2nd Opinion on a slabbed 1794 Large Cent
burfle23
Posts: 2,597 ✭✭✭✭✭
OK, there are a number of camps with opinions on slabbing of coins, from the early copper guys, with many who loath slabs (and “professional” opinions of grade, condition, etc.) to folks who sell for a living and the slab and grade help in determining value and selling price- I am NOT trying to start a debate here about that (I have my coins certified)! I am interested though in grade “inflation” and the crack-out dance to try and improve the grade and “value”. I understand it is done with high grade examples of silver and gold types but I am not aware of it happening a lot with early copper.
So, I purchased this 1794 “head of ‘93” S-18b in a genuine environmental damage- G detail holder with an interesting planchet defect. The coin appeared to have higher detail than good to my eyes and the environmental damage seemed minimal compared to the mint made planchet issue; I decided to send it in for review and see how it may shake out from a second opinion.
Anyone care to advance a guess as to the results?
Comments
Is that a planchet defect or a gouge from a backhoe?
Planchet defect.
A denuclearized North Korea is more likely at this point than getting that coin into a problem free holder.
Latin American Collection
No question this will not straight grade. But it did "improve", the subject of the post.
If I were to pick up this coin, look at it and read the holder I'd think to myself that yes, I agree with PCGS.
It's an identifiable dated Genuine with some character.
I would not have tried a review but I am not an expert in Large Cents.
Good luck.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
More research than anything sparky64; I am an early large cent collector and buy based on the coin, not the holder, but there are many in the hobby that rely on the label to help set value. I will reveal the outcome, but the coin is the same to me regardless.
Upgraded to VG details is my best estimate.
It should be identified as "genuine" with no grade assigned. Let the buyer decide what it is worth.
I would guess no change, but it must have done better as you posted it.
The results were interesting- the on-line cert now shows the coin holdered as “Genuine Fine Details (93 - Planchet Flaw) “…
Does anyone feel this actually changed the "value" of this coin as a result?
The variety is not in enough demand to warrant any difference in price, even if the slab said MS-71+ and it had a purple Barney sticker.
It remains an EAC poor
That will always remain a no grade at PCGS or NGC. That planchet flaw is much too severe for a straight grade.
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
I don't see an upgrade here. Even if you get them to upgrade the sharpness grade, the coin has porous, black corrosion combined with a planchet defect, which is lesser problem in my opinion. I don't think any new words will increase its value. A 1794 head of '94 is exciting to many collectors, but it needs to be a bit better than this one to really get pulses going.
Actually head of '93, and yes it definitely has a porous look to it but no black corrosion to my eyes. The same question was asked to a group of dealers and they saw a large upswing in the "value", which I don't agree with. I bought it for what it is for my collection regardless of the "label".
I did not know planchet flaws made a coin non gradeable/ details. Is that the case with any certain planchet flaw?
If the mint caused problem is bad enough, the coin won't get a straight grade. Significant defects make the coin "non generic" enough to make the coin not compatible with pieces with straight grades.
I believe it depends on the TPG; it is a no grade for PCGS.
Well, I agree it is definitely better than Good detail.
I have a '93 wreath cent in an AG genny holder that I believe deserves a straight grade
and easily a full G or better designation, with a full visible date, etc.
I bought it slabbed as such after much searching, and the coin was a bargain compared to others I had seen in that price range....and was an S-11b to boot.
The planchet flaw is most prominent but even if that weren't there, that coin has too much corrosion to straight grade, imo.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The buyer always should!
First time through they likely "graded" it as a VG10/F12 netted to G because of surfaces and planchet defect.
They may have tried to do a little too much the first time around.
Interesting experiment. I would not have sent it in if it were my coin. Cheers, RickO
That's another example why I believe "Net" grading is pure "folly." I should describe it as an extremely subjective exercise, practiced by a group of mostly highly knowledgeable collectors/dealers who have developed a system of grading that has no relation to reality for the coins they love, collect, and research.
