Guess The Grade: 1943-D Wheat Cent & Did PCGS Cause this? - REVEALED In Comments
ProofCollection
Posts: 7,628 ✭✭✭✭✭
Might as well turn this into a GTG as I think it will surprise some people but my main question is if the forum thinks PCGS caused this spot and what should I do about it? I bought this 1943-D from forum member @coinbuf. I'll tell a bit more about it after the reveal but I can't say too much or it will affect the guesses.
For GTG: Here's what you need to know for now:
1. Formerly in a PCGS holder, cracked out, graded this month (Apr 2026)
2. Not AU, Not Details.
But my bigger question is for the forum a disappointment when I received this coin. I don't remember there being a spot in the field. The spot does not appear in the trueview. So did PCGS cause this and should I push PCGS to restore the coin for free? Note that the spot does not photograph well from all angles but is immediately noticeable. I'm pretty sure @coinbuf can reaffirm that the coin was spot free when he sold it to me a few months ago. Or do we chalk this up to coincidence? That's how I remember the coin. The red dot in the TV is also not present on the coin in person. My theory is spittle from someone handling the coin between photography and encapsulation. I'm curious what the forum thinks. I just got this coin back from PCGS today.
Edited to add:
The purpose of this question is to help me decide if I should request PCGS to take care of it or not. Between shipping and whatnot I'm looking at roughly $50 to send it in for restoration. Not a huge sum but it's significant for this coin at this price point. I'll accept if it's just bad luck but if PCGS is responsible I would like them to take care of it.
Angled Photo:
Straight on Photo:
Comments
It’s looks like a 63 and no they didn’t cause it - it’s an inherent risk to the alloy
MS67
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
If I weren’t certain that PCGS was responsible for the spot I wouldn’t even think about asking them to restore the coin free of charge. And I don’t see how I could be certain of that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Are you sure it is not on the slab?
1- No curation will remove that spot. It is etched into the plating. Knowing this, you will be spinning your wheels requesting/demanding PCGS fix it.
2- The coin wouldn't be worth restoration even if that spot could be lightened somewhat (it can't). You would be spending multiples on the value of the cent.
Yes.
What is your theory on how the spot spontaneously etched itself on the coin between photography and arrival at my house?
Theory?
None.
Fact?
It was dormant and manifested after incapulization.
Right, but Dormant for 83 years and manifests within the past ~2 weeks? The timing is a great coincidence.
Agreed. (Other than the 'coincidence' opinion.)
Considering that the coin was removed from the holder and exposed to a new/different environment, it wasn’t such a great coincidence.
I’ve heard of other such instances from the owners of coins who removed them from holders and noticed what appeared to be rather sudden changes to their surfaces, while the coins were still under their control.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If it can be removed, you can remove it yourself. It's not worth the cost of conservation and there really is no way to prove that PCGS did anything to the coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Good point. I'm a little hesitant on steel cents, I'm not sure how best to try to remove it. Acetone? Or EZest? Anyone know for sure?
You can't remove it.
It is etched into the delicate plated surface.
Any attempts on your part will further ruin this coin.
What is that based on, how do you know this?
A sparkling wit and a smirky sense of humor.
It LOOKS like surface corrosion in the photo. It could, however, also be spotting. It may or may not rinse off with acetone. The only risk is the slab. It may not get into a 67 again.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You should read the complete ouvre of the last person on this forum who claimed to have a high IQ. it ended with "mud wrestling".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
That is sound advice.
Thanks.
---- REVEAL ----
OK, no one is guessing anymore. Time for the reveal... and the story...
I bought this from @coinbuf in an early blue label PCGS MS67 holder. Nice solid spot free steel cents in MS67 aren't impossible to find but not exactly everywhere at good prices. I thought this coin could have a shot at a + and it was worth pursuing as I saw no reason why this coin wouldn't also CAC sticker. From what I could tell, it was free of any surface conditions (prior to the spot) and really only had one significant bag mark on Lincoln's temple. I had accumulated a bunch of coins for a raw economy submission and had nothing to go in an economy regrade or reconsideration. At the time I assessed the crackout risk being minimal in that not only did I think the coin was solidly MS67, PCGS and @coinbuf did too. So crack it out and off it goes with 14 other coins only to come back not one grade lower but two!
