A real head-scratcher indeed. Or is it a tail-scratcher because the scratch is on the reverse?
I cannot believe what I'm seeing. No way that scratch got by PCGS and CAC. I feel like the holder was somehow pried open and the coin was replaced with a dud. Wish there was a True View of the coin when it was graded.
Happened in house at the mint and there was documentation when it was submitted to that effect.....
Seriously--the question is what type of scenario would have created it if it is a human created scratch where the line would have been crooked as on the coin? Are we sure it isn't something else than someone using a sharp object to scratch that gold coin?
There is no way on earth that PCGS would have missed a major scratch with cac endorsing it as well, something more like a planchet flaw.
That is an absolutely huge scratch. And this isn't the first coin that I've seen that has a huge scratch graded ms by pcgs with cac approval.
Apparently things get through from time to time.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@rhedden said:
I cannot believe what I'm seeing. No way that scratch got by PCGS and CAC. I feel like the holder was somehow pried open and the coin was replaced with a dud. Wish there was a True View of the coin when it was graded.
I agree that I think the coin’s holder was tampered with and the coin switched. The interesting thing in this scenario is that if the new owner now submits the coin back to pcgs under their guarantee service, pcgs will deny the claim because the tampered holder. Ultimately leading to this coin back in the marketplace to be sold again and again. How is the coin community going to be protected if this continues? How does this end?
@rhedden said:
I cannot believe what I'm seeing. No way that scratch got by PCGS and CAC. I feel like the holder was somehow pried open and the coin was replaced with a dud. Wish there was a True View of the coin when it was graded.
I agree that I think the coin’s holder was tampered with and the coin switched. The interesting thing in this scenario is that if the new owner now submits the coin back to pcgs under their guarantee service, pcgs will deny the claim because the tampered holder. Ultimately leading to this coin back in the marketplace to be sold again and again. How is the coin community going to be protected if this continues? How does this end?
In my opinion, the coin was not switched (of course anything is possible here) because I have seen and posted about another coin that was pcgs graded and cac approved. It did have a truview and it had large scatches on both obverse and reverse. That coin no longer exists in the database when looking up the cert. number.
Always, always look at the coin if you are spending thousands and thousands. I would be curious to know if cac takes photos of coins that pass for their own protection and can review and confirm if this is the coin that was submitted.
@Torey said:
Is this currently on auction at GC? Looks like it needs to be pulled if it is.
Why?
If the coin is in an auction it's up to the buyer/bidder to LOOK AT THE COIN
I don't think it's up to the auction house to judge the coin, only list it for auction.
Buyer beware!
JMO
I couldn't agree more. The market should decide if a coin is "market acceptable," unless the damage is egregious.
There is no end to that mindset.
Mechanical label error? Let it bid and the market decide!
Tooled? Let it bid and the market decide!
Counterfeit TPG holders? Let it bid and the market decide!
When a mistake is caught, it should be addressed.
I understand that many people like having nannies. I'm not one of them. When an imperfection is obvious, why do you want a third party to decide "if it's glaring enough to get a 'details' grade"? I think the buyer should decide what the buyer is willing to pay. Likewise, if the imperfection is too small to see, who cares?
It is, of course, a strawman to pretend that an obvious scratch is the same as errors or destruction that might not be seen in a photo, like tooling, so I won't bother saying more about that "argument."
@Torey said:
Is this currently on auction at GC? Looks like it needs to be pulled if it is.
Why?
If the coin is in an auction it's up to the buyer/bidder to LOOK AT THE COIN
I don't think it's up to the auction house to judge the coin, only list it for auction.
Buyer beware!
JMO
I couldn't agree more. The market should decide if a coin is "market acceptable," unless the damage is egregious.
There is no end to that mindset.
Mechanical label error? Let it bid and the market decide!
Tooled? Let it bid and the market decide!
Counterfeit TPG holders? Let it bid and the market decide!
