Do you think carbon spots on coins are acceptable for receiving the new SecurePlus designation?

leothelyon · July 13, 2010 1:56PM

What's your opinion?

Leo

BAJJERFAN · July 13, 2010 2:12PM

It is a mint defect just like roller marks. It certainly detracts from eye appeal, but there is little one can do about them other than live with them or trade/sell it off. Then again how much of the + is due to eye appeal and how much is due to marks.

Type2 · July 13, 2010 2:34PM

I would say No, They only get bigger over time and for it to be the best of the best it should not have that designation. But that is just me.

clackamas · July 13, 2010 2:36PM

Yes, if the coin is a fantastic MS63 it could have a few carbon spots.

MsMorrisine · July 13, 2010 2:37PM

Secure Plus is the service name.

"+" is the designation.

I take it you mean "+"

Most of the "+" is the grade, and a little is "eye appeal." (sounds really subjective)

leothelyon · July 13, 2010 3:10PM

For many years as a collector I was taught that not only are carbon spots ugly but they eat deeper into the surface of a coin than the surrounding toning. I have avoided and returned a few coins that would have been great coins had they been carbon spot free. But my stance on them has changed over the years especially if the coin has a seldom seen EDS strike. In that certain situation, I have learned to live with a spot or two. But to allow a heavy, very noticeable carbon spot to reside in a new SecurePlus holder, this would raise some questions about the integrity of the new service IMO.

Leo

lkeigwin · July 13, 2010 3:42PM

I think a little spotting is forgivable. In the same way a few silver scuffs are okay, or blemishes on DMPL's.

Copper is very difficult metal.
Lance.

illini420 · July 13, 2010 3:44PM

I wouldn't think too much of it on a 63+

But if I saw spots on a 67+ I wouldn't like it too much.

Type2 · July 13, 2010 5:13PM

Then milk spots should be OK to? I'll pass. But that is just me.

Steve27 · July 13, 2010 8:32PM

When it comes to grading, Secure + changes nothing other than providing the opportunity for a plus; thus, yes carbon spots on a Secure + graded coin would be fine. However, I would like to see currently graded MS66RD cents with small carbon spots downgraded to MS65+RD.

PawPaul · July 14, 2010 7:38AM

There was a post here a short while back where a high grade matte proof got a + and it had a noticeable carbon spot .

I thought it would knock it out of + consideration , but the majority of respondents said it was acceptable .

I think a + coin should have no carbon spots .

"It is a mint defect just like roller marks."

it is not always a mint defect is it ?

LindeDad · July 14, 2010 8:27AM

I feel that very few coins will make "Secure+" with carbon sopts. Some coins that have them will end up in "Secure" holders but not at a + grade IMO.

coinguy1 · July 14, 2010 8:44AM

Carbon spots can affect a coin's grade, but I don't see why they should preclude a coin from being graded, whether submitted through the "Secure Plus" service or not.

<< I feel that very few coins will make "Secure+" with carbon sopts. Some coins that have them will end up in "Secure" holders but not at a + grade IMO. >>

Why wouldn't lots of coins with carbon spots receive plus grades? You seem to be looking at the plus only from the point of view as a bonus for certain coins. But, from the other direction, it can also be viewed as a minor penalty for coins which might have otherwise received the next grade up.

For example, there might be a "RD" common date Indian Cent, which is flawless, but for a few minor carbon spots. Why couldn't or shouldn't it receive a plus (in the form of a 65+ grade) as opposed to not receiving a plus, but getting a 66 grade?

lkeigwin · July 14, 2010 8:55AM

I completely agree with Mark. If a 67RD can have a few small carbon flecks why can't a 66+?
Lance.

golfer72 · July 14, 2010 9:38AM

Mark's response is exactly what I was going to say. Probably not as eloquently though!

DonWillis · July 14, 2010 10:05AM

Coins with spots could be graded under Secure Plus and placed in a Secure Plus holder.

It is very unlikely that any coin with spots would ever receive the + grade however.

coinguy1 · July 14, 2010 10:27AM

<< Coins with spots could be graded under Secure Plus and placed in a Secure Plus holder.

It is very unlikely that any coin with spots would ever receive the + grade however. >>

Don, I don't understand that. I have seen many coins graded 66 and 67 (and for that matter, most other grades) with spots. Why would such coins not sometimes receive 65+ and 66+, instead of 66 and 67, respectively, instead. Thanks.

