to the top, it shows these six:
1798 $2-1/2
1798 $5 Small Eagle
1819 $5
1822 $5
1854-S $5
1875 $10
So the 1933 $10 is in the set database now.
Hansen has the 1875 $10 in proof, so that meets the Eliasberg set definition (either business strike or proof counts).
And this matches the 6 non-bold coins in @Currin's latest update. It will be five non-bold soon.
This is 100% correct. Just to prove, here is the 1875 Eagle in D.L. Hansen Collection. David Akers (1975/88): This date is by far the rarest Liberty Head Eagle, particularly as a business strike, and no more than 5-6 business strikes are known along with 7-8 proofs.
1875 $10, CAM PR63CAM Certification #03175738, PCGS #88815, POP 1/1, overall POP 1/4
.
.
I would give 5:1 odds before it is all said and done, Hansen will have one of the 5-6 known business strikes in his Collection. TOP POP for business strikes is AU53+ PCGS grade.
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
In this instance though with such a tough coin what is the alternative? And I don't mean in regards specifically to DLH who could eventually buy a different 1933 $10, just in general. If buying a coin in a tooled slab makes you part of the process what should be done with the tooled coin? Or are you more against this because of the price paid?
With a set like the one he is building ( fantastic) I would rather have an empty spot then a known tooled worked on coin filling it. Where is the challenge in that besides writing a check?
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......
@tradedollarnut said: Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
LOL. Unfortunately, IMHO, you had a bad/or no actual "numismatic education." Sure, you are a very successful businessman, and a famous, knowledgeable collector - "educated" in the numismatic school of hard knocks and hard lessons. However (again IMHO), this view of yours and others only causes confusion.
Reality? Yes, your definition of the entire grading process can be called NET GRADING because that is what we all do. We take a coin in hand, imagine what it looked like hot off the dies and then NET GRADE IT by coming up with a condition number (grade shorthand) remaining **after deductions." So, we net graded it.
The problem with that view is, as I stated before, another band of folks who collect copper came up with a "loony" system (so far, no one can tell me who devised it) that they named "net grading." Oops, just to be specific after both of us understand/agree that all TPGS grading is a "net result" after deductions - I should call their system NET, NET Grading. That's because after they Net grade a coin they may decide it needs to be net graded even more! Oh my.
In the end, I will continue to make a distinction between simply grading a coin as the industry does and the "net grading" folly because they are not identical.
@tradedollarnut said: Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
LOL. Unfortunately, IMHO, you had a bad/or no actual "numismatic education." Sure, you are a very successful businessman, and a famous, knowledgeable collector - "educated" in the numismatic school of hard knocks and hard lessons. However (again IMHO), this view of yours and others only causes confusion.
Reality? Yes, your definition of the entire grading process can be called NET GRADING because that is what we all do. We take a coin in hand, imagine what it looked like hot off the dies and then NET GRADE IT by coming up with a condition number (grade shorthand) remaining **after deductions." So, we net graded it.
The problem with that view is, as I stated before, another band of folks who collect copper came up with a "loony" system (so far, no one can tell me who devised it) that they named "net grading." Oops, just to be specific after both of us understand/agree that all TPGS grading is a "net result" after deductions - I should call their system NET, NET Grading. That's because after they Net grade a coin they may decide it needs to be net graded even more! Oh my.
In the end, I will continue to make a distinction between simply grading a coin as the industry does and the "net grading" folly because they are not identical.
I think Bruce understands grading and “net grading” - silent or otherwise - just fine.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@tradedollarnut said: Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
LOL. Unfortunately, IMHO, you had a bad/or no actual "numismatic education." Sure, you are a very successful businessman, and a famous, knowledgeable collector - "educated" in the numismatic school of hard knocks and hard lessons. However (again IMHO), this view of yours and others only causes confusion.
Reality? Yes, your definition of the entire grading process can be called NET GRADING because that is what we all do. We take a coin in hand, imagine what it looked like hot off the dies and then NET GRADE IT by coming up with a condition number (grade shorthand) remaining **after deductions." So, we net graded it.
The problem with that view is, as I stated before, another band of folks who collect copper came up with a "loony" system (so far, no one can tell me who devised it) that they named "net grading." Oops, just to be specific after both of us understand/agree that all TPGS grading is a "net result" after deductions - I should call their system NET, NET Grading. That's because after they Net grade a coin they may decide it needs to be net graded even more! Oh my.
In the end, I will continue to make a distinction between simply grading a coin as the industry does and the "net grading" folly because they are not identical.
I think Bruce understands grading and “net grading” - silent or otherwise - just fine.
As I posted. He Does! I am forced to admit that all normal grading is a form of "Net Grading." I don't like the idea of using the same terms for two completely different things. Hard to teach.
