Why did this 1800 $1 grade?

DoubleEagle59 · September 23, 2011 9:16AM

Look at the rim at 5:00

I'd like to know why this 1800 $1 received a grade.

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 9:20AM

.
.
i've been into numismatics for less than 3 years and i've learned a few things:

1. 30% of pcgs coins shouldn't have been graded
2. 50%+ of ngc coins shouldn't have been graded
3. anacs gives detailed grading, so they slide
4. 10% of cac coins shouldn't have been stickered
5. 60% of gold coins should not have received a grade - older gold coins
6. if 75% of current graded pcgs, ngc pre-1900 coins went through the sniffer and/or re-grade, they would fail if the true standard held true

i can go on but i will not
.
.
just from my experiences and opinon

keyman64 · September 23, 2011 9:22AM

You can put anything in a holder; it doesn't mean I'll buy it though. Good question you pose however...

crypto79 · September 23, 2011 9:33AM

I too could pull made up fictitious statistics out of my butt or offer the real answer that pcgs felt that it was a planchet defect as made and MA on a 200+ year old American coin.

PerryHall · September 23, 2011 9:35AM

Looks like a small planchet defect rather than post mintage damage.

DieClash · September 23, 2011 9:39AM

1800 Rare coin with planchet flaw gets a "free-pass" grade. But they'd never look the other way on a "common" date rare coin.

Just sayin'

Cheers!

Kirk

EDITED: to add, I'm sure they overlooked those hairlines too.

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 9:41AM

.
.
i guess it is their business model,

they are more than welcome to grade problem coins for some and not for others
.
.
also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once
.
.

STONE · September 23, 2011 9:43AM

<< .also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once >>

I don't think so!!!

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 9:47AM

<< also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once. >>

probably 3 times

lordmarcovan · September 23, 2011 9:52AM

Yep. Planchet flaw, not PMD. Apparently within the parameters of what PCGS considered acceptable on a coin of this period.

braddick · September 23, 2011 9:53AM

<< Looks like a small planchet defect rather than post mintage damage. >>

I agree. The submitter didn't pay the extra error service to acknowledge that so there you have it, graded in a regular holder.

I like it and bet it's a shade or two darker in hand.

LindeDad · September 23, 2011 9:58AM

Could that of possibly of been caused by the edge letting machine and is deemed as minted also? But yes I will agree that they are more lenient on the old stuff.

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 10:04AM

.
.
i think it would be my first to see "mint error" for a flawed planchet for a coin of this age,

that would be something to see
.
.

Raybo · September 23, 2011 10:05AM

<< 

<< .also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once >>

I don't think so!!! >>

I'll bet you an 1800 XF40 (PCGS) dollar that it has been cleaned.

LanLord · September 23, 2011 10:05AM

<< I too could pull made up fictitious statistics out of my butt or offer the real answer that pcgs felt that it was a planchet defect as made and MA on a 200+ year old American coin. >>

This

LanLord · September 23, 2011 10:07AM

<< 

<< also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once. >>

probably 3 times >>

gadzooks, I'll bet it was carried around in someone's pocket once too!

Raybo · September 23, 2011 10:07AM

I also agree it's a planchet flaw.

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 10:21AM

<< 

<< 

<< also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once. >>

probably 3 times >>

gadzooks, I'll bet it was carried around in someone's pocket once too! >>

perhaps that is why it wasn't given the designation of ms63
.
.
i did hear once that rub would stop a coin from grading
.
.

coinkat · September 23, 2011 10:37AM

Planchet flaw- It looks as if 40 is reasonable

AnkurJ · September 23, 2011 10:54AM

Planchet defect. I thought they gave them genuines though?

They have planchet flaws listed as part of their genuine codes. So was this before the new rules or is this something new?

No Grade Description
91 Artificial Color
92 Cleaning
93 Planchet Flaw
94 Altered Surfaces
95 Scratch / Rim Dent
97 Environmental Damage
98 Damage

I no longer own this coin, but when I asked PCGS to cross this, they wouldnt due to the planchet flaw.

DoubleEagle59 · September 23, 2011 11:00AM

<< Planchet defect. I thought they gave them genuines though?

They have planchet flaws listed as part of their genuine codes. So was this before the new rules or is this something new?

No Grade Description
91 Artificial Color
92 Cleaning
93 Planchet Flaw
94 Altered Surfaces
95 Scratch / Rim Dent
97 Environmental Damage
98 Damage >>

That's exactly why I was asking.

