Sent these worn oldies into our host for slabbing today... Plus 1877 Counterfeit Indian?? **GRADES

NJKen · December 1, 2011 4:55AM

Hi all,

Besides the Morgans that some of you have already commented on, I sent these in today. Granted they are not in as good of condition as the Morgans but who knows. I really wanted to just pick out some of the keys/higher value coins out of the books that just collect mustiness in the bank vault LoL. I also figure when I am gone my 2 year old will appreciate that he doesn't have to pay the fee to get them graded

Anyway, here are the pics of what I sent in today, like I said don't expect too much... Most are pretty heavily worn.
1976-S

(2) 1921 Peace Dollars (sorry for the pic)

1918 over 17

1916-D 1921 1921-D 1926-S 1942-1

1887 1909-S

1976-S $1 Clad Type 1 USA PR65CA
1921 $1 Peace USA Genuine - Poor Details (97 - Environmental Damage)
1921 $1 Peace USA AU55
1918/7-D 5C USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned)
1916-D 10C USA Questionable Authenticity
1921 10C USA G04
1921-D 10C USA G06
1926-S 10C USA VG10
1942/1 10C USA XF45
1909-S 1C Indian USA VF20BN
1877 1C USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned)

commoncents05 · December 1, 2011 4:57AM

Unless that 77 Indian is a Proof (which it doesn't look like it is) then it is counterfeit.

-Paul

NJKen · December 1, 2011 4:59AM

<< Unless that 77 Indian is a Proof (which it doesn't look like it is) then it is counterfeit.

-Paul >>

Wow, never even considered that... What happens then? Does PCGS sent it back or do the cops come knocking on the door?

ccrdragon · December 1, 2011 5:02AM

PCGS sends it back ungraded

ColoradoCoinGuy · December 1, 2011 5:10AM

Why do you say it is counterfeit?
It appears to me to have the weak N.
The 7s are hard to see in the photo on my computer but the second 7 looks OK.

NJKen · December 1, 2011 5:18AM

Ok here is the picture of the 1877 Indian cropped for closer examination:

TomB · December 1, 2011 5:33AM

The first 1921 has lots of tape residue on the reverse. This should come off rather easily with acetone, but you should do it yourself instead of hoping PCGS does it for you. Otherwise, it may come back in a Genuine slab. If your 1877 is real it is likely to also come back in a Genuine slab because it appears to have been dipped.

ColoradoCoinGuy · December 1, 2011 5:45AM

In looking at the updated pics, I still think the second 7 is correct.
I think it is still good, but would like to see what others think.
Maybe Rick Snow will chime in.
The coin does have a grainy look to it, especially the rev.
TomB could be correct that the coin has been messed with.
The color on the obverse seems a little off.
I think it has VF35 details.

UtahCoin · December 1, 2011 6:05AM

I question the authenticity of the 1877 too. It just doesn't look "right". Even if genuine it appears to have some minor PVC on both obv and rev.

<< Ok here is the picture of the 1877 Indian cropped for closer examination:

>>

Copperguy · December 1, 2011 6:17AM

It looks strange to me

UtahCoin · December 1, 2011 6:28AM

Here's an overlay. Everything on the obv matches.

NJKen · December 1, 2011 6:47AM

<< Here's an overlay. Everything on the obv matches.

>>

Wow, now that is a pretty amazing job, a Huge thank you for your effort!

Truth be told, I wasn't terribly distraught over the possibility of it being counterfeit since I personally didn't lay out any money for the coin. It was actually a wow, that is pretty amazing...Being new into the hobby, I never thought anyone would counterfeit a penny. I guess it's true, you learn something every day.

Edit:

Looking at the VF-35, I can't help but think that through my unskilled eyes my coin is in better condition. Now I'm merely going by the fact the "Liberty" is more clearly visible. However there is the possible cleaning issue everyone has mentioned, so who knows.

ColoradoCoinGuy · December 1, 2011 7:08AM

The right side of the obverse (OF AMERICA) looks weakly struck as does the
right side of the reverse wreath. However does the headband "LIBERTY" looks too good
for the rest of the wear on the coin, especially when comparing it to the PCGS VF35
pic that UtahCoin added??? Tooled??

ColoradoCoinGuy · December 1, 2011 7:13AM

Also compare it to two more PCGS VF35 coins that are for sale on Rick Snow's Eagle Eye Web site.