.when reading the blog I noticed that the 1841 quarter eagle was needed for the Collection. We now have that. Hope to find the1875 business strike. However as a saving grace the Collection may have to use the Proof to fill the Eliasberg quest
I would like to thank Currin for the detail surrounding the Collection. It s helpful in keeping me updated
D. L. Hansen
@DLHansen said:
.when reading the blog I noticed that the 1841 quarter eagle was needed for the Collection. We now have that. Hope to find the1875 business strike. However as a saving grace the Collection may have to use the Proof to fill the Eliasberg quest
I would like to thank Currin for the detail surrounding the Collection. It s helpful in keeping me updated
D. L. Hansen
Thank You.. my pleasure!
Is the Little Princess in the NGC PR55 holder? If so, do you think it will cross to PCGS MS or PR. I could see it being in a MS PCGS holder with the new PL. That would be really cool.
@Justacommeman said:
I’m still having a real hard time with the 1933 Indian. IMHO it shouldn’t count. It’s one thing getting duped by a doctor but knowingly buying a tooled coin makes you part of the process. The incentive persists to monkey coins for the sake of the registry and financial gain. Greed meets ego. Man I hate this buy with a passion
mark
In this instance though with such a tough coin what is the alternative? And I don't mean in regards specifically to DLH who could eventually buy a different 1933 $10, just in general. If buying a coin in a tooled slab makes you part of the process what should be done with the tooled coin? Or are you more against this because of the price paid?
With a set like the one he is building ( fantastic) I would rather have an empty spot then a known tooled worked on coin filling it. Where is the challenge in that besides writing a check?
m
The good thing about collecting is everyone can do it their own way. Part of it may be the challenge and part of it may simply be enjoying coins. At least the coin was described properly so Dell Loy and John (and we) all knew what he was buying.
I still find it interesting that as much as people say they don't like doctors, nothing is really done about them.
@BigMoose said:
Hey, Insider2, please get your head out of your a$$ with regard to EAC/Early Copper grading. TDN is absolutely correct--ALL grading is Net grading. The parameters for EAC grading and the deductions for defects just tend to be more severe.
That's exactly what I posted. You guys should name it NET, NET grading. LOL. BTW, I'm quite happy to keep my head so far up...
I'll also be happy to quote several comments from the fantastic Copper Grading Guide (I highly recommend it) written by several EAC members that support my opinion : "Net" grading as done by many copper collectors is "stupid folly" and has no relationship to the way most numismatists grade coins."
Furthermore, so far, NO ONE can tell me the name of the "EX-PERT" who thought up that stupid system. Seriously, he/she needs to have a rightful place in numismatic history!
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading! I cannot find the grade of the $10 but hopefully it is "Detailed." Either Au or MS "tooled?"
Interesting. Anyone know if it was graded around the same time as the 1875 Proof $10 above?
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
....
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
>
Of course that would look ridiculous-- in VF30, it's only a $75,000 coin 😉
Perhaps what we are seeing is that when coin get into the category of an 1875 Pr $10 or 1933 $10 their condition is less important. Shouldn't an 1804 dollar or Brasher still sell for millions of dollars if they were plugged?
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading! I cannot find the grade of the $10 but hopefully it is "Detailed." Either Au or MS "tooled?"
Interesting. Anyone know if it was graded around the same time as the 1875 Proof $10 above?
When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading!
I don’t know how PCGS might net grade the coin. I just know that they wouldn’t. But why MIGHT they if they did? Perhaps because they considered it equal to a wholesome VF in desirability and value.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Are we forgetting that the coin was sold and bought as a net MS63+ by actual market participants? The ravings of the hysterically sanctimonious peanut gallery notwithstanding.
It would take a Lot of pocket wear to bring this down to 30...
Or someone could just carve some initials into those pretty fields
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading! I cannot find the grade of the $10 but hopefully it is "Detailed." Either Au or MS "tooled?"
Interesting. Anyone know if it was graded around the same time as the 1875 Proof $10 above?
When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead.
Agreed, although there are other issues. If the problem is deceptive or well-hidden, it might be better to “details” the coin. For example a lightly whizzed or lasered piece assigned a net grade could create a dangerous trap. Same could go for a coin with a hidden staple scratch, a wheel mark, or very light graffiti.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading! I cannot find the grade of the $10 but hopefully it is "Detailed." Either Au or MS "tooled?"
Interesting. Anyone know if it was graded around the same time as the 1875 Proof $10 above?
When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead.
Agreed, although there are other issues. If the problem is deceptive or well-hidden, it might be better to “details” the coin. For example a lightly whizzed or lazered piece assigned a net grade could create a dangerous trap. Same could go for a coin with a hidden staple scratch, a wheel mark, or very light graffiti.
