Options
Dare this devil's advocate ask - might THE Peace dollar be NT after all? The other side of the coin/
coinguy1
Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭
Ok, please stop rolling your eyes, running to the fridge out of boredom, looking for the "this guy is nuts" icon and hear me out for a moment
Before we knew the source of THE Peace Dollar, a number of us thought it was naturally toned, others thought it was AT and still others were on the fence, leaning in one direction or another.
Now that we know the person who sold it on Ebay either artificially tones most of his coins or ends up with a lot of AT coins through chance
, in hindsight, much of the forum world has declared the coin to be an AT joke of a Peace Dollar.
But, in NGC's defense, their graders made a determination, in a vacuum, presumably without knowing the coin's owner or history, based upon their knowledge, experience and instincts. And, under the concept of unbiased, independent 3'd party grading, that's the way it should be. The graders should not know whose coins they are examining and they shouldn't have a story or history submitted with each coin.
Inevitably, many coins which appear to be original but are not, will be certified. Just as inevitably, many others which appear to be unoriginal, but are in fact original, will not be certified. That is a frequent and unavoidable fact of life in the imperfect world of grading, where graders don't usually know a given coin's history.
Is it fair to NGC, Anaconda and others, then, to presume that because of where the coin originated (the Ebayer who sells lots of AT coins), it must or should be declared AT?
Likewise, if a well respected forum member was known to handle only the best and most original looking coins, would it be fair to automatically presume that if he submitted a coin for grading, it must be original?
Remember, for each coin that gets certified and is suspected of and/or complained about being AT, there are probably many others which get body-bagged for being AT and which are complained about by submitters.
As much as we would like to have it both ways, it's unfair and unrealistic to expect it.
Feel free to flame away - I promise not to flame back.
Before we knew the source of THE Peace Dollar, a number of us thought it was naturally toned, others thought it was AT and still others were on the fence, leaning in one direction or another.
Now that we know the person who sold it on Ebay either artificially tones most of his coins or ends up with a lot of AT coins through chance
, in hindsight, much of the forum world has declared the coin to be an AT joke of a Peace Dollar. But, in NGC's defense, their graders made a determination, in a vacuum, presumably without knowing the coin's owner or history, based upon their knowledge, experience and instincts. And, under the concept of unbiased, independent 3'd party grading, that's the way it should be. The graders should not know whose coins they are examining and they shouldn't have a story or history submitted with each coin.
Inevitably, many coins which appear to be original but are not, will be certified. Just as inevitably, many others which appear to be unoriginal, but are in fact original, will not be certified. That is a frequent and unavoidable fact of life in the imperfect world of grading, where graders don't usually know a given coin's history.
Is it fair to NGC, Anaconda and others, then, to presume that because of where the coin originated (the Ebayer who sells lots of AT coins), it must or should be declared AT?
Likewise, if a well respected forum member was known to handle only the best and most original looking coins, would it be fair to automatically presume that if he submitted a coin for grading, it must be original?
Remember, for each coin that gets certified and is suspected of and/or complained about being AT, there are probably many others which get body-bagged for being AT and which are complained about by submitters.
As much as we would like to have it both ways, it's unfair and unrealistic to expect it.
Feel free to flame away - I promise not to flame back.
0
Comments
I respect you for sticking your neck out in front of the mob. Interesting question.
Ask Russ.
He's forgotten more than I will ever know.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
You present a vaild point. However, I think the evidence is just too muh to assume that it is a natural coin. You are a brave soul!
As you point out, each coin should be graded in a vaccum, so to speak. It cannot be any other way.
However, the choice to purchase such a coin should not be made in such a vaccum...Mike
-Daniel
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
Anything is possible. I know that grading coins is a high stress job, but if graders are "in a vacuum" they may want to get out of the living room and spend more time doing some homework on the "art"? of toning. If this was obvious AT to some members here it should have been picked up by "the experts". I know I depend on them to "Get It Right" so I'm not buying AT coins in their holders. Just my 2C.
The darn thing is AT !! AT !! AT !!
Ken
But let me ask you this - what if the dude who originally sold the thing on ebay says 'I didn't color THAT coin - I inherited it from my grandmother and she saved it in this envelope for 83 years". In other words, wheres the proof that its AT that forces the grading company to reimburse anybody anything?
