@TrickleCharge said:
I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.
Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.
Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.
Maybe so, but I have heard of potential buyers who have reached out directly to auction houses to ask their opinion of coins coming up for sale. The auction house will let them know if they think a coin is good for the grade, offer an opinion on luster or hairlines, etc. For all we know the buyer in 2023 called and Heritage told them the coin is labeled altered surfaces, but it's not a clear cut details coin and they could see it grading straight. If they are willing to do that for buyers, they should also offer their opinion to sellers when a coin could benefit from a resubmission.
@jmlanzaf said:
I didn't. My question was largely rhetorical. It received the answer I suspected. The point being that he didn't feel the need to pay it backwards so why does he feel he was missing out by someone selling it 2 years later for more.
He said that the dealer he bought it from didn't think it was a proof.
Apples and oranges, as you said nobody owes anyone anything so there is no reason to "pay it backwards". If he bought it cheap that is on the dealer as the dealer had it in hand and had the opportunity to make a greater profit if he had the knowledge. I agree that the submitter is not due any of the subsequent profit from the second sale. However, if PCGS had not blown it on the first grading event he would likely have realized more from the first sale. As such he did in fact miss out and was harmed by the incorrect first grading result. The fact that he may have received a windfall does not negate the fact that the incorrect first grading result very likely resulted in a low auction outcome. You cannot claim that its "ok" by assuming that he made a nice profit anyway.
@TrickleCharge said:
I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.
Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.
Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.
Maybe so, but I have heard of potential buyers who have reached out directly to auction houses to ask their opinion of coins coming up for sale. The auction house will let them know if they think a coin is good for the grade, offer an opinion on luster or hairlines, etc. For all we know the buyer in 2023 called and Heritage told them the coin is labeled altered surfaces, but it's not a clear cut details coin and they could see it grading straight. If they are willing to do that for buyers, they should also offer their opinion to sellers when a coin could benefit from a resubmission.
Heritage does that for its consignors and I’d be very surprised if other auction houses don’t do the same for theirs.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
I didn't. My question was largely rhetorical. It received the answer I suspected. The point being that he didn't feel the need to pay it backwards so why does he feel he was missing out by someone selling it 2 years later for more.
He said that the dealer he bought it from didn't think it was a proof.
Apples and oranges, as you said nobody owes anyone anything so there is no reason to "pay it backwards". If he bought it cheap that is on the dealer as the dealer had it in hand and had the opportunity to make a greater profit if he had the knowledge. I agree that the submitter is not due any of the subsequent profit from the second sale. However, if PCGS had not blown it on the first grading event he would likely have realized more from the first sale. As such he did in fact miss out and was harmed by the incorrect first grading result. The fact that he may have received a windfall does not negate the fact that the incorrect first grading result very likely resulted in a low auction outcome. You cannot claim that its "ok" by assuming that he made a nice profit anyway.
That's not what I said if you read my entire posts. I said nothing about the windfall making it okay. What i said is that just as he is entitled to his windfall earned by his superior knowledge to the original dealer, the subsequent seller is entitled to his windfall based on his superior knowledge and efforts.
What I said prior to that is that the responsibility for proceeding with the sale is his. He had recourse before the hammer. He has no recourse after the hammer.
Would it have been nice if the first opinion agreed with the second? Certainly. But numerous coins have been bought, conserved and sold for more. Other coins have been bought, submitted multiple times to get the desired result and then sold for more. Etc. It's the nature of the hobby.
I've sold numerous coins over the years that the buyer made money on. The most that I'm aware of is $4,000 not $40,000 but I'm not licking ny wounds over it. I made the sale, it's on me not ANACS (who graded the coin i sold).
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The grading saga aside, I find is fascinating that this extraordinary coin surfaced in Europe! Too bad we don’t know the coin’s provenance - was it originally a gift to Dutch royalty or perhaps a Dutch diplomat?
It reminds me of the SP Walking Liberty Half (1936 I believe) that surfaced in Europe a few years ago.
Also, unless I missed something, PCGS never told the submitter what the reason was for the “Altered Surfaces” grade - for a coin of that value I would hope they would be willing to disclose that.
@TrickleCharge said:
I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.
Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.
Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.