Edited to add: What if you have a PCGS 66 coin with a few small spots that you believe to be a 65/66 liner - you wouldn't consider down-grading it to a 65+, rather than to a 65?

lkeigwin · July 14, 2010 10:51AM

This VDB is okay as a 67RD but could never have graded 66+ because of a few carbon spots? I guess I don't understand the plus concept after all.
Lance.

Coinosaurus · July 14, 2010 11:07AM

<< This VDB is okay as a 67RD but could never have graded 66+ because of a few carbon spots? I guess I don't understand the plus concept after all.
Lance.
>>

It just means "PQ." There are a lot of coins which are PQ for the grade that are actually more desirable (IMHO) than a coin at the next level up.

The classic case is a coin with a small amount of rub and strong luster and good color in a 58 holder. I would rather have that than a dipped out 61 coin with marks all over.

As for the 1909 VDB in 67, maybe a 66+ has not as good luster, but perfectly even color and no spots. For some collectors they might like that coin better. For people collecting by numbers on the holder they can go for the 67. You have to look at them side by side and decide for yourself.

coinguy1 · July 14, 2010 11:10AM

<< 

<< This VDB is okay as a 67RD but could never have graded 66+ because of a few carbon spots? I guess I don't understand the plus concept after all.
Lance.
>>

It just means "PQ." There are a lot of coins which are PQ for the grade that are actually more desirable (IMHO) than a coin at the next level up...... >>

Yes, agreed, but why couldn't the MS67 coin posted be graded 66+, instead of 67 (or 66)?

Moldnut · July 14, 2010 11:29AM

16. Q: How will Secure Plus affect the grading process? Will it lock a coin in at a grade? What does the + mean?
DW: PCGS Secure Plus does not lock in the grade of your coin forever. What is does is tell us what your coin has graded in the past. That way we can make a more informed decision. Do we ever make mistakes? Yes. Will we ever change a Secure Plus grade? Yes. The + refers to a coin that is in the top 10-15% of the grade. It must have positive eye appeal and be all there technically as well.

Note the positive eye appeal part of this. Spots are not positive eye appeal.

coinguy1 · July 14, 2010 11:34AM

<< 16. Q: How will Secure Plus affect the grading process? Will it lock a coin in at a grade? What does the + mean?
DW: PCGS Secure Plus does not lock in the grade of your coin forever. What is does is tell us what your coin has graded in the past. That way we can make a more informed decision. Do we ever make mistakes? Yes. Will we ever change a Secure Plus grade? Yes. The + refers to a coin that is in the top 10-15% of the grade. It must have positive eye appeal and be all there technically as well.

Note the positive eye appeal part of this. Spots are not positive eye appeal. >>

Agreed that spots are not positive eye-appeal. But what do you do with all of the coins in holders of various grades which have spots? Don't some of them deserve to be down-graded and by less than a full point?

Moldnut · July 14, 2010 11:39AM

<< 

<< 16. Q: How will Secure Plus affect the grading process? Will it lock a coin in at a grade? What does the + mean?
DW: PCGS Secure Plus does not lock in the grade of your coin forever. What is does is tell us what your coin has graded in the past. That way we can make a more informed decision. Do we ever make mistakes? Yes. Will we ever change a Secure Plus grade? Yes. The + refers to a coin that is in the top 10-15% of the grade. It must have positive eye appeal and be all there technically as well.

Note the positive eye appeal part of this. Spots are not positive eye appeal. >>

Agreed that spots are not positive eye-appeal. But what do you do with all of the coins in holders of various grades which have spots? Don't some of them deserve to be down-graded and by less than a full point? >>

I agree, but I guess that PCGS doesn't think so. At least not to put them in the top 15%.

Type2 · July 14, 2010 12:01PM

I think it's becuse if they put it in a 65+ with a carbon spot it will get biger and then it will need to go in a 64+ then in a 63+ and so on and so on. I think what they are looking for is a top pop coin's that will not have any problem now or later. But that is just me.

Bochiman · July 14, 2010 12:05PM

<< 

<< 16. Q: How will Secure Plus affect the grading process? Will it lock a coin in at a grade? What does the + mean?
DW: PCGS Secure Plus does not lock in the grade of your coin forever. What is does is tell us what your coin has graded in the past. That way we can make a more informed decision. Do we ever make mistakes? Yes. Will we ever change a Secure Plus grade? Yes. The + refers to a coin that is in the top 10-15% of the grade. It must have positive eye appeal and be all there technically as well.

