This is one I would definitely would want to see in hand. The patination makes it very difficult to see how much of the color change is from friction and how much is secondary to the patina. The obverse fields are pretty clean. MS64?

Has anyone else noticed that the color and appearance are markedly different on a desktop versus an iPhone?

MS66

It is funny that the grades are all over the place. And with those photos, I cannot say that they are unreasonable even though there is a considerable difference in assigned grade. I think anything at or above AU58 is certainly within the realm of possibility.

Any chance we could get a video? I keep going back and forth on this coin depending on my display. There is flatness/friction which isn't surprising on the design/alloy, but I'm not convinced all of the discoloration is from friction as opposed to the patina.

MS61

MS-63

MS65+ - I like it despite marks, etc. That happens with gold.

As a fun experiment, I asked chat GPT to grade the coin:

@Copperindian said:
There was one MS66, so that gets a 0% chance?

I’m not sure is 65+ in short hand for >=65 or literally a “MS65+” grade.

Interesting bagmark (?) on the tail feathers

AU58

63

@D808LF said:
The reveal pic looks nicer than the first pic.

You all are going to hate me, but I thought the hazy looking color over the breasts in the new photo made me wonder if it had been puttied.

Edited: Since the coin looks very different depending on the device used, it looks like a pinkish haze over the breast and extending into the fields on my desktop monitor. That is what I am commenting on.

@PocketChange When putty is applied initially, it is not easily detected. The color turns over time. Coins will often have a hazy look and often pinkish residue over them. I see what looks like a very light pinkish haze over the obverse devices and spreading into the field. For some reason, it sticks out more when viewing on a desktop or laptop but is not as noticeable when I view it on my iPhone. There will be no ambiguity when you rotate it in hand. If it has been puttied, PCGS can bathe it in acetone to remove the putty and regrade the coin, but you'd lose the old holder if you paid a premium for that.

@Baylor8670 said:

@dcarr said:

@Baylor8670 said:

@P0CKETCHANGE said:

@Baylor8670 said:
In the slab pic, I see a good amount of likely putty below the RTY and I think the entire obv was thumbed.

Putty detection is an ongoing challenge for the TPGs.

Interesting. What specifically should I look for when I get it in hand? I’ve never examined a coin with putty before, so this will be a good one to learn from if indeed you are correct. What do you mean by thumbed?

If the luster is muted or distorted as in the slab pic, that's a bad sign. On a nice coin with good luster and surfaces, you should see 1 or 2 hourglasses. I can see luster on the slab pic but it is oddly shaped.

Likely puttied "Gems":

And a puttied "Ultra Gem" I bought recently. This MS67 had very weak luster and pop until I conserved it myself.

Coins with good hourglasses:

Single horizontal hourglass

Double hourglass

Also, finger grease rarely looks hazy on gold. It just has a more natural look to it than what I see below the RTY above. Gold coins with hazy areas like that are likely puttied. Finger grease and putty are more difficult for me to visually differentiate on silver coins.

Once the coin is in hand, examine it with a loupe and incandescent bulb at many angles. Don't just look at it straight on. Tilt it towards you and away from you as you rotate it under the bulb.

Coin doctor residue is often applied by putting some on your thumb then wiping across the surface of the coin (a/k/a thumbing). There are different application methods but I use the term "thumbing" as a catch all.

.

I am going to disagree with a lot of what you stated.

"Haze" (incidental/accidental) and "putty" (intentional) are not the same thing.

The odd luster pattern on the 1873 quarter eagle is due to the Eagle's wings on the reverse affecting the luster pattern on the obverse. The same effect is frequently seen on Barber Quarter and Half dollars. Also sometimes on Liberty Head Double Eagles, to a lesser extent.

The presence of "hourglass" luster has a lot to do with die state and lighting.

As for the 1924 Saint-Gaudens Double Eagle :
So you "conserved" the coin and it graded the same or better afterwards ?
If so, then why would anyone "putty" it in the first place if that didn't improve anything ?
I think you are seeing "putty" where there isn't any.

.

Then it's a good thing I never said haze and putty are the same thing. Here's my statement - "Gold coins with hazy areas like that are likely puttied." I bolded the important word for you. Sorry for your confusion.

The '73 QE surfaces look extremely suspicious in this pic and that's why I said it's "likely" puttied. The eagle's wings would have nothing to do with whether someone doctored the coin but I'll look at in hand next week.

The '24 Saint is en route to the TPG. You asking me to explain someone else's decision is a red herring. The color, sheen, luster and pop all improved quite a bit on the '24 but feel free to believe what you want. I don't conserve coins to chase upgrades. I conserve to remove dirt, pvc, coin doctor residue and to improve eye appeal. Maybe you're confused and surprised that so many puttied coins get straight graded?

What did you think about the '00-S $20? Am I seeing coin doctor residue where there isn't any on that one?

.

"Confusion" and "disagreement" are not the same thing.

Apparently, "Putty Pareidolia" is a real thing.
I think most of what people attribute as "putty" is actually PVC oil left over from time in an old flip.

Look at the luster patterns on these coins, which exhibit what I call the "wing effect" (see below):

The 1900-S $20 Double Eagle looks like it may have some residue and/or haze on it.
Nothing on it appears to have been obviously intentional.

Probably not puttied. I've had a number of $20s dip in acetone and grade at the same prior grade or higher:

@P0CKETCHANGE said:

@Baylor8670 said:
Are you leaning towards leaving it in the OGH or having it conserved then re-graded with the correct attribution?

Leaving it in the OGH. I only bought it for the gold content; the D/D was an interesting bonus.

Hypothetically if I wanted to conserve it though, what’s the best way to do that?

You could run it by PCGS and see if they'll do it gratis, though they'll probably balk and grouse requiring you to pay for the acetone dip and regrade. You could wait until you have enough coins to include in a submission, crack it, soak it in acetone and re-submit so you don't have to pay a lot of shipping costs for just one coin.

@P0CKETCHANGE said:

@Baylor8670 said:
Are you leaning towards leaving it in the OGH or having it conserved then re-graded with the correct attribution?

Leaving it in the OGH. I only bought it for the gold content; the D/D was an interesting bonus.

Hypothetically if I wanted to conserve it though, what’s the best way to do that?

A PCGS guarantee submission. They will likely use acetone to remove the haze. If it downgrades the guarantee should apply but I’d read the most recent posted version of the guarantee prior to submitting it as they have made changes over the years.