Early Gold Alteration
Proofmorgan
Posts: 826 ✭✭✭✭✭
Will update this group on how the services handle identification of an altered example. I removed the details until the situation is resolved.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
1
Comments
Ugh. Thats my immediate reaction.
That's very disappointing and discouraging. Have you reached out to JA regarding this?
Are you on the CAC forum? I would like to see this posted there.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I’m sorry to hear that.
I’m not a fan of dipping coins, but if it was dipped and nothing else was done to it, I don’t think most people would consider that “doctoring”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I thought that a lot of the impetus behind the origin of CAC was to detect doctoring. Did this one slip past?
I know it's almost Halloween and all, but that's scary !
Wow! Thought that only happened to me. Very discouraging.
Anyone else think it still looks AU?
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Ow.
.
Just my $.02... The only doctoring that I see is in the lighting within the photography, not the coin. There is a clear difference between the two (obverse) images with regard to the source/angle of approach of the light. All of the adjustment marks are there in the TV image, just hard to see the lighter ones imo.
First image - light source is above/North.
TV image - light source is not above/North. A quick glance under the chin, hair curls, or the stars are just three examples showing a different light source and the shadowing effects between the two images.
TPG's & Auction Houses manipulate the image/lighting all the time, good or bad.
And now the images are gone. Ok.
@Proofmorgan Please don’t pull the pictures! This is important information for collectors, regardless of resolution, payouts or whatever the fix is.
While possibly embarrassing for some grading parties, it’s necessary to see and learn from.
Image 1
.
TV image. Lighting source(obverse) is a key factor in this situation imo.
I do not see doctoring. Both sets of photos fail to bring a consistent perspective, which means they are difficult to compare at face value.
Looking closer, what is consistent are the small toning spots, protected areas of dirt, and light contact marks that would be removed with even the slightest doctoring. This coin is untouched in my opinion. I am judging with the information only found in the post above mine, as the initial information was removed from the OP.
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
I guess opinions change even among the most knowledgeable and experienced. Of course you hate to be on the losing end when that change happens.
I don't see any doctoring.
I do think it's an AU, however. But coins of this period sometimes get a little curve.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
This does not make sense. The coin just sold out of the StacksBowers auction last month as a 55 in an old rattler holder and only realized $26,400 which would indicate the coin is not very nice (I assume that is was looked at by many dealers and knowledgeable collectors) and it wasn't stickered as a 55 (it was sent in by the OP who was the previous owner). The coin then reappears as a 61 with a CAC sticker making its theoretical value almost 100k!
This is depressing for us hobbyists who put so much faith in the safeguards of the industry. Just my two cents. It is why it is so important to know the provenance of a coin - especially anything of serious value. My two bad experiences were when I bought coins that suddenly appeared and I could not trace them at all or were very difficult to find.
I agree, and something similar happened to me last year. I don’t want to buy someone’s recently “made” coin, and I hate being told a story and then finding out the truth after the fact.
Even more recently I saw a nice 5 figure coin with a green sticker sell at auction and then a month later come back with a gold sticker (same holder) priced at 2x. I don’t know the story behind the change, but it made me shake my head.
I remember seeing that coin you mentioned (green to gold). Also made me shake my head, it looked fine with the green but the gold didn't fit.
As to this coin - grading inconsistency is a real thing. Buyers need to grade their coins themselves. I've heard some wild numbers thrown around about how accurate CAC is, but the truth of the matter is that the very best graders usually average 70% consistency on a good day. Some might hit 80% periodically, anything above that is pretty much impossible for the long term.
Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.
“Don't trust the plastic or bean blindly. Use them as a tool, and learn to grade yourself.”
This is a nice sentiment but I’m not sure what it means in this case. Usually “learn to grade” means “learn to predict what the TPGs will grade”. Otherwise what’s the point when pricing and prestige is based off TPG and CAC grading? Isn’t that why people compete in TPG grading contests?
Any grading system needs a source of truth.
In this case, if I graded the coin myself should I have said weak 55 (agreeing with 1989 PCGS and 2025 CAC) or strong 61(agreeing with 2025 PCGS and 2025 CAC)?
Or something in between?
I think I would have said “strong 55” but it’s tough to stand strong when CAC says no.
i didn't see the original post but based on the true view, the coin is doctored on the reverse. the luster on these coins is usually strongest on the reverse. on this coin's reverse, i can see a very muted looking luster that looks almost like saltwater damage...but maybe another chemical did this? the obverse looks good to me...other than the adjustment marks.
In this case, I'd agree with the market saying it's a strong 55 (thus agreeing with the specialists in the series).
I will always trust a specialist over a TPG opinion, to include CAC.
