Options
Reviewing coins in "third world" grading company slabs
BillJones
Posts: 35,810 ✭✭✭✭✭
Last weekend there was a dealer walking the bourse floor at a Florida show who had an inventory that on paper would look pretty impressive. Included in his offerings were half dimes from 1794, 1795, 1796, 1797, 1800 and even 1805. He had one of the sharpest 1807 dimes I have ever seen. And he had a couple 1794 half dollars, a 1795 gold eagle, and a very sharp 1804 quarter dollar in “AU.” The marked prices were very competitive for coins that are just impossible to find these days. YET there was one catch. Hardly a coin in his entire inventory had original toning. Virtually every piece, except those that were damaged or worn to Fair or Poor condition was AT or had what the services call "altered surfaces."
What grading services had certified these items? Most of them were SEGS, quite a few were PCI and there was one lonely NGC coin, a 1995 doubled die cent. One piece did have a note on it that said, “questionable toning.” Questionable toning????!!!!! There WAS NO QUESTION! The coin was screaming AT!!!!
I greatly admire the coins from this era, and it broke my heart to see how some of these coins had abused and probably ruined forever. What motivates people to do this? I guess it that constant swings in collector taste from toned coins to “white” coins and then back to toned coins. Along the way a lot of good coins get ruined and a lot of inexperienced collectors get the shaft.
Another dealer whose tastes run very similar to my own had pretty much the same comments and conclusions. He called these piece “third world slabs,” which summed the situation quite accurately. There was really nothing there for someone who knew what he or she was doing.
But what about those who don’t know what they are doing? What about the Ebay people who think they are getting protection because they bidding on “certified material?” The answer for them is really caveat emptor.
What grading services had certified these items? Most of them were SEGS, quite a few were PCI and there was one lonely NGC coin, a 1995 doubled die cent. One piece did have a note on it that said, “questionable toning.” Questionable toning????!!!!! There WAS NO QUESTION! The coin was screaming AT!!!!
I greatly admire the coins from this era, and it broke my heart to see how some of these coins had abused and probably ruined forever. What motivates people to do this? I guess it that constant swings in collector taste from toned coins to “white” coins and then back to toned coins. Along the way a lot of good coins get ruined and a lot of inexperienced collectors get the shaft.
Another dealer whose tastes run very similar to my own had pretty much the same comments and conclusions. He called these piece “third world slabs,” which summed the situation quite accurately. There was really nothing there for someone who knew what he or she was doing.
But what about those who don’t know what they are doing? What about the Ebay people who think they are getting protection because they bidding on “certified material?” The answer for them is really caveat emptor.
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 ... ?
0
Comments
<< <i>...it broke my heart to see how some of these coins had [been] abused and probably ruined forever. What motivates people to do this? I guess it that constant swings in collector taste from toned coins to “white” coins and then back to toned coins. Along the way a lot of good coins get ruined and a lot of inexperienced collectors get the shaft. >>
I have nothing against some third-world slabs. I have a few nice things to say about SEGS, and I still consider PCI green labels as purchase-worthy.
In a way, these companies do not deserve as much of the blame as collector greed and faddishness do. The currently absurd focus on colorful toning, for instance, was bound to inevitably bring a lot of AT into play, human nature being what it is.
Mind you, I have nothing against pretty toning, I just think the premiums being paid for it these days are ridiculous. It would have to be a really pretty coin for me to pay more than a 25-30% premium for anything like toning, or nice luster, or whatever. And people are paying thousands of percent! The bubble will most likely burst after all the AT artists bring the fad down. (A certain realistic, sane portion of the market will remain, of course.)
The only thing that's worth a premium of over 25% of a coin's "normal" value to me personally is strong cameo contrast on a proof or PL/DMPL coin, or maybe ample mint red on copper. And even then, I think anything over a 100% premium is ridiculous.
