How to lose 78% on a coin
ARCO
Posts: 4,435 ✭✭✭✭✭
I was researching Heritage auction archives for the 1896-S Barber Half. There was an NGC 64 listed on Ebay and I wanted to see prior prices realized, when I found this Barber Half...which brought all sorts of questions.
1896-S Auction History:
8/8/2013 NGC MS64* Richmond Collection - $4,700 https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-half-dollars/half-dollars/1896-s-50c-ms64-ngc/a/1188-3962.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
12/5/2013 PCGS MS64 CAC - $4,993
1/4/2017 PCGS MS64 CAC - $5,170 https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-half-dollars/half-dollars/1896-s-50c-ms64-pcgs-cac/a/1251-4447.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
6/17/18 PCGS - Cleaning, Unc Detail - $1,140.00 https://coins.ha.com/itm/barber-half-dollars/half-dollars/1896-s-50c-cleaning-pcgs-genuine-secure-unc-details-ngc-census-0-40-and-0-1-pcgs-population-0-60-and-0-6-/a/1276-7819.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515
Questions:
1) Why would someone buy this coin in the first place? - Ok, I get it, the 96-S Barber half in MS does not have many examples to choose from, so just ponder it for yourself without responding.
2) How did the neck and lower face get that orange peel look?
3) With the obvious hairlines and neck melting off all over the NGC example, how did NGC give it the star grade?
4) With the peeling neck & face and hairlines, how did it get a CAC sticker?
5) What kind of person cracks out or submits to PCGS to grade "at any grade" a PCGS MS64 with a CAC and a host of serious problems for regrading?
5) How did a coin that was graded MS64 by both grading companies end up as a cleaned coin?
6) What happened to the big hit on the face as shown in the first three auctions, but is missing on the last?
I know, grading is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but sometimes this hobby really confuses me.
Tyler
Comments
I think the "obvious hairlines" on the NGC are scratches on the slab.
My Early Large Cents
If you have the ability to definitively call those the same coins, you’re a better eye than me...
Yes, they could be, good point. Since the coin ended up designated by cleaned as shown, there are only two scenarios:
1) the coin had problems and what we see are hairlines / scratches from a prior cleaning but the coin was graded nonetheless
2) The crack-out genius cleaned the coin then submitted it to PCGS which resulted in the losing grade.
Well, look at the neck orange peel and large scratch at the base of the bust. You can map it out perfectly on every example. How many coins have you seen that have that look? I have never seen any on a Barber Half except this one.
The last coin is not the same coin as the others.
EAC 6024
It is. Look at the peeling and large scratch or die crack at the base. There is no way two coins would have the same exact orange peeling pattern and large crack at the bust.
Die crack and rusted dies.
EAC 6024
I don't think they are the same coin either.
Could be die rust and a die break. Dunno
I see different hits and lines between the two coins - and other than the two potentially explainable features that you mention, they simply don’t appear to be the same coin. Again, dunno
“_immaculate save for a tiny mark on the cheek. The portrait exhibits die rust, as made and unusual for the series. _”
Immaculate = no scratch, it’s a die break = it’s on many coins
Die rust = it’s on many coins
Odds are that you’ve posted two different examples
The die cracks and the rusting pattern are identical, but the hits on the coin (which came after the strike) do not seem the same. They would indeed be very close cousins.
Not the same coin.
+1
The OP's point is made. A cleaned example IS worth much much less. These are still apples to apples even if they are different coins.
bob
Not the same coin. The photo technique and lighting is a bit different, but the die break at Liberty's neck on the cleaned coin does not extend as far as it does on the first coin. Almost certainly the same die pair though.
@tradedollarnut said: "If you have the ability to definitively call those the same coins, you’re a better eye than me..."
No he and others are mistaken. Furthermore, the member who disagreed with you should look again and correct his error.
@ARCO also thinks all three coins are the same: "It is. Look at the peeling and large scratch or die crack at the base. There is no way two coins would have the same exact orange peeling pattern and large crack at the bust.
I believe numismatists call what you refer to as a "DIE STATE." Many coins from this die will look similar. One member has even pointed out (I have not checked this) a progression in the die break.
They are not the same coin! Different hits and markings
Riculous premise. Not even worthy of comment.
Ridiculous premise. Not even worthy of comment... again!
The cleaned coin is not the same coin as others have said, obvious differences.
Best, SH
Im agreeing with those who stated it, the cleaned coin is not even the same coin, there is a mark present on the 3rd link that dont even exist on the cleaned specimen.
My Instagram
On the flip side, it's highly educational to compare the two different coins from the same die with similar die state- one market acceptable, one not. So, thanks for posting OP.
I don't think it's the same coin either. There's a minor rim nibble between star 5 and 6 on the first piece that I don't see on the slast and a hit between the Eagles talon and the laurel branch that I don't see on the second either. If there was a rusted die leading to a break... several coins would have the same strike features attributable to the die. What happens after... rim hits, bag marks, etc. Will be the deciding factor. I just don't see it here...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
The first two coins are the same. But that cleaned coin is not the same. It doesn't have any of the same marks on the cheek.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
they are not the same coin
The cleaned coin is not the same coin as the other three images. Imo.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
They are not the same coin.
