I guess DLRC's rating system doesn't take in to account spots.

Russ · February 7, 2006 4:44AM

Butt ugly dog rated 1 with five stars.

Russ, NCNE

airplanenut · February 7, 2006 4:53AM

It's the rare confetti variety, Russ... surprised you didn't recognize it

Longacre · February 7, 2006 4:54AM

Does a numismatist rate the coins, or some administrative person?

MikeInFL · February 7, 2006 4:54AM

Nothing a quick dip couldn't cure, right Russ?

Russ · February 7, 2006 4:57AM

<< Nothing a quick dip couldn't cure, right Russ? >>

Not correctable. Those spots are there to stay.

Russ, NCNE

kiyote · February 7, 2006 4:58AM

I won a PCGS PR69 1962 Washington quarter that had a DLRC sticker on the back, also 1 *****. It was spotted like a leopard!

nederveit · February 7, 2006 4:58AM

I always thought the DLRC rating system was more about the toning than the milk spots...

...is that a new signature photo Russ?

19Lyds · February 7, 2006 5:02AM

That ain't no 1!

Coindexter · February 7, 2006 5:05AM

Am I to assume those spots were not present when PCGS graded the coin? Otherwise I'd have a hard time accepting the PR69 grade.

Russ · February 7, 2006 5:05AM

<< ...is that a new signature photo Russ? >>

Yep, just switched it a few minutes ago.

Russ, NCNE

Russ · February 7, 2006 5:07AM

<< Am I to assume those spots were not present when PCGS graded the coin? >>

That assumption would be correct. Flat pack proofs from 1955 to 1964 sometimes have the nasty problem of developing milk spots after a period of time out of the packaging.

Russ, NCNE

Coindexter · February 7, 2006 5:10AM

Would it be possible to neutralize this spotting problem before submission? For example, MS70 followed by acetone? Or is this spotting issue beyong repair and bound to occur?

Russ · February 7, 2006 5:13AM

<< Would it be possible to neutralize this spotting problem before submission? >>

Yes. I dip every proof from this era to stabilize the surfaces and remove any hidden contaminants prior to submitting. None that have been dipped by me, or conserved by NCS have ever developed the problem. But, some from my early submissions before I realized this was an issue and wasn't dipping them did develop it.

Russ, NCNE

Russ · February 7, 2006 5:22AM

<< I always thought the DLRC rating system was more about the toning than the milk spots... >>

The numeric rating is about toning. The stars are for eye appeal, with five stars being the best.

Russ, NCNE

Coindexter · February 7, 2006 5:22AM

<< << Nothing a quick dip couldn't cure, right Russ? >> >>

<< Not correctable. Those spots are there to stay. >>

Sorry to keep hammering at this, but when I'm interested in something I find myself forced to follow through.

I get the impression from the above comment that in your experience once these spots have developed they cannot be effectively removed. I have a few raw older proofs that I gave some TLC to and found that they had spots that were not removed by MS70, acetone or eZest. I assume that these spots are somehow part of the metal now. Are these the same types of blemished we're looking at on the linked Kennedy? The ones I'm dealing with are larger, less numerous and more like your traditional milk spots.

BTW, thanks for the input.

Russ · February 7, 2006 5:25AM

Coindexter,

If you have been able to remove spots, what you had were not milk spots. Milk spots are opaque, embedded and cannot be removed without physically damaging the coin. The spots on the coin at DLRC are milk spots.

Edit: I just realized you said you could not remove them. Yes, they sound like milk spots. Sometimes that can be one or two large ones, other times they can be a mass of "freckles".

Russ, NCNE

kiyote · February 7, 2006 5:27AM

<< 

<< Am I to assume those spots were not present when PCGS graded the coin? >>

That assumption would be correct. Flat pack proofs from 1955 to 1964 sometimes have the nasty problem of developing milk spots after a period of time out of the packaging.

Russ, NCNE >>

What can I do? I hate getting ripped off on Ebay. It's unfair..

100proof1957 · February 7, 2006 6:00AM

yuck !

shylock · February 7, 2006 7:15AM

Maybe they just forgot to clean the mayonnaise off the slab?

That looks like a Kennedy shot by the Hubble telescope as it drifted into a ring nebula.

Kip · February 7, 2006 7:19AM

I sent them an email...here is what I got

Thanks for the email. You are absolutely right. We have pulled it from the
site and are sending it to PCGS for review. The coin really doesn't really
show the spots straight-on, but at an angle they really pop. We actually
have an image from a year ago of the exact coin and there weren't any spots
on the piece... must have turned from storage etc...
Thanks again!

ColonialCoinUnion · February 7, 2006 7:23AM

Good that they pulled the coin (and reduced it to 3 stars) since this thread began. But still, 3 stars? For that?

In general, I am not a fan of these sorts of numeric ranking systems. Prior to the change in this coin, every single coin on their website was either 4 or 5 stars and, frankly, some of them don't look half that good.

LeeG · February 7, 2006 7:25AM

Looks like their doing the right thing. That's one ugly Kennedy but this is one sweet Stone Mtn

Barry · February 7, 2006 7:37AM

I haven't found their star system to be helpful at all.

Buy the coin, not the stars...

ER · February 7, 2006 7:37AM

Is it really "on hold pending a sale"?

ziggy29 · February 7, 2006 7:39AM

<< Is it really "on hold pending a sale"?

>>

Maybe a sale back to PCGS!

Myqqy · February 7, 2006 7:46AM

Buy the coin, not the stars...

Best quote of the day!

Darkmane · February 7, 2006 8:12AM

lowest rating ive ever seen is 3 stars

who would buy a 1 or 2 star coin if they were given that? =P

PerryHall · February 7, 2006 8:43AM

I remember see a gold coin with only two stars. It was a 60 and had stains and heavy bag marks. They described it as "ugly but priced accordingly".

Higashiyama · February 7, 2006 9:05AM

Barry -- definitely buy the coin, not the stars. With that said, I have generally found the DLRC star system quite useful. It is definitely a three star not a five star system -- ie, one and two stars are essentially non-existent. With that caveat, if you combine the PCGS or NGC grade, the DLRC star system, the DLRC description, and the photo, buying from DLRC via web rarely results in surprises.

I guess DLRC's rating system doesn't take in to account spots.

Comments

Leave a Comment