Agreed back at you. Regarding your above examples, off the top of my head, the easy decisions for me would be to no-grade whizzed and lasered coins. A coin with a staple scratch might very well be Ok for a (reduced) straight grade. I’d almost certainly no-grade a coin with (even minor) graffiti. And I might assign a grade to one with a wheel mark - that’s the toughest one for me. I realize that others might have different thoughts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead."
Just as I expected, a terrific explanation of commercial grading. THANK GOODNESS I NEVER, EVER had to go through all that anywhere I've worked. All I had to do was grade the coin for what it was.
Straight grades were easy. If it had a problem, That was easy too. I graded the coin for its actual condition (MS or worn) and stated the problem just as I did in the 1970's. At two grading services, I did see some severely damaged rare coins unbelievably straight graded.
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading! I cannot find the grade of the $10 but hopefully it is "Detailed." Either Au or MS "tooled?"
Interesting. Anyone know if it was graded around the same time as the 1875 Proof $10 above?
When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead.
Agreed, although there are other issues. If the problem is deceptive or well-hidden, it might be better to “details” the coin. For example a lightly whizzed or lazered piece assigned a net grade could create a dangerous trap. Same could go for a coin with a hidden staple scratch, a wheel mark, or very light graffiti.
Agreed back at you. Regarding your above examples, off the top of my head, the easy decisions for me would be to no-grade whizzed and lasered coins. A coin with a staple scratch might very well be Ok for a (reduced) straight grade. I’d almost certainly no-grade a coin with (even minor) graffiti. And I might assign a grade to one with a wheel mark - that’s the toughest one for me. I realize that others might have different thoughts.
And it matters what the coin is. If an 1870-S Seated Dollar, I’d try really hard to straight grade almost anything. I’d be tougher on a 93-S.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
@MrEureka said:
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading! I cannot find the grade of the $10 but hopefully it is "Detailed." Either Au or MS "tooled?"
Interesting. Anyone know if it was graded around the same time as the 1875 Proof $10 above?
When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead.
Agreed, although there are other issues. If the problem is deceptive or well-hidden, it might be better to “details” the coin. For example a lightly whizzed or lazered piece assigned a net grade could create a dangerous trap. Same could go for a coin with a hidden staple scratch, a wheel mark, or very light graffiti.
Agreed back at you. Regarding your above examples, off the top of my head, the easy decisions for me would be to no-grade whizzed and lasered coins. A coin with a staple scratch might very well be Ok for a (reduced) straight grade. I’d almost certainly no-grade a coin with (even minor) graffiti. And I might assign a grade to one with a wheel mark - that’s the toughest one for me. I realize that others might have different thoughts.
And it matters what the coin is. If an 1870-S Seated Dollar, I’d try really hard to straight grade almost anything. I’d be tougher on a 93-S.
I wouldn’t. While I can certainly understand that line of thinking (and it might be a majority view), I don’t think special coins should be treated differently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I introduced a new rare gold coin a few days ago. The coin is a very appealing specimen for the date. The issue with the coin is a problem that is very difficult to see by eye. At first glance, some of you graded the coin very high for the date. The reverse of the coin is original and untouched. The obverse is almost spotless with great fields, although, the Indian cheek has been tampered with. This was done “sometime in the distant” past. There does not appear any attempt by current “doctors” to correct or cover up the early modification. I am not sure the tampering to this coin was done to increase the value, if so, then the work did the opposite, because seem to me the coin’s value is discounted as much as 25% -75% depending what the “un-doctored” coin would have graded.
Coin Description
The coin is described as Surfaces Tooled – PCGS Genuine. I think without tempering, the coin would grade MS65 or better. If the original bag marks on the cheek were worse case, the coin could drop to MS64. It would be great if there was a picture of the coin before doctoring. If there is one available, I have not seen it. If someone have the ability to search for the Sotheby’s 3/1983 catalog, please let us know if there is a picture available. Let me share this Heritage video description narrated by Mark Brockardt.
Heritage Auctions described the coin as: In the absence of a Details grade from PCGS, we consider this attractive 1933 Indian eagle to have Uncirculated sharpness. The coin last appeared at auction in 2005, when it was raw. In that lot description, the Stack's cataloger noted "a profusion of tiny swirling hairlines" on Liberty's cheek. They are indeed faint, seen only with a loupe and under good lighting, but they are in fact tool marks -- the faint remnant of some individual's attempt to smooth out high-point abrasions on this coin in the distant past. Although unfortunate, this "repair" does not overly affect the eye appeal of the coin. Orange-gold luster glistens on each side, especially in the fields. The strike is sharp and the only mentionable abrasions are a few tiny ticks on the reverse eagle, which serve as pedigree markers.