Whether or not this Peace is AT or not, fact is there may be another few thousand questionably toned coins lingering around the market. What does NGC do, adopt a suddenly draconian view of even-remotely-questionable toning and then run around buying them all up? (which leads to THE Peace Dollar thread number 19 - at what price?)
Having written that, you and I both know that coins are not always graded in a manner that is completely devoid of additional information. I have had coins come back as AT or cleaned by both NGC and PCGS and have written to both companies to explain why the coin was original and, more often than not, the coin has ended up slabbed without my paying an additional grading fee. It happens. Perhaps it happened with this coin?
As for how respected any forum member happens to be, well, just because the bulk of the members may respect someone in a niche does not mean we all do. Personally, what Anaconda thought of this coin means less to me than what you think of my spit. What matters to me is what I think of each coin.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
TorinoCobra71
FrederickCoinClub
<< <i>Hey Mark this subject has really gotten to ya, eh? >>
Not at all. But, I think it's a very important one, and worthy of much thought, discussion, debate, and hopefully learning for each of us, including the grading companies.
<< <i>Actually I was fooled--although I didn't post one way or the other. ONE key diagnostic for NT coins is a color differentiation that often can be seen between the top of each letter or other high point, and the inside of the letters or incuse areas. Actually this example passed that test, and I'm VERY surprised that the "king of AT" on Ebay has perfected his craft so well--( if he has) because I didn't think it could be done. That said, it's impossible to say NT/AT from a computer image, and in fact I was more struck by the oddball strong colors of the image than any strange diagnostic of AT--
Actually the answer to that is simple. I did not see the coin in hand, however, I believe the coin was probably toned twice. The coin was an NT coin that was also AT'd to look even better. I have seen examples of this method before and it is the most difficult to detect.
We are all about eye appeal
Island Coins Website
Island Coins E-Bay Store
-Daniel
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
<< <i>There is only one avenue left. We must see if the slab fits in a glove.
If the glove don't fit, we outta quit
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>Another funny thing about it is, look at the other stuff the original buyer of the coin bought....Heh... With DVD purchases like that, I don't want to know how the coin was toned~
-Daniel >>
Eeewwwwww.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I have been here long enough to know the back corners of these boards and who lurks there and who stands out in the light. And I can say that I have seen many threads asking about a coins colors that look a hell of a lot more natural than this coin in question, posted by collectors and not dealers, that are resoundly labeled AT by many of our dealers forthright, no room for question. Raw coins that were right on the fence were quickly labeled AT---"now lets move on", yet this coin,,,this slabbed coin (that may be a little over the fence) being posted by a well respected dealer, is OOOhhh'd and AAAAhhh'd by those same dealers. I just don't get it---maybe I am wrong, but I just don't get it.
my thoughts on the original thread was AT right away but
too many people said the coin in hand was NT. Obviously
the core people were hyping the coin and basically lying
without care, except the care to make money off suckers,
er collectors. So i did not bother post my newbie thoughts
of the coin being a fraud.
could it be NT afterall? sure. just redefine what NT means..
i am kinda happy this has come out like it has. whoever found
the coin on ebay, that was simply well done.
You asked several different questions. Might the coin be Nt after all? Highly unlikely, given what we know now. Impossible no. But if you had a sealed envelope (not used for coin storage
Now, pretend one is a grader. One presumably doesn't know the "story" (nor should one). Say grader "A" isn't sure-he thinks the probability that the coin is NT is 50-50. His buddy, grader "B" think the coin is probably AT, but is by no means sure. he puts the odds at 40% NT, 60% AT. Grader C is at 30% NT, 70% AT. What should NGC do? If the probabilitieswere independent, it would be easier-.5X.4x.3=6% chance that the coin is "really" NT-but that would mean wrongly bodybagging 1 in 16 coins. And the probabilities aren't independent-though each grader looks at the coin separarately, they are likely using similar diagnostic criteria to decide if the coin is NT. So while NGC shouldn't look at who is submitting the coin-we should. If it is you, and you say that you have had the coin sitting in an envelope for ten years-well Mark I'll choose to believe you. If it is someone who just strikes me the wrong way, I'll say I don't know. And when it is gototoning, I'll say its AT.
So in answer to your question "is it fair to NGC, anaconda and others to presume that because of where the coin originated, it must be AT" -my answer is no, it isn't absolutely certain the coin is AT. Should it be declared AT-yes. (and, given what Brandon knew-that a reliable person, whom he trusted, told him the coin had been stored in an envelope yielding NT-if he thought the coin had a look in hand consistent with NT-then he did nothing wrong) Likewise if a well respected...if you told me that you, Mark Feld had owned this coin for 30 years and it had toned this way-I would presume it was original.