MS65!
Did they think the die polish lines were hairlines?
I thought it was graded prior to the Trueview in which case the spot wasn't there when it was graded. I'm unclear how much the spot affects the grade, perhaps it's MS65 because of the spot and was graded after photography. In this holder I have nothing to lose to crack it out and try to restore it even though in my gut I bet @RedRocket is right. Sometimes you win, sometimes you really lose. At least this is an "economy" level coin and not something more significant.
On another note, the raw economy submission had 15 coins in it. A statistically improbable ZERO came back with a plus grade. I've had several submissions of 15-20 coins in the last year or two and it's amazing how many will come back without any +'s. Funny how that is.
Thanks for sharing the background to this cent.
There is a bit of light haze that might also inhibit the grade.
The tan toning on the shoulder probably doesn't help.
In hand I bet your cent is an attractive beauty.
The photos don't show a plus graded coin.
I literally LOL-ed at that. (What can I say, I'm easily amused.)
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
I really don't see the point of the original question given the actual story. Since you sent this coin in raw, there is NO WAY you could know that PCGS did anything. It could have gotten wet at any point in its journey.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm not sure what you are basing the statistical probability on. Do you think that half of coins should be +? 10%? 1%? Given the range within a grade, the number of coins that fall between a 65 and 66 SHOULD be small. If you look at pop reports, by the way, they are. For example, there are a total of 186,000 MS66 Red Lincoln cents. There are a total of 8,000 MS66+ Red lincoln cents. Given a roughly 4% rate of +, it's not at all improbable that there would be no pluses since that is 7% of the submission. This is especially true as the grade gets lower. In MS65/65+ the population is 119,000 to 1,000. In MS64/64+ it is 62,000 to 388. If you end up with middling grades, it is highly IMPROBABLE that there would be a + grade in a 15 coin submission.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
No, we have a trueview that does not show any spots. The spot developed after the TV and before it reached my house.
I'm simply using PCGS's own explanation: https://www.pcgs.com/grades
If plus grades represent the top 30% of each grade, isn't it remarkable to repeatedly have submissions of 15-20 coins all entirely composed of the bottom 70% of each grades' spectrum?
Mathematically, 30% of the top of a grade warrants the "+" doesn't equate to 30% of a submission will receive that grade.
Your lot of 15 - 20 coins may well have been below that 30% threshold and thus not receive the plus grade.
It seems pretty well established at this point that coins submitted raw rarely get + grades, even when they merit it. The vast majority of +'s come from reconsiderations.
I know what you're saying, but theoretically a sample of coins even as small as 15-20 should be evenly distributed across the spectrum, from MS65.00 to MS65.99 for example. To have every coin come back at x.00-x.69 is statistically improbable. Not impossible. Improbable. It's not unlike buying 10 powerball tickets with 50 regular numbers and 10 powerball numbers and not matching a single one. It can and does happen but something's really wrong if you can buy several tickets in a row and it keeps happening.
I think there's a belief that coin grading can be done more precisely than the actual results would support.
I had a similar experience with a world copper coin that I had raw for about 5-7 years which in TrueViews had no issues but the grade said UNC details environmental damage on the certification page. When I received the submission, the coins was in an MS63 holder with a prominent verdigris spot on the obverse rim. The certification page still said UNC Det. I think it was fine when it was pictured and graded but developed the spot during the finalization stage and they missed reholdering it. I suspect PCGS treats the coin with something — maybe acetone which strips something keeping the coin stable. Probably PCGS not at fault but who knows! I will post pictures if I find them.
Update! With nothing to lose I cracked it out. First I tried some acetone which didn't do much. Then I figured what the heck, try the eZest and it removed the spot and cleaned it right up! I'll leave it out and see if the coin holds stable but it looks like it should go back for another shot. Looking at the spot now I can see what is probably a pinhole in the zinc plating where the spot was. So I'm guessing that when exposed to the environment that opening can feed a reaction that cause the spot to start to emanate out. I will post the re-grade results eventually.
congratulations! I hope it holds.
