<< <i>How dare Stewart have a life outside the forum! He should be here promptly to answer our questions. He must not be a serious collector >>
It's called "bomb throwing" Post something that places PCGS in a bad light, give few details, no supporting photos or documentation, and then run away.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>To me, the main point in this 'experiment' is that there is obviously a very fine line (according to PCGS) between an ms65 and a 'Genuine' coin (tooled surface).
THAT, my friends, strikes fear into my heart!! >>
Which, I am in complete agreement with. Stewart is a respected numismatist/collector that has millions invested in his passion. The very implication that he might have done something with the coin between crackout and resubmission is simply a laughable implication by the uninformed.
Damaged during crackout? Hardly. The man has talents enough to support his passion by working with his hands.
Yes, I'm very concerned over the grading differences.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>Some things can be debated but lets at least get our definitions straight:
code 94 - Altered Surfaces - this means we have found a foreign substance on the surface
code 98 - Damaged - there are a number of reasons why the coin might be damaged. The reason is now printed on the cert.
The following damage descriptions are some of the more common that may be indicated on your 98 graded insert.
1. Graffiti (significant distracting etchings- occasionally net graded on early coins) 2. Planchet streak removed (usually found on gold coins) 3. Spot(s) removed (leaving some form of damage that is evident) 4. Surfaces tooled (major metal movement- whizzing, lasering, tooling) 5. Machine damage (either: counting machine or coin wrapping machine) 6. Rim damage (either: rim gouge or test cut) 7. Surface damage (either: large gouge/scrape, drill or chop mark) 8. Mount removed (located on either the edge or surface of coin)
Most code 94 coins can be fixed simply by removing the foreign material. Code 98 coins have been physically damaged.
So, if a a coin has PVC residue, it would recieve a code 94. If the residue is removed and has NOT damaged the surface of the coin and providing there is nothing else wrong with the coin, it should then grade. However, if the residue is removed but has already etched the surface of the coin, it would then most likely get a code 98. Is that correct?
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
<< <i>4) The coin was graded code 98 - Surface Tooling - and attributed as an S-4. >>
I guess that answers the variety attribution question.... (it doesn't show up on the order page, but should show on the cert verification once the cert info is updated and clicked upon)
<< <i>First, I'd like to say that my interpretation of the OP's event is that of a coin that was once in a Secure Plus holder, was cracked out, and resubmitted through the standard service. During the discussion, however, several questions have arisen about the nature of Secure Plus that bring up some questions. Below is how I understand it. Please chime in if I am mistaken.
So if a Secure Plus coin gets cracked out and resubmitted through SP service, the options are:
1) The coin gets scanned and recognized as being identical (or close enough) and is still regraded. Graders agree with or upgrade from previous and either holder it same or actually upgrade it.
2) Coin gets scanned and recognized as being identical (or close enough) and is regraded, wherupon the graders identify a problem, like tooling, that was missed the first time around. PCGS must then buy back the coin.
3) Coin gets scanned and is recognized as having been doctored in some fashion. Bodybag.
Of course, the scanner and the person operating it and reviewing the results must be beyond reproach, or perhaps a conflict of interest could arise. When a Secure Plus coin subsequently gets bodybagged, are the scanner results available to a third party for review? >>
I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout!
<< <i>I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout! >>
Man! If that's true then all that stuff about being able to crack out SP coins for inclusion in an album is folly.
No holder = no guarantee! OK, I get it. But I was seriously under the impression that a scanned, recognized, and verified as same coin (no doctoring) was at least a lock for the same grade. So that's not true?
<< <i>I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout! >>
Man! If that's true then all that stuff about being able to crack out SP coins for inclusion in an album is folly.
No holder = no guarantee! OK, I get it. But I was seriously under the impression that a scanned, recognized, and verified as same coin (no doctoring) was at least a lock for the same grade. So that's not true? >>
Not true.
Secure Plus is "recognition" technology, not grading technology.
>> Humans still do the grading.
So, just like any other crack out-resub process, the grade can change or it can BB.