Note the positive eye appeal part of this. Spots are not positive eye appeal. >>

Agreed that spots are not positive eye-appeal. But what do you do with all of the coins in holders of various grades which have spots? Don't some of them deserve to be down-graded and by less than a full point? >>

Mark,

As I see it, your argument is irrelevant to the current point. As stated, eye appeal is a part of the plus. Carbon spotted coins don't have, as many people have stated, eye appeal.

For the other coins, they should be graded on their technical merits. If carbon spots bring the grade down, and a "technically" MS67 is graded MS66, then that is one argument to have (for or against). That does not mean that the technical merits give it enough positive eye appeal to overcome negative eye appeal from the spots.

Again, 2 different arguments as I see it.

illini420 · July 14, 2010 12:46PM

I thought I understood the plus grading until reading this thread and the response of Mr. Willis. Not sure how a coin with spots could grade a 67.1, but not a 66.9????

I would understand better if the plus designation was more about eye appeal like the NGC star designation, but now I'm back to being confused about it.

coinguy1 · July 14, 2010 1:09PM

<< 

<< 

<< 16. Q: How will Secure Plus affect the grading process? Will it lock a coin in at a grade? What does the + mean?
DW: PCGS Secure Plus does not lock in the grade of your coin forever. What is does is tell us what your coin has graded in the past. That way we can make a more informed decision. Do we ever make mistakes? Yes. Will we ever change a Secure Plus grade? Yes. The + refers to a coin that is in the top 10-15% of the grade. It must have positive eye appeal and be all there technically as well.

Note the positive eye appeal part of this. Spots are not positive eye appeal. >>

Agreed that spots are not positive eye-appeal. But what do you do with all of the coins in holders of various grades which have spots? Don't some of them deserve to be down-graded and by less than a full point? >>

Mark,

As I see it, your argument is irrelevant to the current point. As stated, eye appeal is a part of the plus. Carbon spotted coins don't have, as many people have stated, eye appeal.

For the other coins, they should be graded on their technical merits. If carbon spots bring the grade down, and a "technically" MS67 is graded MS66, then that is one argument to have (for or against). That does not mean that the technical merits give it enough positive eye appeal to overcome negative eye appeal from the spots.

Again, 2 different arguments as I see it. >>

Ron, I just can't see it as two different arguments. If coins with any spots can't receive pluses, it seems inevitable that there will be many coins which receive pluses at given grades but which are inferior to non plus coins at the same grade. Those in the latter category might be oh-so-close/just miss at the next grade up, but since they can't get a plus, are knocked down a whole point, instead.

Bochiman · July 14, 2010 1:23PM

Mark,

It comes down to what grading seems to always come down to...an opinion.
I have some coins with carbon spots but wouldn't pay "up" for them, nor would I want them in a "+" since, again, I agree with the "eye appeal" portion.
Carbon spots detract....I don't think anything visible should detract from eye appeal and still be a "+".

I am ok being wrong as well, but again, the above is how I see it.

leothelyon · July 14, 2010 1:35PM

Hi Everyone,

I started this thread after seeing a coin in the Steve Ducker's Barber Half Collection. On the reverse side of the 1908-D there appears a very dark spot and this coin has received a MS66+ grade. I I'm not questioning Mr Ducker's integrity in building his great collection. But I was taken back a little seeing a + grade on a coin with a spot like that. Of course, I haven't nor will I ever see this coin in hand but a dark spot is a dark spot and I wanted to hear what others had to say.

Leo

lusterlover · July 15, 2010 12:35AM

2 comments:
1) It depends where the spots are. For example, around the rim is less detracting/more acceptable than in the focal areas, and
2) don't confuse carbon spots with surface crust. Carbon spots are in the coin while crust is on the coin.

Unknown · July 15, 2010 2:37AM

This content has been removed.

leothelyon · July 15, 2010 6:57AM

<< I kind of chuckled after reading this thread. man are we being picky but then i got thinking to , so here goes my dumbarse question. At what points does one acknowledge carbon spots? What if they are on the coin but can't be seen readily ie you can hardly see it (them) with the naked eye but under magnification can easily see it ( them)? >>

So ..after reading this thread, after viewing the coin in question, we shouldn't get all uptight over a spot that you believe needs magnification to see it?

Leo

coinguy1 · July 16, 2010 1:09AM

<< Mark,

It comes down to what grading seems to always come down to...an opinion.
I have some coins with carbon spots but wouldn't pay "up" for them, nor would I want them in a "+" since, again, I agree with the "eye appeal" portion.
Carbon spots detract....I don't think anything visible should detract from eye appeal and still be a "+".

