Should PCGS have bodybagged/genuined this coin? (1822 25/50c Bust Quarter)

STONE · June 28, 2012 9:59PM

Should PCGS have bodybagged/genuined this coin?

Heritage Link - 1822 25/50c Bust Quarter

lasvegasteddy · June 28, 2012 10:03PM

yes
that's hard to see in a non gennie slab
at least it wasn't puttied
but
graders missed that serious of damage???

TorinoCobra71 · June 28, 2012 10:09PM

BOTH sides have issues.

Moldnut · June 28, 2012 10:54PM

The obverse does not bug me but the reverse.....

golden · June 28, 2012 11:03PM

<< The obverse does not bug me but the reverse.....

>>

TwoSides2aCoin · June 28, 2012 11:22PM

Thankfully it's not bright white.

coindeuce · June 28, 2012 11:28PM

M.A.N.G. coin.

Market Acceptance Net Graded

steveben · June 28, 2012 11:47PM

if i would have submitted it...it would be 95 for sure.

but, the way i see it...either way...grade or not...it is what it is. this is why you need to learn to grade coins. when you buy it, they will tell you it's ms61...but when you sell it they will tell you it's damaged.

Spooly · June 29, 2012 12:13AM

Genny - tooled

phnatacc · June 29, 2012 12:56AM

First reaction: Nah, thats acceptable.

...loading second picture....

DEAR GOD! WTF!?

That coin/owner got lucky.

123cents · June 29, 2012 1:00AM

Rare coin but it does have problems on both sides.

PerryHall · June 29, 2012 1:04AM

This is what is known as a "coffin coin" since no one in his right mind will ever crack it out and it will forever remain in its coffin slab.

steveben · June 29, 2012 1:06AM

<< This is what is known as a "coffin coin" since no one in his right mind will ever crack it out and it will forever remain in its coffin slab. >>

i *had* one of those once.

lkeigwin · June 29, 2012 1:28AM

What a pity. I am surprised it graded.

I thought the hit to the obverse was unfortunate but not fatal. And then I looked at the reverse. OMG.
Lance.

mozin · June 29, 2012 1:28AM

PCGS must have felt that this coin was in the Norweb auction, so they needed to grade. I would never bid on a coin with such damage on either side, much less both sides.

guitarwes · June 29, 2012 2:13AM

I'm reaching, but any chance at all that thing on the Rev is a strikethru?

The 2 bad gouges on the Obv. aren't appealing at all.

Unknown · June 29, 2012 2:15AM

This content has been removed.

STONE · June 29, 2012 4:52AM

Im curious about why so many people say this coin is fine as is,
Despite at least two large and deep scratches! Just more interesting
than I expected

PerryHall · June 29, 2012 4:56AM

<< Im curious about why so many people say this coin is fine as is, >>

It's in a PCGS slab so it must be fine.

fastfreddie · June 29, 2012 4:58AM

Net graded to account for the marks.

lava · June 29, 2012 5:02AM

<< if i would have submitted it...it would be 95 for sure.

.... >>

+1

The coin as holdered is wrong on multiple levels.

More puzzling and frustrating is my own inability to get graded a coin with a planchet flaw. At least that was as made.

DeepCoin · June 29, 2012 12:33PM

I may not have the best eye, but how many of those reverse marks are on the slab? Again, you need the coin in hand to make a determination. Graders are neither perfect, nor stupid. I cannot make a determination based upon pictures.

jedm · June 29, 2012 2:47PM

<< Net graded to account for the marks. >>

Just what I was thinking.

Unknown · June 29, 2012 4:02PM

This content has been removed.

Justlooking · June 29, 2012 4:24PM

Looks like the eagle hacked up a fish bone.

UNCOnly · June 29, 2012 11:31PM

<< Should PCGS have bodybagged/genuined this coin?

Heritage Link - 1822 25/50c Bust Quarter >>

Makes you wonder what the grader was smoking prior to grading that one.

lcoopie · June 30, 2012 12:00AM

perhaps at the time it was graded they did not offer the gen holder
and because of its rarity they wanted it in a PCGS holder?