When a mistake is caught, it should be addressed.
I understand that many people like having nannies. I'm not one of them. When an imperfection is obvious, why do you want a third party to decide "if it's glaring enough to get a 'details' grade"? I think the buyer should decide what the buyer is willing to pay. Likewise, if the imperfection is too small to see, who cares?
It is, of course, a strawman to pretend that an obvious scratch is the same as errors or tooling, so I won't bother saying more about that "argument."
Wanting a grading company to grade reasonably accurately isn't the same thing as people liking to have nannies. And the imperfection being discussed has nothing to do with an imperfection being too small to see.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just wondering if the graders and stickerers get in a hurry, are dazzled by the luster, and don't bother with a loupe. Reducing the image to actual coin size, the scratches could be overlooked.
I have seen much deeper scratches with straight grades and stickers, and could provide references to those coins.
IMO MS60.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
@PerryHall said:
Definitely looks like a staple scratch. This coin should have received a details grade. @ianrussell Do you ever pull auction lots when the coin has damage that is not noted on the slab label?
Yes - I wish I had seen this during the auction. Just called the winning bidder who is going to send back to us. It certainly looks like a scratch from the image. CAC immediately offered their guarantee, and I'm sure PCGS would too. As someone else pointed out - a very rare occurrence.
This coin has also been removed from Guess the Grade, and previous guesses all eliminated for this coin.
@Torey said:
Is this currently on auction at GC? Looks like it needs to be pulled if it is.
Why?
If the coin is in an auction it's up to the buyer/bidder to LOOK AT THE COIN
I don't think it's up to the auction house to judge the coin, only list it for auction.
Buyer beware!
JMO
I couldn't agree more. The market should decide if a coin is "market acceptable," unless the damage is egregious.
There is no end to that mindset.
Mechanical label error? Let it bid and the market decide!
Tooled? Let it bid and the market decide!
Counterfeit TPG holders? Let it bid and the market decide!
When a mistake is caught, it should be addressed.
I understand that many people like having nannies. I'm not one of them. When an imperfection is obvious, why do you want a third party to decide "if it's glaring enough to get a 'details' grade"? I think the buyer should decide what the buyer is willing to pay. Likewise, if the imperfection is too small to see, who cares?
It is, of course, a strawman to pretend that an obvious scratch is the same as errors or tooling, so I won't bother saying more about that "argument."
Wanting a grading company to grade reasonably accurately isn't the same thing as people liking to have nannies. And the imperfection being discussed has nothing to do with an imperfection being too small to see.
Which is my point exactly. The imperfection is there for anyone to see. Why does it make sense to have a TPG decide for everyone that the coin--genuine, without hidden imperfections--should be consigned to the purgatory of "details" grade?
I know that I'm in the minority, but I don't want a TPG imposing its subjective opinion on the market. I want a TPG to tell me if there are difficult-to-see-in-a-photograph flaws (like a whizzing or a harsh cleaning); otherwise, I want th TPG to tell me what grade its details deserve, and let me decide whether obvious flaws make me not want it (or otherwise discount it).
Whether you agree with that or not, all must agree that TPGs have an arbitrary "line" that they apply for whether flaws are "serious enough" to warrant a "details" grade. I'm saying that I see no rational reason why they should be the arbiters for cosmetic matters that any buyer would be able to see. I've seen details-graded coins that I otherwise might have bought, and I've seen straight-graded coins (some even with a CAC sticker) that were so ugly I wouldn't touch them. Rather than have a TPG be the arbiter of what I should consider market-acceptable, I'm saying that each buyer should decide that.
@PerryHall said:
Definitely looks like a staple scratch. This coin should have received a details grade. @ianrussell Do you ever pull auction lots when the coin has damage that is not noted on the slab label?
Yes - I wish I had seen this during the auction. Just called the winning bidder who is going to send back to us. It certainly looks like a scratch from the image. CAC immediately offered their guarantee, and I'm sure PCGS would too. As someone else pointed out - a very rare occurrence.