Coin History
This coin first appeared as lot #222 in Sotheby’s 3/1983 auction. The coin was from the Samuel Hallack Dupont Collection. I am not sure how this collection was assembled. Being the first public appearance of the coin was 50 years after released, it possible the coin could have resided in the collection for most of its early life. The Dupont Collection was large enough that Sotheby liquefied by auctions in three parts.
The next appearance was a Stack’s 3/2005 Auction. The coin’s provenance was from Morrison Family and Lawrence C. Licht Collections. This is the first description that I have seen that mentions the issue with cheek. The coin was sold as raw brilliant uncirculated. The coin realized $230,000. This is catalog’s description: 1933 Brilliant Uncirculated and boasting the amazing eye appeal of a much higher grade. This extraordinary coin exhibits the luxurious velvet orange-gold mint bloom that typifies the few known examples of this rare final date of circulating Gold Eagle coinage. The strike is altogether exceptional, resulting in the sharpest detail that might be desired. Close examination under magnification reveals a profusion of tiny swirling hairlines on the Indian's cheek which are nearly invisible to the naked eye. This is the legendary rarity of the Eagle series. Although it had a reasonable reported mintage, all but a mere handful were melted following President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order removing Gold coins and Gold-backed Notes from circulation in early 1933.
Hansen purchased the coin in Heritage’s 2019 August 14 - 18 ANA World's Fair of Money US Coins Signature Auction - Chicago, Lot #1298. The coin is from The Paulos Family Collection. It was placed in a certified holder sometime after the Stack’s 3/2005 Auction. Due to the coin number, I would believe that the coin was certified several years ago. Hansen won the coin with a cut bid, so I would assume he was near the top of his bid limit. The bidding was brisk, and appears the underbidder was interested in the coin, but his interest was exceeded by Hansen. This is a link to the bidding:
We have discussed this coin in much detail the past few days. After reading the facts and circumstances on the coin, you be judge on its value and merit. The auction result has placed the value at $300,000 which is at least 25% discount based on assume grade, but I think the un-doctored coin would grade much higher and the discounted is much greater, maybe as much as 50-75% discount. This is strictly my assessment which may vary greatly from yours. Here is what JB had to say: Most that criticize the purchase did not view the coin in-hand. When compared to other rarities that are currently for sale, the 1933 is for some reason a tougher coin to find than some of the other "rarer" items. That being said, it was one of the final 10 holes in the Eliasberg set at PCGS, and there are now only 6 holes left to fill in that group. Of course other coins will be/have been added to the overall collection, but that set (as defined by PCGS) has been a focus since early on. End of discussion.
Provenance: S. Hallock Dupont Collection (Sotheby's 3/1983), lot 222; Morrison Family and Lawrence C. Licht Collections (Stack's, 3/2005), lot 1882, which realized $230,000; The Poulos Family Collection (Heritage 8/2019), lot 1298, $300,000 – D. L. Hansen Collection
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, the registry describes his specimen as estimated grade MS65. Purchased by Louis Eliasberg from the Beldon Roach Collection, auctioned by B. Max Mehl in 1944. Purchased at the Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 Eliasberg sale by Hugh Sconyers for $93,500. Lot #873.
1933 Indian Eagle PCGS Genuine PCGS Coin #8885 / PCGS Serial #25538477
Commentary
Typically, I end the posting with the picture of the coin or the count down list, because I try to make thread about the coin(s). I will break protocol and add a personally commentary. Hansen needed this coin and JB has shared for several months that this coin was hard to obtain. As JB said earlier: There have been more 1913 nickels on the market the last 2 years than 1933 $10 Indians. In addition, the two gems are held by the same customer who isn't selling and is demanding a rather exorbitant price as well. I think the purchase the coin takes pressure completely off having to make an exorbitant purchase of high grade specimen. The coin changes the negotiation position for JB and Hansen in a significant way. If there was someone out that that was holding out for Hansen to bow to their price, then that sale may have been lost. I do believe at some point Hansen will purchase a better specimen, and very possible he will hold off for a condition census specimen, but the coin will be purchased under his terms. In some ways, this coin may pay for itself just in terms of the negotiation power that was bought with the this purchase. Hansen is playing this chess game at Grandmaster level.
How can you have an opinion on the effect the doctoring had on the coin’s value and what it might have graded prior to the doctoring, when you didn’t see the “before” version?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
1) Tooled or not, the coin fills a missing part of the Hansen collection and puts it closer to completion.. It does not matter if he gets a better one or not; but I'll bet this coin is just a place-holder.
2) We live in an information age. Currin was able to trace much of this coin's history. If things were different, I'll guarantee that this coin could be made much more deceptive.
No offense as it's a good conversation. Why don't the moderators split off all this back and forth about the 33...net grading, etc.! It's taking away from the real reason for this thread!