Maybe so, but I have heard of potential buyers who have reached out directly to auction houses to ask their opinion of coins coming up for sale. The auction house will let them know if they think a coin is good for the grade, offer an opinion on luster or hairlines, etc. For all we know the buyer in 2023 called and Heritage told them the coin is labeled altered surfaces, but it's not a clear cut details coin and they could see it grading straight. If they are willing to do that for buyers, they should also offer their opinion to sellers when a coin could benefit from a resubmission.
Heritage does that for its consignors and I’d be very surprised if other auction houses don’t do the same for theirs.
@Connecticoin said:
The grading saga aside, I find is fascinating that this extraordinary coin surfaced in Europe! Too bad we don’t know the coin’s provenance - was it originally a gift to Dutch royalty or perhaps a Dutch diplomat?
It reminds me of the SP Walking Liberty Half (1936 I believe) that surfaced in Europe a few years ago.
Also, unless I missed something, PCGS never told the submitter what the reason was for the “Altered Surfaces” grade - for a coin of that value I would hope they would be willing to disclose that.
@Connecticoin
The person who sold me the Peace Dollar had taken it out of a U.S. coin album that he had just purchased himself,
He removed the Peace Dollar from the album and listed it online.
I first saw the listing while having dinner with my wife and kids, and I immediately contacted him. He told me his asking price, and I drove to his house to buy it.
When I was there, I asked to look inside the album. It contained only U.S. coins, and I decided to buy two additional coins from that very same album.
After I later sold the Peace Dollar, I sent those two extra coins to the buyer because I thought they should stay together. I never learned who the buyer was I had to send them through a dealer that had contacted me.
After the sale of the PR63 Peace Dollar, I contacted PCGS. They told me they understood my frustration and said they would call me.
They never put anything in writing, but I did receive two phone calls from someone higher up at PCGS. At first, I thought they were going to apologize, but instead, they explained that their graders had seen signs of dipping on the coin, which voided the grade guarantee. They also mentioned something about the coin being in an NGC holder at one point and that no notes had been taken during the first grading.
I asked PCGS for the NGC certification number and the grade the coin had received there, but they never responded to that request.
During the second phone call, I asked if they could show me exactly where their graders saw signs of dipping. The representative said he would ask the graders, but I have not heard anything back since then.
The dipping claim is a bit ironic because I suggested to both Heritage and PCGS if the coin could of been restored at the time. If dipping would of solved my grade problem back then I would of been very pleased with that.
I had send them this back in 2022
.matt.leclef@gmail.com Onderwerp: Peace dollar 1922 high relief Datum: 7 december 2022 om 12:11:25 CET
Aan: info@pcgs.com Goodmorning,
I submitted a coin through heritage auctions to send for grading at Pcgs. Here is my coin certification code: 46595995
It says UNC DETAILS Alt.surface. I would like to know why they chose to call it that. What is the reason behind?
Is it damage to the coin that could have been restored by dipping or is it irreparable? Thank you for answering my questions:-)
Best regards,
The reply from PCGS did not state what was wrong with the coin itself.
They just explained in very general terms what UNC DETAILS - Altered surfaces means as a category with a link to their website. so my original question was never truly answered.
@Connecticoin said:
The grading saga aside, I find is fascinating that this extraordinary coin surfaced in Europe! Too bad we don’t know the coin’s provenance - was it originally a gift to Dutch royalty or perhaps a Dutch diplomat?
It reminds me of the SP Walking Liberty Half (1936 I believe) that surfaced in Europe a few years ago.
Also, unless I missed something, PCGS never told the submitter what the reason was for the “Altered Surfaces” grade - for a coin of that value I would hope they would be willing to disclose that.
You're probably thinking of the 1933-S Walking Liberty half dollar that was posted here years ago. And while it looked specially made to me, to my knowledge, it never publicly surfaced in the holder of a major grading company.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Luciuscoins thanks for the additional perspective. If the coin was merely “dipped” the “Altered Surfaces” seems odd, as I would think a “dip” would only impair the luster and result in a PR58 grade at worst. Altered surfaces typically means movement of metal such as smoothing, whizzing, spot removal, etc.
At the end of the day with a second look by PCGS and a third look by CAC, my sense is the PR63 is the right grade.
That's not what I said if you read my entire posts. I said nothing about the windfall making it okay. What i said is that just as he is entitled to his windfall earned by his superior knowledge to the original dealer, the subsequent seller is entitled to his windfall based on his superior knowledge and efforts.