I try to avoid fads in all aspects of my life. I like what I like, but not because everybody else is yammering over something.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
If it was an MS69RD, you should have grabbbed it!!
Very sad on the destruction of such classic coins.
Wondercoin
<< <i>If it was an MS69RD, you should have grabbbed it!! >>
Naw, it was an MS-65, Red. No great shakes.
Both have poor intentions, that could be argued at criminal.
The problem is, that a vast majority of collectors don't give a hoot, or don't have the time, knowledge or care to give a hoot at what the intentions of these lesser services offer. They are in this hobby to collect. Plain and simple. They go off and enjoy themselves filling albums and go about their merry way.
This board showcases a harder core of collectors that demand more accountability from everyone involved in this hobby. Unfortunately, these same people aren't the majority. That's why ACG or the new PCI or Numistrust can succeed.
We had a shot at exposing these services with the ANA, but that went down the tubes. That's why I'm not a fan of the ANA, at all. They aren't the backbone of the hobby like an organization of their caliber should be.
They don't look out for the average collector. Sure they'll claim to offer all sorts of educational tools to help collectors, and that is fantastic, but again, we are talking the average joe collector, that has been buying inferior items, in comparison to monies spent, from lesser third party grading services, or better yet, lesser coin retailers!
How about them exposing some major coin mag. advertisers for what they are. Forget about it.
I've got to run, but this could be a good thread.
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
<< <i>This board showcases a harder core of collectors >>
very well said.
it's because pcgs / ngc have declared: "cleaned coins are ruined" that you're hearbroken??? jeezus christ, GET OVER IT DUDE.
i don't consider a 1797 half-dime that's cleaned to be "RUINED", i consider it to be CLEANED, that's it. BIG FREAKING DEAL gee, a coin w/ a mintage of a couple thousand that was cleaned by some coin-collecting pioneer in 1865 is RUINED??? c'mon....
the paranoia propagated by these plastic co's has reached absurd heights. to see people who are so danged caught up in whether IT'LL SLAB OR NOT makes me sick. if you can't stomach a coin that was cleaned a hundred years ago, GET OUT OF THE HOBBY AND COLLECT BEENIE BABIES. or at least collect ultra-moderns where you can be 99.9999% sure nobody would waste their time cleaning it. that way you won't have to drag around all the horrific, heart-braking baggage of how just once in 200 years something might of gotten cleaned. sheeeeesh
yes, i love original coins, i crave original coins, there's nothing better than a coin that rested in a collection for 200 years. you know what? most coins that old DID NOT GET COLLECTED TO YOUR STANDARDS 100 YEARS AGO. YOU NEED TO GET OVER IT. just because pcgs says you can't collect cleaned 200 y-o coins doesn't mean you have to do evertthing they say, does it? it's always the same bottom line: buy it if you like it. & for me, i've hardly ever seen a 1797 half-dime that i don't like, & i don't give a rat's a55 that it's cleaned, it's still a legitimate piece of history. tell you what, you all just leave those disgusting, horrible, heart-breaking despicable cleaned 200 y-o coins alone. that's just less competition for me.
K S
<< <i>i think the real problem is that ... SOME PEOPLE JUST CAN'T GET OVER IT.
it's because pcgs / ngc have declared: "cleaned coins are ruined" that you're hearbroken??? jeezus christ, GET OVER IT DUDE.
i don't consider a 1797 half-dime that's cleaned to be "RUINED", i consider it to be CLEANED, that's it. BIG FREAKING DEAL gee, a coin w/ a mintage of a couple thousand that was cleaned by some coin-collecting pioneer in 1865 is RUINED??? c'mon....
K S >>
Fair enough, but if an independent grading company is declaring such a coin as problem free, don't you have a problem with that misrepresentation?
Your reply may be that the collector shouldn't be relying on the third party graders opinion, regardless of what they claim, and I can agree with that point to a certain extent.
