Head Scratcher 1804 $5 King Farouk Coin
Proofmorgan
Posts: 729 ✭✭✭✭✭
I watched in a somewhat recent Heritage auction, the King Karouk 1804 Overdate $5 in 62+ CAC. The coin looked like a nice original, but I couldn't get over the rim dings even though the whole package/pedigree was very neat. The coin Hammered for about $30K which seemed a bit weak.
Months later the coin has reappeared (can't mistake the rim dings), in a 62+ Non-CAC holder and no pedigree for $35K on ebay. A very curious move. I'm guessing the coin was cracked as PCGS has both certs as active. I'm still debating whether the coin was dipped in between. The images look much brighter in the newer holder, but the "dirt" in all areas remains under close Trueview inspection.
It just seems the person who handled the coin did everything wrong:
-removed potential significant Pedigree
-Graded the same grade, but increased the Pop from 1 to 2
-Did not get the CAC approval
Thoughts?
Comments
Since one would assume that the PCGS is using the same procedure for both photographs, It looks like the coin may have been dipped. I know that I can get different looks with my photos depending upon the lighting and photo processing.
As for the coin, the rim issue is annoying. It's a beautiful coin otherwise.
I like it. I would like it more with the pedigree and cac sticker.
Rim ding doesn't bother me.
My Gold Type Set
I don't know if he is still in business yet there was a dealer who could repair that rim ding as that kind of issue is right up his alley. He is (was) relatively expensive but his work was excellent. (Some of the coins with a hole he repaired looked like the hole never existed.)
peacockcoins
I can't stop looking at the fascinating 8
I think the original buyer did everything wrong. He cracked the coin out and lost the pedigree, he probably dipped it, and he lost the CAC sticker. Aside from that he was a genius. The grade of the coin was probably maxed out with the rim dings.
I have PCGS images of the same coin taken twice that look very different, so I would not put much comment into the images.
Yes, it's blundered die.
The first mint personnel often grabbed what ever date punch was handy. They first used an "8" that was to be used on a silver dollar or gold eagle and then over punched with the right one.
Check out the two sizes for the "7"s on this 1797 half time. The first three digits were punched in when the die was made, and then the last one was added when it was put into service.
Doesn't a high value coin like this get mapped with the Gold Shield service ? I was under the impression that with this technology it would prevent crackouts attempting for a higher grade.
doesn't looked dipped to these eyes, the copper of the arrows/shield is consistent with lighting differences
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Gold Shield service coins aren't immune to upgrades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I doubt it was dipped ... look at the original Heritage HD photo ... looks as nice as it going to be and per Heriatge ...
"Minor hairlines and slightly broken luster in the open fields define the grade, but both sides of this Plus-graded MS62 five dollar are razor-sharp"
I think the buyer was just hoping the + grade and a Green CAC combined would be rewarded with a 63 or 63+ and a 10/15K bump in price ... maybe they would have had better luck sending it to NGC as I have seen several PCGS CAC graded pieces getting a pop when they send to NGC ... but then again maybe they had tried with NGC and no luck there either.
No doubt the same coin.... Cannot speak to a dip, could be lighting etc. Cheers, RickO
I'd trust the graders and would never trust an early high value coin like that to any but the best conservation service.
Both examples are very nice looking. I would rather have the Pedigree on the holder with the cac sticker.
I think it’s been dipped and it’s not the photos. The toning pattern between the bust and stars is gone. Also in several other spots. Especially behind the head is spotty now.
Still a nice example
If it was dipped, I prefer the original look. That may be why it is not CAC now.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
There is also one on GC currently- PCGS 63 CAC without rim issues- if anyone is shopping for one of these- bidding starts at $58.5k- no TrueView
Looks like a nice coin to me. Not sure why they would lose the pedigree... dumb
Looks like the same coin but with very different (better) lighting. Top photos are what I'd consider a low quality imaging job. New images look like Phil's.
Maybe PCGS can remove the duplicate? Especially with a MS population so small overall?
The 64 coin(s) has sold 3 times with 3 different cert numbers. $126k, $75k, $78k. All CAC. All within a year. CAC pop still correct at just 1 coin.
Maybe the same guy bought that coin also. Crack out a sole top pop coin, double population and sell for 40% less. Not sure who wanted to crack a top pop coin a couple times. That one has a rim issue also.
Maybe they just really wanted to touch it. Can’t blame them…
Thoughts?
dipped=doctored (unless toning is ugly) with this old school numismatist. The coin's color is fine before the possible dip making dip unnecessary and the rim ding is not a big deal.Opinion.
Not sure why they would lose the pedigree...dumb
Blunder. Same kind of thing as the dealer I knew who bought some of Eliasberg's beautiful originally toned Barber dimes and bright dipped them. Another loss of pedigree. I was aghast when he showed me what he had done. He ruined the '93-O.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
10 or so years ago. I had a 1907 $20 HR graded MS62 with NGC; the coin was original, looked high end, The dealer I bought if from who handled a number of high end coins told me that the small ball of dirt it had on the reverse eagle was what was preventing it from upgrading to MS63. So I sent it in for conservation thinking they would be conservative not doing anything if there was a chance of making it worse. It came back with a washed out appearance, and the ball of dirt was still there. Obviously I was not happy especially with the high costs connected. Moral of the story, an old coin, especially a 200+ year old coin should probably be left alone.
I was offered a really nice set of barber Quarters around 10 years ago. The problem was the set was a consignment and I pointed out the 01-S in F-VF in the set was bad. I asked the dealer if he could sell it without the 01-S and he wasn't sure. He said obviously it's a no go with the 01-S. Well dang! He didn't get back to me and the nice original XF-AU balance of the set was offered to me individually the next day. The flipper that bought the set had dipped every dang coin in the set the night before and ruined them IMHO.
The coin was not dipped.
No? The tiny dark spots inside the L and the R were removed by some other means?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
1) I can't even see the "tiny dark spots" (unless they're shadows), but I know several dealers with microscopes and good hands. I've shaken a few crusty clumps of micro-gunk off coins with an ultrasonic and a non-corrosive solvent.
2) The color is unchanged. The images are the same, merely differing in richness of color. All of the toning is unchanged. The date, stars, eagle+shield, little crevasses all over the coins; all retain their deep orange patina.
3) Have you ever dipped gold, especially early gold. Or otherwise tried to remove "whatever". Ask yourself why John Albanese ask me to serve on the PNG's Coin Doctoring Definition committee. The majority of what you might consider doctoring is actually conservation.
4) "You" have no idea of what "we" know. Or the tens of thousands of dollars many of "us" have paid in tuition. PCGS Conservation knows a few tricks (processes), yet could take a few lessons. Me too.
edited to add:
My instincts say that both images are off. "In-hand" would be critical on this piece.
My guess is that the first image is closer to actuality.
In the second, the colors, especially on the reverse, are too rich. The obverse film appears darkened (thickened) due to a shift in refraction and has lost much of its translucency.