I did read your entire post, here is the thing. We don't know how much the original submitter made as he has not disclosed the original purchase price, so you are making an assumption by saying that he had a "windfall" Additionally he has said that he expected it to grade as PF63 which it did later on. So he was not fully rewarded for his superior knowledge due to the incorrect first grading opinion.
What I said prior to that is that the responsibility for proceeding with the sale is his. He had recourse before the hammer. He has no recourse after the hammer.
But did he actually have full control of the situation? I have never used Heritage to grade/auction a coin, but I get the feeling that Heritage is not in the business of evaluating the grades on the coins it submits for a client. So I doubt that the original submitter had the option of saying "hold the phone we need to resubmit this coin". But again I have never used Heritage for this service so I am not sure just how much control over the process from grading to auction the submitter had/has.
>
@jmlanzaf said:
Would it have been nice if the first opinion agreed with the second? Certainly. But numerous coins have been bought, conserved and sold for more. Other coins have been bought, submitted multiple times to get the desired result and then sold for more. Etc. It's the nature of the hobby.
I've sold numerous coins over the years that the buyer made money on. The most that I'm aware of is $4,000 not $40,000 but I'm not licking ny wounds over it. I made the sale, it's on me not ANACS (who graded the coin i sold).
I do agree with you here, it is not news that over the past 10-15 years we have seen many big money coins jump up in grades and the corresponding huge value increases at auction. But just because it has and will happen in the future does not make it right or ok. While you may not care I suspect that a few who have been burned in this way do. And I don't think it is fair to brush off the fact that he lost out on 40K because of that first grade opinion and call it business as usual.
With all respect to the original HA consignor, he got a very strong price for a Details coin in 2023. That tells me at least two people looked at the coin and thought they could get it in a straight holder. Almost $150,000 for a details Peace Dollar? As a comparator, a PCGS PR64 sold for $158K in 2017.
Grading is subjective and that whether a coin is a details grade or straight grade can be a very close call. The things the video was zooming in on do not scream DETAILS! to me Fifteen years ago, I submitted Buffalos multiple times to get them in straight holders because PCGS was jumpy about the Chicago effect (Buffalo collectors from then know what I am speaking about).
Here, if the original consignor was unhappy about the Details grade, he could have insisted that HA resubmit. There is a two year gap between sales and the buyer in 2023 may have submitted many times before getting it in a straight holder. So don't assume the 2025 seller got a windfall.
These results are just realities of the market that always feel a bit tilted against the uninitiated.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@Connecticoin said:
If the coin was merely “dipped” the “Altered Surfaces” seems odd, as I would think a “dip” would only impair the luster and result in a PR58 grade at worst. Altered surfaces typically means movement of metal such as smoothing, whizzing, spot removal, etc.
.
PCGS defines Altered Surfaces, code 94, as the addition of 'something' to hide or improve the coin. Below is screenshot of the wording. The metal moving type is under Damage. A couple screenshots of the applicable wording under Damage code 98.
Some altered surfaces can be conserved (is that the best wording) to make the coin acceptable. Puttied gold or thumbed silver, don't know why I think silver for thumbing, are examples. There may be other problems to show up after.
@breakdown said:
1. With all respect to the original HA consignor, he got a very strong price for a Details coin in 2023. That tells me at least two people looked at the coin and thought they could get it in a straight holder. Almost $150,000 for a details Peace Dollar? As a comparator, a PCGS PR64 sold for $158K in 2017.
2. Grading is subjective and that whether a coin is a details grade or straight grade can be a very close call. The things the video was zooming in on do not scream DETAILS! to me Fifteen years ago, I submitted Buffalos multiple times to get them in straight holders because PCGS was jumpy about the Chicago effect (Buffalo collectors from then know what I am speaking about).
3. Here, if the original consignor was unhappy about the Details grade, he could have insisted that HA resubmit. There is a two year gap between sales and the buyer in 2023 may have submitted many times before getting it in a straight holder so don't assume the 2025 seller got a windfall.
4. These results are just realities of the market that always feel a bit tilted against the uninitiated.
At the time, I compared my coin with the 2021 sale of a PR64 example through Heritage, which sold for $198,000. Based on that, I thought my coin was a PR63 and guessed it might bring around $200,000 at auction.