The problem with that thinking is that if a new collector enters the hobby with interest and open arms to try and participate, should they HAVE to suffer substantial financial losses in order to "learn"?
In my opinion, no.
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
<< <i>There was really nothing there for someone who knew what he or she was doing. >>
Excuse me but I like to think I know what I am doing and it sounds like there was a LOT there for someone like me! I'm sorry but I am not financially well endowed and if I have to wait until I can afford to buy a nice VF original problem free example of one of those coins I would be a coin collector with no collection. Yes I know that the coins are cleaned. I DON'T CARE! Those coins may be "ruined" to you but they are probably STILL more than I can afford. And if I can buy them I'm not worried about them being saleable some day because guess what, there are other financially strapped collectors out there in the same boat I am who will be tickled to get them. Especially things like the "sharpest 1807 dime I've ever seen". Even if it is cleaned. Even if it is WHIZZED!
Cleaned coins or even AT coins do not bother me unless I was unaware of the problem. Cleaning and AT is a problem, any way you look at it, but in some cases, it is a mild, non-distracting problem. I mostly mean secondary RE-toning where I said "AT". Sometimes secondary toning gets slapped as AT- but it's natural. Who cares, anyway. (I'm not talking about the AT that is intended to conceal or deceive- that's bad.)
As long as something like cleaning is noted, it need not be a barrier to enjoying a coin, the way a scratch or a bad spot would be. I would rather have a pretty cleaned coin than an ugly original one. (The problem is, the beauty -or ugliness- is in the eye of the beholder.)
As dorkkarl said, maybe people need to lighten up a little. Collectors have not always been so hardcore as we are, and lots of historical coins reflect their past abuses. That doesn't mean they're ruined. This is why I have no antipathy toward NCS, for instance. It's too bad that the top two services do not grade problem coins, and the number three service uses a net-grading system that makes sense in theory but doesn't really work in practice.
This is why I use SEGS for problem coins that I know would get a bodybag from PCGS/NGC or a net grade from ANACS. Coins like this. I should have sent it to SEGS instead of ANACS, maybe. I was not surprised that ANACS net graded it; it was the details grade and the final net grade that I took issue with. SEGS, on the other hand, would have give a regular grade (and maybe overgraded it by a point or two in my favor), and then they would have just noted the problem on the label. That's the best way to go, IMHO. I can't help but wonder if the coin would have brought more money on eBay in an overgraded, problem-noted SEGS slab than it did in the ANACS net grade slab.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Top tier:
PCGS
NGC
Second tier:
ANACS
"Third world", to borrow the phrase:
SEGS and/or ICG (tied for #4)
PCI
If it ain't on that list, as far as I'm concerned, it's a raw coin. And no raw coin or third-world coin grades over 65, IMHO. If you want supergrade status (66 or higher), it's gotta be in first or second-tier plastic.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
<< <i><< i think the real problem is that ... SOME PEOPLE JUST CAN'T GET OVER IT.
it's because pcgs / ngc have declared: "cleaned coins are ruined" that you're hearbroken??? jeezus christ, GET OVER IT DUDE.
i don't consider a 1797 half-dime that's cleaned to be "RUINED", i consider it to be CLEANED, that's it. BIG FREAKING DEAL gee, a coin w/ a mintage of a couple thousand that was cleaned by some coin-collecting pioneer in 1865 is RUINED??? c'mon....