>
Their pop reports would refute this statement of theirs. It may be true at the top pop for a particular coin, although even there the numbers seem lower. It is definitely not the case in lower grades for any coin series I looked at.
On a side note, if you want a challenge, try and put together a set of Morgans in 63+. There's only 6700 coins out of 1.3 million certified. It's actually easier to do 64+ by a LOT (37,000 out of 1.4 million). It's even easier to do 66+ (12,000 coins out of 98,000).
The data indicates that they really don't sweat the plus when there is little price difference between grades and use it far more when there is a significant price jump. But even there, the percentage is less than 30%. For example, the plus grades are the most common in the Morgan series for the 67+, but it's still only 14% of the total 67/67+ population.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
As you no doubt, know, many of the plus grades are awarded through regrades. And although there are exceptions (such as the AU58 grade), submitters are less likely to resubmit lower grade/lower value coins than they are higher grade/higher value ones. That would help explain what you mentioned about the pop reports,
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know. But it is really a little surprising that PCGS claims they represent the "top 30% of each grade".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Agreed, but the pop reports also encompass all coins from the pre-+ era so I don't know how much can be gleaned from the numbers as they are today other than plus graded coins are overall pretty rare.
Still, if one were to submit 100 non-MS/PR60-61 & non-MS/PR69/70 coins, statistically there should be 20-40 with +'s but if there were more than 5 it would be remarkable. Either PCGS needs to update their definition of a plus to match their actual standards or customers need to revolt. At best it's poor execution and training and at worst it's fraud in an attempt to garner multiple resubmissions to boost revenue/profit.
Your argument is based on a theoretical submission represented by coins that include an equal number of low end, mid-range and high end examples. But if a submission consists of sub-par/low end coins for the assigned grades, there shouldn’t be anywhere close to 20-40 that deserve plus grades. On the other hand, if the submission consists of high/end coins, there should be more than 20-40 that deserve plus grades (or better).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I respectfully disagree. I assume you're splitting hairs by saying "high end" coins and "low end" coins because that generally refers to price points. I assume you're not distinguishing someone sending in a bunch of low-end MS66s which are by definition better than a high end MS65. In all practicality, I don't think coins are assembled for submission this way. I think most collectors assemble a submission with expectations but if they're realistic even the best graders among us realize that our margin of error is at least 1/2 grade which means, at least as far as this discussion, the coins in any given submission can fall anywhere on its grade spectrum (ie, MS65.00 to MS65.99). I just don't think collectors are submitting coins that they believe only fall in the upper end of each spectrum (i.e x.50 to x.99) which is how I interpret your message because if a submitter were that confident in their own grading ability that would be the only way to bias the submission toward a higher percentage of +'s.
“Splitting hairs” is a highly relevant part of a discussion regarding coins upgrading to plus grades.
And unless the submitter is extremely proficient at grading, what he thinks of the quality of the coins for their assigned grades won’t necessarily have any correlation with plus grade success. I’ve seen a large number of collections that consisted of mostly maxed-out grades for the coins. And I wouldn’t expect any plus grades for them, if regraded. I’ve also seen collections with mostly high end (as in possibly/probably just missed the next grade up) coins. So if they were resubmitted for plus grades, I’d expect them to do quite well.
Your posts make it sound as if you feel that in general, you should be able to expect a relatively even distribution of plus grades (based on a statement that they’re awarded to coins in the top 30% for the grade) I don’t see it that way at all. I’m done, now, before I give myself a headache.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You kind of said what I did. I might need to re-state it.
Other than regrades and recons I don't think people submit coins to PCGS with any kind of selection bias. No one is intentionally biasing their submissions with only A and B coins, they either want the coins graded or not. Which means they can and will fall anywhere on the spectrum in which they land because even the best of us can't predict PCGS results with that much certainty. Averaged out over thousands of coins, there's no reason why 30% of coins resulting in +-eligible grades shouldn't have +s if PCGS's claims are true. Thus your theoretical submission consisting of "sub-par/low end coins for the assigned grades" isn't realistic to throw off statistical modeling.