I wasn’t very experienced back then I believe my best Peace Dollar was a 1922 MS64, and I had only been collecting for about a year. I showed the coin to several dealers through Instagram and most of them also thought it could grade PR63.
All I really want to say is that everyone should have the same chance when it comes to grading. I did try to get the coin reviewed for a better grade, but at the time that just wasn’t an option.
I trusted PCGS’s judgment they are the top grading company, and I assumed several graders must have looked at the coin because of how rare it is. That’s why it was such a surprise to see the coin reappear two years later, looking the same, but now in a PR63 holder. I know grading isn’t an exact science, but it made me feel like I should have had more chances and a bit more conversation about the coin.
As I mentioned before, I emailed both Heritage and PCGS about the “Altered Surfaces” grade, but no solutions were offered, even when I asked if dipping might have helped solve the Altered Surface.
In the end, I’m still grateful for the whole experience, and I don’t think anyone acted in bad faith I just feel things could have gone a little differently.
This will be my final reply. I have to get back to cooking , it’s my full time job, and honestly, this whole situation has been keeping me up at night for a long time now even though it really shouldn’t.
@Luciuscoins try to focus on the positives of your experience, not the negatives. It sounds like you were the first one who realized what this coin was. That is an accomplishment in itself. Thank you for sharing your story here. I believe it will show those newer to the hobby that grades can change and while auction houses may try to help, a consigner shouldn't feel pressured or assume that their advice is always the best course.
I agree with the above, you made 6 figures on a single coin, take the win. While the coin could have straight graded the first time around you still did better than 99.9+% of the cherry pickers out there. You may have lost out on some money, but I think chances are that many bidders saw this coin in hand and knew it was not a details coin.
My irritation with the situation is that it seems the first grading was not handled with the care and attention it should have been.
@Connecticoin said:
If the coin was merely “dipped” the “Altered Surfaces” seems odd, as I would think a “dip” would only impair the luster and result in a PR58 grade at worst. Altered surfaces typically means movement of metal such as smoothing, whizzing, spot removal, etc.
.
PCGS defines Altered Surfaces, code 94, as the addition of 'something' to hide or improve the coin. Below is screenshot of the wording. The metal moving type is under Damage. A couple screenshots of the applicable wording under Damage code 98.
Some altered surfaces can be conserved (is that the best wording) to make the coin acceptable. Puttied gold or thumbed silver, don't know why I think silver for thumbing, are examples. There may be other problems to show up after.
.
DAMAGED CODE 98:
.
.
Thanks for that, I was recalling some coins I submitted that were whizzed and were labeled 94. So on the OPs coin it may have had something added (like lacquer) that was removed before the coin was re-submitted and got a 63.
I've had multiple coins initially come back in details holders where I didn't agree, and resubmitted them and they came back in straight graded holders - albeit more in the 4 figure status. Of course I have the benefit of hindsight here.
You were awarded quite a finders fee - the crackout game is an expensive one. Consider their ROI to yours.
@Luciuscoins I had a comparable experience with a 1920 Saint that was graded MS64 before “plus” grades were implemented. It was a PQ coin that I thought deserved a “+” and submitted it twice, but came back 64 both times. I needed some cash so I sold it on GC and it got a premium price ($9,800). Sure enough, I check the cert 3 months later and it is now in a 64+ holder, worth over $20k.
The ($10k) lesson I learned, is that if you believe in a coin, keep trying - I have heard stories on this board of 3 to 4 tries before it got in the holder the submitter believed it should be in.
The OP's use of the word "opinion" in the title sums it all up. And opinions are like.....ya know. I have stopped wasting any money on TPG opinions. There's more that goes on behind closed doors than is let out into the community. And that too is an opinion.
I agree that TPGs are cavalier about offering opinions-the fact that they offer and charge for reconsideration is prima facia (sp) evidence of that IMHO. I think the OP can take solice in a couple things, being good enough to spot this and have the conviction to carry it through, and turning a nice profit. The difference between the two sale might well be close to the random fluctuati I n of auction prices, and he may not have gotten much more if he sold it originally as a pf63
I think what the original buyer is looking for is restitution of some sort but what he got is the valuable lesson that each and every owner learns; that maximizing the value of their asset presale is their responsibility alone. He wouldn't be offering a 48k refund if he had sold a 63 that got cracked and came back alt surfaces and then auctioned for 25% percent less.