Shouldn't it have been a '93'?

Rampage · September 23, 2011 11:03AM

<< 

<< also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once. >>

probably 3 times >>

For someone who has been in coins for a mere three years, you sure put yourself on a throne. Quite frankly, you need to keep learning. That coin is beatuiful and original. Your facts are also incorrect.

Rampage · September 23, 2011 11:05AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once. >>

probably 3 times >>

gadzooks, I'll bet it was carried around in someone's pocket once too! >>

perhaps that is why it wasn't given the designation of ms63
.
.
i did hear once that rub would stop a coin from grading
.
. >>

Rub does NOT prevent a coin from grading. Geez....

JRocco · September 23, 2011 11:09AM

<< 

<< Planchet defect. I thought they gave them genuines though?

They have planchet flaws listed as part of their genuine codes. So was this before the new rules or is this something new?

No Grade Description
91 Artificial Color
92 Cleaning
93 Planchet Flaw
94 Altered Surfaces
95 Scratch / Rim Dent
97 Environmental Damage
98 Damage >>

That's exactly why I was asking.

Shouldn't it have been a '93'? >>

Interesting

Raybo · September 23, 2011 11:12AM

i did hear once that rub would stop a coin from grading
.
. >>

That comment REALLY got me!

JRocco · September 23, 2011 11:14AM

<< i did hear once that rub would stop a coin from grading
.
. >>

That comment REALLY got me!

>>

I think he was saying it would stop a coin from grading MS63....
but what do I know.

Baley · September 23, 2011 11:18AM

My PCGS 1799 dollar also has a planchet flaw, and has been harshly cleaned 8 or 9 times, probably with a wire brush or a dremel tool. It still graded!

%

but that's ok, 117% of PCGS graded coins have the wrong grade, and - 0.000006457% are not even coins but foil wrapped chocolate discs

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 11:22AM

<< 

<< 

<< also the coin pictured has been harshly cleaned, at least once. >>

probably 3 times >>

For someone who has been in coins for a mere three years, you sure put yourself on a throne. Quite frankly, you need to keep learning. That coin is beatuiful and original. Your facts are also incorrect. >>

thanks for sharing

and also the well thought out and informative post to a newcomer

if you have not something to contribute to me, i'd just assume you not say anything

especially since the only thing close to a fact that I muttered would be that the coin has had cleaning

the rest would be my opinion based on experience to date
.
.

Bochiman · September 23, 2011 11:24AM

It would be interesting to know WHEN the coin was graded...that may be telling; especially to those that are quoting the genuine codes as this may have preceded that.

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 11:28AM

<< i did hear once that rub would stop a coin from grading
.
. >>

That comment REALLY got me!

>>

i only stated that i heard that

i know it won't stop a coin from grading because a vast majority of coins were subject to this prior to mass availability of sufficient coin holders, common sense

and i've seen a huge amount of lower graded uncs and proofs with rub, barbers and seated especially
.
.

MikeInFL · September 23, 2011 11:35AM

<< 

<< Planchet defect. I thought they gave them genuines though?

They have planchet flaws listed as part of their genuine codes. So was this before the new rules or is this something new?

No Grade Description
91 Artificial Color
92 Cleaning
93 Planchet Flaw
94 Altered Surfaces
95 Scratch / Rim Dent
97 Environmental Damage
98 Damage >>

That's exactly why I was asking.

Shouldn't it have been a '93'? >>

Not in PCGS' eyes. Can you say Market Acceptable?

Just like all coins with scratches, rim dings/dents, cleaning, etc., aren't put in genuine holders (or bodybags that preceeded them), it seems to be the logical conclusion that the same phenomenon is going on here.

IMO, Crypto nailed it in post 4.

DoubleEagle59 · September 23, 2011 11:38AM

<< It would be interesting to know WHEN the coin was graded...that may be telling; especially to those that are quoting the genuine codes as this may have preceded that. >>

Then wouldn't it have been bodybagged?

mrpotatoheadd · September 23, 2011 11:44AM

I don't know why such a coin wouldn't be acceptable for grading. IMO, it only makes sense to allow for issues such as this when grading coins made with 200+ year old technology. Or do you bodybag coins with weak strikes, too?

WaterSport · September 23, 2011 11:46AM

This is not my series, but I thought that silver coins sometimes have rim files like gold and some will get slabbed where as planchet flaws (like dented rims) will not grade.

Just my opinion the experts can evaluate on.