K S >>
Fair enough, but if an independent grading company is declaring such a coin as problem free, don't you have a problem with that misrepresentation? >>
he11 no! look, here's the truth about "PROBLEM COINS". >>
ALL coins are "problem coins", unless they are perfect MS-70 or PR-70!!!
a common seated half-dime that grades au-50 is a PROBLEM COIN, becuase the "problem" is that it circulated. a chain cent that grades ms-63 is a PROBLEM COIN because it has scuffs and broken luster. a coin that grades ms-69 is a PROBLEM COIN because it has some bagmark, somewhere, A PROBLEM THAT KEEPS IT FROM BEING "PERFECT".
so you mean to tell me that a 1797 half-dime that has no circulation wear whatsoever but was lightly wiped once is MORE OF A PROBLEM than a au-50 seated half-dime??? BULL - PUCKEY!!!
the ONLY issue at hand is what kind of "problems" you can handle. if you have some deep-rooted horrendous psycho-paranoia that a 200 y-o coin might have been (*** gasp ***) CLEANED sometime in it's life, THEN THE PROBLEM IS YOU. that coin ain't got no problems. YOU da 1 that need's to get your head examined, NOT the coin.
<< <i>Your reply may be that the collector shouldn't be relying on the third party graders opinion, regardless of what they claim, and I can agree with that point to a certain extent. The problem with that thinking is that if a new collector enters the hobby with interest and open arms to try and participate, should they HAVE to suffer substantial financial losses in order to "learn"? >>
& why not? LIFE should just happen w/out risks? w/out losses, financial or otherwise? a new stock broker entering the field should NEVER suffer losses as part of his learning experience? a newly elected representative should NEVER experience lost causes as part of his career? a chef opening a new restaruant should NEVER screw up meals once in a while as part of his experimentation process??? what the he11 kind of fantasy land are you living in??? NOBODY FORCES ANYONE ELSE to get into coin collecting, it is done by choice. & i don't see any reason why YOU shouldn't be held responsible once in a while for the choices YOU MAKE.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM w/ this hobby today, the "instant gratification" syndrome. people who somehow think they deserve to reap the benefits of enjoying this hobby w/out the sacrifices & heartaches that are VALUABLE to the learning experience. stunning that that attitude is so dam deep-rooted.
K S
This would put a lot more coins back "in play" and also provide a market for 19th century coins that have been cleaned at one point or another. It would also provide the services another outlet for their product. Think of all of the bust halves that have been cleaned. Are they more marketable if they are in a slab? I think they are, especially if you want to bring in new collectors who are gunshy about buying raw.
An important point was made earlier, the coin collecting market is very thin and if we can develop a means to bring more people in, then it is better for all of us in the long run.
Most of the “Toned” coins with big premiums, or fantastic gems, circulate among the elite collectors, millionaires, and dealer collectors. Most of the collectors I know work on whatever project they are trying to accomplish, fill that type book or set. They are not going to pay really big bucks for a great coin at the expense of their goal. It is also my personal opinion that the grading companies should change their policy on certain things that have happened to very old pieces. Why put all these descriptions like Dipped, scratched, etc. on the grade plaque. They should just grade these pieces down a notch or two. I recently purchased a 1795/95 half. It was NOT a perfect coin, but it was all I could afford in that date. It has scratches, it is pretty white so I am sure it was dipped or cleaned in some fashion in its past, but WHO CARES! I will never sell it unless the LORD drives me into bankruptcy!
deepcoin, ngc does grade 'problem' coins (ncs). it's just about guaranteed that pcgs will follow suit sooner or later (1 would hope).
K S
Dorkkarl, while you write that some people can't get over it, on the flip side it is also you that can't get over it.
People collect for their own reasons. As for myself I do not collect MS coins. I do not have the time, knowledge, inclination or the eye to properly grade MS coins so I stay away from them. I like the look of circulated coins and that is what I collect.
While I agree with your points, that does not make those points the only ones that collectors must follow. And just because I don't collect like you mean that I have to collect BEANIE BABIES.
To each their own. Happy collecting!!!
Joe.
It was in a SEGS MS-64 holder. There were no qualifiers on the holder that stated that the coin had been artificially toned. Many SEGS coins have notations, sometimes too many notations, about what is wrong with a coin. This one had none.