So yes. It isn't neat. We don't have as reliable a method of determining AT vs NT as we would like. BUT-there needs to be a cutoff somewhere. Where that "cutoff" should be is debatable, it seems to me. That there should be a cutoff somewhere, yielding false positives and false negatives, doesn't seem debatable to me. If you are designing a home test for HIV, and you realize that in 2 million tests, in a population where half of the people have HIV, if you set the "positive" indicator where you will catch 999,000 cases of HIV (meaning you'll miss 1000 cases of HIV), but that indicator level also means that of the 1 million folks who actually don't have HIV, 5000 will have a falsely positive test, do you raise the bar needed for a positive test at the cost of missing more folks who "really" have HIV? I don't know. But just as diagnosticians discuss the level of sensativity and specificity they will allow while refining the HIV test to reduce both false negatives and false positives, so must coin graders decide how certain they must be before bodybagging a coin for AT while the diagnostics (we hope) get better.
Don
If it looks like no other coin I have ever seen, there is a good chance it is AT. If there is a chance that it is AT, it probably is. Move on.
This is the first stage after buying an AT coin; it's called denial (and you didn't buy it).
so much that he started trying to make his own and this one became the benchmark against which
his creations were judged...maybe once he had the process perfected, he simply decided to sell it.
Could be...
The graders don't know/hear the story of the coin and they shouldn't. They should only grade a coin on it's merits. NOTHING else. That's why coins like the 1974 aluminum cent, etc, shouldn't get special treatment, just to get it into a company's holder, or whatever. Otherwise, one would lose faith in the process and we would be back to square one. I feel the graders should be held responsible because it was up to them to protect their company and us as the buyers/collectors of their goods/services. Thank goodness we have reputible grading services like PCGS, NGC and ANACS. Life is MUCH better now. AT coins are getting more popular as the prices keep going up. I feel people SHOULD buy AT coins they KNOW are AT for a fair price so they have examples to learn from. It can also help if you try different techniques with coins that you can put back in circulation, or dip clean(circulation type coins, NOT valuable pieces of history!), so you can see how some methods work. I have NEVER sold or traded any coins I have played with. I STILL have some AT Jeffersons from when I was a kid playing on my mother's stove! UGLY coins too! LOL
Mistakes happen, to ALL of us. Nobody should be lynched because of a single error. Correct the error, try to ensure they don't happen again, and move on. I think NGC WILL do the right thing as the current owners are doing. A BIG thumbs up for OUR collecting family for all they have done in this situation so far. Lets see what the future brings. We have a forum that provides a very valuable service to all of us, including those that just watch and don't voice their opinions here like many do in public. I have received many PMs with useful information for situations, coins and services offered that others don't see, like many other people do. Thanks to all those whom provide photos of AT and NT coins and how to tell the differences. Ray
"BRANDON - ADRIAN" put the coin back out for sale.
I have dealt with enough toned dollars over the years that I believe the beauty is AT.
SIMPLY BEAUTIFUL. If I had room I would acquire it myself.
I have never seen anyone who could duplicate THAT coin.
If he/she exists, they are providing a niche product for many of us TONE LOVERS.
Because in the end, the coin was BEAUTIFUL and ATTRACTIVE. What more could anyone need.
If you believe the coin is original, go about your business and offer your normal
no questions asked return policy. You both know me, I support your position on this matter.
Dennis
> might THE Peace dollar be NT after all?
It really depends on what your NT definition is. From the current NGC's NT definition, it falls into the NGC NT definition. If not, folks can use NGC grade guarantee. Nevertheless, it did not fall into my NT definition.
Should NGC make a determination that the coin is AT, based upon the new found knowledge that it was originally sold by a seller who is well known for selling AT coins? Doesn't that make a supposedly unbiased grading process, biased? Think about where that could lead.
The whole AT versus NT debate is somewhat artificial. All color is the result of oxidation. The chemical reactions that produce toning can be accelerated and I believe the best coin doctors (coin artists or con artists?) can produce products that are indistinguishable from the naturally toned product. The amateurs will produce junk and the knowledgeable folks will detect it. The intermediate artists (intern doctors) will produce some material that gets into slabs. That material may “decay” with time and the grading companies will suffer some liability; the best art will command premiums for as long as the toning craze drives the market. I suspect there are plenty of coins that achieved their color through accelerated toning in all grading company slabs. That toning may have been “naturally: accelerated because of random environmental situations, or it may have been deliberately “baked”. I think the more important issue continues to be the often fuzzy line between AT (should the A stand for artificial or accelerated?) and NT (come now, what is natural, atoms, molecules and oxidation reactions really don’t care).