The funny part is aren't all Matte Proofs from that era technically " Altered Surfaces". I think the coin is a gem of a 63 but an auction house isn't going to play the resubmission game esp for a new customer. I also agree with @breakdown that the coin sold for (upgradeable) money and the seller got lucky at 150k. The 48k for the risk and time between sales is about right on an 150K investment. What the owner should have known is there was no downside for a couple of additional tries at that pricepoint. He got the coin back in the worst possible holder and had nothing to lose shooting for better.
@Connecticoin said:
The grading saga aside, I find is fascinating that this extraordinary coin surfaced in Europe! Too bad we don’t know the coin’s provenance - was it originally a gift to Dutch royalty or perhaps a Dutch diplomat?
It reminds me of the SP Walking Liberty Half (1936 I believe) that surfaced in Europe a few years ago.
Also, unless I missed something, PCGS never told the submitter what the reason was for the “Altered Surfaces” grade - for a coin of that value I would hope they would be willing to disclose that.
You're probably thinking of the 1933-S Walking Liberty half dollar that was posted here years ago. And while it looked specially made to me, to my knowledge, it never publicly surfaced in the holder of a major grading company.
Yes, 1933-S. I tried to find that thread but the forum search tool is not working for me - so if anyone can find it and link it I would appreciate it.
Comments
Maybe so, but I have heard of potential buyers who have reached out directly to auction houses to ask their opinion of coins coming up for sale. The auction house will let them know if they think a coin is good for the grade, offer an opinion on luster or hairlines, etc. For all we know the buyer in 2023 called and Heritage told them the coin is labeled altered surfaces, but it's not a clear cut details coin and they could see it grading straight. If they are willing to do that for buyers, they should also offer their opinion to sellers when a coin could benefit from a resubmission.
Apples and oranges, as you said nobody owes anyone anything so there is no reason to "pay it backwards". If he bought it cheap that is on the dealer as the dealer had it in hand and had the opportunity to make a greater profit if he had the knowledge. I agree that the submitter is not due any of the subsequent profit from the second sale. However, if PCGS had not blown it on the first grading event he would likely have realized more from the first sale. As such he did in fact miss out and was harmed by the incorrect first grading result. The fact that he may have received a windfall does not negate the fact that the incorrect first grading result very likely resulted in a low auction outcome. You cannot claim that its "ok" by assuming that he made a nice profit anyway.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Heritage does that for its consignors and I’d be very surprised if other auction houses don’t do the same for theirs.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's not what I said if you read my entire posts. I said nothing about the windfall making it okay. What i said is that just as he is entitled to his windfall earned by his superior knowledge to the original dealer, the subsequent seller is entitled to his windfall based on his superior knowledge and efforts.
What I said prior to that is that the responsibility for proceeding with the sale is his. He had recourse before the hammer. He has no recourse after the hammer.
Would it have been nice if the first opinion agreed with the second? Certainly. But numerous coins have been bought, conserved and sold for more. Other coins have been bought, submitted multiple times to get the desired result and then sold for more. Etc. It's the nature of the hobby.
I've sold numerous coins over the years that the buyer made money on. The most that I'm aware of is $4,000 not $40,000 but I'm not licking ny wounds over it. I made the sale, it's on me not ANACS (who graded the coin i sold).
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The grading saga aside, I find is fascinating that this extraordinary coin surfaced in Europe! Too bad we don’t know the coin’s provenance - was it originally a gift to Dutch royalty or perhaps a Dutch diplomat?
It reminds me of the SP Walking Liberty Half (1936 I believe) that surfaced in Europe a few years ago.
Also, unless I missed something, PCGS never told the submitter what the reason was for the “Altered Surfaces” grade - for a coin of that value I would hope they would be willing to disclose that.
@Connecticoin
The person who sold me the Peace Dollar had taken it out of a U.S. coin album that he had just purchased himself,
He removed the Peace Dollar from the album and listed it online.
I first saw the listing while having dinner with my wife and kids, and I immediately contacted him. He told me his asking price, and I drove to his house to buy it.
When I was there, I asked to look inside the album. It contained only U.S. coins, and I decided to buy two additional coins from that very same album.
After I later sold the Peace Dollar, I sent those two extra coins to the buyer because I thought they should stay together. I never learned who the buyer was I had to send them through a dealer that had contacted me.
