I've been wondering why this 1817/4 is not in a "Scratched" holder
manlye1
Posts: 232 ✭✭✭
I get it this is a very rare coin but to my understanding it was in a ICG VG8 Scratched holder and now lives in a straight graded G6 PCGS holder. Why is this not details Scratched? I
2
Comments
Is it a scratch or just a planchet defect?
Planchet defects or adjustment marks will not get a "scratched" designation as the feature predates the striking.
That sure as heck looks scratched to me!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I've studied that coin in the past, and came to the conclusion it was a scratch that was simply given a pass due to the rarity and otherwise original skin. I think that one was sold by Heritage a couple years ago.
It seems ultra scarce, early federal coins can get a pass. PCGS has explained that otherwise there might be none straight-graded. I'm not sure why that matters so much.
That 1817/4 is very scarce and a Redbook variety. They can't be had for under 6-digits.
Here's an 1806 O.108 (R7) as another example.
Lance.
I think net 6 is a very slightly generous Net Grade appraisal for such a rare and popular coin, I'm at 5.5, if I were in the market for one, I'd rather have a problem free 6 but would prefer this to a typical "problem free" 4 with even less definition of the important overdate than this one displays.
yes a common variety would be in a 'scratched' or 'damaged' genuine holder, because a nicer one would be easy to find so why bother assigning a number.
At least the damage looks like contemporary circulation skitches and possibly a test cut.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
A very good question. It wasn't "missed".
Some great answers from the experts.
It's a fabulously rare coin and it got a pass. Could have gone damaged IMO.
Bottom line, very marketable as is, and hugely significant to Bust Half collectors.
Personally, I see the 1817 damage being from heavy circulation and likely accidental that could be considered consistent with the grade and market acceptable.
The 1806 however has intentional graffiti which is unfortunate for an otherwise nice coin.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
It’s a net grade from a net graded service.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
That is a hell of a coin. Very nice. I love absolute rarity. That has been a big one for a long time
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Thank you for all the answers, if it was net graded it makes me question at what level does this type of net grading come into play, is it a certain dollar level for redbook rarities 40k? 100k?
Its called net grading
All coins under MS/PF 70 are net graded. While people tell you grades consists of levels of wear it is actually a combination of about 6 or 7 different attributes into one swag tied to price alignment based off a floating avg of traditional grading. Some coins get looked at harder than others and that cut both ways.
The affect you are noting isn’t net grading, it is holder shopping by dealers with connections to the grading booths after many shows. if you bring a coin to these 2nd rate holder companies you can negotiate the end result before somewhat assuming nuances are used. It happens with PCGS and NGC too but the levels being talked about are much higher and with less give by the TPGs
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
That coin is in a PCGS holder.
That is my point and sorry if I'm pushing the line on a PCGS forum but I thought ICG got it correct with a VG8 Scratched grade, but as pointed out all grading is subjective.
Very informative thread. I never realized that rarity was ever a grading factor.
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
Regarding the 1806 Bust half: Generally, scratches are a real bummer for me, yet looking at yours (and realizing the scratches are old and slightly worn over), I could quickly get over it as the overall appeal is sweet.
peacockcoins
Maybe they didn’t notice it 🤪 I did own a Hawaiian penny once that had been engraved around the entire portrait. PCGS bought it from me.
A scratch is a scratch is a scratch (or insert any other problem) and should be noted. I just slabbed a rare bust half with a lot less of a scratch and it was put in a damaged scratched holder. Surely my coin is not a six figure rarity but a straight grade would have made a few thousand dollar difference.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
Funny, I was just talking to a dealer friend of mine today. He was telling me about a Grant Commem with star in a 65 holder CAC'd. He pointed out to the seller that Grant had been outlined with a pin scratch all the way around. The seller was like...OMG!
With apologies to the great MLK:
I have a dream that my PCGS will one day create a new grading approach that recognizes the true technical grade where the coin will not be judged by the color of its skin, the rarity therein, or variable market values but by the consistency of PCGS’s new standard.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Nice reverse Retained Cud.
Buy the coin, not the holder. The scratches are sufficiently obvious that collectors can make their own determination.
IMO, they should both be in details holders.
Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T, Meltdown, ElmerFusterpuck, airplanenut
.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All of Us
ANA LM, LSCC, EAC, FUN
The coin is scratched, or rather gouged, and to be fair the label should reflect the defect. Remove the rarity and the coin would never straight-grade. Does it matter for this coin? No, not in the real world. Any price realized would reflect the coin and not the label. It's far more important that the coin is deemed authentic and the die marriage confirmed (although this one is easy to attribute).
PCGS's criteria for a "scratch" no grade are, "Depends on the severity and/or the quantity of the scratch(s) [sic]. Faint, old toned over scratches may be acceptable; bright, fresh scratches may not. Placement is an important factor."
On this coin, the primary scratch (there are a few) is not faint, but it is old and toned-over. The placement is in a primary focal point.
Clearly, there is a generous interpretation of acceptability of the scratches on this ultra rare, highly-desired die marriage. Judgment tipped in favor of market acceptability.
What's even more confusing is the coin was first sent to ICG ... huh?
Would I add it to my set? Heck yeah! I might never have another chance at one in the near future ... and this may be the only one I could afford and stay married.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
I never understood why "scratches" were unacceptable but other marks like small gouges and just bag marks are ok? Why the difference?
Then why not put it in a holder with an accurate label? What's the benefit of pretending the scratch isn't there?
I'm not asking you specifically, astrorat- I'm just curious about why this happens and am interested in hearing what people think.
I'm surprised that it got a straight grade.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If that were the case, then "net graded" would really have no meaning. I believe it should refer to problem coins which get a straight grade lower than warranted had the problem not been present. It's a form of market grading.
This is a really good thread with a lot of insightful posts, and I think offers a chance for PCGS to improve its service by becoming more transparent. Most of us agree that the coin in the OP has problems, and most of us agree the coin has been net graded. I think the concern is that the reasons for the net grade are not noted on the holder, and this is oftentimes an issue with such net graded coins with more subtle issues. PCGS has enjoyed great success because of its expertise in grading, but you wouldn’t know it when it comes to net graded coins, where the holders show straight grades, but the coins suggest otherwise. We shouldn’t have to wonder whether the graders missed something. Many capped bust half collectors own an example or two of coins with an old “X” made back in the day to test genuineness. If a policy decision is made to net grade such coins, I’d prefer the holder to note the problem. This would give the collecting world a more equal playing field, noting issues detected by the grading experts, but also noting that the experts felt a particular coin merited a straight grade, but netted out to account for the noted issue. Maybe the coin in the OP is an obvious net grade, but there are plenty of others out there not so obvious. A net graded coin with a problem noted on the holder would let us know nothing got missed by the experts, while enabling registry folks to get some points beyond the filler role of N1. PCGS could improve a great service in this way, IMHO.
Is it possible the subject coin was reholdered? At one time the major grading services did not slab problem coins. Your coin either got a straight grade or come back in a "body bag" (flip). They would make exceptions for extremely rare coins with problems by slabbing them with a straight grade but reducing the grade to factor in the problems. I can see this coin being in an early slab and later being reholdered with the grading service keeping the original grade.
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
PCGS and NGC have made the right call on these coins; old marks and scratches that may be considered "damage" by nitpickers but really it goes to overall surfaces, historicity, and how the problem fits into other aspects of the coin. Are all non-straight graded coins out of the population reports?
If the subject coin was a “right call” - and I don’t think it was - I have certainly seen a lot of wrong calls, where coins with much less severe problems have received details grades. And I don’t feel that rarer/more valuable coins should be treated differently. One not need be a “nitpicker” to consider such problems “damage”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This just rang a bell in my head from a comment my customer made to me in my other thread. Perhaps due to it's rarity it was given a pass so it would give a registry set the points most would deem it warrants.
Edit to add after further reading I see @lava touched on this point!
Hopefully, it’s not about registry set points. But if it is, why not assign a details-grade and fewer points than for what a straight grade example would garner?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree and believe there have been some to try to get PCGS to do something like this.
Here's the Heritage auction. It sold for $96,000.