Yet the coin’s surfaces were toned to a thick, dull, dark blueish-gray, which is indicative of a less than artful retoning job. The coin was superbly struck from an early die state with all of the hair detail sharp and well defined. Gray Sheet “bid” for this coin in MS-64 is $11,900. The price marked on the holder was just under $10,000.
What is a piece like this worth? I’d say somewhere around $4,000 to $5,000 retail to a collector who likes coins with a lot of “meat” (detail) who can’t afford to spend the $14,000 to $15,000 that it would take to buy “the real thing.” I would warn such a collector that coins like this are not liquid at the $5,000 level and could go as low $2,000 to $2,500 if you had to sell it in a pinch. Generally collectors who are willing to spend a few thousand for a coin will avoid a piece like this, which makes it hard to sell. A fair wholesale between dealers would be in the $3,500 area if the purchasing dealer thought he could turn it over quickly.
Please note I did not say that the coin was worthless or uncollectible. I only said that it is worth a deep discount below the catalog price for a true MS-64, 1807 dime.
There’s nothing wrong with collecting scarce coins that are damaged if that is what will fit in your budget. But when you do, you should be aware of the pitfalls. That means that a responsible grading service should not label such a coin “MS-64” with no comments about its major problems.
One of my favorite "problem" coins:
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
If you want to claim that a circulated coin is a problem coin, just because it is circulated......I'm not going to argue semantics, and mumbo-jumbo technical bull. That portion of the discussion is over for me.
As far as your examples of life's lessons on losing money through experience the difference with your examples and someone collecting coins is that one is a hobby, and the other is a job. There is a big difference.
And no. You don't always have to lose or make mistakes, to learn properly, ESPECIALLY in a hobby.
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
<< <i>My name is Joe and I have a problem! Dorkkarl, while you write that some people can't get over it, on the flip side it is also you that can't get over it. People collect for their own reasons. As for myself I do not collect MS coins. I do not have the time, knowledge, inclination or the eye to properly grade MS coins so I stay away from them. I like the look of circulated coins and that is what I collect.
While I agree with your points, that does not make those points the only ones that collectors must follow. And just because I don't collect like you mean that I have to collect BEANIE BABIES. >>
i agree.
<< <i>OK, Here’s a more complete description of the 1807 dime that this dealer was offering for sale. It was in a SEGS MS-64 holder. There were no qualifiers on the holder that stated that the coin had been artificially toned. Many SEGS coins have notations, sometimes too many notations, about what is wrong with a coin. This one had none. Yet the coin’s surfaces were toned to a thick, dull, dark blueish-gray, which is indicative of a less than artful retoning job. The coin was superbly struck from an early die state with all of the hair detail sharp and well defined. Gray Sheet “bid” for this coin in MS-64 is $11,900. The price marked on the holder was just under $10,000. >>
hey billjones, you see where it makes a big difference now that we understand a bit more. that's a lot different than saying the coin was "ruined".
this is another issue of plastic. the REAL problem is some nuthead bozo, which sounds a lot like freddie columbo from your description, trying to sell a crappy piece of plastic. the grade might be ruined by PLASTIC, but i still think the coin's just fine. like you said, if someone knows what they're doing.
of course, i still say, if you don't know what your doing, DON'T BUY COINS.
<< <i>a responsible grading service should not label such a coin “MS-64” with no comments about its major problems. >>
totally agree
<< <i>Karl, If you want to claim that a circulated coin is a problem coin, just because it is circulated......I'm not going to argue semantics, and mumbo-jumbo technical bull. That portion of the discussion is over for me. >>
hey bigd5, don't argue semantics, because that's the point. "PROBLEM" means different things to different people. example: a corroded & burnished '93 lib-cap AIN'T GOT NO PROBLEMS far as i'm concerned. a cleaned/whizzed 1802 half-dime AIN'T GOT NO PROBLEMS. you get the point. yeah sure, to some rich guy who can afford $29,000 for a VF '93, maybe corrosion's a problem, but for me, it ain't. point is , i just don't appreciate plastic conglomerates TELLING ME what's a "PROBLEM", when i can decide for myself.