This coin has also been removed from Guess the Grade, and previous guesses all eliminated for this coin.
@Torey said:
Is this currently on auction at GC? Looks like it needs to be pulled if it is.
Why?
If the coin is in an auction it's up to the buyer/bidder to LOOK AT THE COIN
I don't think it's up to the auction house to judge the coin, only list it for auction.
Buyer beware!
JMO
I couldn't agree more. The market should decide if a coin is "market acceptable," unless the damage is egregious.
There is no end to that mindset.
Mechanical label error? Let it bid and the market decide!
Tooled? Let it bid and the market decide!
Counterfeit TPG holders? Let it bid and the market decide!
When a mistake is caught, it should be addressed.
I understand that many people like having nannies. I'm not one of them. When an imperfection is obvious, why do you want a third party to decide "if it's glaring enough to get a 'details' grade"? I think the buyer should decide what the buyer is willing to pay. Likewise, if the imperfection is too small to see, who cares?
It is, of course, a strawman to pretend that an obvious scratch is the same as errors or tooling, so I won't bother saying more about that "argument."
Wanting a grading company to grade reasonably accurately isn't the same thing as people liking to have nannies. And the imperfection being discussed has nothing to do with an imperfection being too small to see.
Which is my point exactly. The imperfection is there for anyone to see. Why does it make sense to have a TPG decide for everyone that the coin--genuine, without hidden imperfections--should be consigned to the purgatory of "details" grade?
I know that I'm in the minority, but I don't want a TPG imposing its subjective opinion on the market. I want a TPG to tell me if there are difficult-to-see-in-a-photograph flaws (like a whizzing or a harsh cleaning); otherwise, I want th TPG to tell me what grade its details deserve, and let me decide whether obvious flaws make me not want it (or otherwise discount it).
Whether you agree with that or not, all must agree that TPGs have an arbitrary "line" that they apply for whether flaws are "serious enough" to warrant a "details" grade. I'm saying that I see no rational reason why they should be the arbiters for cosmetic matters that any buyer would be able to see. I've seen details-graded coins that I otherwise might have bought, and I've seen straight-graded coins (some even with a CAC sticker) that were so ugly I wouldn't touch them. Rather than have a TPG be the arbiter of what I should consider market-acceptable, I'm saying that each buyer should decide that.
You asked " Why does it make sense to have a TPG decide for everyone that the coin--genuine, without hidden imperfections--should be consigned to the purgatory of "details" grade?"
Because that's part of what they say they do, when getting paid to assess coins. Many years ago, they returned detail-grade coins n "body-bags". However, even though you're opposed to detail-grades, hopefully, you don't think the coin should have received the MS64 straight grade that it did.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@JimTyler said:
You really have to use a light to see it.
>
Have you examined coin ‘in hand’?
I would figure a scratch like that would be visible by just rotating the coin a little, under normal light conditions, but possibly not.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
It should be confiscated by the government and melted, so nobody else gets screwed on $900 worth of junk.
I hope you were trying to be funny because the coin's genuine and has no business being confiscated by the government.
A bit of sarcasm, yes. However, when Roosevelt had the people turn in their gold in 1933 , it should have been voluntarily surrendered then
Edit to add: I cracked out nicer for TDN and his golf buddies.
Two thoughts:
-If you extrapolate millions of coins from TPG's being sent to CAC, eventually the stars will align and they will all miss something. No one is perfect.
-Pictures and lighting can drastically accentuate flaws. I have several coins that the TV magnifies imperfections that are barely noticeable in hand.
@JimTyler said:
You really have to use a light to see it.
>
Have you examined coin ‘in hand’?
I would figure a scratch like that would be visible by just rotating the coin a little, under normal light conditions, but possibly not.
@JimTyler said:
You really have to use a light to see it.