Comments
That will teach me to magnify a coin's image (when possible) before posting an opinion!
I wish folks would stop saying this. There is a difference between lowering a coin's ACTUAL grade based on its condition of preservation and dropping THAT GRADE MORE due to placing a "Net Grade" on it (as the Large cent guys do) that does not match any grading guide or have any semblance to reality!!!
Oh....really?
I can’t count the number of coins in TPG holders that have a conservative grade by the remaining details...but have been silently net graded for a slight cleaning
That’s the reality
In this instance though with such a tough coin what is the alternative? And I don't mean in regards specifically to DLH who could eventually buy a different 1933 $10, just in general. If buying a coin in a tooled slab makes you part of the process what should be done with the tooled coin? Or are you more against this because of the price paid?
It depends on how you are looking at it. Make no mistake, Eliasberg had doctored coins in his set. The question here is whether or not one should turn a blind eye to the actions of the coin doctors and support them by paying multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for a known tooled coin. It is less about the pursuit and more about numismatics in general
This is a good discussion to have. I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that a coin should essentially be stricken from the record or black listed because of what someone might have done to it, if it is truly rare. I also don't want to create a market for doctored coins.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
The coin is graded as a problem coin so at least people know there are issues.
I think it may be worth considering moving coin doctoring into the open like classic car and art restoration. Restoration is an open part of both of those hobbies and their top end items sell for much more than coins do.
In the meanwhile, we are still in the situation where doctors do their work but need to do it in secret with nothing to really stop them. For example, I don't think the PNG really made any progress and it doesn't seem like the PNG doctoring definition changed anything.
I don't mind the coin being a no-grade coin. It's still nice to be slabbed with a TrueView.
"Restoration" would be a category that would be treated like a "Genuine."
Cars are different as they HAVE to be repaired to work.
But what about art, which sells for even more than cars, and coins?
Well that's a different ...picture.
Sorry. I'll behave now.
Yes.
So if we use @Currin's method of sorting on the grade column to bring the missing coins to the top, it shows these six:
1798 $2-1/2
1798 $5 Small Eagle
1819 $5
1822 $5
1854-S $5
1875 $10
So the 1933 $10 is in the set database now.
Hansen has the 1875 $10 in proof, so that meets the Eliasberg set definition (either business strike or proof counts).
And this matches the 6 non-bold coins in @Currin's latest update. It will be five non-bold soon.
I would argue that there wasn't a blind eye turned here, but there's no need to further discuss it.
I, for one, am glad that the coin is off the market for a very long time, likely to not re-enter, so that a doctor was unable to buy it and work on it.
President of David Lawrence Rare Coins www.davidlawrence.com
email: John@davidlawrence.com
2022 ANA Dealer of the Year, Past Chair of NCBA (formerly ICTA), PNG Treasurer, Instructor at Witter Coin University, former Instructor/YN Chaperone ANA Summer Seminar, Coin World Most Influential, Curator of the D.L. Hansen Collection
There will always be ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacks”, even in coin collecting. Reading some of Tradedollarnut’s post, I have to wonder if he is just envious of Mr. Hansen’s goals and accomplishes so far.
Not at all. I’m rooting for him. I just want him to do it right. It’ll cost him a little bit more but in the end it will be worth every penny...
It's not like Hansen commissioned the doctoring. The deed was already done when he came along. And knowingly purchased it as such.
Are all the coins that have ever been messed with supposed to disintegrate and disappear? Not at all. They should be accurately described and traded at a discount.
I agree 100%! Unfortunately, that is the disgusting truth. Coins with "market acceptable" problems are still problem coins. Lowering their grade does not make it right and that is not something that goes on with EVERY COIN! Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Value and subjectivity do not belong in an "ideal" grading system. I believe that sometime in the future, AI will correct the mess that has evolved into today's "market grading."
Therefore, I'll ask again that folks don't claim ALL grading is "net" grading because it is NOT!
Sure it is...just not all of it is ‘problem’ net grading. If a coin is perfect except for a single bag mark, it’s net graded for that bag mark. If it has slight friction, it’s net graded for that. If it has marks, lines, friction and incredible toning, it’s net graded for the sum of its attributes.
All grading is net grading...some of it silent and most of it not so silent
Tooled is a strikethrough.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
This is 100% correct. Just to prove, here is the 1875 Eagle in D.L. Hansen Collection. David Akers (1975/88): This date is by far the rarest Liberty Head Eagle, particularly as a business strike, and no more than 5-6 business strikes are known along with 7-8 proofs.
1875 $10, CAM PR63CAM Certification #03175738, PCGS #88815, POP 1/1, overall POP 1/4
.
.