On the cleaned coin, where is the large gouge on the cheek?
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
It is an interesting post, but I'm not quite sure what your comment means. The one is not market acceptable because of Post Mint cleaning, it's not related to die state.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Definitely not the same coin. The cheek gash is missing on the 2nd coin and the hits on the bust do not line up. There is extensive die rust on both examples.
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
Then go away. The coins do appear almost identical. The conclusions were faulty is all. Again, don't comment and stay away.
Agreed. The rusted dies are so unique on Barber Halves that to have two nearly identical coins is interesting.
I do not think these examples are all the same coin either. The die rust shaped like a football in the left field behind Liberty’s head on the first examples is not there on the last.
The coin is identical or it is not. Numismatics is NOT a game of horseshoes. "Almost" does not count. The attention to detail is something we all must learn. Exercising our eyes with comparisons as this is very important to develop that skill.
Insider, the coins look identical. The lighting in the last auction is different, which can hide details. There is nothing that was being sold here so there is no harm in not being perfect, close or whatever. These were observations based on a coin that is almost 100 % identical. the conclusions were faulty is all. A person can comment on that, but negativity is not welcome.
Remember, we are dealing with photographs which can be altered, shifted with light or whatever to create images that are not always apparent - or, you are of the opinion that every photo taken of the the same coin is always identical? I don't even know what "almost does not count" mean, but if you are here to lecture then go someplace else.
In tracing coins and their earlier appearances, I have examined many thousands of images of coins to identify which match up. ANY artifact that exists on the dies will appear on numerous examples, and so those artifacts must take a secondary level in matching up the coins. Artifacts that only appear on the coin surface itself take precedence.
The defect on the cheekbone appears in both the NGC and PCGS CAC'd holders, but is missing from the "Details" coin. If the premise is that the cheekbone defect was repaired, then why were the other numerous defects left alone? My conclusion is they are different coins!
I do agree that photographs can be altered, but ALL of the photos you linked were done by Heritage Auctions. I seriously doubt that Heritage photoshop'd out the cut on the cheekbone in the final picture, when such a defect would not readily devalue that "Details" coin any further.
Deception by lighting need not be intentional, it can just happen by a shift in the light source. Heritage photography has evolved over time. You photograph coins? I do, and I see it all the time. True, the face hit was the biggest tell that the coins were not the same. However given the incredible closeness of the rusted dies and die cracks on a series that almost (or never) has rusted dies, a shift in lighting could have been a very viable explanation for the lack of the face hit.
Photos from a recent thread - coins look the same? I bet you could connect some of the details and others you can't based on the lighting.
Thanks Cardinal. It has been established long ago that they are NOT the same coins, that the similarities were very close, but not exact.
Your last post before my first post on this thread had you saying "Insider, the coins look identical." So, I thought the matter had not been laid to rest long ago. The overall point of my comment was that in matching up coins, you need to focus on post-mint artifacts on the coin, and not just the preponderance of identical artifacts that were imparted to the coin by the coining dies.
I joined CU to share what I think. I've LEARNED quite a bit from the comments ("lectures") of others. Believe me when I tell you that I know the restraint needed by the informed posters here when dealing with some members.
IMHO, we are all very lucky that they DON'T "go someplace else" and stop wasting their time and life with much of the NONSENSE that goes on here!
Perhaps it would help to know that I'm a very patient teacher. I've been that way for as long as I can remember, even as a small boy teaching the neighbor kids gun safety with real weapons, how to fix our bikes, what the different leaves and bugs we collected were, etc, etc.
That said, I'm trying to convey a message here. Numismatics is not some fly-by-night game filled with excuses as the lighting was different, images lie, I missed that diagnostic, the shape and location of the letters are close, etc.
All of us need to be precise. Many are born that way. In my experience teaching authentication and grading for almost fifty years,
women are usually more "detail oriented" than men! Attention to detail can be learned by playing comparison games with two pictures that look alike at first; yet have differences in the location and shape of the objects - even missing parts. One of these games was recently published in my Numismatic News column.
Doing this with coins is fun also. I wish to thank you for your comments as you have given me a great idea for a new post next week! Now, I'm going to suggest again, that anyone who does not see that the two coins are VERY DIFFERENT go back and look again. It is good training.
