PCGS RESTORATION - Before / After Comparison along with my thoughts

keyman64 · November 14, 2013 12:37PM

I do not recall many (any?) other posts of this nature so I thought a few folks might like to take a look.

It took 7 weeks. The coin was entered into the PCGS system on 9/24 and then the re-grade results were posted online 11/11. I received it home today.

I believe it looks like the coin was wiped/rinsed with something at some point in the dark & stormy past and then the coin was not properly rinsed with water and dried. It was streaky with brown spotting and a couple of bad spots that had turned black on the reverse. Sad for such a rare coin. There are only 3 examples graded Mint State at PCGS, all of which are 65FB. There are 6 circulated examples. This coin is tied Top Pop 3/0. The coin had to be FIXED one way or another. I was confident in my ability to crack the coin, fix just as much of the problem as PCGS was able to by using MS70 but then I would have been risking a good bit with the re-grade possibly and FB designation (I have lost a FB designation before). I just figured I would put the risk in the hands of PCGS and hope for the best. You never know what you might find under a yuk film coating on a coin and with the hopes of maintaining the Top Pop status I thought it would be best to try out the PCGS Restoration service for the first time....praying that they could do a bit more with the black spots than I could. Based on my experience, I think our results would have been very very close to the same. I am still very happy with my decision to send it in for PCGS to handle. They did a fine job and a bit of risk was removed from my hands.

Before the service, I was thinking the coin might be 65+FB...or maybe even 66FB if I was crazy lottery lucky. Once I received the coin back and gave it a good look, I agree with the regrade of 65FB unfortunately. When the yuk film on the coin was removed it revealed a few additional marks that I was unable to see before. It's the game we play... I am happy with the service since I feel confident no further harm will come to the coin, the remaining problems are more than likely neutralized and despite a few extra marks showing the coin looks much better with that film of crud off of it. Thanks to PCGS for taking on my biggest PROBLEM COIN.

I am always looking for an upgrade.

BEFORE

AFTER

AUandAG · November 14, 2013 12:41PM

Looks like they did a great job enhancing that middle split band

Yes the marks near the Y sure showed once preserved.

bob

Broadstruck · November 14, 2013 12:49PM

Looks like the spot over the T in States was too far gone... How is the spot in the left field now as it's hard to see in your new pic

MFH · November 14, 2013 12:59PM

I can see why you sent it in for restoration - the dark reverse spot
would have driven me nuts. I think they did a great job and although
you didn't get an upgrade - your coin was fairly graded before and as
you mentioned, once conserved, you noticed things hidden from you
before. Congratulations !!

keyman64 · November 14, 2013 1:06PM

Yup, both spots were too far gone. I figured the outer edges of the spots would get taken care of to prevent more problems and that is about all that happened...granted, I was secretly hoping that PCGS had some type of magic sauce but they don't. Both spots are just slightly smaller which I am happy with. Both spots are still just as dark. Next to the Y on the obverse is actually a FINGER PRINT that showed up. To the left of the noise, more finger print action showed up. Oh well, the yuk film was clearly hiding a lot. I still call the coin much better and further damage has been prevented!

Yes, both sets of photos are mine and I shot them a little differently. I actually had some photos this second go around that hid the reverse field black spot completely. I found that to be dishonest so I chose to photograph it a little different to actually show the spot.

I was not happy with the way that my original set of photos showed the bands so I was certain to pay more attention to it on this go around.

keyman64 · November 14, 2013 1:06PM

<< I can see why you sent it in for restoration - the dark reverse spot
would have driven me nuts. I think they did a great job and although
you didn't get an upgrade - your coin was fairly graded before and as
you mentioned, once conserved, you noticed things hidden from you
before. Congratulations !! >>

Thanks!

DIMEMAN · November 14, 2013 1:21PM

The coin looks much better, but the spots are still there. Had they gone away I could see a 65+ or 66.