After the sale of the PR63 Peace Dollar, I contacted PCGS. They told me they understood my frustration and said they would call me.
They never put anything in writing, but I did receive two phone calls from someone higher up at PCGS. At first, I thought they were going to apologize, but instead, they explained that their graders had seen signs of dipping on the coin, which voided the grade guarantee. They also mentioned something about the coin being in an NGC holder at one point and that no notes had been taken during the first grading.
I asked PCGS for the NGC certification number and the grade the coin had received there, but they never responded to that request.
During the second phone call, I asked if they could show me exactly where their graders saw signs of dipping. The representative said he would ask the graders, but I have not heard anything back since then.
The dipping claim is a bit ironic because I suggested to both Heritage and PCGS if the coin could of been restored at the time. If dipping would of solved my grade problem back then I would of been very pleased with that.
I had send them this back in 2022
.matt.leclef@gmail.com Onderwerp: Peace dollar 1922 high relief Datum: 7 december 2022 om 12:11:25 CET
Aan: info@pcgs.com Goodmorning,
I submitted a coin through heritage auctions to send for grading at Pcgs. Here is my coin certification code: 46595995
It says UNC DETAILS Alt.surface. I would like to know why they chose to call it that. What is the reason behind?
Is it damage to the coin that could have been restored by dipping or is it irreparable? Thank you for answering my questions:-)
Best regards,
The reply from PCGS did not state what was wrong with the coin itself.
They just explained in very general terms what UNC DETAILS - Altered surfaces means as a category with a link to their website. so my original question was never truly answered.
You're probably thinking of the 1933-S Walking Liberty half dollar that was posted here years ago. And while it looked specially made to me, to my knowledge, it never publicly surfaced in the holder of a major grading company.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Luciuscoins thanks for the additional perspective. If the coin was merely “dipped” the “Altered Surfaces” seems odd, as I would think a “dip” would only impair the luster and result in a PR58 grade at worst. Altered surfaces typically means movement of metal such as smoothing, whizzing, spot removal, etc.
At the end of the day with a second look by PCGS and a third look by CAC, my sense is the PR63 is the right grade.
I did read your entire post, here is the thing. We don't know how much the original submitter made as he has not disclosed the original purchase price, so you are making an assumption by saying that he had a "windfall" Additionally he has said that he expected it to grade as PF63 which it did later on. So he was not fully rewarded for his superior knowledge due to the incorrect first grading opinion.
But did he actually have full control of the situation? I have never used Heritage to grade/auction a coin, but I get the feeling that Heritage is not in the business of evaluating the grades on the coins it submits for a client. So I doubt that the original submitter had the option of saying "hold the phone we need to resubmit this coin". But again I have never used Heritage for this service so I am not sure just how much control over the process from grading to auction the submitter had/has.
>
I do agree with you here, it is not news that over the past 10-15 years we have seen many big money coins jump up in grades and the corresponding huge value increases at auction. But just because it has and will happen in the future does not make it right or ok. While you may not care I suspect that a few who have been burned in this way do. And I don't think it is fair to brush off the fact that he lost out on 40K because of that first grade opinion and call it business as usual.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Goes back to the adage of know more than the dealer. I would add.... know as much as the grader.
This due diligence should have been done independently of Heritage before consignment.
I honestly regretted nearly every cherry I have sold.
Interesting story.
Nobody to blame but the OP.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
.
PCGS defines Altered Surfaces, code 94, as the addition of 'something' to hide or improve the coin. Below is screenshot of the wording. The metal moving type is under Damage. A couple screenshots of the applicable wording under Damage code 98.
Some altered surfaces can be conserved (is that the best wording) to make the coin acceptable. Puttied gold or thumbed silver, don't know why I think silver for thumbing, are examples. There may be other problems to show up after.
.
DAMAGED CODE 98:
.
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hYCRaWPlTIE Sophie Lloyd, guitar shred cover of Panama (Van Halen)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=dOV1VrDuUm4 Ted Nugent, Hibernation, Live 1976
RLJ 1958 - 2023
@breakdown
@yspsales @jmlanzaf
Hi,
At the time, I compared my coin with the 2021 sale of a PR64 example through Heritage, which sold for $198,000. Based on that, I thought my coin was a PR63 and guessed it might bring around $200,000 at auction.
