Options
What's everyone's opinion on why this didn't cross to PCGS?
Seraph21
Posts: 36 ✭✭
Hi everyone, following up on my photography post. I managed to take a nice photo of this 1798/8 10C graded AU55 from NGC. I won this recently, and was a little disappointed that the photos didn't look much like it does in hand. The photo I attached looks almost exactly like it would in hand.
I was trying to cross this over to PCGS with min grade AU50, but they refused to do so. So, what's everyone's opinion on this coin, and why they think it didn't cross?
Tagged:
2
Comments
The images are actually difficult for me to interpret as they are rather dark, but I will guess that PCGS thought there was surface damage (Environmental Damage or ED) specifically on the obverse near the rim.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I'll try to post some brighter photos tomorrow, though the coin itself is fairly dark.
This is the coin on Heritage: https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-dimes/1798-97-10c-16-stars-reverse-jr-1-r3-au55-ngc/a/1367-3251.s
Also, @TomB any tips on numismatic photography? I'm still super new to it.
Environmental damage
What reason did PCGS give you for it not crossing. Was it Min Grade or something else?
Based off the heritage pictures, questionable color
PVC on face for one thing. I would think a lot of them pass on it. What a dog.
I don’t see anything about it being higher than AU50. No way a 55. Yucky tarnish.
Shop it around the bourse at a show. Think they low ball heck out of it?
The coin is very dark, the color is questionable, and there’s possible environmental damage.
Unless I was able to view the coin in hand or have someone view it for me I would be very reluctant to buy an expensive coin like this in an NGC holder without a sticker unless I was an expert.
I really like the stars on the reverse.
Why didn't PCGS cross? Could be any of those mentioned above. I also wonder if it could be ex-jewelry or rim filed. I am looking at obverse above the I, E, R.
I don't see any PVC.
I don't see any corrosion or environmental damage.
No questionable color from the original (not enhanced) photo.
I do see possible "details" coin which would fall below AU50 min. request.
There are scratches on the face down through the neck. Also possible rim damage on obverse.
Collector of what ever looks good to me today.
I also know that if PCGS graders are not certain about a condition of a coin they will just reject it instead of making a judgment on the condition.
Collector of what ever looks good to me today.
They probably think there's something wrong with the coin. Did it come back from PCGS with anything else other than DNC?
Collector
75 Positive BST transactions buying and selling with 45 members and counting!
instagram.com/klnumismatics
we'd all like it more if it was PCGS XF45 gold CAC, still a nice and scarce old dime, love that wonky date
The coin came back from with a tag Cleaned - Details grade. The reverse looks quite nice, and the obverse doesn't look too bad in good lighting. In hand it definitely doesn't look like it has pvc, corrosion, or environmental damage.
Here's another photo, taken with sunlight as the lighting source. Those scratches on the obverse is on the holder.
Another question for you folks. Do you think this coin is worth sending back to NGC for conservation/restoration?
I too would love that. This coin has a very pronounced overdate unlike some other 8/7 examples I've seen.
Nevermind I see they called it cleaned but there is a lot of cleaned early stuff in no problem holders.
Exactly my thoughts Jim. And if it was wiped in the past, it's definitely retoned over. If you look at the photos, the flow lines from the strike is still there too.
The new brighter images show a greyish patch above Ms. Liberty's head and down into the stars... old dip residue?? Other than that, I really dont see anything else...
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.
In the past, NGC was more flexible re darker coins and unusual toning on silver. I don't know if this is the case now. A lot depends on who is grading the coins when they are slabbed.
I see many parallel scratches on the obverse, which may be why the coin was designated as 'cleaned.' They should be able to distinguish scratches on the holder versus on the coin.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
The good:
Excellent Strike
High state of preservation
The bad:
a cleaned obverse
negative toning probably to cover up the rest of the hairlines, there are no coincidences in numismatics
negative eye appeal : stained, extremely dark toning could be artificially added to cover scratches who knows
IMO
That's an interesting take, I never considered that the parallel hairlines would be considered as a side effect of cleaning.
I did mainly bid on this coin due to it's excellent strike as opposed to other 8/7.
Does anyone think i should send over to NCS for conservation, maybe they can get rid of that grayish patch that @lkenefic mentioned? Honestly don't know what could have caused that patch.
I would not worry why it would not cross at AU50. Sell it as a NGC AU55 and buy a PCGS AU50 that you like and you will be money ahead.