If a coin falls through the seam in an old desk at a chemical plant or sits in someone’s basement in a sulfur rich envelope for 20, 30, 50 years, what is the difference in the toning of that coin and one produced by a coin artist last week if the chemical reactions are the same? The bottom line is that if you don't know with certainty the history of the coin you don't know the coin! Education and experience will help, but there is no guarantee that the oxidation on the coin's surface wasn't accelerated unless you have a reliable chronicle of the coin’s entire history. For those purists who believe that anything but natural is artificial - what is natural? The definition of “natural” varies all over the place. One person’s dogmatically condemned coin may be another collector’s prized gem.
In the art world experts and scientists can analyze ink, perform high tech analysis of papers, subject a painting too many sophisticated tests to determine the difference between a $4M Rembrandt and a $4000 copy. However, they have only been able to do recently as the technology became available. In the world of painting there are a lot more variables to work with. Coins only provide some basic chemistry and metallurgical variables. The grading companies are generally the collectors’ last line of defense; they provide the seal of authenticity; they also make mistakes. If the really good coin doctors ever lose their cool and start dumping their works it likely would have a significant market impact – but why would they do that?
I wonder how many “experts” here have ever studied metal art, or metallurgy, or metallurgical chemistry? There are things that can be done to metal that you will never learn by just examining coins, even if you have handled a million coins.
The bottom line remains, no matter how good you think you are or how much your ego deceives you in to believing you can ALWAYS tell AT from NT, for the best coin art, if you don't know with certainty the history of the coin you don't know the coin!
If NGC changes their mind that the coin is an AT, will NGC pay $14,000 to buy back the coin?
<< <i>Should NGC make a determination that the coin is AT, based upon the new found knowledge that it was originally sold by a seller who is well known for selling AT coins? >>
No
<< <i>Doesn't that make a supposedly unbiased grading process, biased? >>
Yes
<< <i>Think about where that could lead. >>
Down a very slippery slope.
for my own part as i've said in other threads, i'm not enough of an expert to make big deciusions on AT/NT issues, i generally defer to those i trust. the line just got a little clearer, those i think i can trust just lessened in number.
in the end, dealers always do what dealers always do, protect themselves at the expense of the collector and the hobby. this whole ordeal will prove to be the same. hell, it's already shaping up like that.
To answer the “Could it be NT” question: In a word NO - Not because you can tell AT from that image, but because when you KNOW the source: Gototoning - and you know he routinely artificially tones coins, and the fact that this coin sold on a “Buy it Now” for $55, you can pretty much conclude that it was not a Monster toned coin that sat in someone’s collection for 80 years. That’s the reason why everyone is now “certain” that that coin is AT - It’s like Monday Morning quarter backing - if you know what went wrong, you can safely conjure a different strategy/answer. If we did NOT have that piece of information, the AT/NT debate would rage on. It is safe to assume that NGC did NOT know the origin of that coin when they graded it.
Determining AT/NT from a website digital image is about as accurate (and risky) as predicting a long and happy marriage based on the wedding photos of the happy couple in the Sunday paper.
But let’s take a look at the coin (or at least its image) - I did not post to the original thread because I didn’t particularly like the “Look” of the coin - I did not find the image particularly attractive - I thought the central devices on both sides looked “Burned” or perhaps environmentally damaged - but those who had seen the coin in hand opined that it looked nicer, more vibrant in hand. NOT having seen the coin puts one at a great disadvantage in rendering an opinion as to the overall quality of the toning on a coin - as I indicated above - the image and the coin often look quite different - I’m reluctant render any opinion on a coin that I’ve not seen in hand - because the opinion is too speculative.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Let me ask the question a different way.....
Should NGC make a determination that the coin is AT, based upon the new found knowledge that it was originally sold by a seller who is well known for selling AT coins? Doesn't that make a supposedly unbiased grading process, biased? Think about where that could lead. >>
Honestly Mark, I am surprised you are still entrenched with this position. Lets call a spade a spade before we get into all the hypotheticals. NGC, and PCGS for that matter, should have professional standards in place to avoid egregious error after egregious error. Sure some mistakes will slip through - but when the flood gates open up on AT and its enabling some individuals to profit at the expense of the collector - it raises credibility questions. The hobby is being exploited and needs to end - period.
