Options
I Guess It's OK to Draw X's on Your Coins...
BustHalfBrian
Posts: 4,191 ✭✭✭✭
Because the below coin is PCGS F15. Photo is from PCGS CoinFacts (not my coin).
What are your thoughts on this? The graffiti looks old, but should this really have straight-graded? The X is just so apparent that I feel, if it were my coin, I wouldn't have been as lucky.
My intention with this thread is not to criticize the host's decision but rather to see how members would have labeled the coin (gradable vs not gradable) so that we may understand PCGS grading standards more clearly.
What are your thoughts on this? The graffiti looks old, but should this really have straight-graded? The X is just so apparent that I feel, if it were my coin, I wouldn't have been as lucky.
My intention with this thread is not to criticize the host's decision but rather to see how members would have labeled the coin (gradable vs not gradable) so that we may understand PCGS grading standards more clearly.
Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist based in SoCal.
1
Comments
image needs to be removed from coin facts
graffiti as such should never straight grade
they're only human i suppose
last month i posted a standing liberty quarter that doesn't represent our host's reputation either
but it wasn't a coinfacts coin either
<< <i>That probably looks worse in the pictures than in hand. >>
Funny, usually it's the opposite
<< <i>That probably looks worse in the pictures than in hand. >>
Sounds like you think the pic may have been photo-shopped.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>That probably looks worse in the pictures than in hand. >>
Sounds like you think the pic may have been photo-shopped. >>
It sounds like a legitimate statement to me. In my experience blown-up images/scans exacerbate scratches.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That probably looks worse in the pictures than in hand. >>
Sounds like you think the pic may have been photo-shopped. >>
It sounds like a legitimate statement to me. In my experience blown-up images/scans exacerbate scratches. >>
I can't imagine it would look any better in hand.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That probably looks worse in the pictures than in hand. >>
Sounds like you think the pic may have been photo-shopped. >>
It sounds like a legitimate statement to me. In my experience blown-up images/scans exacerbate scratches. >>
Just like magnifiers and loupes?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That probably looks worse in the pictures than in hand. >>
Sounds like you think the pic may have been photo-shopped. >>
It sounds like a legitimate statement to me. In my experience blown-up images/scans exacerbate scratches. >>
Just like magnifiers and loupes? >>
Actually, no, it has more to do with the lighting.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That probably looks worse in the pictures than in hand. >>
Sounds like you think the pic may have been photo-shopped. >>
It sounds like a legitimate statement to me. In my experience blown-up images/scans exacerbate scratches. >>
Just like magnifiers and loupes? >>
Actually, no, it has more to do with the lighting. >>
Obviously, adequate lighting is assumed when examining a coin. Any way you look at it, those scratches are fairly substantial. They're not exactly hairline scratches.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I have no idea about the collectability of this 1814/3 Capped Bust but PCGS obviously felt it was gradable, especially at this grade level.
The name is LEE!
Maybe that's the answer. Since its a better variety, yes, the `old scratch` is somewhat overlooked
or figured into the over all grade ?
<< <i>Its not labeled 4 over 3? It matches the pic in the Red Book
Maybe that's the answer. Since its a better variety, yes, the `old scratch` is somewhat overlooked
or figured into the over all grade ? >>
It is labeled 1814/3
Its not to me. It adds character if anything, if that means anything.
Feel like I`ve written this before.. lol
<< <i>I suppose I`m ok with `the straight grade`, somewhat overlooking the `x` as very distracting.
Its not to me. It adds character if anything, if that means anything.
Feel like I`ve written this before.. lol >>
Those scratches "adds character"? Are you serious? Most people consider scratches to be damage and a distraction.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
its a neat variety so, lets grade it.
all in favor yes `eye`....
:-)
As the owner of a 'genuine' graffiti coin that is much rarer than this one, it really irks me that this got a grade.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>Because the below coin is PCGS F15. Photo is from PCGS CoinFacts (not my coin).
What are your thoughts on this? The graffiti looks old, but should this really have straight-graded? The X is just so apparent that I feel, if it were my coin, I wouldn't have been as lucky.