Plus, a cracked out coin can get damaged! So, it's grade can change that way, too.
Once out of the holder all bets are off. Re-read DW's second post in this thread.
I think David Hall said it all. I know that Stewart is friendly with David and probably knows more about coppers that just about anyone, but this is a hard lesson learned by him that maybe most of us can learn from. That is, if you want a crossover, upgrade, attribution, etc., send it in without cracking it out. Once it sees the light of day, all bets are off.
I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank?
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
I agree the scanner would indeed recognize the coin as Stewart's coin... but to then assume it would get the same grade prior to a crack-out is incorrect as the thief in your example could have easily damaged the coin or stuck it in his pocket wearing it down to AU58, etc. after it was removed from the holder.
I'm not sure PCGS is scanning every coin yet either. I think they are only scanning coins submitted under Secure Plus, leaving a big loophole open for the bad guys. They should be scanning them all, otherwise the Big One isn't really that Big.
<< <i>I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout! >>
Man! If that's true then all that stuff about being able to crack out SP coins for inclusion in an album is folly.
No holder = no guarantee! OK, I get it. But I was seriously under the impression that a scanned, recognized, and verified as same coin (no doctoring) was at least a lock for the same grade. So that's not true? >>
Not true.
Secure Plus is "recognition" technology, not grading technology.
>> Humans still do the grading.
So, just like any other crack out-resub process, the grade can change or it can BB.
Plus, a cracked out coin can get damaged! So, it's grade can change that way, too.
Once out of the holder all bets are off. Re-read DW's second post in this thread. >>
So if you crack out a SP coin and resubmit under SP and the scans are an exact match would this influence the graders or are they ignorant of the physical examinations of submitted coins?
Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
I agree the scanner would indeed recognize the coin as Stewart's coin... but to then assume it would get the same grade prior to a crack-out is incorrect as the thief in your example could have easily damaged the coin or stuck it in his pocket wearing it down to AU58, etc. after it was removed from the holder.
I'm not sure PCGS is scanning every coin yet either. I think they are only scanning coins submitted under Secure Plus, leaving a big loophole open for the bad guys. They should be scanning them all, otherwise the Big One isn't really that Big. >>
It's not cost effective of time effective to scan every single coin submitted to PCGS. I would think a monetary value of let's say $5000 and above would be a better solution.
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
It is very disturbing to know the new secure plus is not really secure. By the comments posted here - I also believe the "PCGS buy back guarantee" is not really working for the customers, since PCGS solely decide if they made a mistake or not.
I'm surprised HRH hasn't offered to do a review of the coin and situation to get this straightened out. He always struck me as a very fair man.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
I agree the scanner would indeed recognize the coin as Stewart's coin... but to then assume it would get the same grade prior to a crack-out is incorrect as the thief in your example could have easily damaged the coin or stuck it in his pocket wearing it down to AU58, etc. after it was removed from the holder.
I'm not sure PCGS is scanning every coin yet either. I think they are only scanning coins submitted under Secure Plus, leaving a big loophole open for the bad guys. They should be scanning them all, otherwise the Big One isn't really that Big. >>
It's not cost effective of time effective to scan every single coin submitted to PCGS. I would think a monetary value of let's say $5000 and above would be a better solution. >>
So what is the estimated value of the coin in question?
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh?
"...It is very disturbing to know the new secure plus is not really secure.,,,"
At least (apparently) if someone sends a previously SP coin in raw under a non-SP service. Surely this is a hole (that a Mac Truck can be driven through) in the system that needs to be plugged ASAP (if only to protect people whose SP coins were stolen).
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh? >>
I wonder how that happened too, but once the coin's been cracked, all bets are off (unless you re-submit a SP coin under the SP service, from what I gather). You can't have your cake and eat it too, yet that seems to me what some are expecting.