That is a crazy premium. Crazy, even if it is NT.
Perhaps the more important issue of the AT/NT controversy is that of coins that "turn" once they are in TPG slabs. Stability is much more important to me than worrying about how my coin was oxidized or how long that oxidation took; and that is all toning is, oxidation.
Do any TPG's have a history of slabbing an unacceptable number of coins that turn? Are the guarantees for copper coins sufficient to give the submitter faith in a TPG - copper alloy coins are the best chemical "canaries". What should collectors look for in a slabbed coin that may be an indication of chemical instability?
The worry over who may have sold a $55 coin may be important to some, and certainly newby collectors should be fully aware of and alert to the pitfalls of buying coins from known bakers and shakers. However, chemical stability is a more important issue, IMO, for the expensive, slabbed, toned monsters.
<< <i>Honestly Mark, I am surprised you are still entrenched with this position. Lets call a spade a spade before we get into all the hypotheticals. NGC, and PCGS for that matter, should have professional standards in place to avoid egregious error after egregious error. Sure some mistakes will slip through - but when the flood gates open up on AT and its enabling some individuals to profit at the expense of the collector - it raises credibility questions. The hobby is being exploited and needs to end - period >>
CTcollector, I am not at all entrenched in a position against "calling a spade a spade" and I detest the exploitation of this hobby of ours.
Would I now bet that the coin is AT? Absolutely.
Do I think the coin should be taken off the market and the current owner reimbursed? Yes.
Those are the fairly easy parts of the equation for me. The far more difficult aspect, however, is the determination of the extent that a grading service should allow itself to be influenced by factors other than an examination of the coins themselves.
No. I AM rolling my eyes while searching for the "this guy is nuts" icon and I will NOT hear you out if you take this position -- even in jest!
Partner / Executive VP
Heritage Auctions
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck , and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck.
<< <i>Let me ask the question a different way.....
Should NGC make a determination that the coin is AT, based upon the new found knowledge that it was originally sold by a seller who is well known for selling AT coins? Doesn't that make a supposedly unbiased grading process, biased? Think about where that could lead. >>
This scenario has already played out:
It is fairly widely known that there is coin doc in Chicagoland that has a very deceptive toning process
that has resulted in a significant number of AT nickels (mostly Buffs), that made it successfully into PCGS
slabs. Now that PCGS knows the identity of the this doc, any nickel submitted under his name doesn't
even make it into the grading room. Good.
But, so much for unbiased grading! In fact anyone submitting pretty Buffs from Chicagoland is likely
to have his coins extra-scrutinized.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i> The far more difficult aspect, however, is the determination of the extent that a grading service should allow itself to be influenced by factors other than an examination of the coins themselves. >>
I can imagine one scenario after this incident, the TPG's really tightening the screws on the grading standards for toned coins, assuming it gets a lot of publicity. I'm willing to predict that if that happens there will be a lot of complaints on the forum about the high bodybag count. This is another possible outcome of influence by external factors.
WOWIE!
It doesn't matter where the coin came from even if it was from someone who has rep for selling AT coins. Both grading services are supposed to employ people who know the difference, if a mistake is made then it could be presented for review and maybe a buyback.
A lot of the problem resides in the PREMIUM for toning. I think the market is being affected in crazy ways and crazy prices for elements that would have been simply ignored years ago when rarity and mintage and preservation were the main elements. Now there is so much "show and tell" on the Inet that premiums are assigned to new things.
What will drive Miss Daisy crazy? Then I want it. That sort of thing.
If the coin is AT, then NGC is liable for the grading error if there be one.
The EXTENT of the liability ...in this instance.... in MY opinion .... is that only a COURT will be able to set "damages" after examination of the reasonable expectation of knowledge of each party to the transaction.
WE have set the premiums by demand for outrageously DIFFERENT coins.
I'm more concerned about "conservation" and its effect on the future appearance of processed coins.
SOMEONE didn't pay enough attention. NO ONE is going to admit it was they.
Which just leaves the court as the arbiter as is so common these days.
Otherwise, this will never be put to rest.
14k isn't a fortune, but the fallout could be. Maybe NGC just wants to buy it and have it done with.
????????????????