I just don’t know. The other four men who saw me submitting these thought they (many) were red. Two of the guys today saw the return submission and both asked “what the heck happened ?” I said : “ I trusted the experts.”
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
I just don’t know. The other four men who saw me submitting these thought they (many) were red. Two of the guys today saw the return submission and both asked “what the heck happened ?” I said : “ I trusted the experts.”
And the experts provided opinions you didn’t like, so you decided to defame them publicly?
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
I just don’t know. The other four men who saw me submitting these thought they (many) were red. Two of the guys today saw the return submission and both asked “what the heck happened ?” I said : “ I trusted the experts.”
And the experts provided opinions you didn’t like, so you decided to defame them publicly?
There is no defamation in public. Merely a query. Come see. I’m showing coins.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
I just don’t know. The other four men who saw me submitting these thought they (many) were red. Two of the guys today saw the return submission and both asked “what the heck happened ?” I said : “ I trusted the experts.”
And the experts provided opinions you didn’t like, so you decided to defame them publicly?
There is no defamation in public. Merely a query. Come see. I’m showing coins.
This is a (probably defamatory) statement, not a query.
This was really gorgeous. But the humidity in California or the sub freezing temperature in the cargo hold of the plane seemed to change it. The skin looks dipped and stripped of its original luster as I recall when I took it from the cardboard flip.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
I just don’t know. The other four men who saw me submitting these thought they (many) were red. Two of the guys today saw the return submission and both asked “what the heck happened ?” I said : “ I trusted the experts.”
And the experts provided opinions you didn’t like, so you decided to defame them publicly?
There is no defamation in public. Merely a query. Come see. I’m showing coins.
This is a (probably defamatory) statement, not a query.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
I just don’t know. The other four men who saw me submitting these thought they (many) were red. Two of the guys today saw the return submission and both asked “what the heck happened ?” I said : “ I trusted the experts.”
And the experts provided opinions you didn’t like, so you decided to defame them publicly?
There is no defamation in public. Merely a query. Come see. I’m showing coins.
This is a (probably defamatory) statement, not a query.
That’s a lousy opinion, as I read it lermish.
I don't particularly care one way or the other but you made a definitive statement, not a query or an opinion.
To answer the original question, yes, CN cents 1856-64.
Gone but not forgotten: IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal, CoinsAreFun.
This was really gorgeous. But the humidity in California or the sub freezing temperature in the cargo hold of the plane seemed to change it. The skin looks dipped and stripped of its original luster as I recall when I took it from the cardboard flip.
Cargo holds don’t freeze…..and it may have even been in a climate controlled hold (where flowers and live animals/pets are put) if the coins went by plane. Highly doubt a few hours of even 45 degree temperature in a non climate controlled hold would have any effect on toning or luster and if the coins had protective wrapping around them for transport they probably never got below 65 degrees if even that.
How can you give color designations to copper coins which have been “processed?” Fooling around with them will make them “red” but not original. They could be “R&B” if you messed with them and exposed surface starts to turn brown. In fact it’s likely because the “virgin metal” which, when exposed, is more reactive.
Reviewing the coins which didn’t grade, my opinion is that they ranged from questionable to way off. Buying old red copper coins raw is a big challenge. It’s not for the casual buyer.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
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....
That's an opinion that can result in banning.
I want opinions on red , red brown and brown cents. Or grades of the coins shared and posted. Got one, on any?
My first opinion is that PCGS absolutely did not dip or treat the cents.
My second opinion is that questionable color designations are very difficult to make based strictly on images.
My third opinion is that some of those coin photos do suggest that the color may be "questionable".
My fourth opinion is that you actually agree that the PCGS designations may be correct because you are now suggesting that PCGS "dipped or treated" some of the cents.
My fifth opinion is a reiteration of my original opinion: publicly accusing our host of something nefarious could result in banning. That was probably the most useful opinion of the five and I'm sorry that you have not considered it more carefully as I would hate to see you get yourself in trouble just because you are disappointed in the results.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
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....
Look at the true view and tell me why toning disappeared. Smh twice
There are literally hundreds of posts on the forum about the (lack of) quality of TV's representing what the coin looks like in hand because of the lighting and methods they use which can drastically alter the appearance of a coin in a picture. Show us good quality pics of the coins before you sent them in vs in the slab now if you want a comparison.
And don't they grade the coins before imaging? So your theory is they graded them (as QC), then imaged them still showing the color, and then before they slabbed them they quickly treated them?
@RedRocket said:
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.
Coins are not ducks/swans.
Good point.
Okay, let's try this: If you have six coins in a row all heeeee-haaaawying like a mule, it's safe to believe the next in line is not a Unicorn.
@RedRocket said:
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.
Coins are not ducks/swans.
Good point.
Okay, let's try this: If you have six coins in a row all heeeee-haaaawying like a mule, it's safe to believe the next in line is not a Unicorn.