I am going to type out a reply, but must admit that I am flying a bit blind given the OP has taken out all the information and I am inferring the rest from subsequent posts.
If I understand correctly, we are writing about a 1798 half eagle that had been in a PCGS AU55 rattler holder and was subsequently regraded into a new PCGS MS61 holder. As a PCGS AU55 rattler the coin was sold by Stack's Bowers (SB) just last month for $26.4k. The link to that auction is below-
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1KO5Y8/1798-capped-bust-right-half-eagle-heraldic-eagle-bd-6-rarity-6-small-aka-normal-8-au-55-pcgs-ogh-rattler
Subsequently, the coin was regraded by PCGS as an MS61 in a new holder and then sent to CAC and obtained a green bean from CAC. The PCGS cert verification page for the new holder has the following image-
The coin received a CAC green bean as a PCGS MS61 and the CAC verification page is linked below-
https://www.cacgrading.com/lookup/56858243
The thread title has an accusation of "Early Gold Doctoring", but with the removal of the material from the OP and without anyone explicitly stating what they believe the doctoring is, I am left with questions. So, is there evidence of doctoring? I don't see any, especially given the fact that doctoring is a pretty strong accusation to level and that the only images I have of the coin are from two very different sources and generated in very different conditions. The SB image was shot through a plastic slab using their in-house system of lights (temperature and color) while the PCGS TV images were taken of the coin raw (without plastic) and also using their in-house system of lights (temperature and color), which likely do not match.
Below is the pair of obverse images stitched together that show areas where one might want to doctor or manipulate a coin, but where they are apparently unchanged-
The ovals show dirt or debris in an around denticles, the rectangles show a prominent milling mark in the field, and the hexagon shows a decent whack on the cheek. The difference between the two appears to be that some grey schmutz was removed by the date (arrow).
Similarly, here are the reverse images-
The ovals show dirt or debris in the motto and the rectangles show hits on the shield. Again, some grey schmutz was removed where the hexagons are.
So, where is the doctoring? Do I like the coin as an MS61? No. Did I like it better as an AU55. You bet.
I wish the original material was left in the post by the OP.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Could this coin be considered a "slider" between the 55 and 61 grades ? I know we reserve that term for coins that are 58 and then might re-grade into the low-60's but this is a much older, rarer series.
CAC'ing at 61 but not at 55 is what stands out to me. But I'll defer to the experts here...sit back...and try and absorb some knowledge. Could CAC have thought that as a "mediocre" 61 it looked "good" but as a 55 it didn't ?
Lastly, the grading standards in general in 1989 -- and on a series like this -- were probably light-years "tighter" than recent years.
There wasn't much specific information about the alleged doctoring other than the claim and the suggestion that "even the lighter adjustment marks were removed". I see no evidence of doctoring between the original photos and the TV, I think it's just lighting. That may be why the OP removed his original post.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Do we even know that the coin was submitted to CAC when it was in a PCGS AU55 rattler holder? There is no way to determine that from the CAC website and I did not see anywhere in the SB auction listing that mentioned it failed at CAC. So, all we are really left with is that CAC thinks it is fine as an MS61.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
@TomB OP has said cac failed it as a rattler 55 (said it was more of a 53) and that caused OP to decide to sell at a loss.
Ahhh...I hadn't seen that.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
How does all of that happen so quick? Getting the coin from the auction house, sending to PCGS and waiting, then sending to CAC would seem to take much longer. Ig unless you expressed it every way.
Just seeing this post. Great work on the side-by-side comparisons and summary @TomB, as I too, did not see the original images, so thank you. Now, based on all the photos, and taking strike characteristics for that date and variety in mind, I think that coin should grade @ AU-55 all day. MS-61 is a stretch and I believe both entities involved in grading and approving it @ the MS-61 grade really missed the mark.
And, in "missing the mark", appear to have increased the market value by almost $75K. Keep moving folks, nothing to see here . . . . . . .
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins, justindan, doubleeagle07
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me. . . . . . .
@Proofmorgan, as you wait until the situation is resolved, in order to be fair to PCGS and CAC, I suggest that you also remove any references to “doctoring” in your thread title (and elsewhere). As a number of us who have seen the pictures aren’t convinced that “doctoring” occurred.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
WAG here - Another possibility is that the coin was very gently conserved to remove the gray residue mentioned by TomB after being cracked out of the 55 slab. Maybe CAC thought those were suspicious spots on an otherwise original coin.
I'm not sure "altered" is any better. The only alteration we all agree happened was the change in photo lighting.
To the OP: what kind of "alteration" do you think occurred? The toning appears the same so it may not have even been dipped.