All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I agree with Mike. It seems alot of folks are so locked in to the politics of personal responsibility that they missed the 800 pound gorilla. Here, a coin was a PCGS SP65, the same coin was then purportedly cracked and resubmitted only to return as merely PCGS Genuine. To me, the issue is, (assuming that the coin did not change much in the interim), to ascertain why the grade changed so much. I would guess that PCGS if only for quality control would want to know that answer too. Being able to spout homey homilies about personal responsibility in the end solves little either for PCGS or the submitter.
<< <i>I agree with Mike. It seems alot of folks are so locked in to the politics of personal responsibility that they missed the 800 pound gorilla. Here, a coin was a PCGS SP65, the same coin was then purportedly cracked and resubmitted only to return as merely PCGS Genuine. To me, the issue is, (assuming that the coin did not change much in the interim), to ascertain why the grade changed so much. I would guess that PCGS if only for quality control would want to know that answer too. Being able to spout homey homilies about personal responsibility in the end solves little either for PCGS or the submitter. >>
Actually, you put it that way, I have to agree. Let's get our heads out of the sand.
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh? >>
You mean......to CAC or not to CAC?
I really fail to see where CAC would have had any influence on this scenario at all except for adding an additional $30 to the OP's grading fee's.
I'm also relatively certain that if the coin actually HAD been tooled, that the OP would never have purchased it. After all, he has been around the block with regard to purchasing quality coins.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I agree with Mike. It seems alot of folks are so locked in to the politics of personal responsibility that they missed the 800 pound gorilla. Here, a coin was a PCGS SP65, the same coin was then purportedly cracked and resubmitted only to return as merely PCGS Genuine. To me, the issue is, (assuming that the coin did not change much in the interim), to ascertain why the grade changed so much. I would guess that PCGS if only for quality control would want to know that answer too. Being able to spout homey homilies about personal responsibility in the end solves little either for PCGS or the submitter. >>
I appreciate your agreement, but am a bit confused by your comments...
Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike >>
All things considered, Mike, a 65 to a Genuine is a pretty darn big jump, especially among professionals. We put our confidence in these grades on the pretension, at least, that they're somewhere in the ballpark. A 65 to a Genuine, let's face it, is tantamount to a swing and a whiff.
<< <i>I agree with Mike. It seems alot of folks are so locked in to the politics of personal responsibility that they missed the 800 pound gorilla. Here, a coin was a PCGS SP65, the same coin was then purportedly cracked and resubmitted only to return as merely PCGS Genuine. To me, the issue is, (assuming that the coin did not change much in the interim), to ascertain why the grade changed so much. I would guess that PCGS if only for quality control would want to know that answer too. Being able to spout homey homilies about personal responsibility in the end solves little either for PCGS or the submitter. >>
Ding Ding Ding Ding
Hence why they call all this "The Grading Game"
Nah - just sip some Kool Aid, stick your head back in that nice cool sand and blame Stewart. And truth be told - this all happened with the best TPG out there.
<< <i>Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike >>
All things considered, Mike, a 65 to a Genuine is a pretty darn big jump, especially among professionals. We put our confidence in these grades on the pretension, at least, that they're somewhere in the ballpark. A 65 to a Genuine, let's face it, is tantamount to a swing and a whiff. >>
Call me crazy, but a 65 to a 45 is a swing and a whiff, yet a 65 to a Genuine could be as simple as someone seeing a tooling mark versus not. Based on what I've seen in slabs (and not seeing the coin in question), it doesn't surprise me in the least that something like that could be missed one time and not the next.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>So if you crack out a SP coin and resubmit under SP and the scans are an exact match would this influence the graders or are they ignorant of the physical examinations of submitted coins? >>
I can't say about SP scans. I don't know.
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos.
<< <i>Call me crazy, but a 65 to a 45 is a swing and a whiff, yet a 65 to a Genuine could be as simple as someone seeing a tooling mark versus not. Based on what I've seen in slabs (and not seeing the coin in question), it doesn't surprise me in the least that something like that could be missed one time and not the next. >>
Well, don't take this as the Gospel, but, to me, at least, while grading is indeed subjective, I'm not all that convinced that determining whether a coin has been unacceptably messed with is.
Then, again, I've been called just a little crazy, myself...
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this?