WS

ColonialCoinUnion · September 23, 2011 11:56AM

<< IMO, Crypto nailed it in post 4. >>

I agree. I would also add that it is a matter of degree - a larger more obtrusive flaw would almost certainly not be considered acceptable.

Raybo · September 23, 2011 12:02PM

<< 

<< i did hear once that rub would stop a coin from grading
.
. >>

That comment REALLY got me!

>>

i only stated that i heard that

i know it won't stop a coin from grading because a vast majority of coins were subject to this prior to mass availability of sufficient coin holders, common sense

and i've seen a huge amount of lower graded uncs and proofs with rub, barbers and seated especially
.
. >>

It's in an XF40 holder, right?

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 12:15PM

<< I don't know why such a coin wouldn't be acceptable for grading. IMO, it only makes sense to allow for issues such as this when grading coins made with 200+ year old technology. Or do you bodybag coins with weak strikes, too? >>

it is good to have a set of guidelines to which we should adhere

so long as there is consistency

also on the subject of market acceptability

it is good to hear that pcgs has recently started putting virtually everything into at least genuine holders and also started sniffing the coins (and no i am not talking about scratch n sniff holders for those of you that haven't heard of the coin sniffer yet)

minus a very few exceptions but rightly so for a few
.
.
pvc, fake, added/removed features, but even those have a few exceptions

a few discussions about electroplated, or non-mint authorized re-strikes or something of the like having been certified, there have been a few threads about those since i've joined

but it is obviously and ultimately up to pcgs to decide what they will holder or not

bullion minted items, electroplated, large cents with reengraved details, file marks, chop marks, stamps, planchet flaws, psl, dipped-to-death, authentic, buy-back, surface contaminates, hand-engraved die features, etc etc etc

it would be nice if there were a guide along with the pcgs details page that would cover all of these, somewhat like the eye appeal rank for all of the above and more that i left out, which is probably plenty

it seems really hit and miss for the majority of us when it comes to all of these
.
.
then we have threads like this with bountiful speculation and debates
.
.

dragon · September 23, 2011 12:16PM

<< .
.
i've been into numismatics for less than 3 years and i've learned a few things:

1. 30% of pcgs coins shouldn't have been graded
2. 50%+ of ngc coins shouldn't have been graded
3. anacs gives detailed grading, so they slide
4. 10% of cac coins shouldn't have been stickerd
5. 60% of gold coins should not have received a grade
6. if 75% of current graded pcgs, ngc coins went through the sniffer and/or re-grade, they would fail

i can go on but i will not
.
. >>

Are the above comments based on hard evidence after very careful study of a reasonable sampling of several hundred thousand or more PCGS / NGC graded coins, as well as after resubmitting at least fifty thousand previously graded PCGS coins through the sniffer?

or

Simply wild and baseless speculation based on absolutely nothing?

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 12:35PM

.
.
actually i am done

if you all (those getting defensive over truths) cannot see the light, let it be to someone else to show it to you

can't say i know you nor know your knowledge or lack thereof

but i know my experience and that is what i go by
.
.
if you are over-sensitive it is not for my concern

simply posting from my experience and opinion

can't say i've even seen much true contribution, only brave enough to attack and not assist

i'm not object to being proven wrong or mistaken, but i've yet to see anything to the contrary
.
.

mrpotatoheadd · September 23, 2011 12:53PM

<< actually i am done >>

With all due respect, I suspect part of the reason for the reaction you've gotten here is that you have claimed both:

"i've been into numismatics for less than 3 years..."

and

"1. 30% of pcgs coins shouldn't have been graded
2. 50%+ of ngc coins shouldn't have been graded
3. anacs gives detailed grading, so they slide
4. 10% of cac coins shouldn't have been stickered
5. 60% of gold coins should not have received a grade - older gold coins
6. if 75% of current graded pcgs, ngc pre-1900 coins went through the sniffer and/or re-grade, they would fail if the true standard held true"

Just a suggestion, but given your short time in the hobby, you might want to elaborate on how you have come to the conclusions you have posted. A well-reasoned argument would surely go a long way towards convincing people to maybe reconsider your positions.

