3 point upgrade on same 1838 half dime?
roadrunner
Posts: 28,313 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've always understood how the services can swing a point one way or another for legitimate reasons. I can also understand how at times a 2 point swing can occur between different services. But 3 points at the same service? Just shouldn't be so.
While I cannot without absolute certainty claim that the following coin used to mine, I am pretty convinced it is based on the unusually deep color pattern and the unique pattern of toning dots on the reverse. Like most of you, we remember unique color patterns for many many years. When I see this coin at the Heritage Auction in New York next month (lot 5920 1838 half dime NGC MS67) I'll know for sure. I'm ONLY 95% certain right now.
I owned a nearly identical half dime for several years and only last year sold it to a major dealer who does like to resubmit coins. The coin was in an older NGC hologram holder and in my opinion was a very nice 64+ coin, albeit much too dark for today's blast white palates. I sold the coin for just under $500 as a nice MS64. Maybe it had a shot to go 65 but I figured it didn't and bailed on it. His risk however. The coin was originally purchased on Teletrade of all places.
What struck me as unusual about the coin was the nearly perfect reverse that by itself would grade MS67. The color was a tad lighter too and in line with today's MS67 standards. It was as nice on the reverse as any early seated half dime I had seen. The obverse was a different story. If someone could LINK up a scan from the Heritage site it would be appreciated. The right obv field has a major luster break essentially opening up the entire right field. The left field also has scuffs and breaks across it but more isolated. Last time I knew, MS67 coins had to have luster across the fields. I have a hard time calling any coin with this much luster break an MS65. Yet I see it time and time again on bust and seated dimes and half dimes.
I've recently seen an MS65 no drapery half dime that only had luster in the protected areas around the stars and in the drapery folds. The high points were flattened like plateaus and off color due to severe wear. It too was in one of the top 2 tier slabs. The fields were totally broken with chatter (from circulation of course) and to be kind such a coin could be called MS63. 15 years ago, PCGS would have called it AU58 to MS62. But it is technically an AU coin that has seen plenty of circulation and field wear.
A word to the wise that there are plenty of pretenders out there these days and it is crucial to be able to distinguish between the two. I for one don't buy the fact that superb gem mint state type coins don't have to have full field luster. Yet the services keep churning out pieces that do not qualify. Be patient, and hold out for the ones that still do. They don't cost any more money either. A Barber dime in this shape would never make it past MS64 or MS65. If one is buying the plastic thinking that he or she is protected, think again. If you're buying fully gem coins, don't settle for less than full luster in the fields, on the rims, and on the figures. They do come like that.
roadrunner
While I cannot without absolute certainty claim that the following coin used to mine, I am pretty convinced it is based on the unusually deep color pattern and the unique pattern of toning dots on the reverse. Like most of you, we remember unique color patterns for many many years. When I see this coin at the Heritage Auction in New York next month (lot 5920 1838 half dime NGC MS67) I'll know for sure. I'm ONLY 95% certain right now.
I owned a nearly identical half dime for several years and only last year sold it to a major dealer who does like to resubmit coins. The coin was in an older NGC hologram holder and in my opinion was a very nice 64+ coin, albeit much too dark for today's blast white palates. I sold the coin for just under $500 as a nice MS64. Maybe it had a shot to go 65 but I figured it didn't and bailed on it. His risk however. The coin was originally purchased on Teletrade of all places.
What struck me as unusual about the coin was the nearly perfect reverse that by itself would grade MS67. The color was a tad lighter too and in line with today's MS67 standards. It was as nice on the reverse as any early seated half dime I had seen. The obverse was a different story. If someone could LINK up a scan from the Heritage site it would be appreciated. The right obv field has a major luster break essentially opening up the entire right field. The left field also has scuffs and breaks across it but more isolated. Last time I knew, MS67 coins had to have luster across the fields. I have a hard time calling any coin with this much luster break an MS65. Yet I see it time and time again on bust and seated dimes and half dimes.
I've recently seen an MS65 no drapery half dime that only had luster in the protected areas around the stars and in the drapery folds. The high points were flattened like plateaus and off color due to severe wear. It too was in one of the top 2 tier slabs. The fields were totally broken with chatter (from circulation of course) and to be kind such a coin could be called MS63. 15 years ago, PCGS would have called it AU58 to MS62. But it is technically an AU coin that has seen plenty of circulation and field wear.
A word to the wise that there are plenty of pretenders out there these days and it is crucial to be able to distinguish between the two. I for one don't buy the fact that superb gem mint state type coins don't have to have full field luster. Yet the services keep churning out pieces that do not qualify. Be patient, and hold out for the ones that still do. They don't cost any more money either. A Barber dime in this shape would never make it past MS64 or MS65. If one is buying the plastic thinking that he or she is protected, think again. If you're buying fully gem coins, don't settle for less than full luster in the fields, on the rims, and on the figures. They do come like that.
roadrunner
0
Comments
My logo dime to the left, was in a NCG MS61 case. I sent it for crossover, and got it back DNC. After looking at it for about a week or so, I decided to crack it out and send it back in. They graded it MS63. Now, to me that is at least a four point difference. It did not meet MS60 standards while in an NGC holder, but raw it makes MS63? Go figure.