NJKen · December 1, 2011 7:27AM

<< The right side of the obverse (OF AMERICA) looks weakly struck as does the
right side of the reverse wreath. However does the headband "LIBERTY" looks too good
for the rest of the wear on the coin, especially when comparing it to the PCGS VF35
pic that UtahCoin added??? Tooled?? >>

Wow, now you have me examining...It looks like the bottom right side of the obverse may have been scraped at some time. If you look at what looks like grains, they don't cover the entire obverse. It also coincides with the wear pattern, and would explain why Liberty is so prominent.

dcarr · December 1, 2011 7:57AM

The lower right obverse, and the corresponding area opposite that (upper right reverse) are weakly-struck.
This is possible with a tapered planchet or when the upper & lower dies are aligned off-parallel.

It is hard to tell for sure from those pictures.
The coin appears genuine, but mildly corroded, cleaned, and partially re-colored.
However, a corroded coin is a lot tougher to authenticate.

EagleEye · December 1, 2011 9:15AM

The 1877 looks OK, but a bit rough. VF, but don't submit it. The 1909 looks OK too, but I need a bigger image of the reverse to tell for sure.

savoyspecial · December 1, 2011 9:19AM

>>The 1877 looks OK, but a bit rough. VF, but don't submit it.>>

Just curious why you would not submit it, Rick

NJKen · December 9, 2011 7:07AM

<< The 1877 looks OK, but a bit rough. VF, but don't submit it. The 1909 looks OK too, but I need a bigger image of the reverse to tell for sure. >>

I already submitted it, but why did you say not to?

EagleEye · December 9, 2011 7:11AM

Because I doubt it will grade.

ziggy29 · December 9, 2011 7:11AM

<< 

<< The 1877 looks OK, but a bit rough. VF, but don't submit it. The 1909 looks OK too, but I need a bigger image of the reverse to tell for sure. >>

I already submitted it, but why did you say not to? >>

I for one would never sell an 1877 raw to the general public. Maybe I would to a knowledgeable specialist dealer/collector who knew it was real and didn't expect a "raw discount", but not otherwise.

NJKen · December 23, 2011 12:28AM

<< 

<< 

<< The 1877 looks OK, but a bit rough. VF, but don't submit it. The 1909 looks OK too, but I need a bigger image of the reverse to tell for sure. >>

I already submitted it, but why did you say not to? >>

I for one would never sell an 1877 raw to the general public. Maybe I would to a knowledgeable specialist dealer/collector who knew it was real and didn't expect a "raw discount", but not otherwise. >>

I personally wouldn't feel right selling, trading or even passing it on to my son if I didn't at least know if it was genuine or not. Before this thread, I would have just thought nothing of it talking about it to him. Now that there is a question of authenticity, even if I hadnt already sent it in...It would have been sent in so I know for peace of mind. That being said, god this wait is painful LoL. They received my submission on 12/3 for regular service and boy would I love a nice Christmas present from PCGS.

braddick · December 23, 2011 1:41AM

<< Because I doubt it will grade. >>

But still better to get it certified, I'd think?
Looks VF'ish and should be worth at least $500. graded (genuine).

Raw it would sell for less.

EagleEye · December 23, 2011 2:58AM

Of course a Genuine holder is better than raw. Good luck. Please let us know if it grades.

NJKen · December 27, 2011 1:24PM

OK, grades came in this evening and I'll start by saying the 1877 is not a fake. Unfortunately it was labeled "USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned)"

Now I will just post grades in order of photo appearance:

1976-S $1 Clad Type 1 USA PR65CA
1921 $1 Peace USA Genuine - Poor Details (97 - Environmental Damage)
1921 $1 Peace USA AU55
1918/7-D 5C USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned)
1916-D 10C USA Questionable Authenticity
1921 10C USA G04
1921-D 10C USA G06
1926-S 10C USA VG10
1942/1 10C USA XF45
1909-S 1C Indian USA VF20BN
1877 1C USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned)

Thanks for everyone's input and comments, I really appreciated them.

droopyd · December 27, 2011 1:37PM

<< 1877 1C USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned) >>

okracer · December 27, 2011 1:47PM

The 1877 does not have "poor" details.....nor does the 1918/17

Coin Finder · December 27, 2011 1:52PM

whats wrong with the overdate buff?

shorecoll · December 28, 2011 12:15AM

I guess the funky toning on the buff is indicative of a certain type of cleaning...it's still a nice coin.

Funny, nobody commented that the 16-D was a fake.