>
Have you examined coin ‘in hand’?
I would figure a scratch like that would be visible by just rotating the coin a little, under normal light conditions, but possibly not.
For the record I am seldom serious. Needing a light to see it versus total darkness makes the scratch go away. Never as funny (if it ever was in the first place) when it needs to be explained.
@Typekat said:
But so far we’ve only seen a part of the ( clearly scratched) reverse!
Now, just for some hypothetical fun:
What if the obverse of this $10 Indian should just happen to look like a nice ‘A’ grade MS67?
1.What would it be worth then, commercially, or to you personally, if it ‘details’ graded for being damaged?
How about if it graded MS65?
There are two links above that show the entire coin. The rest of the coin looks like a 63 IMO.
Here are the Stacks pictures
Sorry, no, Without the reverse scratch, the coin looks like an MS-62. There are way too many marks on the Indian's cheek to grade any higher.
Here is an MS-63 graded example
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Looks more like a strike-through than a scratch. There are very few areas where the metal appears pulled up to either side of the long mark. Compare it to the few nicks on the reverse and the metal is pulled up on either side of those nicks.
Another argument could be made, 4 to 6 graders excluding the owner/submitter viewed this coin. 3 graders plus the finalizer and at least two at CGC. And maybe it was the owner's argument with the company that it's a strike-through and not a scratch. And yes, of course, being such a huge mark, it may not be too popular with collectors.
Anyone here seen the coin in hand besides CG? And they might not know the differences between the two terms.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
^
I like your theory. Let's roll with it for a moment or two. . .
If the 'scratch' as shown is simply a strike through- what about the 'scratch above it- on the eagle's wing swinging up to just below and through the "M" in UNUM?
Because it that isn't a strike-through that scratch would be enough to label this a problem coin, right?
I assume since Ian contacted the winning bidder and they are sending it back, that they have seen it and agree it is a scratch.
Sometimes strike-throughs or other errors will appear as a scratch and be difficult to discern. Looking at Phil's amazing image, I think it's a scratch, but will let everyone know if it's something different when it arrives back. The winning bidder, a long-time client of ours, also missed it when the coin arrived, so it might be difficult to see on some angles.
If the image wasn't so clear, I would still handle the same, but be saying "Let's not jump to conclusions quite yet, until the coin is reviewed".
that's part of what they say they do, when getting paid to assess coins. Many years ago, they returned detail-grade coins n >"body-bags". However, even though you're opposed to detail-grades, hopefully, you don't think the coin should have >received the MS64 straight grade that it did.
I'm merely pointing out that in their process, TPGs make entirely subjective appraisals about how bad "damage" is; they make some arbitrary decision about each, and some get straight-graded, and some don't. We people often disagree on both sides of that--a straight-graded coin shouldn't have received a straight grade (as here), or a details-graded coin should have receive a straight grade. And, given that a details grade results in a huge diminution in value for that coin, I'm merely on a Quixotic quest to let the buyer decide how much to deduct for any obvious damage. I'm sure that you agree that the decision on whether to give a details grade sometimes is very close; given that it makes a huge difference in the market value of the coin, I'm suggesting that it's a flawed system. And getting more flawed, IMO, as CAC gains traction.
To answer your question: Given how TPGs work, if that problem on the reverse of that gold coin is a scratch, I do not think that it should have received a straight grade (much less CAC approval). But, again, I don't like how the system works.
that's part of what they say they do, when getting paid to assess coins. Many years ago, they returned detail-grade coins n >"body-bags". However, even though you're opposed to detail-grades, hopefully, you don't think the coin should have >received the MS64 straight grade that it did.