PS There is a way to compare coins either side by side or with two images. First look at the entire coin for changes in color or texture (may be due to lighting type and angle). If you find a large, obvious mark on only one, the comparison may be over. Quickly scan the rims for damage. Then pick a side. Again look for marks. Do this with just a small part of the coin at a time to narrow down your examination to the small details. Quickly go from one part of the coin (say the area of the mintmark) to the exact same part of the other coin. STAY VERY FOCUSED. Go back and forth between images very quickly looking for differences (not due to light or the orientation of the coin WHICH CAN MAKE THINGS DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY FROM ONE IMAGE OF AN IDENTICAL COIN). The speed with which you move between the cois allows even tiny shifts of the design to become apparent. It helps if you are nearsighted or at the very least have good vision. One of my associates likes to tell stories of all the collectors he meets who have not had an eye examination in several years! That's why he likes to add: "Large scratch under the eagle's wing" (rather than "Scratched") to a coin's lable to avoid a phone call asking where the scratch is! LOL.
It wasnt that long ago. It was just yesterday.
Long ago in the sequence of the thread. The sequence of the thread Acop.
I appreciate your comments, but I disagree with your premise here. I rushed to judgement on my post and when others pointed it out, I saw the error and agreed. Here is the thing Insider, mine was a fun observation to share numismatics and to try and understand how coins that I believed to be the same could end up with such grading differences. Turns out my observations using photographic scans was faulty. No problem, lesson learned.
Here is the bigger point; I was not here promoting a coin for profit, trying to dissuade someone from buying a coin, or basically selling anything to anyone, so no, there is absolutely no necessity worrying whether I am playing the numismatic "game" by yours or anyone else's arbitrary standards. Let me ask you this Insider, besides determining whether a coin/date/mintmark is genuine or counterfeit, what other single thing in numismatics is not subjective to some degree or other?
Insider, I have been posting here since 2001 and I treat every member with respect and I don't go to threads and leave snarky, rude or demeaning posts. Never have, not once in 17 years posting here.
The funny thing about this coin is that I could see that there were so many missing hits that weren't lining up, but I became convinced they were the same coin because of the rusted dies and die crack. I had never seen such an effect on a Barber half, ever and well, if there are two they must be the same. Faulty premise on my part.
learning is part of this hobby and when there is nothing to gain (except knowledge) or lose on my part or your part, I am fine making all sorts of mistakes.
Good points, that is why this board is so educational. I didn't mean to come off harsh the last response, but it seems like I have agreed five or six times, that yes, coins are not identical. Now it seems some people are having a come apart and I am explaining my rationale as to WHY I thought the coins were identical, not that I still believe that they are.
What got me was that the rusted dies effect on the Barbers were so prominent and since I have never seen one other example in 20 years collecting Barber halves, that well, those coins had to be the same. When you factor in lighting, it probably had to be the lighting...turns out it wasn't. Lesson # 6,965 learned in the numismatics hobby.
Two different coins
You just need to relax and let it go brah. You made a mistake in identifying a coin with a very uncommon die crack/pitted die situation and its not necessarily a rookie mistake in having done so. But now you have been launched into a defensive panic where are you becoming confrontational with people simply pointing out the error. It was a valiant attempt to highlight a possibly interesting situation, but now it is time to cut your losses. Being wrong about the coins being the same is not that bad of a mistake and many seasoned collectors would fall for this at first glance. But now you are risking much more.
You would get shanked in prison is what im saying.
True dat. I admitted my mistake. I have made many. I wasn't in panic or defensive mode, I just wanted to explain the rationale of my thinking process as it seemed that people were aghast that such a mistake could be made in the first place - like redfinn posted - "Riculous premise. Not even worthy of comment." He spelled ridiculous wrong the first time and instead of editing it, he had to say it again.
I like to discuss numismatics. If the conversation bores you, you are free to comment elsewhere. I like to write out my thoughts, if others agree or find them interesting they can read on. I am not "risking" anything, because I am not treating people rudely or disrespectfully or doing anything other than offering my opinions from my experiences. If someone first drops a snarky comment, well this is the thread I started and I like to respond back. Feels good actually.
If I were in prison, I would be doing the shanking.
I'm not trying to lecture. I hate it when someone shows three or four different coins and says they are all the same thing to prove a point. I am a chemist. I have to PROVE things. When people try to pull this crap, it isn't worthy of discussion. PERIOD. This "expert" on coins must believe that every coins is struck from a unique die.
This is something you hate? How many times has someone shown three or four different coins and said they were all the same thing? Hey Finn, this is a discussion board to discuss numismatics. A coin looked like it had been downgraded to cleaned when once it was an NGC and PCGS graded MS64. A poster saw this, made some comments and posted links for others to see. The other posters disagreed and commented that indeed, these were different coins. The first poster also took a closer look and agreed because this a discussion board promoting the topics of all things coin related.
Then some posters made comments out of anger or disgust for a benign topic that affected no one except to create conversation and promote some dialogue.
If you had posted something similar this would have been my response...because I am civil to others and I like to discuss coins:
You know, the coins look very similar, but I can see after strike marks that are different from the NGC and PCGS graded coins that are not present on the cleaned coin. It is very possible that the die that struck both coins was the same, but that produced two very similar coins.
Here are the marks that I saw that are different (then I would list the marks), check them and see what you think.
This is how civilized, friendly persons discuss coins. Or no?