I am curious what your "reality" for this coin is; I have my own opinion of grade and condition and this example suits me and my humble collection, regardless of the label.
Which one?
Reality Check: Grade the coin for the amount of detail remaining from its "as struck condition" considering any strike weakness that may be present. Then add qualifiers to describe anything else. That way, someone will be able to better visualize a coin they cannot see like a full red and uncirculated (MS-70) 1857 Small Date Large cent with a 1/16'' hole at 12 O'clock. I have no idea what the "net grade" of that coin would be - VF?
IMO, MS-70, holed at 12 OC seems pretty descriptive. Much better than Net grading a F-15 scratched and porous Large cent to G-4. What the heck does a "Net graded" G-4 Large cent look like anyway? I'll bet we can come up with a dozen different types of defects that EAC members can use to "magically" change a Fine coin into a Good.
It is their system, I cannot change it, I cannot teach it, and I cannot understand why they used a system that they have written is both complicated and subjectively applied by those EAC'ers who use it. What genius came up with such a "horror" and when? Does anyone know? Was it Mr. Robinson? Surely there was already a more universally used coin grading system in place (Sheldon). Why turn grading old copper into fanciful witchcraft?
EAC did a survey of graded coins in the market. I'll quote from page #45 of the EAC Grading Guide: "If the EAC grade was VF-30 and the slab grade was AU-58, the difference would be +28 Points." Then they state, "In grades from F-EF, slab grades were nearly always 10 points higher than EAC grades and often 20 or more points higher." Lucy, there just may be something very true about the "folly" of net grading that I've been posting.
And what do you consider the "standard" or "opinion" of the TPG's (no offense to anyone any more then you intend)? What the heck is "market grading", some other form of witchcraft? And grade "inflation"??? The slab grade inflates due to market pressures other than the grade/ condition of the coin itself? Ever seen a high grade coin with obvious wear slabbed a market grade UNC?
And what difference does it make anyway? The buyer ultimately determines the desirability on his own. Robinson didn't invent "EAC grading"- many of the old time EAC'ers still grade a coin by the price...
I actually agree my S-18b has the details of a Fine with an ugly original plancet flaw attesting to the character of this and many of these early coppers.
I guess the biggest issue having been ground salvaged there's no way to determine if it's a planchet flaw or defect? Meaning a planchet mixture impurity de-lamination or a post mint damaging gouge post corrosion would seem the same.
You can't get around the fact that the coin is corroded, and the corrosion has taken part of the major details, like part of the date and legend on the reverse. The slab grade is a good market indicator of its value.
@burfle23 asked:
"And what do you consider the "standard" or "opinion" of the TPG's (no offense to anyone any more then you intend)?"
"What the heck is "market grading", some other form of witchcraft?"
"And grade "inflation"??? The slab grade inflates due to market pressures other than the grade/ condition of the coin itself? Ever seen a high grade coin with obvious wear slabbed a market grade UNC?"
"And what difference does it make anyway? The buyer ultimately determines the desirability on his own."
"Robinson didn't invent "EAC grading"- many of the old time EAC'ers still grade a coin by the price..."
Before answering I wish to point out that "market grading" and "gradflation" are two of the biggest problems associated with ALL GRADING done using commercial grading. Net Grading is VALUE BASED so a form of "market grading."
Please keep this strictly to yourself. It's my little secret.