Of the 11 known specimens, there are a few PCGS coins:
Out of the 8 PCGS specimens, this is the only details graded coin:
Here's the condition census from Heritage:
I think Al Overton got short changed in the provenance game here.
He owned the VF35 Pogue specimen yet his namesake specimen is the Good 6 Repaired Overton specimen!
WOW ... that looks like a serious scratch to me.
Should be in a details holder, in my opinion. However a Details label is a stigma that strongly affects the value of a coin, so I can see how there would be pressure not to apply that to some coins.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
In my opinion- decisions like this hurt all other "straight graded" coins. This has been a tremendous problem i have seen over the last 3-5 years especially on draped bust dollars. VF's were bid at 2300 and you could expect to find lower end ones around 2000-2100 while descent and nice pieces brought closer to/slightly over bid. All of a sudden I started seeing bad problem coins start getting graded. Altered, cleaned, scratched. etc etc... they came out by the dozens over the next couple of years. And they were so bad that they traded at much bigger discounts. Soon they had to go to auction thereby setting new lows. The spiral continues with bid dropping almost 30% just to keep up.
A nice CAC piece? it was 2500 now its 2350.
Personally I say let a coin be impossible to find in a graded holder. Thats what makes it fun. When you loosen the standards you bring down the power of the group.
I remember when I was in pre med classes my Anatomy and physiology professor would say "just think on my tests. For every point out of 100 you get off, you KILLED 1 patient."
For every slide the grading companies give to coins like this, they slowly erode the value of the rest.
Too bad my thread was erased, Did you see it? Your comment might be the death of this thread also.
So every rare coin is just a scratch or other issue seen as damage from not being counted in the population figures? That seems a pretty severe judgment to me; as if people with serious handicaps being ignored in population figures.
In what other field do defects exclude important things from being counted? Aren't we better off if we really knew what the true surviving populations are in rare issues?
Of course not every rare coin and not just any “scratch” or other issue seen as damage. If population reports are a concern, I think it would be far preferable for problem coins to be included, too, rather than for them not to be recognized as such, just so they can be included.
Regarding other fields - aren’t certain comics and sports cards, etc. noted as having problems?
And this has nothing to do with people with serious handicaps. They have rights and feelings. Coins don’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Unfortunately, TPG population reports are not terribly accurate anyway due to unreported crackouts. I guess they may be useful in the context of assessing relative rarity. I do agree that it would be better to have Genuine coins included, perhaps in a secondary line or table.
Agreed that the pop reports can be a good gauge of relative rarity. And that doesn’t change, just because details-grade coins are excluded.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
if i beat one of those halfs with a hammer a couple times would it still straight grade?
Considering the extreme absolute rarity, I would be happy to own the 1817/4 and 1806 knob NS (7 known). All of my circulated bust coins have some scratches and marks - just not as large.
Slabs are important to most collectors and these coins are needed in major variety sets, which are the stoppers and limits the number of collectors. As others have said, PCGS should provide more Registry value than just 1 point on details coins. Some rare die varieties exist only with problems.
Now if someone can broker a good deal on the 1806, I am interested!
Right! It’s not that I don’t see the scratches, they just don’t blur the halo coin behind them. At least to these eyes. That 1806 is spectacular. I would take it over a common die pair in UNC of the same date
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
My comment is neither controversial nor derogatory-just factual. I have brought up my concerns with Don Willis some years ago regarding the issue of grading standards on rare coins as well. I feel that ducks should fall where they lay.
If the coin is a 1924-s $20 its either a 64 or a 65. It should be the same standard for 1924 $20's. Dont be strict on the rare stuff in order for it to be "tougher" at ms65. Let it be "tougher" at ms66 or ms67. Just be consistent in using the same grading scale.
I one time was talking to JA about I believe a 1892-o $1 in ms65 which is a date comes with a notorious weak strike on the center of the coin. I felt that my coin mark wise was a Super nice ms65 and would not look out of place in a ms66 holder. Because of the weakness in the center he refused to sticker the coin and if I recall correctly said something like "I dont care if there are no coins from a date/mintmark that get a sticker. Im not going to specifically let a coin slide because you cant find nice ones". The idea was similar though the I forget the words. The lesson stuck with me.
Guess you didn't see my thread!