Seeking advice re: (potentially) under graded coin
P0CKETCHANGE
Posts: 3,845 ✭✭✭✭✭
I bought an 1899 Barber Proof this week for my collection, and it looks significantly under graded. It's in an NGC PF62 holder w/CAC green bean. Usually I avoid 62s, but the seller's video of the coin looked unusually nice for the grade.
Typically, proof 62s have significant hairlines in the fields from polishing and wiping, and/or impaired or occluded mirrors. The mirrors on this coin, however, are deep, black, watery and display minimal hairlines. Based on my experience with other Barber and Seated proofs, the level of hairlines on this coin would not be out of place on a PR65.
When I first examined the coin, I noticed significant patches of hairlines on Liberty's neck, jaw and cheek, and concluded that was the reason for the grade. On second look, however, I thought they might be die polish. A study of examples on CoinFacts, including this PR69DCAM, reveal that other coins do indeed have the exact same die polish pattern as my coin. 
Unless I missed something major, my working hypothesis is that NGC's graders saw the big patches of die polish as hairlines and called it a 62. Similarly, CAC reviewed it quickly, concluded the same, and gave it a bean as being "nice for a 62".
I'm not sure if I should just crack it and resubmit, send in for a Regrade (not sure if NGC does this), or send it back to CAC for Gold bean Reconsideration (maybe with a small sticker on the coin that says "die polish on devices"). I'm thinking the latter might be best, as I'll either end up with a gold bean or JA's opinion on why it doesn't qualify.
Anyway, what would you do? Here's a video of the coin: https://imgur.com/a/jCYoI8v
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
Comments
It's hard to say based on the images. The usual culprit is hairlines. I've also seen somewhat impaired proof coins with muted/weak mirrors in lower graded proof holders.
Neither of those seem to be issues with this coin. Mirrors are very strong. Field hairlines are consistent with a grade as high as PR65, IMO. I thought I got that across in my second paragraph, but thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
I saw that. The problem is that you may have missed some hairlines. I hate to admit it, but it has happened to me in the past too. I also looked at your video, but again, there can be a lot hiding especially with the glaring overhead light. Unfortunately NGC killed off its reconsideration service around 2020. PCGS has allowed you to specify a higher minimum grade on crossover for a few years (this was a change to the long standing rule) if your goal is to preserve the CAC sticker. You could also send to CACG. If it is an older CAC sticker, it is guaranteed to cross at CACG. Maybe you could ask them if you send a note whether they would crack and grade as raw with a fresh look since it would be guaranteed to cross.
It's possible I missed hairlines, but I own and have handled a good number of Barber and Seated proofs in 62-65, and I've been looking at this one all morning and in various lighting conditions (sunlight, incandescent, overhead, etc.). They are minimal.
I hadn't considered CACG, so I'll add that to the list of options. It does appear to be a "Legacy" sticker.
Thanks for the input.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
It's an inexpensive enough coin that you're unlikely to get hurt much regardless of how things turn out.
If you're confident in your assessment, or you get other in-hand assessments that agree, crack that sucker out and swing for the fences. There is little price difference between 62-64, barely enough to cover grading costs. The big jump looks like it is at 65.
I would never send to PCGS/NGC/CACG while still in the existing holder.
I think sending in for gold sticker review is a good happy medium to keep expenses down, get an expert analysis, and (if successful) would recognize most of the upside.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Yes, NGC accepts coins for regrade, similarly to how PCGS does.
I’d opt for resubmitting the coin (along with a note on the submission invoice and on the holder) to CAC in the hopes of a gold sticker.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If my coin, I would leave it be. Print out this thread and include with the coin. OP, you've done your homework and say it's PF 65 then that's what it is. No need to spend more money on regradings, reconsiderations, attempts to upgrade to gold CAC, etc. Enjoy your very nice piece in its NGC holder for what it is, not involving yourself with chasing a loftier grade number. "62" means to me that a very nice piece awaits me to behold. Show us the other side please.
As someone who sells coins to generate cash flow to buy concert tickets, one would you think might have some interest in maximizing the value of your coins prior to selling them. Not that surprising to learn that your financial acumen is as lackluster as the rest of the aptitudes you regularly display in this forum.
Luckily, I know the OP, and he is a bright person who knows that your post is worthless.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I'd think you could send it to cacg in Virginia since it is guaranteed to be at least a PR62 in the cac holder and they may upgrade it there if it is on that tier.
While, to you, a 62 might mean that a very nice piece awaits you to behold, to many or most others, it signifies a low quality example.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Congratulations lermish! You made it off my ignore list with your brilliant post. Yes, I had to "unignore" to see what you wrote but I must say I was so impressed with your post that I was inspired to leave you off of my ignore, at least for a time.
I've got pieces in "62" holders that I would accept no less than double the dollars what the gospel according to CDN says. Pricing coins is an art, lermish. Maybe you will figure that out someday. The OP's coin appears to me to be an $800-$1000 piece. Collector buys it it's $1000. Dealer gets a shot at buying because I don't have an interested collector with the necessary money I need, I might let go for $800 or so. Unless this 1899 Barber Quarter proof has something nasty going on on the reverse side...then disregard my numbers and go back to the drawing board.
