Any Details coins that should be gradable?
oldabeintx
Posts: 2,959 ✭✭✭✭✭
I’m toe-dipping in the Chop marked pool. I can remember when these weren’t gradable (still aren’t by NGC?). We put these aside as curiosities and I’m guessing few collected them. I recently bought a beautiful 20,000 reis at not much more than melt. It was cheap as it was details graded because it had a small test cut. I have no problem with coins like that because the damage is a “legitimate” part of, and adds interest to, the coin’s history. Similarly, I own an AU 4,000 reis that has a tiny and very cool counter mark on the reverse, also Details. And then there is that 1804 dollar. If chop marks are acceptable for grading, then why not grade other coins that have been similarly “damaged”? Maybe request an exception from the TPG rather than create broad, slippery-slope, categories? Or are there already other exceptions that I’m unaware of?
Comments
Sure why not continue to degrade the integrity of the third party grading system. Heck today most TPG's straight grade obviously cleaned coins, straight grade obviously AT coins, and straight grade many obviously damaged coins. In fact why shouldn't the TPG's grade every roadkill coin, after all it is part of the coin's history right.
Great suggestion, I'm sending my parking lot collection in pronto!! And I will be sure to pay extra and have my provenance added to the label.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
There is a $5. gold planchet Indian cent with a test cut that went from a details holder to a regular one so perhaps your AU 4,000 Reis has a chance in the future.
“Maybe request an exception from the TPG rather than create broad, slippery-slope, categories?”
If or when a TPG starts considering suggestions for exceptions, they’re either constructing or facilitating that slippery slope.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Welcome, the water is fine!
Or why aren't World Trade dollars that are similarly chopped deserving of a numeric grade?
It's a very slippery slope
Many countermarked coins (some US but particularly World coins) are eligible to receive numeric grades.
A couple of points from a chopmark enthusiast:
Chopmarked trade dollars are not straight-graded. Rather, they receive a numerical grade along with a "Chopmark" details designation. It's similar to how ANACS handles many details coins, where the issue is noted but a numeric grade is still assigned. It's a subtle distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
A decision of this magnitude was more feasible when PCGS was run by a smaller leadership group under David Hall. @tradedollarnut successfully lobbied for chopmarked trade dollars to receive numeric grades. A comparable change today is probably unlikely unless PCGS's current ownership decides to pursue it. Given the additional financial exposure associated with numerically grading (and therefore guaranteeing) more chopmarked coins, there doesn't appear to be much upside for the company.
Despite what I said in #2, I would personally like to see additional trade coin types receive numeric grades, particularly World Trade issues such as those included in this set: https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/composite/9291. That said, I suspect the chances of such a change are slim to none.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
A test cut is very different from a cleaning or messing with the coin to deceive. That’s why i drew a parallel to chop marks. I’m suggesting that there may be more coins that should be graded with a notation on the holder rather than given a details grade.
It may be different to you but not to me. Damage is damage regardless of how or why it originated. Your entire idea is a slippery slope/pandoras box.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I don’t necessarily disagree. It may be impractical. Just seems a shame that some very nice coins are put in the same general category as coins that are harshly cleaned, whizzed, tooled, AT. Etc.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
So in your view PCGS should not numerically grade chop-marked coins? BTW I’m not necessarily suggesting anything, mainly raising the question as there appears to be at least one inconsistency.
Correct, it is my view that damaged coins should not be given a numerical non details grade, period. Give a mouse a crumb and he will be back for the whole cookie. PCGS caved and gave the chopmarked crumb and now you are asking for more of the cookie. That is the problem with making exceptions once you start down that path how do you stop. You want this exception, then someone else will want the next exception and on and on.
Also you are using history as an excuse to make damage acceptable. Coins are run over at the local Walmart, using your logic why shouldn't those damaged coins be given a numerical grade, that is part of the history of that coin right. And I have skin in this game, I have a $5 lib with a test cut in my collection. If your exception were implemented it would make my coin acceptable for TPG grading, but I still think it is wrong.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Good news, they are not. Some chopmarked trade dollars are given a numerical details grade, rather than a non-numerical details grade.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I understand your position. Perhaps it’s sufficient to rely on the collector to decide whether to make exceptions for inclusion in their sets. And maybe my point is that we should use our heads when evaluating coins, and develop our own criteria for what is acceptable and what is not.