I am ok being wrong as well, but again, the above is how I see it. >>

Ron, I just saw this 66+ coin posted in another thread. And it appears to have a spot. If so, perhaps it would have graded 67 otherwise. But either way, from what I can see, I don't have a problem with the plus grade, despite the apparent spot.

Bochiman · July 16, 2010 1:22AM

Mark,

I think I go back to what lusterlover posted above....it kind of depends on how easy the carbon spots are to see and their impact.
In my mind, i was thinking of carbon spots that are very noticeable. If they aren't not that noticeable, then I can understand the flipside of what I was thinking and I would be more ok with it.

So, I guess I am saying, "depending on the actual impact of the carbon spots to the coin's appearance, I could understand a + in some instances".

coinguy1 · July 16, 2010 1:43AM

<< Mark,

I think I go back to what lusterlover posted above....it kind of depends on how easy the carbon spots are to see and their impact.
In my mind, i was thinking of carbon spots that are very noticeable. If they aren't not that noticeable, then I can understand the flipside of what I was thinking and I would be more ok with it.

So, I guess I am saying, "depending on the actual impact of the carbon spots to the coin's appearance, I could understand a + in some instances". >>

OK, so now it looks like we agree.

renomedphys · July 16, 2010 3:05AM

Same coin, different shot. PR66+BN

lkeigwin · July 16, 2010 3:45AM

<< Same coin, different shot. PR66+BN >>

Looks like a 67 to me.

Lance.

DonWillis · July 16, 2010 3:52AM

Man, is everyone here some kind of conspiracy theorist? Why can't statements be accepted at face value?

As we have said before - to earn a + designation a coin must be in the top 10-15% in eye appeal among other characteristics. Having spots usually precludes a coin from having superior eye appeal and getting in that top range. Maybe you can find a coin with a tiny spot that received a + grade. That does not conflict with what we have said.

Also there are a lot of coins in lower grades that have better eye appeal than coins in higher grades. Like AU58's looking better than MS62's - right? So why wouldn't you think that there will be + coins in a lower grade that have better eye appeal than a higher numerical grade?

It really is not at all confusing, unless you want to try to make it so.

leothelyon · July 16, 2010 4:02AM

If you go take a look at Steve Ducker's 1908-D barber half dollar in his Registry set, the spot on the reverse side, wouldn't you say that's a bit excessive to receive a plus grade?

Leo

illini420 · July 16, 2010 10:34AM

<< If you go take a look at Steve Ducker's 1908-D barber half dollar in his Registry set, the spot on the reverse side, wouldn't you say that's a bit excessive to receive a plus grade?

Leo >>

Looks like a monster Barber Half to me, but yeah, the spot on the reverse hurts it I would think... at a grade of 66+ it just makes me wonder what the coin would have been w/o that spot, 68+?????

Mowgli · July 16, 2010 2:00PM

My set of Lincoln Wheaties in MS 63 started showing carbon spots on some coins. I didn't think the grades would change but the eye quality had definitely changed and was going to get worse. I never dreamed that they would get a "+" at any grade. It was hard to imagine anyone considering a coin with carbon spots being near the top of their grade. The spots were not acceptable to me either so I sold the set.

PerryHall · July 16, 2010 5:38PM

How likely is it that when a copper coin with very minor carbon spots is slabbed that those carbon spots continue to grow within the slab? Is this a concern?

PawPaul · July 17, 2010 8:33AM

a quote from D. Hall and R. Howard on the PCGS Library pages ;

"There is also a misconception about both toning and copper spots on gold coins. To PCGS, a few minor copper spots are not negative. It just proves to us that the coin has probably never been dipped or played with. In an effort to get totally flashy gold coins, we think some submitters are dipping and even over-dipping a lot of their gold coins and suffering lower grades as a consequence. "

coinguy1 · July 17, 2010 8:54AM

<< a quote from D. Hall and R. Howard on the PCGS Library pages ;

"There is also a misconception about both toning and copper spots on gold coins. To PCGS, a few minor copper spots are not negative. It just proves to us that the coin has probably never been dipped or played with. In an effort to get totally flashy gold coins, we think some submitters are dipping and even over-dipping a lot of their gold coins and suffering lower grades as a consequence. " >>

That's different from carbon spots on other metals, which also happen to be more reactive than gold.

PawPaul · July 17, 2010 9:52PM

agreed , it's different ; they are referring to copper spots and the topic for the most part in this thread

is spot's on copper .

copper spot's ............, spot's on copper ..............

Do you think carbon spots on coins are acceptable for receiving the new SecurePlus designation?

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Leave a Comment