Interesting. That's a nice looking 62 for sure.
Coin Photography
That's a beautiful Barber! I don't know proofs well at all unfortunately but the coin sure is pretty and the NGC slab compliments it nicely.
"Another day, another Collectors Universe forum scrolling session."
- Someone, probably
The coin seems nicer than a 62, but I don't see a 65 in its future. The coin looks a little processed to me, and it was almost certainly toned at some point.
CAC can be weird with gold stickers. They may deny that coin a gold sticker as a 62, yet still give it a green sticker as a 63 or even a 64. I know, it's happened to me.
Dipped, certainly. I assume every blast white proof Barber is. But the bean tells me that whatever was done was not enough to cause any surface issues or concerns. I’d feel less confident about that if it wasn’t already stickered.
I don’t really expect a gold bean (almost unheard of on a modern NGC slab), but if there’s a 5%-10% shot at one and, failing that, a 90% shot that JA will point out whatever it is I’m missing, that sounds like a good investment.
Also, while I did say the level of hairlines would not be out of place on a 65, I wasn’t suggesting that this coin should be in a 65 holder. I do like it as a solid 64. I’ve seen worse 64s, even CAC’d ones, than this coin.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
I wouldn't assume the bean means the dip was done properly. I've seen a couple stripped CAC coins that made me cringe a bit.
Coin Photography
Recognizing that proofs in particular are difficult to grade from images (and intentionally or not, it is very easy to make proofs look better or worse in a photo than they are in hand), I have two thoughts up front...
1- Is there something on the reverse, since we've only seen the obverse?
2- The coin has a green sticker. If you said the coin could be a 63, there's nothing to preclude that, but at least as far as second opinions go, NGC called this a 62 and CAC then opined, and it seems very unlikely to me that a coin could get a 3-point upgrade and only garner a green sticker prior to the upgrade.
I thought they might be die polish
You should be able to discern die polish from hairlines.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Sorry, the reverse is visible towards the end of the linked video, I didn't take any stills of it. There a little haziness in the stars above the eagle, but nothing that seemed concerning, and the mirrors are strong and similarly devoid of all but minor hairlines.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
I did. Read the sentence after that one. I concluded they were die polish lines, rather than hairlines (which they appear to be at first glance).
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
I am a bit surprised NGC didn't award the STAR grade to this one. Unless NGC doesn't give PLUS or STAR grades to MS62s.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would trust that CAC has deemed it good for a 62... if they thought it significantly undergraded it would have a gold CAC.
Initial look the cheek appears abraded... but from photos hard to tell.
However NGC gave it a 62 and it was confirmed by CAC so... could it be a 63 ofc but is it 3+points or Significantly undergraded? 8 ball says most definitely NOT.
In theory, yes. A dealer I know just got a green bean converted to a gold bean on a Reconsideration submission. The coin? A PR62 Barber quarter. Highly unusual, but it happens.
No abrasions on the cheek, so far as I can tell. Just scratchy looking die polish.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
Do you have any "62s" in your personal collection or do you regard the grade (MS 62=select uncirculated) beneath you for the reason many or most others would shun you for having such a lowly graded coin in your holdings? One of the coin grading industry's best kept secrets is that a TPG MS 62 grade oftentimes represents real value for the money to the collector who appreciates coins as art pieces.
Except it's a PR62, not a MS62. Big difference.
Please go back to ticketmaster.com rather than interjecting your useless nonsense here.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
1) I don’t have a coin collection.
2) “Select uncirculated” is an ambiguous term.
3) The coin is Proof 62, not MS62 and a grade of 62 for a Proof is low. In fact, (not counting circulated pieces) there are only two numerical grades lower than that for Proof Barber coins, while there are seven grades higher.
4) Your comment about “best kept secret” and “real value” has nothing to do with the fact that 62 is not considered a desirable grade for this type of coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hard to imagine CAC not gold stickering it if it really should be graded 64 or 65. I’d suggest getting a second opinion from someone who has seen it in hand before going to the trouble and expense of regrading.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If you believe in it, my advice is crack it out and submit raw. I've been in that spot a few times.
Maybe get an opinion from a trusted dealer if one is nearby.
Collector, occasional seller
Where are you getting PR 62? Maybe you need to get your eyes examined for a new set of spectacles. "Select" proof= PF 62. Slightly circulated proof might qualify as PF 62 given that it hasn't received a nasty distracting mark or two from mishandling by a past owner. I called for a look at the reverse of the OP coin so reserve final judgement until that happens.The fact that this quarter earned a green CAC is a major tell that the piece really is nice. Pursuing gold CAC is a waste of time and money imo.
Your opinion is WORTHLESS.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
He and I are both getting PR/PF 62 from the picture of the coin in the opening post. Our eyes are fine.
And no, a slightly circulated Proof wouldn’t qualify as a PF62.