This post has nothing to do with Secure Plus , and if I got it thru my head that once cracked out all bets are off ........., anyone else should be able to do so as well
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this? >>
I do:
<< <i>All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me. >>
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh? >>
He said it was in a secure holder, no mention of a plus tho. Why would you give a plus to a tooled coin? Had JA said the coin was tooled, SB mite a had a good reason for review; there's gold in them thar green beans eh?
In the last ten years, I can't count the number of threads I've read written by people who have cracked out their coins, hoping for an upgrade, only to discover an unpleasant surprise.
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
I would be interested in learning what PCGS thinks about the coin right now. Tooled? Not tooled? I agree we have all had bad surprises on crackouts but more like a 62 to a 55, not a 65 to a Tooled.
<< <i>he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
you got a very solid point there , I'll give you that ! >>
He may have already done this and didn't get the results that he had hoped for.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Re: Slabbed coins - There are some coins that LIVE within clear plastic and wear their labels with pride... while there are others that HIDE behind scratched plastic and are simply dragged along by a label. Then there are those coins that simply hang out, naked and free
Re: Slabbed coins - There are some coins that LIVE within clear plastic and wear their labels with pride... while there are others that HIDE behind scratched plastic and are simply dragged along by a label. Then there are those coins that simply hang out, naked and free
<< <i> Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike >>
Mike, I agree. Tooling is probably one of the most difficult things to detect if done to match original details. The human brain is expecting to see the details that they know are there (assuming a grader or collector who is very familiar with the series) and when they are there, the brain wants to default to "good". Remember the early silver coin (I don't remember which one) with re-etched stars? IIRC it was a VF or so coin with smooth stars and someone had etched lines on the stars that weren't at all like the original raised ridges but because the detail matched and stars aren't a device that is generally mentioned in the grading standards, the graders missed it, the dealer who sold it missed it, the buyer missed it, and most who viewed it missed it.
So I am very curious and hope that Stewart will see fit to post what he finds out when he gets the coin back. Given some of the unsympathetic and frankly unfriendly and unsportsmanlike posts in this thread, I can see why he might not.
I was confused in the beginning. I think Stewart misspoke and included "altered surfaces" in his definition of 98. I assumed he just had the general "those surfaces don't look quite right" concern. But a tooled or damaged coin is something different.
I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Comments
<< <i>What I still don't get is how a MS65 secure plus coin could come back BB'd, unless the owner damaged or messed with it. >>
Or in spite of the scan, PCGS missed something the first time.
<< <i>How dare Stewart have a life outside the forum! He should be here promptly to answer our questions. He must not be a serious collector >>
It's called "bomb throwing" Post something that places PCGS in a bad light, give few details, no supporting photos or documentation, and then run away.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>To me, the main point in this 'experiment' is that there is obviously a very fine line (according to PCGS) between an ms65 and a 'Genuine' coin (tooled surface).
THAT, my friends, strikes fear into my heart!! >>
Which, I am in complete agreement with.
Stewart is a respected numismatist/collector that has millions invested in his passion. The very implication that he might have done something with the coin between crackout and resubmission is simply a laughable implication by the uninformed.
Damaged during crackout? Hardly. The man has talents enough to support his passion by working with his hands.
Yes, I'm very concerned over the grading differences.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>What I still don't get is how a MS65 secure plus coin could come back BB'd, unless the owner damaged or messed with it. >>
Or in spite of the scan, PCGS missed something the first time. >>
The Secure Plus Scan doesn't look for anything, the people do. The SP scan is for recognition purposes.
<< <i>Some things can be debated but lets at least get our definitions straight:
code 94 - Altered Surfaces - this means we have found a foreign substance on the surface
code 98 - Damaged - there are a number of reasons why the coin might be damaged. The reason is now printed on the cert.
The following damage descriptions are some of the more common that may be indicated on your 98 graded insert.