Billet7 · June 30, 2012 12:12AM

I've seen this coin before, it shouldn't be in a problem free holder.
The thing that kills me is that they graded it MS61. REALLY. If it's gonna be in any holder (which it shouldn't) then MS60 would be the max. That's the absolute worst that a mint state coin can be!

Baley · June 30, 2012 1:55AM

Agree, the coin has no business in a graded pcgs holder, per their own policy. Since it is graded, logically, many many other coins should be "net graded", too. (or else his one "genuine"). I'd like to hear PCGS reasoning on this, and then submit some of my own early quarters on that basis. (and if it's the "norweb" or the identity of the submitter that made this happen, double explanation would be required, imo)

michiganboy · June 30, 2012 2:32AM

Details holder, for gouges like that IMHO.

Yukoncornelius1 · June 30, 2012 2:38AM

<< 

<< Im curious about why so many people say this coin is fine as is, >>

It's in a PCGS slab so it must be fine. >>

LanLord · June 30, 2012 3:05AM

I really don't have a problem with it being in a non-genny holder.
Yeah, there are some marks on it, but I like it anyway.

As others have said, it's been silently downgraded for those marks.

nwcoast · June 30, 2012 3:51AM

Interesting...
Clearly a decision was made to holder this coin. Looks like a newer slab and likely one generated during a time when the "genuine" desination was an option (certainly bagging was an option).

A CHOICE was made to validate this piece. My guess that this is because of the coins rarity.
I wouldn't call this "tooled" as there doesn't appear to be any effort to 'tool' in details.
It's scratched/gouged- damaged. Otherwise, to me it appears a nice coin. Maybe I'm missing something?

It reminds me of my 1934-S PCGS OGH MS 62 which was the subject of a lively thread and shocked many because it was graded as such. My coin is a brilliant and luster dripping Peace with a nasty gash on the lower neck of lady Peace.

Perhaps some slack is extended to key dates and rare issues with gouges that could have theoretically have been damaged in the normal course of transit/commerce.

My Peace would have been a 65 had it not been for the gashes.

In the purest sense, might not dings like this just be calculated into the entire coin grading equasion?
Or, is there an actual formula of length, width and depth of a scratch relative to the coins diameter that are used?
If such a formula exists, is it only key dates that "qualify" for such detailed analyitical analysis and evaluation?

SamByrd · June 30, 2012 6:11AM

yes, The reverse has non mint made damage. It should of genuined in my view.

JRocco · June 30, 2012 8:26AM

Of course this coin should not be in a clean slab. Not under any circumstances.
This violates "sight unseen purchasing" - The basic tenet upon which the TPG's came into being.

illini420 · June 30, 2012 10:41AM

<< Of course this coin should not be in a clean slab. Not under any circumstances.
This violates "sight unseen purchasing" - The basic tenet upon which the TPG's came into being. >>

that said, the coin is graded MS61 and on non-gold issues in particular, the grade of MS61 is a big warning that the coin has some sort of issue that should be looked into.

messydesk · June 30, 2012 11:16AM

The serial number seems to indicate this was reholdered from a rather old holder and appears to illustrate the quandary that existed before the Genuine holders with regard to Important Coins or coins from Important Collections. Body bag it, effectively banishing it from your realm, or give it a market-adjusted grade. I think this coin would be easily sold as an "Unc - Damaged" with the Norweb pedigree on the label, and probably at around an MS61 price, be that what it may, but that wasn't an option then.

Unknown · June 30, 2012 11:27AM

This content has been removed.

LindeDad · June 30, 2012 12:39PM

Glad I can pass on it, does not fit my collecting habits.

mozin · June 30, 2012 1:37PM

I wonder why PCGS would recently holder and grade this extremely valuable coin in a regular holder. Why is this coin not encapsulated in a Secure Plus holder?

bb1 · June 30, 2012 5:09PM

I have a copy of the Norweb catalog (softbound). The obverse dig and major reverse "damage" under the motto in the Norweb photo look identical to the "damage" on the coin referenced in this thread. There are 2 photos in the Norwweb catalog: a small color image on Color Plate 1 and a larger B&W image with the lot description. Interestingly, the color of the coin in the Norweb image appears a much more intense mix of golden and brown blending into the blue at the rims. The muted sliver/gray tone in the "current" image appears different from the Norweb image. (OK, it's 35 years later and photography and lighting have changed.)

keets · June 30, 2012 9:43PM

i suppose that it was downgraded to MS61 due to the problems but since it's an important coin from a well regarded collection with good lineage it stayed in a graded holder. i wonder as Realone does why the Pedigree was left off the insert since it appears so easy to ID the coin.