I’ve now wasted way too much time replying to your off-base posts, so I’m done.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would also think a favorable reconsideration would be more common on lower grade coins where the price difference between grading intervals is not as much in many cases.
CAC is really stingy with a gold sticker even on coins that are undergraded. It is not unheard of to be denied a gold and the coin green been AFTER the coin is upgraded. If the images and video are accurate, I am very surprised by the grade.
I have seen many green stickered coins upgrade 1 grade, and to me that is a testament to CAC's pickiness with their green sticker. So it doesn't surprise if it could potential upgrade 1 grade and if it does there is a possibility that CAC would not give it a greens sticker too, one cannot forget that possibility. I would just leave it alone but its your coin and as they say ownership often adds 1 point.
You sure put a lot of energy into your pleading to folks what you think of my opinions, etc. It's the OP's money and time in trying to get a gold bean for his holdered coin fine. It's no matter to me what he actually tries with the grading services to make himself and friends like you feel better about his coin.
I have never seen a gold beaned coin for sale at the shows I've attended. What is your opinion what a gold bean says about a coin? Green bean means "nice for the grade." Gold bean means "super nice for the grade"?
No need for an opinion when we can just read what the issuing body states
Another thought to consider is to wait for CACG to offer a crossing service special at no charge if it does not criss at your requested higher grade. Your options are:
PR63 or higher
PR62CAM. Probably not DCAM. Need to see the reverse of this coin to be sure it is a possible CAM.
PR62+
If it does not cross at these higher grades you only spent $10 admin fee plus shipping. Then you know what CACG thinks of the coin.
He and I are both getting PR/PF 62 from the picture of the coin in the opening post. Our eyes are fine.
And no, a slightly circulated Proof wouldn’t qualify as a PF62.
I’ve now wasted way too much time replying to your off-base posts, so I’m done.
The grade on the label of the OP coin is "PF 62", not "PR 62". Is PR/PF 62 a new grade that we are now just learning about? In the real world there can't be very slightly circulated proofs that receive the designation PF 62? A careful properly done dip can do wonders for a piece in my experience. Dip a proof Barber quarter with very slight "wear" (evidence of slight mishandling by an owner as opposed to clanking around with other coins in a cash register) is always regarded as an impaired proof in Feld world?
There's AU 58 coins that I'm hearing could get MS 62 on a good day. Why can't the same thing be said for proof coins showing evidence of slight owner mishandling that can be more-or-less fixed by a pro level dip?
Agree with NGC - it’s PF 62. Numerous hairlines, scratches on face (primary focal area). It certainly is high end for its grade and looks very nice hence the sticker and nice luster. Would leave as is. Have you shopped it around the bourse?
Did you even read the post you copied above and replied to? If so, it appears that you didn’t comprehend it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@P0CKETCHANGE
You wrote ...
... send it back to CAC for Gold bean Reconsideration (maybe with a small sticker on the coin that says "die polish on devices"). I'm thinking the latter might be best, as I'll either end up with a gold bean or JA's opinion on why it doesn't qualify.
.
Based on market conditions as they are, I would think this is the best first course of action unless you have a "sharp" that can look at it in-hand and give you a more detailed path.
As far as how premium it is (or isn't), images of a Proof on a screen are nearly impossible to tell true quality ... and frankly I think at least half of these arm-chair grader blowhards trying to split hairs couldn't tell a PF62 from a PF63 if they had it in hand anyway.
FWIW ... I probably couldn't either.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Brought it to a local dealer while I was out running errands today, and presented it with the grade and bean covered up.
Before he broke out his loupe, he said it looked “65, maybe 66”. When he put the glass on it, he grunted and sighed and said, “oof, 62, maybe details.”
I asked him why. He pointed out the “scratches” on the neck and jaw. “But the reverse is excellent,” he said. I did not share my opinion with him.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
Knowing nothing about that series, and not having read all the posts before me, my opinion is simply that it is extremely unlikely, regardless of what we may feel about a coin, that both NGC and CAC got it wrong.
Case in point: I recently posted my first "GTG" here, of a key date Lincoln cent, graded by PCGS and sporting a CAC green sticker. Every single opinion was that it was under-graded, with many thinking that it was way under-graded. But the guy whom I consider to be the resident expert on the series agreed with PCGS and CAC, so I accepted that, no, PCGS and CAC did not both get it wrong.
I tend to agree, based on the fact that both NGC and CAC reviewed it. But, until I know why, I am operating with the best hypothesis that I can form with the knowledge level that I have. It will be a good learning experience either way.
That said, I have definitely seen the TPG and CAC both get things wrong. One such case: a gold dollar in a PCGS PL holder w/CAC approval later showed up in a PCGS Proof holder w/CAC approval. I've also seen coins with a green bean that were cracked and graded two grades higher, and earned a green bean at that level, too. Unlikely, but it happens.
And, I have the highest respect for CAC (stickering, in this case) and place significant value on their opinion, but it's definitely easier and less risky to verify an existing TPG grade than to grade the coin raw.
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.