BTW, yes I use SOME historical events to make exceptions, whether the TPG does or not. I have a 4 reales that has a big slash on the reverse which my imagination excuses as some violent event 300 years ago. I have coins recovered from sunken ships, and many more examples. No coins run over in the Walmart parking lot though.
I acknowledge both sides of this discussion, but I have a neutral position on it. I wouldn't be upset to see certain counter stamped coins or even love tokens with a numerical grade, but I think the following coin fits well as an example into this discussion-
1820 North West Token Brass - Otherwise known as "Beaver Tokens"
Believed to be minted by John Walker & Co in Birmingham England, a number of them were recovered from the Umpqua River Valley of what is now Oregon State. The theory goes that they were used in the northwestern territory in the fur trade with Indigenous people. More specifically, one token would be used as currency to trade for one beaver pelt.... and just about every known example is holed at 12 o'clock. The fact that that the prominent beaver, which symbolically holds deep cultural and spiritual significance in many Indigenous traditions, lends credence to the subsequent theory that they were all worn as adornments by said natives.
It is stated in references and in a HA description that there are two without holes, but I have not seen pictures of them, and every one of the APRs I've seen had the hole.... so would it make sense to grade them all details w/o a numerical grade? Personally, I think the current system with a numerical grade and "holed" descriptor works just fine for this issue, just like I'm fine with Chopped Trades having numbers as long as they still say "Chop marked".
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Dan, why should a group of tokens, (most of which are known to be holed) theorized to have been worn as adornments by natives or anyone else, be treated differently and assigned a numerical grade in addition to “Holed”?
What if, instead of being holed, most of a the surviving population of a different type of rare token had a large, X (theorized to be in protest against someone or something) etched into the obverse portrait? Should they receive numerical grades in addition to “Obverse Etched” or “Obverse Damage”?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's a good question Mark, and with a gun at my head I guess I'd say it's because the hole is typical and ordinary for the coin's purpose and time spent in commerce. Like a chop-marked trade, it wasn't intentionally de faced out of spite or protest, rather it was modified in a functional way consistent with the historical utilization of the issue.
As I mentioned, I have a neutral position and this is not a hill I choose to die on. I would have paid the same for this coin no matter what the holder said, but If I had one request, it's just that the rule should be consistent for the series and there's no "backpedaling". IE., they decide to stop giving them numerical grades and then every new issue that gets graded is in a details holder but all the old ones have numbers.
The situation is reminiscent of how CAC once graded colonial issues but now they no longer do... the new graded coins are at a disadvantage in the marketplace because of that, and at the end of the day it doesn't matter to the CAC-loyal collector that the rules have changed..... all that matters is that the sticker is one on, and not on the other. Might be a topic for another thread...didn't mean to de-rail here but not entirely off topic.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Dan, I’m not surprised that you wrote “I would have paid the same for this coin no matter what the holder said…”. Based on what you’ve written about them, if I were a collector looking for one, I’d feel the same way. And that only makes me feel stronger that the right thing to do would be to assign detail grades to the holed examples. I see far more downside than upside in assigning straight grades.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Chop marked coins used in Trade in the Orient should be noted as chopped and straight graded provided that there are no other problems such as cleaning or some other factor that should preclude a straight grade. The chip marks basically reflect that the coin served its intended purpose in commerce. There is a bright line difference between chop marked coins in contrast to those that have been tooled or damaged. TPG has made the best decision in straight grading US Trade Dollars.
I do not believe that the consistency in this policy extends to similarly situated World Trade coins. I have previously shared an 1895 B British Trade Dollar graded by our host. Below is one graded by NGC- a 1900B- That just was called CHOPMARKED. The coin in hand is reasonably attractive for what it is.