Coins are not mules/unicorns.
Suppose you sent a bunch of toned coins in for grading and the submission before yours contained coins that were determined to be "Questionable Color". Would you be satisfied if the graders believed the next coins in line were "more of the same" and didn't bother to scrutinize them close enough in order to determine they weren't? Or would you like your coins be graded based on their attributes, and not the attributes of some other coins?
edited to add... I'm not asking you what you think happens, I'm asking what you would like to happen.
@MasonG said:
Suppose you sent a bunch of toned coins in for grading and the submission before yours contained coins that were determined to be "Questionable Color". Would you be satisfied if the graders believed the next coins in line were "more of the same" and didn't bother to scrutinize them close enough in order to determine they weren't? Or would you like your coins be graded based on their attributes, and not the attributes of some other coins?
Where we differ in our arguments is around your assumption that the subsequent coins would be scrutinized less. I would argue that, if the grader is “on guard”, subsequent coins will be scrutinized more, signaling that the grader should spend additional time and effort to ensure each coin is graded on its attributes and merit. In that case, the result should actually be closer to the perfect objectivity that you are advocating for.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I would argue that, if the grader is “on guard”, subsequent coins will be scrutinized more, signaling that the grader should spend additional time and effort to ensure each coin is graded on its attributes and merit.
My argument is that all coins deserve the same level of scrutinization.
@MasonG said:
"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.
@RedRocket said:
"I'm not asking you what you think happens, I'm asking what you would like to happen."
No, I would not be pleased with that level of service and prior judgement.
You'd be pleased if your coins were graded "QC" because the grader was thinking "If there are six coins in a row all heeeee-haaaawying like a mule, it's safe to believe the next in line is not a Unicorn."?
…they may look okay , but the true views do not match the coins. Not in detail or color. Just look at the 1913-S.
It is the same coin. There is a dark spot near Lincoln’s collar. In the true view , there is also a lot more spots. But the coin in the holder looks flat and washed out, with much of the splotchy tone spots gone. As to the reverse shot, yes MsMorrisine , that is the 1913 S reverse and coin in holder.
A subconscious (or conscious, for that matter) bias against the rest
By this logic, where "questioanable color" on the first coins in a submission influences the opinion on the rest of the coins included, it follows that high grade coins at the beginning of a submission would cause a grader to grade the rest of the coins higher.
I don't subscribe to that thinking, but it is a long held belief among some submitters in the "set-up coin" to receive better grades on a submission.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
@Maywood said: A subconscious (or conscious, for that matter) bias against the rest
By this logic, where "questioanable color" on the first coins in a submission influences the opinion on the rest of the coins included, it follows that high grade coins at the beginning of a submission would cause a grader to grade the rest of the coins higher.
I don't subscribe to that thinking, but it is a long held belief among some submitters in the "set-up coin" to receive better grades on a submission.
I always thought the set-up coin was supposed to be a lower grade, such that the subsequent coins all look comparatively much nicer and therefore have a higher probability of higher grades. I’ve never tried it.
Unless the process recently changed, TrueViews are taken after grading, before encapsulation. So in this instance, the coin was graded UNC Details, a photo was taken, and then someone at PCGS messed with it before encapsulation?
Comments
Wowser. I'll stick to sending in modern Kennedy's in cello. Glad I sold my entire Lincoln set yesterday without thinking of grading any of them.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Look at the true view and tell me why toning disappeared. Smh twice
I just don’t know. The other four men who saw me submitting these thought they (many) were red. Two of the guys today saw the return submission and both asked “what the heck happened ?” I said : “ I trusted the experts.”
And the experts provided opinions you didn’t like, so you decided to defame them publicly?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
There is no defamation in public. Merely a query. Come see. I’m showing coins.
This is a (probably defamatory) statement, not a query.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
This was really gorgeous. But the humidity in California or the sub freezing temperature in the cargo hold of the plane seemed to change it. The skin looks dipped and stripped of its original luster as I recall when I took it from the cardboard flip.
So yeah I agree the color looks off , back in hand.
Bring it on, sqirmish. > @lermish said:
That’s a lousy opinion, as I read it lermish.
I don't particularly care one way or the other but you made a definitive statement, not a query or an opinion.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Last of that 81 coin submission 1909-193something. With a 55 DDO in for restoration and a ‘72DDO under the error tier.
https://www.pcgs.com/shared-orders/order-details/27146344
To answer the original question, yes, CN cents 1856-64.
That's an opinion that can result in banning.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I want opinions on red , red brown and brown cents. Or grades of the coins shared and posted. Got one, on any?
……..
Cargo holds don’t freeze…..and it may have even been in a climate controlled hold (where flowers and live animals/pets are put) if the coins went by plane. Highly doubt a few hours of even 45 degree temperature in a non climate controlled hold would have any effect on toning or luster and if the coins had protective wrapping around them for transport they probably never got below 65 degrees if even that.