<< <i>And no. You don't always have to lose or make mistakes, to learn properly, ESPECIALLY in a hobby. >>
anyone who thinks he can honestly tell you "i've never made a mistake in my hobby" is either a liar, or a hobbiest wannabe. ok, non-job example? someone who flies model airplanes. your saying he should NEVER crash a few while learning how to fly them? how about the guy who paints as a hobby. he should NEVER screwing up a few canvasses & waste a lot of paing while learning technique - it's such a horrible problem? how about the mechanic who blows the engine on his dunebuggy because it's the first time he's ever rebuilt an engine, that should NEVER happen? these are such despicable, horrific, life-threatening disasters? bull.
i bet, if you ask any of those three "victims", they can tell you they never learned more from their "MISTAKES" than their "successes", & anyone who can really call himself a coin collector would tell you the same thing. i've gotten screwed plenty of times, you know what? I LEARNED from my mistakes, i didn't pass the blame on someone else. time you took responsibility FOR YOUR OWN MISTAKES.
K S
<< <i>
<< <i> I LEARNED from my mistakes, i didn't pass the blame on someone else. time you took responsibility FOR YOUR OWN MISTAKES.
K S >>
Help me on the above point with what type of response you are soliciting.
Sure problem coins are different for everyone, but a majority in the hobby, actually, better than a majority would consider simple circulation not to be a problem, and corrosion to indeed be a problem.
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
<< <i> do see your original point though, is that the coins you describe were almost certainly cleaned and retoned in more recent times, not the 100+ years ago that would have made it more acceptable, at least to me. >>
Actually many "original" early coins have had their tarish or outer skin removed at some point and have toned over again.
This 1797, 13 star half dime was cleaned many years ago, probably back in the '50s or '60s. The dark half moon thing on the obverse is a thumb print. This coin was probably brignt white after the work was first done and then toned down. It's certainly acceptable the way it is.
If this cleaning were fresh and one wanted to retone it and pass it off as "original" they would resort to one of the quick and drastic measures that I noted for the 1807 dime. Getting the coin to look like this takes time. I bought this piece over 20 years ago, and it's gotten a little darker since then. It's currently in an NGC VF-35 holder, which is 10 points too high IMO, but that's neither here nor there.
And yes, the thumb print was on this coin when I bought it, but that did not deter me. Why? Because it's an R-6 variety, which translates to a population estimated at 13 to 30 pieces. (I'd say more like 30 to 40 pieces). This variety only comes up about once or twice a year at the major auctions. So when I saw this coin at a small auction I did not worry about the thumb print. It's better than at least half of the survivors, and I could afford to buy it then. Now it might be dicey.
And yes I am a numismatic masochist. I collect these things by Red Book variety, which is why I own this one. I have been working on this collection for more I’m don’t to the 1802, which just too expensive. I’ll have to win the lottery to be able to buy one of those.
Actually if you store you coins in envelopes with just trace of sulfur in the paper, a very lightly cleaned coin can look presentable in 5 to 10 years, but of course the coin doctors don't want to wait that long.
Could probably not afford a coin in Au or better, and even an EF might be a stretch, but a nice VF details, lightly cleaned or scratched (if it's a test mark, see below), net Fine example would be perfect!!
I consider a light cleaning (or two) and natural-style dark grey retoning to be preferable to a lot of color, which to me indicates a harsh cleaning, and/or some heat and chemicals applied by some clown. However, I don't like a heavily cleaned circulated coin, "wiped" is very different from "polished", isn't it? sometimes, a long-ago wiped coin develops a rather attractive look that is lighter on the high points with darker fields, kind of like a cameo. Other coins develop the look by circulation, but however it is acquired, it's hard not to like coins such as this:
The holder, or lack therof, to me, is unimportant, in and of itself; In relation to the price, it might be, as well as what description is printed on the insert. The 1801 half dollar shown in the previous post is in a Segs holder that I kind of like, and I think is accurately described as "VF-20, obverse/ reverse scratches" the actual price was more along the lines of a nice Fine, which I think is more than fair, considering how hard it is to locate such a coin in ANY condition.