My intention with this thread is not to criticize the host's decision but rather to see how members would have labeled the coin (gradable vs not gradable) so that we can maybe understand PCGS grading standards more clearly.
good call brian and don't forget,
because if you do, the next thing you hear just may be, "it's only tooling."
.
Coin is damaged. Should have never been straight graded... oh yeah PCGS is not infallible and they too over-grade coins and make mistakes.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
1. I don't have a real problem with this coin at that grade.
2. If cracked & resubmitted, it might not grade again.
3. This is not a coin I'd generally desire to own.
4. While most likely graffiti, it's not impossible that these are only circulation marks.
5. I agree that the photographs may be over-emphasizing the scratches.
6. I doubt you'd be successful in having our hosts buy it back.
7. The heavy die clash marks are cool.
It should never have been submitted.
It is spot-able by the naked eye & a loupe.
It was definitely seen when it was photographed.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
Didn't we just learn recently that graders spend only 5 seconds with coins like these ?
<< <i>It should be in a "genuine" holder ... period. >>
Agreed
Don't let your feelings get in the way of a good discussion about standards based off feelings about one coin.
You should know it's okay to draw x's on your coins. As to "grading standards" or "net grades", or mechanical errors.
I feel (since your basing your whole premise off of your FEELINGS), that there are more opinions of the company's integrity
than there are collectors of coins, due to responses that prove that the whole is a sum of it's parts.
And quite a few of those parts are actually some of the biggest issues due to misinterpreting and possibly misunderstanding.
The coin, in my view would grade FINE (net grade) and notation would be made to the buyer that there is some graffiti
which may hinder or detract, especially for the discerning collector. In the case of the Bust Half, it's pretty obviously a Net Grade, even if not noted.
I feel this coin is not for you and possibly points out some flaws in your thought processes.
On that note , here is one that got past my eyes and the sellers' but didn't get past PCGS.
no genuflecting or human sacrifices necessary. No kool aid. Just a simple man's opinion.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I think it should have bagged. That 15 on the other hand wouldn't surprise me to be straight graded, unless there is other hidden tooling. >>
I agree with you on the 1815.
Give that one another go, jayPem. I think it's worth the risk considering the date.
Tyler
1) Its a giant picture. My experience is that defects are easier to see in pics, so I am guessing its less obvious in hand
2) Its low grade. More "stuff" is acceptable as you get into the lower grades, in my opinion
3) It appears to be net graded. Other wise pretty nice for a F15, again in my opinion.
So in sum, I am probably OK with it, but I have also been trained by my coin deal friends not to buy coins like this.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
An ATS AG-03.
PLEASE DO NOT DRAW MARKS ON YOUR COINS
Lance.
Large & prominent scratches - Depends on the severity and/or the quantity of the scratch(s). Faint, old, toned-over scratches may be acceptable; bright, fresh scratches may not. Placement is an important factor.
Damage/Graffiti - significant distracting etchings- occasionally net graded on early coins.
<< <i>Agreed. If a professional grader at the world's leading TPG can't spot graffiti like this in-hand ... basically I don't buy the "looks worse in the photo" argument.
As the owner of a 'genuine' graffiti coin that is much rarer than this one, it really irks me that this got a grade. >>
Which coin would that be and would you care to post pictures?
The name is LEE!
1822-27 Anhalt-Bernburg 1/24 Thayer, full brockage error.
Amat Colligendo Focum
Top 10 • FOR SALE
<< <i>many wonderful coins get BB'd because of a single miniscule "scratch" and/or "graffiti" >>
There's an 1804 $1 with a 'D' punched in it. In 2000 it straight graded PCGS PR64 and in 2009 it was straight graded as PCGS PR65. You think they would really 'Genuine' that?
<< <i>
<< <i>many wonderful coins get BB'd because of a single miniscule "scratch" and/or "graffiti" >>
There's an 1804 $1 with a 'D' punched in it. In 2000 it straight graded PCGS PR64 and in 2009 it was straight graded as PCGS PR65. You think they would really 'Genuine' that? >>
Well who would want an 1804 $1 in a Details slab... c'mon now you gotta think about the resale !! And CAC doesnt give little green stickies to Details slabs !
Its all about the resale !