How can you give color designations to copper coins which have been “processed?” Fooling around with them will make them “red” but not original. They could be “R&B” if you messed with them and exposed surface starts to turn brown. In fact it’s likely because the “virgin metal” which, when exposed, is more reactive.
Reviewing the coins which didn’t grade, my opinion is that they ranged from questionable to way off. Buying old red copper coins raw is a big challenge. It’s not for the casual buyer.
My first opinion is that PCGS absolutely did not dip or treat the cents.
My second opinion is that questionable color designations are very difficult to make based strictly on images.
My third opinion is that some of those coin photos do suggest that the color may be "questionable".
My fourth opinion is that you actually agree that the PCGS designations may be correct because you are now suggesting that PCGS "dipped or treated" some of the cents.
My fifth opinion is a reiteration of my original opinion: publicly accusing our host of something nefarious could result in banning. That was probably the most useful opinion of the five and I'm sorry that you have not considered it more carefully as I would hate to see you get yourself in trouble just because you are disappointed in the results.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Perhaps get a second opinion: crack a few out and send to NGC.
Casual collector: Morgans & Peace Dollars & 20th Century Type Set. Successful BST transactions with ProofCollection, Morgan13, CoinFinder, CoinHunter4, Bretsan.
There are literally hundreds of posts on the forum about the (lack of) quality of TV's representing what the coin looks like in hand because of the lighting and methods they use which can drastically alter the appearance of a coin in a picture. Show us good quality pics of the coins before you sent them in vs in the slab now if you want a comparison.
And don't they grade the coins before imaging? So your theory is they graded them (as QC), then imaged them still showing the color, and then before they slabbed them they quickly treated them?
I’m just seeing questionable missing color …along with questionable color
Maybe it’s my old eyes.
But this 1913-S is one example.
when i
sent
Good point.
Okay, let's try this: If you have six coins in a row all heeeee-haaaawying like a mule, it's safe to believe the next in line is not a Unicorn.
those look like 2 different coins
Coins are not mules/unicorns.
Suppose you sent a bunch of toned coins in for grading and the submission before yours contained coins that were determined to be "Questionable Color". Would you be satisfied if the graders believed the next coins in line were "more of the same" and didn't bother to scrutinize them close enough in order to determine they weren't? Or would you like your coins be graded based on their attributes, and not the attributes of some other coins?
edited to add... I'm not asking you what you think happens, I'm asking what you would like to happen.
Where we differ in our arguments is around your assumption that the subsequent coins would be scrutinized less. I would argue that, if the grader is “on guard”, subsequent coins will be scrutinized more, signaling that the grader should spend additional time and effort to ensure each coin is graded on its attributes and merit. In that case, the result should actually be closer to the perfect objectivity that you are advocating for.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
are you sure those 2 coins are the same coins?
The was RedRocket's argument (ducks/swans or mules/unicorns), I was asking him if he would be happy having his coins graded that way.
My argument is that all coins deserve the same level of scrutinization.
"I'm not asking you what you think happens, I'm asking what you would like to happen."
No, I would not be pleased with that level of service and prior judgement.
You'd be pleased if your coins were graded "QC" because the grader was thinking "If there are six coins in a row all heeeee-haaaawying like a mule, it's safe to believe the next in line is not a Unicorn."?
going off the rails by the usual bickering
Or CACG. They are smaller. I wonder if they would give you feedback.
Costs Additional Cash
just laid out 4 figures to pcgs. not worth the risk
the color looks ok to me
On which piece(s)?
all
…they may look okay , but the true views do not match the coins. Not in detail or color. Just look at the 1913-S.
It is the same coin. There is a dark spot near Lincoln’s collar. In the true view , there is also a lot more spots. But the coin in the holder looks flat and washed out, with much of the splotchy tone spots gone. As to the reverse shot, yes MsMorrisine , that is the 1913 S reverse and coin in holder.
Without a doubt. No question. Same coin. See how much the true view varies from the coin in the holder ?
A subconscious (or conscious, for that matter) bias against the rest
By this logic, where "questioanable color" on the first coins in a submission influences the opinion on the rest of the coins included, it follows that high grade coins at the beginning of a submission would cause a grader to grade the rest of the coins higher.
I don't subscribe to that thinking, but it is a long held belief among some submitters in the "set-up coin" to receive better grades on a submission.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
I always thought the set-up coin was supposed to be a lower grade, such that the subsequent coins all look comparatively much nicer and therefore have a higher probability of higher grades. I’ve never tried it.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
And I have always thought the notion of a “set-up coin” was a bunch of crap.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
theres little black spot on my coin, one day 🎶….now there is no spot, like yesterday
Unless the process recently changed, TrueViews are taken after grading, before encapsulation. So in this instance, the coin was graded UNC Details, a photo was taken, and then someone at PCGS messed with it before encapsulation?
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Did you pay for restoration?
Not on this submission
I disagree.
No you don't.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com