There's really only one interesting question: why did CAC not sticker at 55 but did sticker at 61? Even the PCGS change is 25 years later and not really indicative of anything unusual.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Hi All,
I pulled some of the details initially as I wanted to get the full details and investigation, while not rubbing anyone the wrong way or being accusatory to some in the industry that I have deep respect for and what they stand for.
Having owned the coin initially and seeing the true views and holder photos, I can 100% say the coin is the same and has been brightened or dipped in some way. The real question is that it appears some of the lighter adjustment marks seem to be either missing or are much harder to see. Was the coin puttied, smoothed, or did the dipping or lighting just make them less prominent? It was worth further investigation. At the least the coin was altered. If the adjustment marks were altered, I think we can agree it was doctored.
I did send the coin in initially and the feedback was it was an AU coin and would only ever sticker at 53 because adjustment marks make that coin non "choice AU". I did provide feedback about the characteristics of that variety to include adjustment marks and a weak strike. That did not change the outcome. Original quality early gold is my area of focus, so I am typically incredibly thorough.
I personally saw the coin as a lock 55-58 and paid the corresponding guide price out of an estate auction. I did get feedback from other industry specialist who felt similar (based on photos). After all was said and done, I was disappointed and consigned it to auction as a 53 or low end 55 was not something that fits in my set and I do not crack out or alter coins. I chocked it up to a learning experience. At a Stack's rarity sale (high traffic), the coin nets AU50 money.....even in the rattler. Again, I assume I really missed the mark the first time around.
Fast forward to yesterday, a large firm calls and offers me a "fresh new early gold coin". It is the same coin in P61 CAC. Definitely adding insult to injury and worth further review. I made the corresponding individuals aware and it is being reviewed.
This could be an educational opportunity for myself and others on what is market acceptable with early gold.... or maybe it was just an industry miss. I have confidence that the appropriate resolution will happen.
This is not the first time I have seen premium original AU coins stripped into 61-62 holders. The services as well as the market, at times, reward this behavior. Some make a living at doing just that. You have to question whether you need to dip your AU coins with high spot toning before the time comes to sell to come out on top. As a purist, that is not something I'd be willing to do.
See a few images below. There was originally "rub" on the hair and bust of the obverse. The adjustment marks also look far less prominent on the 61 CAC. Again, this could range from lighting to doctoring. The coin was no where near as bright or had as much lines when I owned it. Note the reeding mark behind the hair, the hit on the cheek, and the dentril dirt spots as identifiers. I think it's in the best interest of the hobby to perform due diligence on this example.
Calling this anything above AU is unreasonable to me.
An industry leading authority holding adjustment marks against an AU55 is unreasonable to me.
That same industry authority then accepting the same coin as a higher grade is unreasonable to me.
Collector, occasional seller
@TomB and @Proofmorgan , nice analysis, really tough to feel confident via pictures. Following this closely.
Just for another side by side view, SB AU55 photos vs new TV.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I agree with your first and third points, but when was it mentioned that adjustment marks were the reason it failed CAC?
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Regardless of how different the coin looks in the posted pictures, I’d be shocked if the adjustment marks were “altered” in any way. And while I think it’s possible that the coin was dipped, even if so, my guess is that nothing was done to it beyond that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The adjustment marks were the reason the coin failed CAC At 55. The feedback was that they'd sticker it at 53 due to the adjustment marks.
As a side note: I was personally wary that the coin had failed due to the "X's" in the left reverse wing by the shield. I thought maybe they had viewed it as graffiti initially. But, research demonstrates that this presents on a few other examples that have sold, so it must be characteristic of the die or planchet in this variety.
I am so glad that I am retired now.
I have no allegiance to any party in this thread. But going by two not-so-great photos, calling the coin UNC at any level seems like a stretch. And I wouldn't complain either about those sizable adjustment marks causing a "silent net grade" down by a level even if they are as-struck and are not supposed to affect the grade.
Official PCGS account of:
www.TallahasseeCoinClub.com
What I also thought was "grey schmutz" seems to be debris (probably plastic) inside the holder rather than on the coin.
By looking at and enlarging the slab photos from the Stack's Bowers auction, those spots are in a slightly different location compared to the first two photos in the same lot as shown in posts above. So they are something loose moving around on the coin.
Not seeing any clear cut evidence that anything was done to the coin that can't be explained by lighting and photography unless I'm missing something that was in the now edited OP.
What accounts for the changing grade opinions by PCGS and CAC would be very interesting to know.
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1KO5Y8/1798-capped-bust-right-half-eagle-heraldic-eagle-bd-6-rarity-6-small-aka-normal-8-au-55-pcgs-ogh-rattler
.
.
As far as the auction result, price guides and value, the lot prior to this coin in the same auction was the same die variety in PCGS AU-58 at $33,600 compared to this one at $26,400 as PCGS AU-55. Both were well below PCGS price guide and even well below Greysheet bid.
