Options
Can PCGS grade cents without a color designation ?
TwoSides2aCoin
Posts: 45,225 ✭✭✭✭✭
Apparently not. According to my most recent submission.
https://www.pcgs.com/shared-orders/order-details/27144534
https://www.pcgs.com/shared-orders/order-details/27146108
Help me understand how the best got the worst.
0
Comments
Wonder if it’s the same grader? That seems literally impossible to have so many submissions of different dates with questionable color. 🤔
Are you sure these didn’t go to CACG by accident?
Wow, what a bummer.
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager, blu62vette, morgan13, torinoCobra71, JWP, promethius88,
The "red" ones were most likely brightened. Something looks a bit off about all of them. The cleaned ones are, well, cleaned.
"Color designation" usually refers to BN, RB, or RD, not Questionable Color.
Even though I now know this isn't what your title is asking, I have seen a cent on which PCGS forgot the color designation before. I believe it was an 1894 Indian cent in MS63.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
The TrueViews do make some of them look off. How accurate are the pictures?
These were in a man’s collection for 51 years. The entire run was in 2x2 cardboard flips that were meticulously removed and submitted. The collecto told me he hadn’t collected any coins that were not in graded holders since 1986. A vast and extensive collection.
There are more to follow :
https://www.pcgs.com/shared-orders/order-details/27146198
They are decent and representative.
About $3400 in submission fees.
I know I'm looking at a computer screen and not actual coins, but still- some of those grades would not exactly encourage me to send copper in for grading.
I looked at photograde coins and hundreds of red cents in PCGS holders, prior to submitting this group. Edit to add: I’d have been fine with no color designation, a numeric grade, and let copper do what copper does.
Just to be clear, I'm not questioning your judgement. I clicked on the images of a number of them and didn't see anything that would make me think there was any issue with their color.
The major grading companies don’t assign numeric grades to copper coins without including a color designation. Did you think that was a possibility?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I saw a few TV’s that looked off, but many that looked perfectly ok. Need to somehow challenge some of them, if you can do it economically. IMO
I think he meant QC designation. Many of the coins in his submissions were rejected as QC.
Thank you
.
In that case, my question to him would be “Did you think that was a possibility?”
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Been there. Done that. Same result.
Even though the coins were deemed and slabbed QC, I would not be surprised to see them be sought after by collectors who love toned copper (raw or in slabs labelled QC).
Of course the sales prices for them would likely be less than if they were straight graded and designated RB, or even better BN.
Also, some of the cents have color that looks off.
Once a couple of coins look off in a submission, there is a subconscious bias against the rest.
No. But I did learn not to pay more than 3 cents for raw copper cents. Maybe $.20 for those questionable ones.
And probably, a conscious one.
That sounds unprofessional- I would hope not.
How is that unprofessional? If a grader is working through an order and multiple coins have issues (cleaned, questionable color, or even counterfeit), their senses should be heightened on the rest of the submission.
"A subconscious (or conscious, for that matter) bias against the rest" is unprofessional because each coin should be graded without a preconceived notion of what it is expected to be.
And this:
"their senses should be heightened on the rest of the submission."
shouldn't their senses be heightened to the same extent for everything they grade? Or are some coins expected to be exposed to less scrutiny than others?
I think “err on the side of caution” is the graders thought , but honestly ….each coin should stand on its own merit. The majority of the Philly mints were red and uncirculated. But I’d have been happy with rb or bn and a numeric grade , than questionable color on mint state specimens. .
Exactly. If all people could grade with the same ability, TPGs wouldn't be needed. But all people can't, and it's unprofessional for a TPG to assume that the submitter knows that there's something wrong (in the TPS's opinion, anyway) with the coins they submitted.
I’m not saying the grader should adjudicate the rest of the submission before they see it, but it’s totally reasonable (and IMO, desirable) for the grader to be “on guard” after a succession of problem coins.
And as long as human beings are still doing the grading, the idea of starting each grading event with a mentally blank slate is a fantasy. That’s not how the human mind works.
Conscious biases are better than subconscious ones, because a professional can be aware of the bias while using their prefrontal cortex to override it when the evidence is not supportive.
Some coins are exposed to less scrutiny than others. Compare the time and effort spent grading a modern dollar coin vs. $10 Indian eagles. I’d certainly expect the grader to have a more heightened alert for counterfeit Indians.
And if a grader saw a string of counterfeit Indians in the same submission, I’d expect them to be at DEFCON 1 alert levels for the rest of them. That’s a “bias” that’s good for the TPG and good for the hobby.
I would disagree. A grader shouldn't pick up a coin with any preconceived notions. The graders are not supposed to know who the submitters are, and even still- isn't it possible for one submission to contain coins from multiple sources?
I don't disagree. However... is there any reason this can't be a goal that's aspired to?
Absolutely. When I suggested that coins be afforded the same level of scrutiny, I meant within the confines of their particular grading tier.
What about alert levels for the next submission? Or the one after that? When does the grader's DEFCON 1 alert levels go back to normal?