Before the coin dealers started their TPGS and before ANACS was moved to CO, I devised a very strict and precise grading system (Technical Grading) that was used in addition to a photograph and a weight to identify coins sent in for authentication at the ANACS in DC. It was very strict and was loosely based on the Sheldon System in lower grades. At the time, there were only two grades of Unc (Choice MS-65 and Unc MS-60). A Mint State coin had no trace of wear. EF coins were loaded with original mint luster - similar to the European system where an EF coin was exceptional. The characteristic of this system that made it so easy to apply was its strictness. A coin was not graded one grade one time and another grade the next. It was strict and thus very precise. The Director of ANACS, Charles Hoskins, called it "archival grading" as a coin would be given the same grade years in the future if it remained in the condition when first seen. The best thing about this system was that you did not need to know about the rarity, value, or owner. It was not subject to change over time (gradflation) and did not fluctuate with the market. Eye appeal did not matter so a Mint State rainbow toned coin was graded in the same way as a tarnished splotchy piece. The system was completely based on the condition of preservation of a coin from the way it left the press. Therefore, strike did not matter either. A perfect flatly struck coin with no ear visible was graded the same as a fully struck gem. The idea was to describe the condition of the coin and not what it was worth! One coin was entered into the files as Choice Unc (MS-65 at the time and the highest grade) and the other was entered as Choice Unc, Flat strike (MS-65). We graded the coin and the coin dealers/collectors could value it as they pleased.
When ANACS went to CO, they "basterdized" our technical system as no one had a clue what it was or how it was applied. Meanwhile, the International Numismatic Society was formed and their Authentication Bureau with myself and Charles Hoskins continued to authenticate coins. We also identified coins by image, weight and a technical grade. Since we kept a record of a coin's grade we provided our opinion for FREE on a buff colored card when requested. Charlie believed that the opinion of a coin's grade was subjective so it was kept separate from the photo certificate.
Note of interest. INSAB was the first TPGS. For years ANACS claimed to be the first grading service. That lie was propagated enough so that everyone believed it. Finally, they changed that "story." Now they advertise truthfully that ANACS is the OLDEST TPGS. Good for them.
Both INS and INSAB were financially secure. They operated in an "Ivory Tower" where the anger of the dealers over strict grading that was not connected to value did not matter. One big shake up came when ANACS changed their standards to be closer to the commercial market. That's when ANACS MS-65's became MS-63. Obviously, the coin market was speaking: "We do not like ANY FORM of Technical Grading!" To dealers and collectors, a coin's strike and especially eye appeal matter a lot as they should. A coin as perfect as it could possibly be should be worth more than one that is tarnished, weakly struck, or both. Unfortunately, As soon as placing a value on a coin became connected with grading the entire system goes went to pot. And P L E A S E don't mention the Sheldon system was based on value to weasel an argument.
I'm going to use this rant in a column so I'll stop and get back to your questions.
& 2. There is no universal standard. The ANA tried to introduce one but the commercial market (coin dealers) ignored it. The TPGS each have their own standards AND THANKFULLY from what I see they are pretty close to each other. Note, there are examples of over-graded, under-graded and correctly graded (mostly) coins in major TPGS slabs. With a little study of the Internet images and several grading guides anyone should be able to see their actually is a FLOATING "standard" that changes with market conditions. That is "market grading." Based on prevailing value. As to witchcraft, nonsense. The ANA has published a pretty good chart describing how hairlines, contact marks, luster, and eye appeal can be associated with a particular grade level. Strike, spots, surface condition and scratches are not included. I cover these in seminars. The actual "witchcraft" comes when we grade a coin based on its remaining details and then start ignoring that because of anything we consider detracting. Oops, that is Net grading.
You and most here know the answer to this. As the value of our coins increased and as folks learned to buy the best condition coins for investment there was pressure to inflate the actual technical condition of a coin and additionally ignore slight evidence of circulation. This had been going on for decades. Sliders sold as MS. It was a big secret until the Bowers Grading Guide put it into print: Many AU's are now considered MS. Even before that I remember being shocked when I read an influential female dealer write that true MS Bust half dollars were rare!
In order to grade AU's MS, we are told that grading is "evolving" as the professional graders learn more. Additionally, we must consider that certain coin alloys are softer than others.
The difference is this. Many ignorant folks rely on the label. They are not qualified to grade for themselves. That includes a very, very large number of folks selling coins.
I've posted the "author" of Technical Grading. Who was the major author of Net Grading? Anyone know?
Finally, we are actually seeing a return to the old, debunked "technical" system with "details" grading. Grade the coin and state the problem. That worked for coins in original condition too.