Options
Lets play "are these the same coins"?
shylock
Posts: 4,288 ✭✭✭
In the September 2005 Heritage Long Beach Sig sale this ANACS 1897 MS65RD sold for an astounding $2,990.
Six months later in the 2006 Heritage March Palm Beach Sig sale this PCGS 1897 MS66RD sold for $7,475
Are they the same coin?
Unaltered images as presented by Heritage
Six months later in the 2006 Heritage March Palm Beach Sig sale this PCGS 1897 MS66RD sold for $7,475
Are they the same coin?
Unaltered images as presented by Heritage
Paul <> altered surfaces <> CoinGallery.org
0
Comments
Yup.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Is PCGS really looser than ANACS ?????
Please say it ain't so..........there will be at least 40 members here who might go the Hari-Kari route
Based on the price realized in the ANACS holder, it was likely undergraded and recognized as such.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
They are without a doubt the same coin. As dragon alluded to spots are a coin detective's best friend. There are many hallmarks
that make these coins match, despite the drastically different photography, as TomB explained, that makes one look red and the
other look brown. Never trust Heritage images.
what do you know of this coin's past, Shylock?
No more than any of you do after seeing this post. I only came upon it today while going through some Heritage 1897 archives.
The two most interesting things about this coin are:
An ANACS 65RD IH was cherrypicked and made the elusive PCGS 66RD grade in less than 6 months.
And Heritage used the term "trifle soft" in both coin's descriptions
Very interesting. I love these threads!
Jack
1) Do Heritage's pics just suck?
2) Was it conserved?
I hate it when my brown coins turn red in the holder.
2.)On the top image in the shield toning extends down from the upper right side 6 lines, on the bottom image only 4
3.)On the top image there seems to be a tick at the bottom point of the Indian's bust. This doesn't appear on the bottom image
Yet I like so many others find many identifiers to indicate it is the same coin. Terrible difference in images. The new Heriatge photos are prettier but less revealing IMO.
BTW it has been my experience that ANACS can be tough on Indian Cents.
NoEbayAuctionsForNow
<< <i>Is PCGS really looser than ANACS ????? >>
Old ANACS -- yes. New ANACS -- no.
What makes this one a bit different is that we don't know if anything has been done to the coin, right? It might have been a simple crackout/resubmit to PCGS. If that is the case, you'd never know it by those photos, though!
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.
Commems and Early Type
Was the coin dipped?
Bruce
I love to expose doctored coins but my experience with Heritage IH images says this coin hasn't changed.
And common sense says it hasn't. A coin doctor wouldn't invest 3K on an 1897 ANACS 65RD with the
hope they could dip it and get more money for it. Coin doctors pay standard money for coins,
in this case about $700 for a typical 1897 65RD, keeping their risk factor as low as possible.
This was the product of a smart crackout guy. They spend big money on the right coins, and in this
case made 5K on their expertise.
<< <i>And common sense says it hasn't. A coin doctor wouldn't invest 3K on an 1897 ANACS 65RD with the
hope they could dip it and get more money for it. Coin doctors pay standard money for coins,
in this case about $700 for a typical 1897 65RD, keeping their risk factor as low as possible. >>
I don't know. $3000+ profit for what is, ignoring submission times, about 15 minutes of work at most using a cheap chemical in water, extra water for washing and perhaps some acetone too, doesn't sound like a very risky move (save for the extreme toxicity of the cheap chemical I'm thinking of).
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Four or five years ago I would have posted this as an obvious dip job, so I don't blame you or any other poster for falling
into the trap. I did.
Since then I've learned that coin photography can't be trusted even more than coin dealers.
These are two extreems of lighting, white balance and exposure taken by two completely different cameras/scanners.
You have to be a devotee of Heritage copper images to appreciate what I'm talking about. They have imaged copper
in the most inconsistent way immaginable, and this is a prime example. Take a long walk through their archives and
tell me I'm wrong.
There is nothing in the PCGS 66RD image that looks altered to me, other than the way it was photopraphed.
Two slabs, same coin, two drastically different images, great rip sums up this post.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
to the not even close to the real thing. (The worst, actually, are when they show two completely different appearing
images of the same coin.)
Exactly.
Heritage's current method of imaging high end small cents is providing an overexposed but more realistic full coin image, like the
1897 PCGSRD I posted, followed by a full slab image that, if NGC or ANACs "white incert" looks very dark and brown, if PCGS clear
plastic looks like a strange sort of silver toned XRay of the coin. Over the years they haven't changed much in their full slab
NGC/ANACS images. That white background has dumbfounded them, like most of us, and they image those the most consistently
albeit not very well. The different ways they have imaged PCGS full slabs confounds me, and I'll leave it at that.
When it comes to calling coins dipped or altered you need more proof than the Heritage images provide in this case. This post is an
indictment of photography rather than doctoring.
And an applaud to successful cherrypicking.