I would give 5:1 odds before it is all said and done, Hansen will have one of the 5-6 known business strikes in his Collection. TOP POP for business strikes is AU53+ PCGS grade.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
With a set like the one he is building ( fantastic) I would rather have an empty spot then a known tooled worked on coin filling it. Where is the challenge in that besides writing a check?
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......
LOL. Unfortunately, IMHO, you had a bad/or no actual "numismatic education." Sure, you are a very successful businessman, and a famous, knowledgeable collector - "educated" in the numismatic school of hard knocks and hard lessons. However (again IMHO), this view of yours and others only causes confusion.
Reality? Yes, your definition of the entire grading process can be called NET GRADING because that is what we all do. We take a coin in hand, imagine what it looked like hot off the dies and then NET GRADE IT by coming up with a condition number (grade shorthand) remaining **after deductions." So, we net graded it.
The problem with that view is, as I stated before, another band of folks who collect copper came up with a "loony" system (so far, no one can tell me who devised it) that they named "net grading." Oops, just to be specific after both of us understand/agree that all TPGS grading is a "net result" after deductions - I should call their system NET, NET Grading. That's because after they Net grade a coin they may decide it needs to be net graded even more! Oh my.
In the end, I will continue to make a distinction between simply grading a coin as the industry does and the "net grading" folly because they are not identical.
Are there scratches on this coin? I see strike thru's that are fairly common on Proofs.
I think Bruce understands grading and “net grading” - silent or otherwise - just fine.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As I posted. He Does! I am forced to admit that all normal grading is a form of "Net Grading." I don't like the idea of using the same terms for two completely different things. Hard to teach.
.when reading the blog I noticed that the 1841 quarter eagle was needed for the Collection. We now have that. Hope to find the1875 business strike. However as a saving grace the Collection may have to use the Proof to fill the Eliasberg quest
I would like to thank Currin for the detail surrounding the Collection. It s helpful in keeping me updated
D. L. Hansen
Thank You.. my pleasure!
Is the Little Princess in the NGC PR55 holder? If so, do you think it will cross to PCGS MS or PR. I could see it being in a MS PCGS holder with the new PL. That would be really cool.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I think it is fine that Mr. Hansen bought the 33 if he got it off the market. But I hope he buys another for his set.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
The good thing about collecting is everyone can do it their own way. Part of it may be the challenge and part of it may simply be enjoying coins. At least the coin was described properly so Dell Loy and John (and we) all knew what he was buying.
I still find it interesting that as much as people say they don't like doctors, nothing is really done about them.
That's exactly what I posted. You guys should name it NET, NET grading. LOL. BTW, I'm quite happy to keep my head so far up...
I'll also be happy to quote several comments from the fantastic Copper Grading Guide (I highly recommend it) written by several EAC members that support my opinion : "Net" grading as done by many copper collectors is "stupid folly" and has no relationship to the way most numismatists grade coins."
Furthermore, so far, NO ONE can tell me the name of the "EX-PERT" who thought up that stupid system. Seriously, he/she
needs to have a rightful place in numismatic history!
He could pocket-piece it down to XF to remove the tooling.
My YouTube Channel
Just a couple of thoughts on “net grading”.
With EAC, every problem coin gets a “net grade”, no matter what. I don’t especially like that system, but I can’t say I really care.
With PCGS, net grading is reserved for those coins with relatively minor problems that would be “market acceptable” at a lower grade. The original thinking, as I understand it, was that back in the early days of PCGS, the sight-unseen market was much more active, and the appearance of sight unseen purchases had to be reasonably predictable. Also, with respect to the wider market, PCGS did not want coins to look ridiculous in a holder. For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand.
Edited to add that I was a part time PCGS grader and an active sight unseen bidder back in the late 80’s, so I’m not completely making this sh*t up.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
First, so no one needs to defend Mr. Eureka...his skills/knowledge of coins and the commercial market (including dozens of others on CU I spar with) are way above mine. That said, he had me 100% until this: "For example, imagine the Hansen 1933 $10 in a PCGS VF30 slab. It would not inspire confidence or enhance the PCGS brand."
Why would they take a virtually MS coin and "net" grade it to VF? While you said this is just an example, IMO, that is a little harsh but it does show the "folly" possible with net grading! I cannot find the grade of the $10 but hopefully it is "Detailed." Either Au or MS "tooled?"
Interesting. Anyone know if it was graded around the same time as the 1875 Proof $10 above?
>
Of course that would look ridiculous-- in VF30, it's only a $75,000 coin 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Perhaps what we are seeing is that when coin get into the category of an 1875 Pr $10 or 1933 $10 their condition is less important. Shouldn't an 1804 dollar or Brasher still sell for millions of dollars if they were plugged?