I wonder what the other 65's look like?

keyman64 · November 14, 2013 1:27PM

<< The coin looks much better, but the spots are still there. Had they gone away I could see a 65+ or 66.

I wonder what the other 65's look like? >>

In my 4 year focus on Merc Varieties I have only seen the 65FB example in CoinFacts....so that just leaves one other. I have never seen one auctioned. I just want to Cherrypick/find a 66FB or better.

ebaybuyer · November 14, 2013 1:27PM

spots and all I like the before pic MUCH better, that light foggy golden tone that cannot be duplicated, it must be earned over a period of many many years

keyman64 · November 14, 2013 1:34PM

<< spots and all I like the before pic MUCH better, that light foggy golden tone that cannot be duplicated, it must be earned over a period of many many years >>

My views.... The spots are now slightly smaller and neutralized. The dark brown streaky spots all over the coin would have turned black and all but completely destroyed the thing. This was not the result of wonderful time of toning over the decades but my view is that it was the result of some moronic dipping and not rinsing the thing.

magikbilly · November 14, 2013 1:34PM

Hello,

From your comments and the pics I think I would have left it alone. Without the outer skin on, the muscle and skeleton are less pleasing. From what you said, eye appeal is lower yet the problems and a bit more are visible. No grade change so a wash - literally - apart from whatever this service costs. I am sure many will prefer the new appearance, but the skin mitigated much.

Best wishes,
Eric

DennisH · November 14, 2013 2:19PM

Tremendous improvement in eye appeal in my opinion.

Broadstruck · November 14, 2013 2:35PM

As keyman64 stated this coin needed to be neutralized so it was stable.

The previous so called toning was just rancid dip solution still on the coin that was turning and beginning to eat into the surface.

This is a perfect example of why it's so important to inspect your collection regularly.

illini420 · November 14, 2013 2:47PM

Thanks for sharing. I think you did good sending that one in as the coin looks much more eye appealing now than it did before. Bummer you didn't get a bump in the grade, but that's they way it goes sometimes

Elcontador · November 14, 2013 5:12PM

I think the coin is less eye appealing after the conservation. However, I can understand why you did it, as you had to stabilize / protect the coin's surfaces from (further) deterioration. I don't think either view of your coin is unattractive, though with that black spot on the reverse, I would not have bought it in the first place.

keyman64 · November 14, 2013 7:59PM

<< I think the coin is less eye appealing after the conservation. However, I can understand why you did it, as you had to stabilize / protect the coin's surfaces from (further) deterioration. I don't think either view of your coin is unattractive, though with that black spot on the reverse, I would not have bought it in the first place. >>

I actually bought this sight UNSEEN!

It is a rare coin and I am trying to find all of the varieties. In four years of searching it is the only Mint State example I have been able to locate. I certainly did not know it was a "Problem-Coin" when I bought it, otherwise I might have paid just a little less but I doubt it. I figure this is a Top Pop place holder in my set until I can find a better one...which clearly might be a while.

PerryHall · November 14, 2013 8:13PM

I would have just dipped it. A dip would have gotten rid of the hazy surfaces and the spots. Also, you would have saved the cost of submitting it for the restoration service and the associated costs of shipping and insurance both ways..

Steve27 · November 14, 2013 8:15PM

So how much did they charge you to dip it?

PerryHall · November 14, 2013 8:28PM

<< So how much did they charge you to dip it? >>

I was tempted to ask this question but I didn't want the OP to get defensive as he's done in the past. The coin looks like it was rinsed in acetone to remove the haze. Coin dip would have done the same thing and would have also removed or greatly diminished the spots.

fcloud · November 14, 2013 8:36PM

Greg,

I'm the odd man out on this one. I would have left it alone. The light natural look of the coin is now replaced with a bright shiny surface which to me is unnatural for a coin over 80 years old. The spots on the reverse now really look out of place, as the rest of the surface is now dipped bright white stripped color(less). I guess I have become a natural is better mindset person. I know you really like the look of the coins when they look like they just came from the mint, and that is great for coins that naturally look like they just came from the mint (which you can find late in the series). The early coins just look cleaned. It is interesting that coins dipped unnaturally white are acceptable, but when a coin doctor does something to a coin a lot of collectors and dealers scream about it. To me they are the same thing. Greg, congrats with getting the coin the way you and many other here think looks better. I will remain the odd man out on this one and say I would have been proud to own it with the light natural tone.