I'm merely pointing out that in their process, TPGs make entirely subjective appraisals about how bad "damage" is; they make some arbitrary decision about each, and some get straight-graded, and some don't. We people often disagree on both sides of that--a straight-graded coin shouldn't have received a straight grade (as here), or a details-graded coin should have receive a straight grade. And, given that a details grade results in a huge diminution in value for that coin, I'm merely on a Quixotic quest to let the buyer decide how much to deduct for any obvious damage. I'm sure that you agree that the decision on whether to give a details grade sometimes is very close; given that it makes a huge difference in the market value of the coin, I'm suggesting that it's a flawed system. And getting more flawed, IMO, as CAC gains traction.
To answer your question: Given how TPGs work, if that problem on the reverse of that gold coin is a scratch, I do not think that it should have received a straight grade (much less CAC approval). But, again, I don't like how the system works.
Thank you. Since you don’t like “subjective appraisals” of damage and decisions regarding detail grades, if you could choose how the system worked, what would you do differently?
By the way, I’ve posted on multiple occasions that often, the decision to award a straight vs. a detail -grade can be just as difficult, subjective and inconsistent as the decision regarding what numerical grade to assign.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
<<< Sometimes strike-throughs or other errors will appear as a scratch and be difficult to discern. Looking at Phil's amazing image, I think it's a scratch, but will let everyone know if it's something different when it arrives back. The winning bidder, a long-time client of ours, also missed it when the coin arrived, so it might be difficult to see on some angles. >>>
I would completely agree that sometimes an online image can make a scratch look far worse and/or more noticeable that it actually is in hand.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Comments
There are two links above that show the entire coin. The rest of the coin looks like a 63 IMO.
Here are the Stacks pictures
Collector, occasional seller
How much scratch could a CAC-man catch if a CAC-man could catch scratch?
I might think that it could have been “net graded’as a 62 perhaps, in an OGH during days past.
All this happening in more recent times is baffling.
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
Maybe it turned in the holder.
Here's the Stacks link 1/8/23 on this coin;
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-11GTWK/1932-indian-eagle-ms-64-pcgs-cac
...same.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
A real head-scratcher indeed. Or is it a tail-scratcher because the scratch is on the reverse?
I cannot believe what I'm seeing. No way that scratch got by PCGS and CAC. I feel like the holder was somehow pried open and the coin was replaced with a dud. Wish there was a True View of the coin when it was graded.
that's got to be the biggest staple scratch I've ever seen
Happened in house at the mint and there was documentation when it was submitted to that effect.....
Seriously--the question is what type of scenario would have created it if it is a human created scratch where the line would have been crooked as on the coin? Are we sure it isn't something else than someone using a sharp object to scratch that gold coin?
There is no way on earth that PCGS would have missed a major scratch with cac endorsing it as well, something more like a planchet flaw.
That is an absolutely huge scratch. And this isn't the first coin that I've seen that has a huge scratch graded ms by pcgs with cac approval.
Apparently things get through from time to time.
Okay, I withdraw my hypothetical scenario (MS67 obverse, damaged reverse) since we can see both sides now.
And it ain’t pretty.
What can you say? Inexplicable stuff happens!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
Unfortunately that scratch is too big to ignore.
I agree that I think the coin’s holder was tampered with and the coin switched. The interesting thing in this scenario is that if the new owner now submits the coin back to pcgs under their guarantee service, pcgs will deny the claim because the tampered holder. Ultimately leading to this coin back in the marketplace to be sold again and again. How is the coin community going to be protected if this continues? How does this end?
In my opinion, the coin was not switched (of course anything is possible here) because I have seen and posted about another coin that was pcgs graded and cac approved. It did have a truview and it had large scatches on both obverse and reverse. That coin no longer exists in the database when looking up the cert. number.
Always, always look at the coin if you are spending thousands and thousands. I would be curious to know if cac takes photos of coins that pass for their own protection and can review and confirm if this is the coin that was submitted.
It should be confiscated by the government and melted, so nobody else gets screwed on $900 worth of junk.
I hope you were trying to be funny because the coin's genuine and has no business being confiscated by the government.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Scratch and sniff coin? I know we are going by photos but there is no way that's a die crack.