1. Graffiti (significant distracting etchings- occasionally net graded on early coins)
2. Planchet streak removed (usually found on gold coins)
3. Spot(s) removed (leaving some form of damage that is evident)
4. Surfaces tooled (major metal movement- whizzing, lasering, tooling)
5. Machine damage (either: counting machine or coin wrapping machine)
6. Rim damage (either: rim gouge or test cut)
7. Surface damage (either: large gouge/scrape, drill or chop mark)
8. Mount removed (located on either the edge or surface of coin)
Most code 94 coins can be fixed simply by removing the foreign material. Code 98 coins have been physically damaged.
From the PCGS website: Grading Codes defined >>
Good Explanation.
So, if a a coin has PVC residue, it would recieve a code 94. If the residue is removed and has NOT damaged the surface of the coin and providing there is nothing else wrong with the coin, it should then grade. However, if the residue is removed but has already etched the surface of the coin, it would then most likely get a code 98. Is that correct?
<< <i>4) The coin was graded code 98 - Surface Tooling - and attributed as an S-4. >>
I guess that answers the variety attribution question....
(it doesn't show up on the order page, but should show on the cert verification once the cert info is updated and clicked upon)
I'm guessing the OP still isn't happy.
<< <i>First, I'd like to say that my interpretation of the OP's event is that of a coin that was once in a Secure Plus holder, was cracked out, and resubmitted through the standard service. During the discussion, however, several questions have arisen about the nature of Secure Plus that bring up some questions. Below is how I understand it. Please chime in if I am mistaken.
So if a Secure Plus coin gets cracked out and resubmitted through SP service, the options are:
1) The coin gets scanned and recognized as being identical (or close enough) and is still regraded. Graders agree with or upgrade from previous and either holder it same or actually upgrade it.
2) Coin gets scanned and recognized as being identical (or close enough) and is regraded, wherupon the graders identify a problem, like tooling, that was missed the first time around. PCGS must then buy back the coin.
3) Coin gets scanned and is recognized as having been doctored in some fashion. Bodybag.
Of course, the scanner and the person operating it and reviewing the results must be beyond reproach, or perhaps a conflict of interest could arise. When a Secure Plus coin subsequently gets bodybagged, are the scanner results available to a third party for review? >>
I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout!
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
<< <i>I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout! >>
Man! If that's true then all that stuff about being able to crack out SP coins for inclusion in an album is folly.
No holder = no guarantee! OK, I get it. But I was seriously under the impression that a scanned, recognized, and verified as same coin (no doctoring) was at least a lock for the same grade. So that's not true?
Empty Nest Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout! >>
Man! If that's true then all that stuff about being able to crack out SP coins for inclusion in an album is folly.
No holder = no guarantee! OK, I get it. But I was seriously under the impression that a scanned, recognized, and verified as same coin (no doctoring) was at least a lock for the same grade. So that's not true? >>
Not true.
Secure Plus is "recognition" technology, not grading technology.
>> Humans still do the grading.
So, just like any other crack out-resub process, the grade can change or it can BB.
Plus, a cracked out coin can get damaged! So, it's grade can change that way, too.
Once out of the holder all bets are off. Re-read DW's second post in this thread.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What I still don't get is how a MS65 secure plus coin could come back BB'd, unless the owner damaged or messed with it. >>
Or in spite of the scan, PCGS missed something the first time. >>
The Secure Plus Scan doesn't look for anything, the people do. The SP scan is for recognition purposes. >>
I know that. Seems to me the coin should have been bagged the first time.
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What I still don't get is how a MS65 secure plus coin could come back BB'd, unless the owner damaged or messed with it. >>
Or in spite of the scan, PCGS missed something the first time. >>
The Secure Plus Scan doesn't look for anything, the people do. The SP scan is for recognition purposes. >>
I know that. Seems to me the coin should have been bagged the first time. >>
Or maybe a mistake was made the second time even?
It's hard to know what is going on without seeing the SP picture and coin.
A resub would be a very, very interesting thing to see unfold live and in real time...
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
I agree the scanner would indeed recognize the coin as Stewart's coin... but to then assume it would get the same grade prior to a crack-out is incorrect as the thief in your example could have easily damaged the coin or stuck it in his pocket wearing it down to AU58, etc. after it was removed from the holder.