Tony

kranky · November 14, 2013 8:51PM

Thanks for the post, useful information. I think it was the right call to have them do it and minimize the risk.

ricko · November 14, 2013 9:06PM

I like the restored coin far better. I agree with others, the original mess was due to poorly rinsed dip, not, by any means, original tarnish. Cheers, RickO

keyman64 · November 14, 2013 9:13PM

<< I would have just dipped it. A dip would have gotten rid of the hazy surfaces and the spots. Also, you would have saved the cost of submitting it for the restoration service and the associated costs of shipping and insurance both ways.. >>

I normally would have done this myself with MS70 which is a detergent, not a dip. But due to the Top Pop nature, I have not found any others, to limit my risks with the re-grade and FB designation etc I just decided to have them do it so I could limit my risks. If I would have cracked it myself I would have been shipping/insuring it to PCGS again anyway so it had to go there no matter what, that is an expense that would not have been saved.

PerryHall · November 14, 2013 9:35PM

<< I will remain the odd man out on this one and say I would have been proud to own it with the light natural tone. >>

I don't consider that haze to be toning. It's more like surface contamination. Anyone agree or disagree with me?

PerryHall · November 14, 2013 9:39PM

<< 

<< I would have just dipped it. A dip would have gotten rid of the hazy surfaces and the spots. Also, you would have saved the cost of submitting it for the restoration service and the associated costs of shipping and insurance both ways.. >>

I normally would have done this myself with MS70 which is a detergent, not a dip. But due to the Top Pop nature, I have not found any others, to limit my risks with the re-grade and FB designation etc I just decided to have them do it so I could limit my risks. If I would have cracked it myself I would have been shipping/insuring it to PCGS again anyway so it had to go there no matter what, that is an expense that would not have been saved. >>

Excellent point. You certainly don't want to risk a downgrade for a top pop coin.

magikbilly · November 14, 2013 9:59PM

<< 

<< I will remain the odd man out on this one and say I would have been proud to own it with the light natural tone. >>

I don't consider that haze to be toning. It's more like surface contamination. Anyone agree or disagree with me? >>

Yes, that's why I called it "skin" and not "original skin". Whatever the origin of the earlier appearance, some here preferred it, and the negatives seem to have been enhanced by the restoration in this case. Every tick now shows, such as the marks along the rim by the "Y" and elsewhere (the larger ones by the "Y" etc.), and with the stripped appearance the spots are now stronger. I also keep thinking of this statement by the OP - "Before the service, I was thinking the coin might be 65+FB...or maybe even 66FB..." which to me indicates eye appeal loss on some level to the OP. With a coin like this I find it better to play the hand given rather than attempt to redress the surfaces. Any earlier appearance was obviously not available, leaving the pre-restoraton look it had and the look is has now as options. Not knowing what the outcome of restoration would be, the safe hand to play to me is to leave it as is - especially with the rarity of the item. One can now object to it on the basis of being obviously stripped as well as spotted. In my experience spots like that often don't budge. Market acceptable and acceptable to me are two different things as with many of you I am sure. I'd rather have the earlier look than a technical 65 with "stuff" going on. I can't say for sure if it was stabilized or rescued.

I do wish to note that if it screamed "dipped/improperly rinsed" it would have been BB'd the first time, but it was not, so the earlier appearance was indeed deemed market acceptable. This leaves me with "Before the service, I was thinking the coin might be 65+FB...or maybe even 66FB..."