I would consider buying coins with such "test marks" if otherwise nice and rare (and if the price reflected an appropriate net grade) Not a big fan of grafitti but kind of like little scratches and edge cuts, where a merchant or someone tested the coin to make sure it was real silver and not just plated; silver when scratched shows a unique luster that an experienced eye can tell from base metals, and when these coins were new to circulation and unfamiliar in the new country (which up till then used primarily Spanish colonial silver), people would often "check" a coin before accepting it. Such marks are part of the history of a coin, as it was meant to be used, in commerce, and if they make an otherwise prohibitively expensive coin a little more affordable, well there you go! A "natural" defect is a lot more acceptable than someone 'fooling' with it more recently, at least, that's how I see it.
One thing about secondary or tertiary toning and third tier holders that one must realize is that when Segs and PCI says "toned" they mean "apparently actively toned by someone, rather than passively toned in an album or some such" If the Segs coins you started this thread about were obviously "helped" and this was not mentioned at all on the inserts, well then that is one of the mistake coins that all services sometimes make. If not too severe, someone might dip the coin one last time, and put it in an album or little envelope for a decade or two, and let it mellow out a bit, naturally. But i definitely agree that to pay full price for problem coins is a mistake. but for the right price, every coin has a buyer
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
A perfectomaniac will never be happy.
Just think of how many otherwise-attractive "problem" coins are out there, languishing in junk boxes, waiting in vain to be loved or appreciated by a collector who will not scorn their wounds or imperfections.
I've been known to adopt such orphans from time to time...
<------
PS-Yeah, yeah, I know... there is a difference between a hole in a coin and a little light cleaning. But the philosophy is the same. Buy the coin for its positive attributes. Who cares if it has a few negative points, as long as the positives far outweigh the negatives? If it speaks to you and you appreciate it, odds are, it will also appeal some other future collector, somewhere. Y'know one thing that's fun about the coins on my Holey Coin Vest and Holey Gold Hat? I can fully enjoy them, hold them in my hand, rub 'em if I want to, let 'em jingle, give 'em a dip if necessary... and I don't have to get all uptight about it! They're already "ruined", according to the perfectomaniacs!Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
K S
There are lots of reasons to collect and different tastes and goals to boot.
This forum tends to weighted toward the monetary value of coins ( not necessarily inappropriate) which is linked to grade, slab and market conditions and much less toward the scholarly aspect of numismatics. There should (alas) be room for both.
Are there web sites that would approach the quality discussions of a Gobrecht Journal ( as an example)?
<< <i>If the Segs coins you started this thread about were obviously "helped" and this was not mentioned at all on the inserts, well then that is one of the mistake coins that all services sometimes make. If >>
The trouble was this dealer several boxes full of SEGS coins that been obvioulsy worked on (NO question about it) that had no notations what so ever about the problems. He indictaed that he used SEGS and IPC a lot because their services were "cheap." I left with the impression that he was a very good customer for SEGS, and that he was getting a lot of breaks because of that. I found that situation very disappointing. Say what you will about SEGS, I had not seen a situation like that before there holders. When their grading is a bit more lose, they had been good about pointing out and netting grades for major defects.
One more thought about problem coins. First, I don't like them because the major defect always stands out in my mind and therefore ruins the enjoyment for me. Second, when the prices to go up, quite often problem coins do not go up in price or they don't go up as much in price as their no-problem sisters. Once more I find that disappointing.
Lets say, theoretically, that I buy a nice key date with great eye appeal, except the coin has a small reverse scratch that might get it body bagged by the Big Two + ANACS services.