Am I the only one who thinks that 1933 $10 would make an AMAZING pocket piece?
When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
How about using it for a coin toss for a Real Salt Lake soccer game!
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
I don’t know how PCGS might net grade the coin. I just know that they wouldn’t. But why MIGHT they if they did? Perhaps because they considered it equal to a wholesome VF in desirability and value.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Are we forgetting that the coin was sold and bought as a net MS63+ by actual market participants? The ravings of the hysterically sanctimonious peanut gallery notwithstanding.
It would take a Lot of pocket wear to bring this down to 30...
Or someone could just carve some initials into those pretty fields
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Agreed, although there are other issues. If the problem is deceptive or well-hidden, it might be better to “details” the coin. For example a lightly whizzed or lasered piece assigned a net grade could create a dangerous trap. Same could go for a coin with a hidden staple scratch, a wheel mark, or very light graffiti.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Btw, do other 1933 $10s have "scruffy patches" to the left of the eagle? If not, then it's probably repaired there, too.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Agreed back at you. Regarding your above examples, off the top of my head, the easy decisions for me would be to no-grade whizzed and lasered coins. A coin with a staple scratch might very well be Ok for a (reduced) straight grade. I’d almost certainly no-grade a coin with (even minor) graffiti. And I might assign a grade to one with a wheel mark - that’s the toughest one for me. I realize that others might have different thoughts.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said: "When I graded at NGC and was faced with deciding whether to straight grade or no-grade/details-grade a coin with a problem/problems, this was my thought process...
“How low should/would I straight grade the coin to account for the problem, fairly/properly?”
Once I had a grade in mind, my next question was “Would that grade look silly (or worse), considering the quality/condition/appearance of the coin.? If my answer was “yes”, I wouldn’t assign a straight grade. In other words, if, in order to account properly for a problem/problems, you have to downgrade a coin so severely that the assigned grade looks silly/stupid, don’t do it. Assign it a details grade, instead."
Just as I expected, a terrific explanation of commercial grading. THANK GOODNESS I NEVER, EVER had to go through all that anywhere I've worked. All I had to do was grade the coin for what it was.
Straight grades were easy. If it had a problem, That was easy too. I graded the coin for its actual condition (MS or worn) and stated the problem just as I did in the 1970's. At two grading services, I did see some severely damaged rare coins unbelievably straight graded.
And it matters what the coin is. If an 1870-S Seated Dollar, I’d try really hard to straight grade almost anything. I’d be tougher on a 93-S.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I wouldn’t. While I can certainly understand that line of thinking (and it might be a majority view), I don’t think special coins should be treated differently.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Count Down 17 – The Preeminent Series Rarity
I introduced a new rare gold coin a few days ago. The coin is a very appealing specimen for the date. The issue with the coin is a problem that is very difficult to see by eye. At first glance, some of you graded the coin very high for the date. The reverse of the coin is original and untouched. The obverse is almost spotless with great fields, although, the Indian cheek has been tampered with. This was done “sometime in the distant” past. There does not appear any attempt by current “doctors” to correct or cover up the early modification. I am not sure the tampering to this coin was done to increase the value, if so, then the work did the opposite, because seem to me the coin’s value is discounted as much as 25% -75% depending what the “un-doctored” coin would have graded.
Coin Description
The coin is described as Surfaces Tooled – PCGS Genuine. I think without tempering, the coin would grade MS65 or better. If the original bag marks on the cheek were worse case, the coin could drop to MS64. It would be great if there was a picture of the coin before doctoring. If there is one available, I have not seen it. If someone have the ability to search for the Sotheby’s 3/1983 catalog, please let us know if there is a picture available. Let me share this Heritage video description narrated by Mark Brockardt.
Heritage Auctions described the coin as: In the absence of a Details grade from PCGS, we consider this attractive 1933 Indian eagle to have Uncirculated sharpness. The coin last appeared at auction in 2005, when it was raw. In that lot description, the Stack's cataloger noted "a profusion of tiny swirling hairlines" on Liberty's cheek. They are indeed faint, seen only with a loupe and under good lighting, but they are in fact tool marks -- the faint remnant of some individual's attempt to smooth out high-point abrasions on this coin in the distant past. Although unfortunate, this "repair" does not overly affect the eye appeal of the coin. Orange-gold luster glistens on each side, especially in the fields. The strike is sharp and the only mentionable abrasions are a few tiny ticks on the reverse eagle, which serve as pedigree markers.
Coin History
This coin first appeared as lot #222 in Sotheby’s 3/1983 auction. The coin was from the Samuel Hallack Dupont Collection. I am not sure how this collection was assembled. Being the first public appearance of the coin was 50 years after released, it possible the coin could have resided in the collection for most of its early life. The Dupont Collection was large enough that Sotheby liquefied by auctions in three parts.
