Options
PCGS grades in, question on Non Graded Coins
hiijacker
Posts: 1,173 ✭✭✭
I just got back my free 8 coin submission with these coin that didn't grade:
The 1916 they call Environmental Damage. Any idea what the issue is?
This 1879 half the called cleaned? This was in an album for decades.
Buyer of all vintage Silver Bars. PM me
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
1
Comments
Before I read that your 1916 received a details grade my first thought was that the reverse was etched (environmental damage).
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The 1916 looks like the reverse may have old album damage - and maybe some on obverse rims- old chemicals in early albums sometimes caused this "environmental damage" that I've seen on some coins.
Would an acetone dip help, or not worth the trouble and leave as is?
Cashback from Mr. Rebates
Acetone will not cure an etched coin. If that is the case then the damage is done. Regardless, I took a look of the larger file size images of your coin and it looks like there is damage all along the inner rim on the reverse. At first I thought it might be counting wheel damage, but it looks to uniform and all over the inside portion of the rim.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Cant help but they sure are pretty coins
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC FOR SALE
Yes, the reverse of the 1916 sure looks tinkered with. I'd soak it in acetone if it were mine. Can't hurt.
The 1879 is puzzling. Beautiful coin with maybe a touch of rub on the breasts? I dunno.........
The photo on the seated half won't show anything regarding a cleaning since it was set up to show the color. I'll bet that at some angle there are hairlines from a long-ago wipe. The coin sitting in the album probably helped it tone, which in turn helped hide the hairlines. It's speculation since I can't see it, but it's my best guess without more information.
That's what I think also. I suspect the toning on the seated half is hiding hairlines that can be seen at the right angle.
I agree with TomB and the others on the 1916. And the length of time the 1879 spent in an album doesn’t have any bearing on whether it might have been cleaned.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree with Tom about the reverse's inner rim damage. I wouldn't call it "environmental damage" which usually suggests corrosion.
Lance.
@hiijacker - have you owned the 1879 half for decades? I’m curious to know what it looked like before it went into the album.
1916 - the reverse looks devoid of any luster. It's not cleaned and not stained so Env Damg must be a catchall.
1879 - the obverse looks lightly cleaned to me.
Check out my iPhone app SlabReader!
No doubt about damage on the reverse of the WLH... Though I would not call it 'environmental'.... unless they are not referring to the rim damage, but rather what could be chemical etching, perhaps due to old storage. Cheers, RickO
Agree, there are likely hairlines under the toning. If you tilt the coin under a halogen light, you will find them.
The challenge for me is how many hairlines are tolerated for the coin to get a straight grade - seems to vary by grade (more tolerated for AU58 vs MS62) and by series (a lot of hairlined Capped Bust halves seem to get straight grades).
Say what you will, both of your coins are beautiful.
nice coins - 1916 obverse has pitting everywhere, reverse has counting wheel damage on left and bottom edges