On my last batch that were submitted for crossover, I had a NGC examples with a CAC stickers that did not cross at grade.
That's a fair take. It's just such a shame as this coin has such a nice strike.
It's hard to see on this 1798/7 16 stars reverse dime.
Posts not working?
Collector of what ever looks good to me today.
That color adds character to the coin. You don't want to lose that.
Collector of what ever looks good to me today.
No, don't send it to NCS for conservation. It will come back totally white with any hairlines exposed or emphasized. And they will probably slab it a Details coin.
Collector of what ever looks good to me today.
I agree with this logic.
And short of any history or backstory on this coin, seeing it in a newer NGC holder, makes me think the coin may have been tried previously, perhaps multiple times at both services, and it's now likely in its forever tomb.
That said, it's still a very neat coin seldom seen in a higher grade like this.
Based off the heritage pictures an old cleaning with questionable color applied. Lots of detail, but the surfaces are not original.
The link to the HA images was posted after I responded, but I agree with @shish on this in that the reverse, especially, is shouting "I am not original!" Whether the current look is from an old cleaning with secondary toning or from an accelerated process is unknown to me, but it just doesn't look right.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The cleaning would explain the blue/purple re-toning colors. What is wrong with it where it is in an NGC holder?
Here is a nice one
There's nothing wrong with the NGC holder in particular. Just wanted it in a PCGS holder for consistency with the rest of my coins. This was before I learned the lesson of "If you want a coin in a PCGS holder, buy a coin in a PCGS holder".
That's a very pretty coin @RobertScotLover
I only buy PCGS. I do not even look at coins in NGC holders or any other holders or raw coins. It is just too much of a gamble.
I personally think it’s a well-struck, beautiful coin. Come on PCGS, how many pre-1800 coins haven’t been dinked with a little bit over the past decades???
Dave
A coin that has been cleaned a bit in past and toning/colored applied, or re-toned on its own over time. Possibly covering something else like altered surfaces?
I might add, somebody (firm) with some clout got that one thru the first time, or was submitted in period of time when things would get thrueasier, but I would be willing to bet if cracked and resubmitted to NGC a second time, will be same results as PCGS not gradeable this go around.
As they say, the NGC 55 holder is that coin’s coffin (final resting place).
Coin looks cleaned/retoned and I'm not sure why it straight graded.
Sorry.
Professional Numismatist. "It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
Based on the pictures, I agree that it was cleaned and retoned and I feel its questionable toning. Sorry to say, that my suggestion is to sell the coin and move on and find another coin to replace it. This coin won't hold its value and will continue to decrease in value but an original/eye appeal coin will most likely enhance your overall collection. Yeah - It might costs you more but I think its worth it.
I have a complete type set of the prior to 1964 coins. It’s a mixture of PCGS and NGC, and I don’t mind that at all. If you want all PCGS graded coins, then you should buy only coins in those holders. Crossovers are expensive and usually result in a down grade if they work at all.
As for the coin in question, I think it’s been given artificial color. The obverse is especially questionable. Twenty + years ago, NGC was noted for certifying darkly toned silver coins which had originality issues. This appears to be an example of that, although this coin was graded fairly recently given the white prongs.
Nothing can be done to “improve” this coin. The toning is too dark, and will not dip well. It will only look worse.
Here are a couple of early dimes that were PCGS graded. I bought them raw many years ago and had them certified years later.
This 1796 is now in an AU-50 holder. It is a late die state which cost the coin some sharpness. I sent it in thinking I would get an EF-45.
This 1805 is in an AU-58 holder. This was the first high grade early type coin that I acquired when I was in my 20s.
The environmental damage is all over the coin. That's possibly why you don't see it. Look at the purple-black colored patch up the left side of the obverse starting near the "1." It is also above the head. PCGS made the right call.
IMO, absolutely NOT; but I'm not an expert at anything! I just like to run up my post count.
My thought as well, it looks like environmental damage, and or cleaning.
My YouTube Channel
I've improved the lighting in my photography setup. Here's another image. I definitely don't see environmental damage on the coin. Feel free to zoom in, it's a high res photo.
You have been led to the water and shown where to drink. The rest is up to you. You can drink or not but the water is right in front of you now and even easier to see.
Of course. I do believe it's been cleaned myself, that's most likely the source of the splotches on the obverse left. I'm just uploading images because I'm practicing my photography. And like everyone else has said, it's an excellent strike.
Artificially toned to cover previous cleaning or other handiwork? It does not look original to me.