The next appearance was a Stack’s 3/2005 Auction. The coin’s provenance was from Morrison Family and Lawrence C. Licht Collections. This is the first description that I have seen that mentions the issue with cheek. The coin was sold as raw brilliant uncirculated. The coin realized $230,000. This is catalog’s description: 1933 Brilliant Uncirculated and boasting the amazing eye appeal of a much higher grade. This extraordinary coin exhibits the luxurious velvet orange-gold mint bloom that typifies the few known examples of this rare final date of circulating Gold Eagle coinage. The strike is altogether exceptional, resulting in the sharpest detail that might be desired. Close examination under magnification reveals a profusion of tiny swirling hairlines on the Indian's cheek which are nearly invisible to the naked eye. This is the legendary rarity of the Eagle series. Although it had a reasonable reported mintage, all but a mere handful were melted following President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order removing Gold coins and Gold-backed Notes from circulation in early 1933.
Hansen purchased the coin in Heritage’s 2019 August 14 - 18 ANA World's Fair of Money US Coins Signature Auction - Chicago, Lot #1298. The coin is from The Paulos Family Collection. It was placed in a certified holder sometime after the Stack’s 3/2005 Auction. Due to the coin number, I would believe that the coin was certified several years ago. Hansen won the coin with a cut bid, so I would assume he was near the top of his bid limit. The bidding was brisk, and appears the underbidder was interested in the coin, but his interest was exceeded by Hansen. This is a link to the bidding:
.
.
.
1933 Ten Dollar Indian Eagle – PCGS Genuine
We have discussed this coin in much detail the past few days. After reading the facts and circumstances on the coin, you be judge on its value and merit. The auction result has placed the value at $300,000 which is at least 25% discount based on assume grade, but I think the un-doctored coin would grade much higher and the discounted is much greater, maybe as much as 50-75% discount. This is strictly my assessment which may vary greatly from yours. Here is what JB had to say: Most that criticize the purchase did not view the coin in-hand. When compared to other rarities that are currently for sale, the 1933 is for some reason a tougher coin to find than some of the other "rarer" items. That being said, it was one of the final 10 holes in the Eliasberg set at PCGS, and there are now only 6 holes left to fill in that group. Of course other coins will be/have been added to the overall collection, but that set (as defined by PCGS) has been a focus since early on. End of discussion.
Provenance: S. Hallock Dupont Collection (Sotheby's 3/1983), lot 222; Morrison Family and Lawrence C. Licht Collections (Stack's, 3/2005), lot 1882, which realized $230,000; The Poulos Family Collection (Heritage 8/2019), lot 1298, $300,000 – D. L. Hansen Collection
In comparing to Eliasberg’s specimen, the registry describes his specimen as estimated grade MS65. Purchased by Louis Eliasberg from the Beldon Roach Collection, auctioned by B. Max Mehl in 1944. Purchased at the Bowers & Ruddy Oct '82 Eliasberg sale by Hugh Sconyers for $93,500. Lot #873.
1933 Indian Eagle PCGS Genuine
PCGS Coin #8885 / PCGS Serial #25538477
Commentary
Typically, I end the posting with the picture of the coin or the count down list, because I try to make thread about the coin(s). I will break protocol and add a personally commentary. Hansen needed this coin and JB has shared for several months that this coin was hard to obtain. As JB said earlier: There have been more 1913 nickels on the market the last 2 years than 1933 $10 Indians. In addition, the two gems are held by the same customer who isn't selling and is demanding a rather exorbitant price as well. I think the purchase the coin takes pressure completely off having to make an exorbitant purchase of high grade specimen. The coin changes the negotiation position for JB and Hansen in a significant way. If there was someone out that that was holding out for Hansen to bow to their price, then that sale may have been lost. I do believe at some point Hansen will purchase a better specimen, and very possible he will hold off for a condition census specimen, but the coin will be purchased under his terms. In some ways, this coin may pay for itself just in terms of the negotiation power that was bought with the this purchase. Hansen is playing this chess game at Grandmaster level.
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
How can you have an opinion on the effect the doctoring had on the coin’s value and what it might have graded prior to the doctoring, when you didn’t see the “before” version?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Two things:
1) Tooled or not, the coin fills a missing part of the Hansen collection and puts it closer to completion.. It does not matter if he gets a better one or not; but I'll bet this coin is just a place-holder.
2) We live in an information age. Currin was able to trace much of this coin's history. If things were different, I'll guarantee that this coin could be made much more deceptive.
No offense as it's a good conversation. Why don't the moderators split off all this back and forth about the 33...net grading, etc.! It's taking away from the real reason for this thread!
@HeatherBoyd
Pretty exciting now that it’s down to 6 coins remaining!