Perhaps passionate but never personal,
Eric

halfhunter · November 14, 2013 10:31PM

Personally I think that the restoration is a big improvement . . . and this coming from one that loves natural "skin" . . . which this was not.
Also Looks like the dip residue was probably too ingrained for MS70 to have helped much . . .

Well worth whatever you paid to have the rarity stabilized . . . Good Job ! ! !

HH

291fifth · November 14, 2013 10:57PM

<< Personally I think that the restoration is a big improvement . . . and this coming from one that loves natural "skin" . . . which this was not.
Also Looks like the dip residue was probably too ingrained for MS70 to have helped much . . .

Well worth whatever you paid to have the rarity stabilized . . . Good Job ! ! !

HH >>

It's silver. How can you be sure it was stabilized?

lkeigwin · November 14, 2013 11:02PM

<< As keyman64 stated this coin needed to be neutralized so it was stable.

The previous so called toning was just rancid dip solution still on the coin that was turning and beginning to eat into the surface.

This is a perfect example of why it's so important to inspect your collection regularly. >>

I agree.

PCGS dipped it...no question. Acetone might have helped some but would not have had that complete cleansing effect.

A shame about the spots. I'm glad OP didn't go at it with MS70.

It was a tough spot to be in but the right call was made to prevent further damage and protect an investment.
Lance.

Unknown · November 14, 2013 11:09PM

This content has been removed.

Mark · November 14, 2013 11:18PM

To all those who liked the original look, I would have been very concerned that the coin was unstable and the poorly rinsed areas would have continued to darken. I agree with what I think is keyman64's concern that the coin's "look" was headed downhill and something needed to be done. I much prefer the restored look and agree with keyman64 that, once restored, the coin is much more likely to remain stable.

ebaybuyer · November 14, 2013 11:50PM

call it what you like, original or "post dip haze" but the first pic looks much better than the second, it has 10 times the eye appeal of the second washed out lifeless pic. agree or disagree my mind wont change

s4ny · November 14, 2013 11:54PM

I would not dip or restore a coin. Just the way I think.

ElKevvo · November 15, 2013 12:28AM

Yeah I am in the first photo camp in regards to the looks but as the OP mentioned, this is a very scare coin in that condition and I don't think any of us would like to own one and risk the chance of further deterioration....well except for the guys who owns one of the others!

Thanks for sharing the photos and story....

K

keyman64 · November 15, 2013 12:40AM

Thanks for the comments everyone...and no, I never expected everyone to agree on anything. I have been on the forums long enough to know that doesn't happen.

Yup, this ended up being a mixed bag of tricks I think...Damn if you do, Damn if you don't. Everyone has to make their own call. I have plenty of toned coins that I will not do anything with because there is no reason for it. For me there is a line that divides toning from damage or potential further damage and I made the call for me. If the photos make this coin look lifeless then I clearly screwed up the photography since the coin has tons of beautiful luster and that makes me very happy. It has a TON more luster than it did before the visit to PCGS.

Based on the type of PCGS holder it was in, the length of time that I have owned it and the length of time the previous owner had it, this coin was in a PCGS holder for many years so I am not sure that it looked like that when it was holdered originally. I am guessing it did not. My guess is that it was probably freshly dipped white and sent in without getting rinsed and dried properly....then over several years turned into the mess that I got. Lots of guessing, I know.

As for the cost, PCGS does not have this coin in the PCGS Price Guide as there are no sale/auction records....none that I have ever seen. I just know what I paid and have a good guess as to what it is worth based on the current levels of demand. For calculating the value of the item, it seems PCGS was conservative and just went off of the PCGS Price Guide for a normal 29-S in MS65FB. For those that wish to check out the basic costs, check out the PCGS Restoration Service Page.

