AUGH! NCS kills another coin...

coinpictures · January 24, 2007 4:19AM

While the original toning isn't the most pristine I've ever seen, it still had color and character. The after pictures depict a sterile bland coin.

Oh, and if this is a PF67 ULTRA CAMEO, my PF62 sated dollar is a PF65... NOT!

Link

Before:

After:

Before:

After:

ricko · January 24, 2007 4:25AM

I like the 'after'.... Cheers, RickO

Goober · January 24, 2007 4:32AM

Jeez, I like the obverse before, but I must say, I like the reverse after.

coinpictures · January 24, 2007 4:37AM

Based on the after pics though, would anyone actually grade that coin a 67??? What am I missing (other than slipping NGC a few bills under the table to get a better grade)?

covers · January 24, 2007 4:44AM

coinpictures - What is probably a silly question - If you happen to have a UV light, would you look at that coin and tell me if you can see evidence of the old toning marks under UV? I've heard it claimed that they don't use chemicals which I find hard to believe.

dragon · January 24, 2007 4:44AM

Based on those pics, that is one coin that should've definately been left alone IMO.

291fifth · January 24, 2007 4:46AM

Proof 67???? It looks like they held a road rally in the fields!

BECOKA · January 24, 2007 4:48AM

In this case I would actually like either one. The after pics are not half bad if you don't consider the grade it is supposed to be.

Unfortunately with grading sometime toning hides hairlines.

seanq · January 24, 2007 4:51AM

I dunno, I agree that the after pics make the coin look lifeless, but the toning pattern in the before images look like someone spilled something on the reverse. Is it possible the toning was the result of a poorly rinsed dip? If so, then I can understand why someone wanted the coin conserved.

Sean Reynolds

messydesk · January 24, 2007 4:53AM

Hafta wonder how the reverse toning ended up as it did before the chemical peel. How long before NCS starts AT-ing coins after stripping just to give them a little golden color at the rims?

sinin1 · January 24, 2007 4:58AM

wow, not sure what it was graded before but probably worth a few thousand+ more after

I like the original myself, looks more natural for a 125 year old coin

I predict NGC will start buying quite a few coins back in 3-5 years that have had
NCS conservation

those proof fields will cloud up and look like a PR65 eventually (not sure how long that will take)

tmot99 · January 24, 2007 5:00AM

Sorry, but I can see why that coin was sent to NCS. I wouldn't buy the coin with that spill-like toning on the reverse. I'd have to see the coin in-hand before I'd argue the grade. If those lines are raised, a 67 is possible. If those are scratches, then the grade is off.

NumisOxide · January 24, 2007 5:03AM

Pre-NCS- A lot of toning spots on the obverse and uneven reverse toning.

Post-NCS- Looks better.

PerryHall · January 24, 2007 5:06AM

There was probably a hazy film on the coin which doesn't show up well in the pics that was removed. Once again, you would have to see the coin in hand, both before and after, to make a fair judgment.

coinpictures · January 24, 2007 6:10AM

<< <i>coinpictures - What is probably a silly question - If you happen to have a UV light, would you look at that coin and tell me if you can see evidence of the old toning marks under UV? I've heard it claimed that they don't use chemicals which I find hard to believe. >>

Well, it wouldn't be a silly question if I actually owned the coin.

Those pictures were just taken from the article on the NCS web site (linked in 1st post).

ksteelheader · January 24, 2007 6:12AM

Perceptions, merely perceptions.

Ronyahski · January 24, 2007 10:37AM

Rather than handling marks like hairlines or hits, more likely alot of lint marks, die lines, die rust, etc., as these weren't handled too carefully in preparation. Only excuses the look to a degree. Also, based on the "original" toning, looks like it wasn't the first time this coin was "conserved".