The Mexican 1895 Mo 8R below received the same CHOPMARKED designation with no grade. This one is also reasonably attractive for what it is
Holed coins can be problematic. I do not see a problem designating the coin as holed with a numerical grade. Some holed coins can really have a pleasant and satisfying look to them as provided below:
Peru 1755 4 Reales- holed
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
>
While chop marks on a Trade Dollar can, as you posted, reflect that it served its intended purpose in commerce, so does heavy wear on most any circulated coin, whether also cleaned, scratched or otherwise abused. So I don’t see that serving their purpose in commerce excuses chop-marks on Trade Dollars.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Trade Dollars- whether the US Trade Dollar, British Trade Dollar or even the Japanese Trade Dollar- were specifically minted for commerce in the Orient. As part of that trade, various merchants chopmarked coins they accepted and circulated. It was traditional part of how business was conducted. Coins that were abused, cleaned or scratched resulted more out of neglect than as a pre-requisite for acceptance in exchange for goods and services.
I think we can agree to disagree on this issue... And that we can see an issue like this with different perspectives.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Many of us are more interested in the historical aspect of coins than strict rules of condition. In Dan’s example the hole adds to the speculated history of these pieces. Are holed Peace Medals and Campaign Tokens graded? I’m sure there are many examples where history comes first. It does with me.
The 1861 so-called "Confederate half dime" comes to mind as well. A contemporary medalet that was intended to be holed. That said, two examples are known to exist without a hole.
Here NGC offers a straight numerical grade with no mention of the hole.
A different coin, but here PCGS assigned a genuine details grade due to the hole.
The following is mentioned in the Stack's auction description of the PCGS piece:
"Neatly holed in its usual location between UNITED and SOUTH, as intended; putting this piece in a non-graded holder because of its hole is like assuming a sloth has been injured because it only has three toes."
For So-Called Dollars, often times holed pieces are straight graded with no mention of being holed.
I've recommended that minimally holed pieces be noted as such on the holders and in the pops, but haven't received much support on this.
This is also true in ancient coins, for which NGC has a different grading system where details coins are rarely found, but many/most have been brushed and it only seems to get noted in a minor way on some and similarly graffiti and bankers marks are more of less a tiny side note as one can see it on the coin. A fully graded ancient would have three primary grades, an overall, say Choice XF along with a strike and surface quality on a 1-5 scale.
iptor works just fine for this issue, just like I'm fine with Chopped Trades having numbers as long as they still say "Chop marked".
Not knowing this series whatsoever, does the FN15 grade still seem a bit optimistic considering the wear pattern?
Are the ones without holes details graded?
They are considered to be mint errors.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
The ones without holes are straight graded AU55 and AU58 by NGC.
There is also a two holed example straight graded XF45.
NGC has also graded holed examples as details though. There seems to be a lack of consistency.
To me, it depends upon the coin. I wouldn't details grade a cleaned MS 1804 dollar. It's obviously "market acceptable" given only 15 (or 16) for all three classes exist. It's just somewhat less valuable than if it hadn't been, and I think any likely buyer can factor this into the price they pay.
Common and really common coins should be details graded, because there are plenty or enough other examples without the (perceived) defect. With many particularly non-US coins, the coins are "market acceptable" to those who buy it, whether it is to the predominantly US coin buyer who doesn't. These coins are (usually) net graded in the home or primary market.
Light and scattered holing
I think this is 100% true. If you collect chop marks, which are PMD, you are free to move them for the damage but why does anyone care if the coin is noted as damaged? Failing to note damage would amount to lack of disclosure.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
It was common in this country and others to test cut coins. Would you want a $5 Liberty with a test cut to straight grade?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Perhaps, but issues like this are seemingly graded on a curve, like many other esoteric private issues and tokens. Most of the remaining survivors have considerable pitting and environmental damage, so a piece with smooth surfaces and no corrosion probably gets viewed through favorable lens in the grading room.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I think that’s probably what occurs, but shouldn’t. The pieces with smooth, problem-free surfaces should be graded as they deserve, not graded liberally, just because most others have problems. And the latter, with problems, should be labeled as such. The same should hold true for other coin types that are given preferential treatment becaise many or most survivors have detail-grade-deserving issues.