I'm not sure PCGS is scanning every coin yet either. I think they are only scanning coins submitted under Secure Plus, leaving a big loophole open for the bad guys. They should be scanning them all, otherwise the Big One isn't really that Big.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 700
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I think you're mostly correct. But in scenario #2 I don't think PCGS would buy back the coin even if they missed something in the first SecurePlus grading. If you crack out the coin, the guarantee is GONE!
Also, in scenario #1, the coin could downgrade as well in which case no compensation should be paid as the previous grade guarantee would be GONE upon crackout! >>
Man! If that's true then all that stuff about being able to crack out SP coins for inclusion in an album is folly.
No holder = no guarantee! OK, I get it. But I was seriously under the impression that a scanned, recognized, and verified as same coin (no doctoring) was at least a lock for the same grade. So that's not true? >>
Not true.
Secure Plus is "recognition" technology, not grading technology.
>> Humans still do the grading.
So, just like any other crack out-resub process, the grade can change or it can BB.
Plus, a cracked out coin can get damaged! So, it's grade can change that way, too.
Once out of the holder all bets are off. Re-read DW's second post in this thread. >>
So if you crack out a SP coin and resubmit under SP and the scans are an exact match would this influence the graders or are they ignorant of the physical examinations of submitted coins?
<< <i>
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
I agree the scanner would indeed recognize the coin as Stewart's coin... but to then assume it would get the same grade prior to a crack-out is incorrect as the thief in your example could have easily damaged the coin or stuck it in his pocket wearing it down to AU58, etc. after it was removed from the holder.
I'm not sure PCGS is scanning every coin yet either. I think they are only scanning coins submitted under Secure Plus, leaving a big loophole open for the bad guys. They should be scanning them all, otherwise the Big One isn't really that Big. >>
It's not cost effective of time effective to scan every single coin submitted to PCGS. I would think a monetary value of let's say $5000 and above would be a better solution.
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
It is very disturbing to know the new secure plus is not really secure. By the comments posted here - I also believe the "PCGS buy back guarantee" is not really working for the customers, since PCGS solely decide if they made a mistake or not.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I must be the only one that really understands Stew Blay's question?
Had Stew's coins been stolen and the thieves cracked out his coins, I believe Stew joins me in having the same impression that such Secure Plus graded coins would have automatically been screened out by the new PCGS Secure Plus service whether it was resubmitted under the standard old service or the new Secure Plus service because it was in the PCGS data bank? >>
I agree the scanner would indeed recognize the coin as Stewart's coin... but to then assume it would get the same grade prior to a crack-out is incorrect as the thief in your example could have easily damaged the coin or stuck it in his pocket wearing it down to AU58, etc. after it was removed from the holder.
I'm not sure PCGS is scanning every coin yet either. I think they are only scanning coins submitted under Secure Plus, leaving a big loophole open for the bad guys. They should be scanning them all, otherwise the Big One isn't really that Big. >>
It's not cost effective of time effective to scan every single coin submitted to PCGS. I would think a monetary value of let's say $5000 and above would be a better solution. >>
So what is the estimated value of the coin in question?
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh?
At least (apparently) if someone sends a previously SP coin in raw under a non-SP service. Surely this is a hole (that a Mac Truck can be driven through) in the system that needs to be plugged ASAP (if only to protect people whose SP coins were stolen).
<< <i>
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh?
I wonder how that happened too, but once the coin's been cracked, all bets are off (unless you re-submit a SP coin under the SP service, from what I gather). You can't have your cake and eat it too, yet that seems to me what some are expecting.
All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me.
<< <i>Why crack it out I never understood, just send it in in the holder. >>
They do it to avoid bias in the second opinion on a regrade to the same company that gave it the first opinion? I'm just guessing, here...