Tony
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
roadrunner
I see more slack given to Bust coinage on slabbing cleaned and re-toned as well. Yes, many of these had their cleanings, but just because it re-tones with a pretty color, imo should not be slabbed. They won't do it for other series, so I feel it should stay consistent.
My icon coin is graded AU58 by PCGS, and it IS in the correct holder. That's where it will stay for as long as I own it anyway.
Great post. You have confirmed my beliefs about 3rd party graders all along.
Bulldog
No good deed will go unpunished.
Free Money Search
Brian - Some might argue that we have grading services to save people like you from selling $3500 coins for only $500.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I like the look of this coin a lot, but much more so when I bought it 4-7 years ago. I sold it in Feb of 2002 at the Auburn, MA coin show for $475. I had paid $445 for it from Teletrade way back when. Yup, big $30 profit for years of holding it. It has to make me wonder if some of the bigger players have an ear to the grading services. Yeah, we always hear that they don't but you just have to wonder.
I know I have never gotten a gift of more than 1 point on any coin ever submitted to the grading services. And I've submitted probably hundreds of raw type coins over the years. I guess you can call this thread the dirty little secret of the hobby. In a way it is scary that grading is so elastic at times and why sight-unseen buying with no return privilege is so risky.
roadrunner
Ooh, I just LOVE the ring of that! Go get 'em!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
market value.
That's one of my well earned AXIOMS from the slab wars of 1987-1990. "If you think that the coin will upgrade, or has a chance, it will eventually, whether you do it or or someone else does it." Time and time again I've run into my throwaways in higher holders. One that particularly hurt was a no motto seated quarter that I beat out
Eric Streiner for at a Stack's Auction in 1988. I paid $2200 for a raw 63+ no motto shot coin that came back an NGC62 (worth $500).
You know that when Eric sees something like you do it's no mistake.
In any case, I tried again and still got a low grade. I let it go in a B&M auction raw and forgot to protect it, it sold for $450! The real pain came about a year later in 1990 when I saw it in an NGC64 holder at a large show. Nothing has really changed. The variability is still there but the accuracy is long long gone.
roadrunner
roadrunner
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
SO, COINS BROKEN OUT OF "CLASSIC" HOLDERS MIGHT NOT STAND ALONE EITHER FOR ANYWHERE NEAR THE VALUE AS A SLABBED COIN WITH THE PARTICULAR GRADE ASSIGNED ON THE HOLDER? GEEZ - I THOUGHT THAT WAS SIMPLY A "MODERN COIN" PROBLEM JUDGING FROM THE POSTS ON THESE BOARDS FOR YEARS. LET'S ALL REMEMBER RR's POST HERE AS HE (POSSIBLY) CRINGES AT THE SIGHT OF HIS "MS64" COIN NOW IN MS67 ARMOUR
Wondercoin
I don't think anyone has ever suggested placing blind faith in the grading services on classic coins....at least I haven't. This problem is deeply rooted in all coins coming out of the services. That coin may be in a 67 holder today, but could be totally unsaleable at anything but a 64/65 in 5-10 years from now. In fact if it is my ex-coin, it will be totally unsaleable except for what it really is should the services not be around to prop up sight-unseen bidding. How many sight unseen bids are out there for slabbed Hallmark coins from the 1988-1989 era?
How would you like your "investment portfolio" littered with similar coins? What really impresses me is that this was a 3 pt spread in HIGH GRADE Mint State (not from AU58 to MS61) at the SAME service, in less than 18 months from sale, with nothing being done to the coin at all, just resubmittals. And it wasn't like it was a massive undergrade in a first gen holder that screamed "monster gem inside....please crack to claim your prize." I had never before found a concrete example to put foward until this one.
roadrunner
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
I'm beginning to think that with the shift to modern coin submissions that a "dumbing" down of the grading services has slowly evolved. The expertise that once there and was absolutely critical has now been replaced by modern grading experts who as an aside, grade classic coins too. Toss in the usual gradeflation that has occured in the past 10 years, and you have a 3 point shift. There is no way, and I've proved it over and over again on my submissions the past 24 months, that the same consistency that was there 12 years ago, is just not there. That's how you can fool 1, 2 or 3 graders and let something like this slip through. This is just one coin from one person (me) who happened to spot it in its new holder. Now toss in tens of housands of other submitters and coin owners and you get the picture of today's grading issue. Still better than it was in pre-1986, but we are backtracking and slowly heading back to 1984.
roadrunner