It might be that they were a good deal and sold weak or it could be that the guides are too high or a combination. The guides appear to have jumped around 2022-2023 when a PCGS-62 CAC brought $132k in 2022 and the Bass PCGS-62 non-CAC coin auctioned at $90k in 2023. A PCGS-61 CAC earlier sold for $47k in 2017 and a PCGS-61 non-CAC brought progressively less from 2009 at $28k down to $17,625 in 2016. The AU auction results are not really out of line with most results in the last few years. Much of this can be seen in the roster under the Bass coin and at PCGS CoinFacts.
The changing grades by PCGS and CAC are a different matter, though may not add as much value as the guides make it appear.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-half-eagles/1798-5-large-eagle-small-8-bd-6-r6-ms62-pcgs-pcgs-507326-/a/1363-9032.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1798-5-small-8/8079/61
https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1798-5-bd-6/507326
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I can understand how it could feel bad to be offered a coin that you previously sold, now in a higher graded holder. And I like how you recognized it was the same coin that you had sold.
I believe the lighting angle explains the contrast in the adjustment marks.
1. Stacks Bowers excellent photo had the light from the top, perpendicular to the adjustment marks. This maximizes their visibility.
2. new TV mediocre photo has the light from the left side, parallel to the adjustment marks. This minimizes their visibility.
So it seems you are now engaged in the process of "grading from a photo". Most of us know this is subject to considerable inaccuracy. Maybe yourself included if you reconsider it.
Here is my attempt at adjusting the TV to normal levels:
Lighting appears to be from the bottom left side and top for the TV. I cannot be sure, since it has been inconsistent since Phil left.
The Stacks Bowers slab shots show similarity to lighting and weakening of the adjustment marks, but nothing to the magnitude that is missing in the TrueView.
The TrueView appears to show a flattening and some black staining of the area that shows weaker adjustment marks. In my personal opinion after having done photography for some time, that change in appearance cannot be explained by the lighting differences between the Stacks images and the TrueView.
I am with earlyAurum. I respect his collection and opinions as we both collect early gold. But at some level, we are at the mercy of auction houses, dealers and grading services. I feel more that way as many of my contacts retire ( hi Mark!) or otherwise step back from the business.
Both PCGS and CAC can’t decide whether this example is a 53, 55 or 61, but I am asked to believe that grading services can distinguish whether a coin should be awarded a plus.
I think this example only further supports my belief that over 95 percent of pre-Civil War gold has been “improved” at some point by dipping or worse and that includes stickered coins.
Just my opinion. Bid, buy and collect accordingly.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
TrueView really accentuated all the flaws again on this coin.
I did a thread on the lines and how the show up and then disappear based on light position. This was done by rotating the coin and keeping the light and camera constant. Here is the link below.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1084402/morgan-little-lines-now-you-see-them-now-you-dont#latest
I have taken the first image and then the one showing the lines, enlarged them, cropped and put them together. Easier to see how the lines show up but also want to point out how the strike appears different. Notice the ear and lobe, the hair at the forhead and the tops of the hair. One appears somewhat flat and the other more fully struck. Can see this a little also at the nose and mouth. Will also note the differences in the contact marks in the field. So photos can change appearances somewhat.
Here is a thread rmpsrpms where they changed the light angle and how it changes the strike appearance (and other). I doubt the TV or the Stacks photos would go to this extreme of a light angle but it does show how it can change.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1095534/light-height-sweep
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
The difference here is thin hairlines vs. deep adjustment marks IMO. The deeper the gash, the harder it is to hide with angles. Granted, I can't know for sure, but I don't believe the lighting is causing all of the change we're seeing, I think the coin has changed as well.
First I want to mention that I am not making or implying anything about the OP coin. I do not have the information or knowledge for me to do so. I am only trying to pass along information, in these cases through examples, about how photos can alter the appearance of coins and in this case somewhat related to the OP subject.
I only have two coins with adjustment marks, that I can think of. The half dollar unfortunately came out to dark and I did not care to go back and 'try again' for this post. The half dime did better. This is the first shot/attempt picture of each but then I kind of knew about where to place the light for each. Still got lucky as this thing is to small for me to really see what I was doing.
The snap-o'matic will not zoom in close enough to the small half dime but I cropped and resized and it came out okay for this. Not a lot of pixels left for enlarging.
This is just showing how the adjustment marks can be weakened in appearance by shifting the lighting of a photo (I did not change anything else).
Note: I think the half dime is kind of nice looking but my photos don't capture that here. The post Phil in-holder TV is below which gives a third view of the adjustment marks but also captures some of the other features of the reverse.
.
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