I wasn’t very experienced back then I believe my best Peace Dollar was a 1922 MS64, and I had only been collecting for about a year. I showed the coin to several dealers through Instagram and most of them also thought it could grade PR63.
All I really want to say is that everyone should have the same chance when it comes to grading. I did try to get the coin reviewed for a better grade, but at the time that just wasn’t an option.
I trusted PCGS’s judgment they are the top grading company, and I assumed several graders must have looked at the coin because of how rare it is. That’s why it was such a surprise to see the coin reappear two years later, looking the same, but now in a PR63 holder. I know grading isn’t an exact science, but it made me feel like I should have had more chances and a bit more conversation about the coin.
As I mentioned before, I emailed both Heritage and PCGS about the “Altered Surfaces” grade, but no solutions were offered, even when I asked if dipping might have helped solve the Altered Surface.
In the end, I’m still grateful for the whole experience, and I don’t think anyone acted in bad faith I just feel things could have gone a little differently.
This will be my final reply. I have to get back to cooking , it’s my full time job, and honestly, this whole situation has been keeping me up at night for a long time now even though it really shouldn’t.
Take care everyone!
@Luciuscoins try to focus on the positives of your experience, not the negatives. It sounds like you were the first one who realized what this coin was. That is an accomplishment in itself. Thank you for sharing your story here. I believe it will show those newer to the hobby that grades can change and while auction houses may try to help, a consigner shouldn't feel pressured or assume that their advice is always the best course.
I agree with the above, you made 6 figures on a single coin, take the win. While the coin could have straight graded the first time around you still did better than 99.9+% of the cherry pickers out there. You may have lost out on some money, but I think chances are that many bidders saw this coin in hand and knew it was not a details coin.
My irritation with the situation is that it seems the first grading was not handled with the care and attention it should have been.
Collector, occasional seller
Thanks for that, I was recalling some coins I submitted that were whizzed and were labeled 94. So on the OPs coin it may have had something added (like lacquer) that was removed before the coin was re-submitted and got a 63.
I've had multiple coins initially come back in details holders where I didn't agree, and resubmitted them and they came back in straight graded holders - albeit more in the 4 figure status. Of course I have the benefit of hindsight here.
You were awarded quite a finders fee - the crackout game is an expensive one. Consider their ROI to yours.
@Luciuscoins I had a comparable experience with a 1920 Saint that was graded MS64 before “plus” grades were implemented. It was a PQ coin that I thought deserved a “+” and submitted it twice, but came back 64 both times. I needed some cash so I sold it on GC and it got a premium price ($9,800). Sure enough, I check the cert 3 months later and it is now in a 64+ holder, worth over $20k.
The ($10k) lesson I learned, is that if you believe in a coin, keep trying - I have heard stories on this board of 3 to 4 tries before it got in the holder the submitter believed it should be in.
The OP's use of the word "opinion" in the title sums it all up. And opinions are like.....ya know. I have stopped wasting any money on TPG opinions. There's more that goes on behind closed doors than is let out into the community. And that too is an opinion.
USAF veteran 1984-2005
I agree that TPGs are cavalier about offering opinions-the fact that they offer and charge for reconsideration is prima facia (sp) evidence of that IMHO. I think the OP can take solice in a couple things, being good enough to spot this and have the conviction to carry it through, and turning a nice profit. The difference between the two sale might well be close to the random fluctuati I n of auction prices, and he may not have gotten much more if he sold it originally as a pf63
I think what the original buyer is looking for is restitution of some sort but what he got is the valuable lesson that each and every owner learns; that maximizing the value of their asset presale is their responsibility alone. He wouldn't be offering a 48k refund if he had sold a 63 that got cracked and came back alt surfaces and then auctioned for 25% percent less.
The funny part is aren't all Matte Proofs from that era technically " Altered Surfaces". I think the coin is a gem of a 63 but an auction house isn't going to play the resubmission game esp for a new customer. I also agree with @breakdown that the coin sold for (upgradeable) money and the seller got lucky at 150k. The 48k for the risk and time between sales is about right on an 150K investment. What the owner should have known is there was no downside for a couple of additional tries at that pricepoint. He got the coin back in the worst possible holder and had nothing to lose shooting for better.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Yes, 1933-S. I tried to find that thread but the forum search tool is not working for me - so if anyone can find it and link it I would appreciate it.