LanceNewmanOCC · September 23, 2011 1:14PM

.
.
it is actually my short time that was part of the basis for my opinion/statment

so much i've seen already and the diverse amount of venues i've seen said material in

i'm beyond astonished anyone with a straight face would disagree

for the record, i had no desire to go into all of this as deep as it has gone but i'm sure has been informative nonetheless
.
.

your words are well received and spoken in a manner that i would expect from a board like this
.
.

mrpotatoheadd · September 23, 2011 1:23PM

<< so much i've seen already and the diverse amount of venues i've seen said material in >>

So you might be able to appreciate then, how much those who have been involved with the business/hobby for decades have seen, no? Which is why I suggested you might want to explain how you have come to your conclusions, in order to help convince others that your conclusions are reasonable. Seems like the best way to proceed, to me.

BigE · September 23, 2011 1:46PM

they gennied my nice 1894 Morgan with way less damage than this one

---------BigE

Frankcoins · September 23, 2011 3:53PM

A planchet defect, coin is AS MADE.

golfer72 · September 23, 2011 6:44PM

I cant comment since all I see is a red X !

PerryHall · September 23, 2011 8:50PM

<< It would be interesting to know WHEN the coin was graded...that may be telling; especially to those that are quoting the genuine codes as this may have preceded that. >>

Excellent point. They may have felt the planchet flaw was too minor to warrant a body bag which used to be the only alternative to giving a coin a grade.

19Lyds · September 23, 2011 11:34PM

<< 

<< .
.
i've been into numismatics for less than 3 years and i've learned a few things:

1. 30% of pcgs coins shouldn't have been graded
2. 50%+ of ngc coins shouldn't have been graded
3. anacs gives detailed grading, so they slide
4. 10% of cac coins shouldn't have been stickerd
5. 60% of gold coins should not have received a grade
6. if 75% of current graded pcgs, ngc coins went through the sniffer and/or re-grade, they would fail

i can go on but i will not
.
. >>

Are the above comments based on hard evidence after very careful study of a reasonable sampling of several hundred thousand or more PCGS / NGC graded coins, as well as after resubmitting at least fifty thousand previously graded PCGS coins through the sniffer?

or

Simply wild and baseless speculation based on absolutely nothing? >>

To Me, this sounds like what a dealer would tell you when you try to resell your slabbed collection. Well, some dealers.

No doubt Mr. Newman has received some negative information from some source but I would suggest quite a few more years of experience before making and standing behind such wild claims.

I saw two dogs yesterday.
One had rabies.

I've learned that 50% of all dogs have rabies.

I'd comment on the OP's coin but its a big Red X for me. Does this mean that 75% of the pictures that DoubleEagle59 posts are unavailable or does it mean that Canadian Pictures are not allowed on the forums?

Walkerguy21D · September 24, 2011 12:07AM

I just divided that poster's numbers by a factor of 10, and got closer to my personal observations for most of his assertions.....
like 50+% of all NGC coins shouldn't have graded.....give me a break.

BillJones · September 24, 2011 1:09AM

Personally I don't think that PGCS should have graded this coin in the way that they did. The problem is mint caused, but it does have a direct, negative effect on the market value of the piece. It should have been graded as a piece with a mint error with a notation for a defective planchet. The way it is now the coin has been given a "generic" aspect that it does not have.

And yes, I've seen some very lose grading on early dollars. I had one on consignment in an EF-45 holder that had initials lightly scratched in to the field. The best argument anyone could give me for the fact that the coin made it into a holder was that it had been “net graded” from AU.

Mint caused defects are one thing; willful post mint damage is another. A coin with initials or graffiti in the fields should be in a “genuine” holder, period.

19Lyds · September 24, 2011 1:16AM

I can see the picture now.

Wow! Thats a huge ....... uh ................gap.

The 1924xxxx cert number leads me to believe it was graded within the past year or so although cert number ranges are regrettable not sequential.

Nysoto · September 24, 2011 1:46AM

As many others have said the coin has a planchet flaw as struck, not post mint damage. They are not too common on silver or gold coins in this general time period, but they do occur. I have a 1795 half dollar with a huge planchet defect that I will post someday, bought it for about a quarter of the value for a VF 1795, original and no post mint damage. Planchet flaws will reduce the value, as type and date collectors will not want them, only variety and error nuts like myself will find any interest in them.

"No Grade Description
91 Artificial Color
92 Cleaning
93 Planchet Flaw
94 Altered Surfaces
95 Scratch / Rim Dent
97 Environmental Damage
98 Damage"

The 93 planchet flaw is the only PCGS genuine code that is not created post mint. I believe this is a mistake, as the coin is not damaged, it is as struck. A planchet flaw is more of an error coin than a problem coin with post mint issues.

Why did this 1800 $1 grade?

Comments

Leave a Comment