And while I’m at it, I wish the grading companies wouldn’t (in my eyes, at least) give the appearance of competing to see which one can grade the famous rarities high enough to get them in their holders, rather than those of the competition.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not sure where everyone is on grading chopped trade dollars, but consider: where is the harm? As long as the holder also discloses that the coin has chop marks, providing a numeric grade is ADDED information and in NO WAY MISLEADING. I’m beginning to think that ANACS handles these “problem coins” correctly.
What did Emerson say….?
I am not necessarily sharing this opinion- yet to see the other side, I'd argue consistency. To grade one series with post-mint "damage" (so-to-speak) and not others goes against the idea of fair play.
The problem is that providing a details-only grade stigmatizes and devalues coins. Is it fair play to treat a coin that has historically interesting numismatic interest the same way as a coin that has been carelessly treated, or worse, altered to defraud, in the same manner?
So what if it is a details grade? You want chops, you've got chops. Why does the word "details" bother anyone?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The word ‘details” doesn’t bother me, but I’ve been at this a long time. I believe new collectors are accustomed to shy away from coins that have a details grade, or are graded only as genuine. We’re all advised to avoid “problem coins”, which is generally sound advice. But is it good advice when it comes to chopped coins or some of the other examples in this thread? Then there is the eBay practice of not allowing a numeric grade unless one is bestowed by a recognized TPG, so certain worthy coins may be overlooked. Again, what is the harm in providing a numeric grade (in most cases) if full disclosure of any “problems” is also provided? My hunch is that the TPG’s may be a little lazy and inconsistent in treating some of these coins as well.
I don't have a dog in this fight so whatever the TPGs decide is fine by me, but I will say I don't see why it should be a problem to give a numerical grade to a coin with a flaw, as long as the flaw doesn't make it impractical/impossible to grade the coin (many parking lot coins, for example). Grade it, note any problems...
XF45 - Holed
AU50 - Chopmarked
VF35 - Test Cut
Next!
For those who are for that, where do you draw the line?
Here are some examples to consider:.
MS65 Cleaned
MS67 Obverse Scratches
MS63 Engraved Devices
MS64 Artificial Toning
Proof 66 Reverse Spot Removal
Proof 68 Altered Surfaces
Next.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think Mason got it right with his examples and his caveat that some coins will be impractical or impossible to provide a grade. The examples above would be impossible to grade IMO, whereas Mason’s examples are doable. I can visualize a holed 45. I understand that the highest numeric grade given to a chopped coin by PCGS is 64. I think that’s a good way to avoid the more obvious pitfalls.
Where? I don't know. Suppose the examples you noted were actually used. What problems would that cause?
Since grading is already subjective and generally confusing. one can only imagine the impracticality of grading a cleaned coin, for example. How badly cleaned? What would be your “go-by”? Interestingly, PCGS and NGC have managed to grade chopped and holed coins of certain types. I think test cuts and punches could be handled similarly. Easy to compare to like coins without the “damages”. (and limit to 64.)
BTW I don’t really a dog in this fight either. Just an interesting topic. In fact I
Prefer the status quo because I can continue to pick up some beautiful coins of historical interest on the cheap.
Asked and answered.
"Go-by" would be up to the TPG, of course.
Kind of my point.
I think you've got that backwards.
It isn't the word, "details" that bothersome, it is the lack of the word when it is appropriate to display that word on the insert.
They want straight grades. I don't see the problem with details grades.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I don't think :XF40 chopmarked" is going to sell for more than "XF details. Chopmarked". F15 cleaned will sell for the same as F details, cleaned.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I think they want numerical grades, with the details noted. Like this...
I understand that argument and wonder if there is a counterargument that's more substantial than "I don't like it" or "Slippery slope" (to where?).
To be clear, I am wondering why
"XF45 Chopmarked"
is a problem but
"XF Details Chopmarked"
is not.
The unique 1898 single 9 South Africa ZAR pond is graded NGC MS-63 PL. It has graffiti on the obverse, the first owner's initial "M" which the most recent Heritage sale describes as a test cut.
The market apparently thinks it is "market acceptable". It's now a 7-figure coin. Last sale in 2025 was $2.16MM. Would it sell for more without the test cut? Probably, but it's not discounted as "details" coins typically have been.