This is when I wish that PCGS would photo every coin that they grade.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
I understand that many people like having nannies. I'm not one of them. When an imperfection is obvious, why do you want a third party to decide "if it's glaring enough to get a 'details' grade"? I think the buyer should decide what the buyer is willing to pay. Likewise, if the imperfection is too small to see, who cares?
It is, of course, a strawman to pretend that an obvious scratch is the same as errors or destruction that might not be seen in a photo, like tooling, so I won't bother saying more about that "argument."
it's going to take a lot of putty
Wanting a grading company to grade reasonably accurately isn't the same thing as people liking to have nannies. And the imperfection being discussed has nothing to do with an imperfection being too small to see.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Just wondering if the graders and stickerers get in a hurry, are dazzled by the luster, and don't bother with a loupe. Reducing the image to actual coin size, the scratches could be overlooked.
I have seen much deeper scratches with straight grades and stickers, and could provide references to those coins.
IMO MS60.
Looks like a rare miss by both services. Hopefully someone along the ownership chain will turn it in. The obverse isn't so hot either.
Dare I say it - possible strike throughs on reverse? HST - obverse is pretty beat up with deepish nicks...........
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Considerably less
It belongs in a Details holder and should NOT be in gem plastic (or any straight grade for that matter).
JMHO, of course.....
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Yes - I wish I had seen this during the auction. Just called the winning bidder who is going to send back to us. It certainly looks like a scratch from the image. CAC immediately offered their guarantee, and I'm sure PCGS would too. As someone else pointed out - a very rare occurrence.
This coin has also been removed from Guess the Grade, and previous guesses all eliminated for this coin.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
Which is my point exactly. The imperfection is there for anyone to see. Why does it make sense to have a TPG decide for everyone that the coin--genuine, without hidden imperfections--should be consigned to the purgatory of "details" grade?
I know that I'm in the minority, but I don't want a TPG imposing its subjective opinion on the market. I want a TPG to tell me if there are difficult-to-see-in-a-photograph flaws (like a whizzing or a harsh cleaning); otherwise, I want th TPG to tell me what grade its details deserve, and let me decide whether obvious flaws make me not want it (or otherwise discount it).
Whether you agree with that or not, all must agree that TPGs have an arbitrary "line" that they apply for whether flaws are "serious enough" to warrant a "details" grade. I'm saying that I see no rational reason why they should be the arbiters for cosmetic matters that any buyer would be able to see. I've seen details-graded coins that I otherwise might have bought, and I've seen straight-graded coins (some even with a CAC sticker) that were so ugly I wouldn't touch them. Rather than have a TPG be the arbiter of what I should consider market-acceptable, I'm saying that each buyer should decide that.
If it is a scratch as it appears I'm confident J/A will try to buy this back, remove the sticker, and make the owner whole.
class act
@ianrussell Thank you and a salute to everyone involved in making this right.
You really have to use a light to see it.
You asked " Why does it make sense to have a TPG decide for everyone that the coin--genuine, without hidden imperfections--should be consigned to the purgatory of "details" grade?"
Because that's part of what they say they do, when getting paid to assess coins. Many years ago, they returned detail-grade coins n "body-bags". However, even though you're opposed to detail-grades, hopefully, you don't think the coin should have received the MS64 straight grade that it did.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Great job, Ian. It is what we wish to happen, but do not really expect. Thank you.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
>
Have you examined coin ‘in hand’?
I would figure a scratch like that would be visible by just rotating the coin a little, under normal light conditions, but possibly not.
A bit of sarcasm, yes. However, when Roosevelt had the people turn in their gold in 1933 , it should have been voluntarily surrendered then
Edit to add: I cracked out nicer for TDN and his golf buddies.
Two thoughts:
-If you extrapolate millions of coins from TPG's being sent to CAC, eventually the stars will align and they will all miss something. No one is perfect.