<< <i>I agree with Mike. It seems alot of folks are so locked in to the politics of personal responsibility that they missed the 800 pound gorilla. Here, a coin was a PCGS SP65, the same coin was then purportedly cracked and resubmitted only to return as merely PCGS Genuine. To me, the issue is, (assuming that the coin did not change much in the interim), to ascertain why the grade changed so much. I would guess that PCGS if only for quality control would want to know that answer too. Being able to spout homey homilies about personal responsibility in the end solves little either for PCGS or the submitter. >>
Actually, you put it that way, I have to agree. Let's get our heads out of the sand.
<< <i>
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh?
You mean......to CAC or not to CAC?
I really fail to see where CAC would have had any influence on this scenario at all except for adding an additional $30 to the OP's grading fee's.
I'm also relatively certain that if the coin actually HAD been tooled, that the OP would never have purchased it. After all, he has been around the block with regard to purchasing quality coins.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I agree with Mike. It seems alot of folks are so locked in to the politics of personal responsibility that they missed the 800 pound gorilla. Here, a coin was a PCGS SP65, the same coin was then purportedly cracked and resubmitted only to return as merely PCGS Genuine. To me, the issue is, (assuming that the coin did not change much in the interim), to ascertain why the grade changed so much. I would guess that PCGS if only for quality control would want to know that answer too. Being able to spout homey homilies about personal responsibility in the end solves little either for PCGS or the submitter. >>
I appreciate your agreement, but am a bit confused by your comments...
Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike
<< <i>Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike >>
All things considered, Mike, a 65 to a Genuine is a pretty darn big jump, especially among professionals. We put our confidence in these grades on the pretension, at least, that they're somewhere in the ballpark. A 65 to a Genuine, let's face it, is tantamount to a swing and a whiff.
<< <i>I agree with Mike. It seems alot of folks are so locked in to the politics of personal responsibility that they missed the 800 pound gorilla. Here, a coin was a PCGS SP65, the same coin was then purportedly cracked and resubmitted only to return as merely PCGS Genuine. To me, the issue is, (assuming that the coin did not change much in the interim), to ascertain why the grade changed so much. I would guess that PCGS if only for quality control would want to know that answer too. Being able to spout homey homilies about personal responsibility in the end solves little either for PCGS or the submitter. >>
Ding Ding Ding Ding
Hence why they call all this "The Grading Game"
Nah - just sip some Kool Aid, stick your head back in that nice cool sand and blame Stewart.
And truth be told - this all happened with the best TPG out there.
<< <i>
<< <i>Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike >>
All things considered, Mike, a 65 to a Genuine is a pretty darn big jump, especially among professionals. We put our confidence in these grades on the pretension, at least, that they're somewhere in the ballpark. A 65 to a Genuine, let's face it, is tantamount to a swing and a whiff. >>
Call me crazy, but a 65 to a 45 is a swing and a whiff, yet a 65 to a Genuine could be as simple as someone seeing a tooling mark versus not. Based on what I've seen in slabs (and not seeing the coin in question), it doesn't surprise me in the least that something like that could be missed one time and not the next.
<< <i>So if you crack out a SP coin and resubmit under SP and the scans are an exact match would this influence the graders or are they ignorant of the physical examinations of submitted coins? >>
I can't say about SP scans. I don't know.
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos.
<< <i>Call me crazy, but a 65 to a 45 is a swing and a whiff, yet a 65 to a Genuine could be as simple as someone seeing a tooling mark versus not. Based on what I've seen in slabs (and not seeing the coin in question), it doesn't surprise me in the least that something like that could be missed one time and not the next. >>
Well, don't take this as the Gospel, but, to me, at least, while grading is indeed subjective, I'm not all that convinced that determining whether a coin has been unacceptably messed with is.
Then, again, I've been called just a little crazy, myself...
<< <i>I can't say about SP scans. I don't know.
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this?
The President of PCGS has made his statements ;
This post has nothing to do with Secure Plus , and if I got it thru my head that once cracked out all bets are off ........., anyone else should be able to do so as well
<< <i>
<< <i>I can't say about SP scans. I don't know.