STONE · June 30, 2012 9:58PM

<< i suppose that it was downgraded to MS61 due to the problems but since it's an important coin from a well regarded collection with good lineage it stayed in a graded holder. i wonder as Realone does why the Pedigree was left off the insert since it appears so easy to ID the coin. >>

Someone probably just got the coin reholdered without submitting it for re-grading, which then may or may not have inadvertently lost the pedigree. The submitter, knowing the issues, may have also wanted to distance himself from people who could more easily find the pedigree and thus detect the problems more quickly...this is a stretch!

telephoto1 · July 2, 2012 5:32AM

A coin should stand or fall based on its own merit... and though the VALUE may vary, the GRADE should not be affected one iota by the pedigree of the item. A 61 should still be a 61- whether it came from the Norweb collection, the King of Siam collection or the Joe Schmuck collection.

tradedollarnut · July 2, 2012 5:42AM

<< A coin should stand or fall based on its own merit... and though the VALUE may vary, the GRADE should not be affected one iota by the pedigree of the item. A 61 should still be a 61- whether it came from the Norweb collection, the King of Siam collection or the Joe Schmuck collection. >>

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Honestly - first impression was OUCH. Then I looked at the double sized in holder pics and realized that I could barely see these "huge" flaws even at 2x magnification. So I can imagine holding the hpldered coin in my hands and having the flaws be even less noticeable as the luster flows and the positive attributes of the coin come to the forefront. Shrug.

STONE · July 2, 2012 5:57AM

<< 

<< A coin should stand or fall based on its own merit... and though the VALUE may vary, the GRADE should not be affected one iota by the pedigree of the item. A 61 should still be a 61- whether it came from the Norweb collection, the King of Siam collection or the Joe Schmuck collection. >>

Meanwhile, back in reality...

Honestly - first impression was OUCH. Then I looked at the double sized in holder pics and realized that I could barely see these "huge" flaws even at 2x magnification. So I can imagine holding the hpldered coin in my hands and having the flaws be even less noticeable as the luster flows and the positive attributes of the coin come to the forefront. Shrug. >>

I think you need to look again. It's a HUGE eye sore [from the pics] and at no angle could I imagine the flaws could go unnoticed!

If anyone has looked at this coin in-hand, I'd like to know your take on the hideous scratches.

crypto79 · July 2, 2012 6:45AM

<< A coin should stand or fall based on its own merit... and though the VALUE may vary, the GRADE should not be affected one iota by the pedigree of the item. A 61 should still be a 61- whether it came from the Norweb collection, the King of Siam collection or the Joe Schmuck collection. >>

This is not he kind of coin that ends up in a joe Schmuck collection so the whole impartiality argument flies out the window. Appling the rules one grades Morgans or modern coins with is doing a disservice to coins like this. There is no doubt that the damage hurts the value but it doesn't change the fact it is a condition census rarity with pl surfaces

adamlaneus · July 2, 2012 6:57AM

is the eagle supposed to have a pom pom in its mouth?

maybe it is blowing a chunk?

the dig almost looks like it's part of the design. except i don't think it is.

PerryHall · July 2, 2012 7:00AM

I have no problem with PCGS grading and slabbing damaged rarities provided they note the damage on the slab label. Otherwise, the grade is misleading.

Moldnut · July 2, 2012 7:14AM

<< I have no problem with PCGS grading and slabbing damaged rarities provided they note the damage on the slab label. Otherwise, the grade is misleading. >>

If I would have bought that sight unseen and thats what came in the mail, I would be pissed.

tradedollarnut · July 2, 2012 7:18AM

<< It's a HUGE eye sore [from the pics] and at no angle could I imagine the flaws could go unnoticed!
>>

Sure, it's there - but it's not like it's the focal point in these images. There's a lot of meat on that coin. Saying MS61 instead of MS60 means they thought so too

Should PCGS have bodybagged/genuined this coin? (1822 25/50c Bust Quarter)

Comments

Leave a Comment