Given the number of actual graders and former graders around here, couldn't we just ask?
@MFeld @Rexford
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I just can't find it in myself to acquit
What about the 1943 cents?
another case where we just don't know if it's an off-metal strike
Some of the QC coins seem a little off, others don't.
I imagine he bought a fair amount of these from the same dealer who liked to spiff them up so they'd sell better (and for more.)
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
I can see both sides of this issue. Let me give you a hypothetical: You are a grader and are reviewing a submission of 20 rainbow toned coins. 19/20 are blatant AT while coin 20 is plausible and at the cusp of market acceptability. Do the other 19 not raise red flags for you at all?
As a grader, I tried to evaluate each coin in a submission on its own merits. However, I think that in many cases, it was virtually (if not) impossible not to be influenced by some of the individual coins.
For example, if the first few coins in the submission looked artificially toned, cleaned, counterfeit, altered, whizzed, etc., I’d be lying if I were to say that I wasn’t wondering if the one(s) that followed would be the same. That said, in the end, it turned out that there were many submissions for which coins that followed weren’t the same.
The above also applied for invoices in which the first few coins were spectacular. I’d be wondering if the subsequent coin(s) would be, as well. And of course, sometimes they were, but other times, not.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Sorry for your loss. Having said that, I only looked at the first link. I know I'm grading from pictures, but I think PCGS got it right. I'm only going to comment on the "UNC" coins:
JMHO
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
They don’t say cleaned. They say “Questionable Color”.
….with the exception of 1911. And here are Photograde shots to compare color.
Idk. But "questionable color" can be applied to coins that have been "cleaned" to brighten them up.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
These weren’t cleaned or dipped. And if I thought for one second that they had been, they wouldn’t have been submitted. In fact , this submission is part of the reason PCGS, NGC, ANACS, ICG and others will probably never see some of the coins out there that collectors have shown me. They have no trust in the “experts”. And this is why collectors don’t trust “dealers”. Do I tell these guys and gals ” sorry your coin collection is questionable, even though I believe you stored them and assembled them as best you could for the past 50+ years” ?
And then , decades later he sells , only to find out it’s true ?
Not all dealers drink. But if I were to tell many of you members (if you walked into the shop with same) that your coins are basically problematic , you’d say I was drunk and a person to never deal with.
Teach me about a rock and a hard place.
There's truth to this, but I'm constantly delivering bad news to collectors. And 99% of the time, if they walk somewhere else, they get confirmation. No one wants to hear bad news. That doesn't mean they isn't any.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Oh ? Teach me MFeld.
I submitted these coins and used the coin # that corresponds with the designation. Do you think maybe the coin# might have affected the grader’s assessment ? I submitted these coins, for example : 1909 as #2431. That’s RD. 1909 in RB is #2430. Could this have triggered all the red cents to be under heavy scrutiny. Should I have left the coin number blank ?
As I mentioned earlier, the collector did not collect anything except graded coins since the inception of the TPGs in the mid ‘80s, so he had that going for him….. kinda.
That is a rough submission, some do not look bad at first glance but once you open the TV photos some things become more evident. A few that I looked at have some areas that look recolored, looking at the 09-S the dark areas on the rev between the wheat ears and rim (and along the sides of the obv) have that recolored look. I don't know if the coin was but I can see how the graders might see it. I noticed this look or effect on a few others as well.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I don’t think the coin numbers listed on the submission had any affect on the way the graders assessed the coins,
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If you have six coins in a row all quacking like a duck and waddling like a duck it would be safe to believe the next in line is not a swan.
My thoughts:
Pcgs does not grade copper that warrants it without a color designation, it would only apply to like where color is not considered like copper nickel indians, flyers etc.
If they determine a coin to be questionable color, its not going to get a holder without a designation, to them its an un regular holderable piece. Now thats not to say that, it might can be tried again, and get thru.
also, they grade each coin on its own merits, but i can tell you if you send in a bunch of questionable, off color, cleaned stuff, they will scrutinize the entire order more closely. A proven fact.
also, dosn't matter what color designation you choose for pcgs coin number, they will access the correct one, if warranted, like red, rb, bn etc. also sone coin numbers have special varities and if checked, will be given correct coin number as well. some varieties have diff coin numbers and do not require the additional fee.
Looking at the coins in question, I can see why many were called questionable color? There may be a few examples that could be tried again, in a better overal quality submission, and get thru ? problem is nowadays, they know if its been seen before normally.
Coins are not ducks/swans. It's way more likely a grading submission will contain coins from more than one source than it is for there to be one swan in a line with six ducks. And I'm saying (although I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen) that each coin should be evaluated on its own merits, not those of other coins in the same submission.
It would be impractical to do so, but I think it would be an interesting experiment to randomly mix up submissions so that graders do not know which coins were sent in together. If nothing else, it might make them take more care with each coin and not make assumptions about them based on what they have recently graded.
The reality is someone dipped or treated some of the cents after I submitted them.
Seriously? Now you think PCGS selectively doctored some of your coins? Smh....