-Pictures and lighting can drastically accentuate flaws. I have several coins that the TV magnifies imperfections that are barely noticeable in hand.
That scratch is visible from the ISS.
Edited:
(Why add fuel to the fire.)
peacockcoins
Not good 👎 😢
For the record I am seldom serious. Needing a light to see it versus total darkness makes the scratch go away. Never as funny (if it ever was in the first place) when it needs to be explained.
Sorry, no, Without the reverse scratch, the coin looks like an MS-62. There are way too many marks on the Indian's cheek to grade any higher.
Here is an MS-63 graded example
Looks more like a strike-through than a scratch. There are very few areas where the metal appears pulled up to either side of the long mark. Compare it to the few nicks on the reverse and the metal is pulled up on either side of those nicks.
Another argument could be made, 4 to 6 graders excluding the owner/submitter viewed this coin. 3 graders plus the finalizer and at least two at CGC. And maybe it was the owner's argument with the company that it's a strike-through and not a scratch. And yes, of course, being such a huge mark, it may not be too popular with collectors.
Anyone here seen the coin in hand besides CG? And they might not know the differences between the two terms.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
^
I like your theory. Let's roll with it for a moment or two. . .
If the 'scratch' as shown is simply a strike through- what about the 'scratch above it- on the eagle's wing swinging up to just below and through the "M" in UNUM?
Because it that isn't a strike-through that scratch would be enough to label this a problem coin, right?
peacockcoins
Has anyone seen this “scratch”?
I assume since Ian contacted the winning bidder and they are sending it back, that they have seen it and agree it is a scratch.
Collector, occasional seller
Someone (Grader) didn't get much sleep the night before
What are the 2 staple looking things on the eagle's breast & wings. Maybe that might help determine what happened on reverse.
@ChrisH821 said:
Sometimes strike-throughs or other errors will appear as a scratch and be difficult to discern. Looking at Phil's amazing image, I think it's a scratch, but will let everyone know if it's something different when it arrives back. The winning bidder, a long-time client of ours, also missed it when the coin arrived, so it might be difficult to see on some angles.
If the image wasn't so clear, I would still handle the same, but be saying "Let's not jump to conclusions quite yet, until the coin is reviewed".
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
whatever it is, it must be light and only seen well at one angle. How else could it have been missed by both PCGS and CAC?
I'm merely pointing out that in their process, TPGs make entirely subjective appraisals about how bad "damage" is; they make some arbitrary decision about each, and some get straight-graded, and some don't. We people often disagree on both sides of that--a straight-graded coin shouldn't have received a straight grade (as here), or a details-graded coin should have receive a straight grade. And, given that a details grade results in a huge diminution in value for that coin, I'm merely on a Quixotic quest to let the buyer decide how much to deduct for any obvious damage. I'm sure that you agree that the decision on whether to give a details grade sometimes is very close; given that it makes a huge difference in the market value of the coin, I'm suggesting that it's a flawed system. And getting more flawed, IMO, as CAC gains traction.
To answer your question: Given how TPGs work, if that problem on the reverse of that gold coin is a scratch, I do not think that it should have received a straight grade (much less CAC approval). But, again, I don't like how the system works.
Thank you. Since you don’t like “subjective appraisals” of damage and decisions regarding detail grades, if you could choose how the system worked, what would you do differently?
By the way, I’ve posted on multiple occasions that often, the decision to award a straight vs. a detail -grade can be just as difficult, subjective and inconsistent as the decision regarding what numerical grade to assign.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
<<< Sometimes strike-throughs or other errors will appear as a scratch and be difficult to discern. Looking at Phil's amazing image, I think it's a scratch, but will let everyone know if it's something different when it arrives back. The winning bidder, a long-time client of ours, also missed it when the coin arrived, so it might be difficult to see on some angles. >>>
I would completely agree that sometimes an online image can make a scratch look far worse and/or more noticeable that it actually is in hand.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.