I get out my stereo microscope and dentist tools and do a little work on the scratch. After a while I can hardly even detect it. I stick the coin in the oven with a coffee mug of very dilute ammonia solution and let it bake at 180 degrees for about six hours. The coin now has just enough additional toning to completely hide the former scratch. I can just see it with the stereo microscope because I know where to look. I submit the coin to PCGS and it comes back AU-53.
So what am I?
A collector who is very happy to have a nice key date that I couldn’t afford it in MS.
A skilled art restorer who has brought new life to a nice but formally shunned coin.
A dirty rotten coin doctor who should be hanged, drawn and quartered for not allowing the coin to live its “pure” natural life.
As long as one isn’t selling altered coins that can be detected and that will result in financial loss to others, where is the problem?
Edited to add: The above isn't a fairy tale. I can show you at least a dozen nice coins in PCGS, NGC and ANACS slabs I have purchased that were worked on at least once in their lives. I spend a lot of time looking at coins with a stereo microscope, and the number in major grading service slabs that have been "fixed" to some degree is significant. Carbon spots removed, scratches fixed, small lumps of verdigris taken off, and so on. Get a stereo microscope and look at your coins - I think it will be an eye-opening experience. Sorry if this causes any disillusionment - its "just the facts, mam".
Like Goldsaint, I also bought a 1795/1795 half this year that had a single, lengthy old pinscratch on it for less than half of the price of a "no problem" coin. There is nothing wrong with collecting early US coins with "problems", as long the collector has enough knowledge to assess the problem and pay appropriately.
I have 60 die marriages of 1795-1807 halves, 100+ 1807 - 1836 capped, been collecting for 20 years, and have never submitted a coin for 3P grading. I would rather spend my money on coins than grading fees.
Still, third party grading has increased the cost of my collection. Lately grade inflation and the perceived higher values of these overgraded coins have cost collectors a lot of money. A Brown/Shertz 1806 O.114a graded NGC EF45 re-appeared as an NGC AU50, but I am still happy to own this interesting condition census sub-variety, although it cost more after the crack-out. The Eliasberg 1806/9 half graded AU50 is now in an NGC MS63 holder and sold for triple the '97 price, the Eliasberg 1806 O.119 graded AU55 is now in a PCGS MS61 holder. Countless other examples. Third party grading reduces liability for dealers, but it does increase the cost of collecting for people in this hobby. How much would that $22,000 1940 Lincoln have sold for without the advent of 3P grading?
I got my coffee mug, my ammonia, oven is pre-heating to 180...
I can only imagine how many people that are going to become interns in the very near future.
I think "Eye of the Beholder" works best if one does not have to worry about resale.
Joe.
<< <i>I got my coffee mug, my ammonia, oven is pre-heating to 180... >>
<< <i>I can only imagine how many people that are going to become interns in the very near future. >>
Anybody who knowingly tries this deserves what they get - which will probably be a black, ruined coin. The example cited was for demonstration purposes only - as all those SUV ads on TV say on as the vehicle drives up a rocky 45 degree incline "do not try this - for professional drivers only!".
<< <i>Personally I believe all of these threads on AT, problem coins and third-world grading services are basically problems in the eye of the beholder. In many cases the so-called problems are just something to jaw about. >>
I find this statement disturbing. If this is true than there would be no ethical problems with sending your coins to ACG to get the grade you want and selling those coins to anyone who would pay your inflated asking prices based upon the ACG grade. Then when the buyer finds that he or she has lost thousands of dollars because the coins were misrepresented, it would be no one's fault.
The atttitude expressed here is sort of thing that nearly ruined this business 20 years ago. I have no doubt that there are worked on coins in PCGS and NGC holders because I've seen them, and I have avoided them. Does that lower discussions of these issues to "problems in the eye of the beholder" and "just something to jaw about?" Not as far as I'm concerned.
Your entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to say that I have no repsect for it.