In addition to the SP "recognition scan," they do have photography type photos of the coins that went through the SP service. Those are used for comparisons. If the photos and the coin in hand are an exact match, would that influence the grader? I think it would and that is the point of having and using the photos. >>
Let’s get past that to this “800 pound gorilla” in the room. What type of security is offered us when our secure plus coins are stolen from us and the thief then cracks them out and submits them under the regular service contemplating selling them in those new holders because he or she isn't so plum stupid as to try to sell them in their former secure plus holders? Do we all understand this? >>
I do:
<< <i>All that said, if there's an end-around for the protection of SP coins (i.e. simply submit it regular), it seems to me to lessen the value of SP in the first place. That's the take-away from this thread, for me. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Stewart, You knew the risks of cracking out a coin, and presumably knew that if you sent it in regular it wouldn't be scanned by the Secure Plus system. While coming back in a genuine slab is not what you expected, it was a risk you freely shouldered and you, alone, should shoulder the consequences, IMO. You paid for an opinion, and you got one. Respectfully...Mike >>
While this is the same knee jerk reaction that I got, I do have to wonder how it is that a coin that was in a Secure Plus holder subsequently bagged for tooling. Seems to me that either it shouldn't have been in the holder in the first place or it shouldn't have been bagged. Perhaps there's an overlapping grey area - the same that occurs on the grade guaranty ... it's certainly useful to be aware of this fact. Means that an independent third party looking at Secure Plus might be a necessity, eh?
He said it was in a secure holder, no mention of a plus tho. Why would you give a plus to a tooled coin? Had JA said the coin was tooled, SB mite a had a good reason for review; there's gold in them thar green beans eh?
More importantly, Stewart is a "big fish" in the world of small cents. I'm sure he is on a first name basis with the powers that be at PCGS (and probably across the street as well). If anyone knows the rules and "how the game is played," it would be Stewart. Considering his status in the world of small cents, one would think that if he had an issue with the grading of one of his coins, he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
For these reasons, I do not believe that a thread like this one should be necessary. It does not reflect well on Stewart.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
you got a very solid point there , I'll give you that !
<< <i>he could make a phone call and any ambiguities would be clarified at the highest level.
you got a very solid point there , I'll give you that ! >>
He may have already done this and didn't get the results that he had hoped for.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
carry on...
<< <i>
Why should a change in grade from SP65 to Genuine surprise? Grading is subjective, grades change from submission to submission all the time (and, as evidenced from this thread, from SP to regular), and Mr. Blay, while possessing a grading eye superior to most, is not immune from the (subjective) nature of the (grading) beast....Mike >>
Mike,
I agree. Tooling is probably one of the most difficult things to detect if done to match original details. The human brain is expecting to see the details that they know are there (assuming a grader or collector who is very familiar with the series) and when they are there, the brain wants to default to "good". Remember the early silver coin (I don't remember which one) with re-etched stars? IIRC it was a VF or so coin with smooth stars and someone had etched lines on the stars that weren't at all like the original raised ridges but because the detail matched and stars aren't a device that is generally mentioned in the grading standards, the graders missed it, the dealer who sold it missed it, the buyer missed it, and most who viewed it missed it.
So I am very curious and hope that Stewart will see fit to post what he finds out when he gets the coin back. Given some of the unsympathetic and frankly unfriendly and unsportsmanlike posts in this thread, I can see why he might not.
I was confused in the beginning. I think Stewart misspoke and included "altered surfaces" in his definition of 98. I assumed he just had the general "those surfaces don't look quite right" concern. But a tooled or damaged coin is something different.
--Jerry
I completely understand that when a coin is cracked out all bets are off except when a coin is in a secure holder and has been finger printed. Then PCGS SHOULD be able to be prove if the coin was
indeed tooled either before or after it was encapsulated in the Secure holder. It also can be determined if the graders erred in determining that the coin should have been placed in a Genuine holder.
Everyone,including myself, makes mistakes when grading coins. I have also critisized CAC when they have made mistakes when putting Green Beans on copper coins that have been doctored.
I hope to be able to post the results when this coin,1857 FE, is reviewed.
Stewart Blay