I had sent 7 coins in, all at once. They were spread across three different forms for different services. I received a BLUE BOX with a batch of two coins. Four coins came back in an envelope. This coin came back alone in an envelope. So, based on my submission of seven coins, it seems they wanted to send me a BLUE BOX...and they did with the FIRST coins they send back to me.

All in all, I would do it all over again. I am relatively pleased with the outcome as I find the coin to be in a much better state of preservation than it was before.

I am still looking for an upgrade, so let me know if anyone out there in Coin-Land finds a better 65FB...or better.

1tommy · November 15, 2013 1:15AM

Hey Greg, I think you did all right and as you know I also tried this service on my 1936 Proof Quarter in my signature line you can check out the before and after. I was really happy with the service from the old to the new, in my case with the coin being a proof I think it lost some of its luster but all the circle marks and black spots are gone so in the end its all good. I also thought upgrade and wonder how many coins that go thru the restoration service actually upgrade? I would think not many. My coin was way more messed up and it is amazing the difference from before to after. Enjoy the coin and good luck on your searches. Enjoy tom

lava · November 15, 2013 1:28AM

I agree with everything the OP has shared. The right call was made for the right reasons.

Fairlaneman · November 15, 2013 1:49AM

Liked the before look much better than the after look. A couple of 29S coins I have owned in the past looked exactly like the before picture. I guess the same dip artist got ahold of them also.

To each his own.

Ken

WaterSport · November 15, 2013 3:06AM

I used the service to take care of a 1916 Matte Proof and was really pleased and like you,a newer grade would have been good also, but I am still happy with the results. Thanks for posting yours.

WS

panexpoguy · November 15, 2013 3:31AM

I can appreciate the coin in both states. I think the decision was reasonable and it was helpful to follow the thread. Thanks!

magikbilly · November 15, 2013 5:28AM

It appears a 50/50 split - maybe 1 more liking the earlier appearance? Tired eyes dont count well. I note again, it was not screaming "post dip non rinse" or it likely would not have graded the first time problem free. That and "Before the service, I was thinking the coin might be 65+FB...or maybe even 66FB..." says a lot to me. And a good point - how can one be sure silver is stabilized. I also don't like the not knowing what was done.

I'll work on your car, your teeth, your whatever, but you'll not know what I did. Maybe run/look better, maybe not. Stability not guaranteed BTW...takers?

Have a good weekend,
Eric

Treashunt · November 18, 2013 9:31PM

I liked the original picture.

Until I saw the 'after'. Great job

OldEastside · November 18, 2013 9:51PM

I'm kinda in the middle here literally, as they say theres 2 sides to a coin
and I like the obverse before but can see and understand the flip side
its to bad they just could'nt conserve the reverse, but you did stop the
problem and its is pleasing.

Steve

mercurydimeguy · November 18, 2013 9:52PM

One thing for sure, there is no universally appealing coin look. Coins are like art, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The more seasoned art collectors have evolved tastes and might consider spending 10x on something that others wouldn't take for free. Similar with coins....

Personally, I try to collect coins with eye appeal -- some are toned, some are white but ugly I either stay away from or dispose of quickly. While some may consider the original look attractive, I would say its a "C" look, yes original, but yes problematic. I would take the new coin over the old coin 100 times out of 100.

For a simple test, and I've done this before so I speak from experience, take out your coins and show them to someone at a house party, and without tainting his/her perception, ask the person (a non-numismatist, presumably) which coins they like better. They will pick coins with eye appeal 95 out of 100 times. And this is how I learned what ugly is...when I have to explain to non-numismatist that this coin has "original surfaces" blah blah blah ... the fact is, while beauty is in the eye of the beholder (e.g. I like this design versus that design, etc.) if you show non-numismatists coins, their knee-jerk feedback will teach you much about eye appeal.

BTW, I sent in 3 coins myself back in October, so I'll share the results here when they come back...

Love the new-look dime

PCGS RESTORATION - Before / After Comparison along with my thoughts

Comments

Leave a Comment