EagleEye · December 28, 2011 12:15AM

You should send the 1877 and 1918/7-D back for a review. Have someone do it at the FUN show or Baltimore so it doesn't cost more in shipping. The 1877 should definitely should say VF details not Poor details.

EagleEye · December 28, 2011 12:19AM

I hope this is not standard practice - putting "Poor details" on any circulated coin that has a problem.

NJKen · December 29, 2011 9:46AM

Does anyone know or have an idea why they gave them the poor tag? I am going to post actual pictures once I get them back but it still is surprising to me. Also, a question about cleaning...these coins were all part of our families collection and were all found out of circulated coins. None were purchased, so at what point or how do they say that the coins were cleaned?

ambro51 · December 29, 2011 11:29AM

I feel bad for you and I think you were royally Skrewwed.

mbogoman · December 29, 2011 11:53AM

I'm sorry, but none of the three Gennies are "Poor Details". Something is definitely wrong there...

Dabigkahuna · December 29, 2011 12:00PM

"Poor Details" ??? I don't think they were even close on those. My guess is that there may be a system error when they coded it. Detail grading is new for PCGS and maybe all the kinks have not been wrung out? I would definitely have them take a look at both those. imho

ambro51 · December 29, 2011 12:03PM

another poster writing about grades in has that POOR details thing on a coin he thought was VF.

boy oh boy what a way to destroy confidence and cast a foul stench on this 'new idea'. I was so so so afraid that they wouldnt 'do it right'...simply look at the coin like a 11 year old kid and grade it like the redbook wants. so, instead...the write POOR on a nice circulated piece with great details...oh my oh my oh my.......... who, who does this possibly benefit?

and graders and a finalizer...they agree on that, eh?

wow.

icsoccer · December 29, 2011 1:02PM

I agree...off the mark w/ poor details.

mbogoman · December 29, 2011 11:46PM

I just sent Don Willis a PM regarding the Details grading results of the coins in this thread. Hopefully we'll have an answer to the apparent mistakes shortly...

ambro51 · December 30, 2011 12:13AM

Perhaps thats the way the basal value of 01 in registry useage is maintained. A nasty and useless trick if thats so.

ANY grading needs to be in agreement basically with accepted standards. We can see a one, two , even five point sway here or there....but a complete disregard for what SHELDON called Poor....thats just wrong and deceptive.

Poor-1 or P-1 (Poor) - The type is barely discernable, but little else, due to the coin being badly damaged or worn smooth.

I would suggest anyone out there who gets this POOR details grade back on a slab should contact PCGS customer service at once and demand either a full explanation or a free regrading. This cannot, and MUST not....be allowed to continue.

And remember WE have the power.

mbogoman · December 30, 2011 7:30AM

Updates from the peanut gallery:

I received a reply PM from Don Willis and he said PCGS will do a re-do on the coins in question at no charge and pay for shipping both ways. That's a pretty fair resolution if you ask me...

I also perused the shared order page and came across several Genuine with Details grades with the Details grade running the gamut from G to AU and everywhere in-between. So what happened on the OP's order - who knows?

Edit: It should be noted that "Details" grading is NOT the default selection for Genuine slabbed coins. You've got to check the "Details" box to get the service.

ambro51 · December 30, 2011 7:33AM

<< That's a pretty fair resolution if you ask me... >>

Yes but will all those affected be so advised? Remember, we done a 'census' here and it pulled only 500 or so.

kaz · December 30, 2011 7:50AM

Do you have any close up images of the 16-D dime? Just curious as to what caused them to question its authenticity.

D · December 30, 2011 8:31AM

<< Do you have any close up images of the 16-D dime? Just curious as to what caused them to question its authenticity. >>

Although the reverse does look pretty warn, what grade were you expecting on the 16-D?

-D

coinpictures · December 30, 2011 9:39AM

I wonder if there is some confusion amongst the employees between "details grade" and "net grade". I've seen any number of both PCGS and NGC genuine holders where their assessment of "XXXX Details" has left me puzzled, being considerably lower than what the details actually present.

It's as if they're double-penalizing the coins... once by Genuining the holder, and then also assessing the details at a lower level because of the fault(s).

I've seen some real head scratchers in PCGS Genuine and NCS holders with respect to the reported details grade.

Of course that still wouldn't explain the "Poor" on the above coins... going back to the old ANACS style, I could see "VF Details, Net F12" on the 1877... or even Net VG08, but no way it ever gets down to Net PO1.

WaterSport · December 30, 2011 9:49AM

Because I doubt it will grade. (in regards to the 1877)

Dang Rick, you sure called that one right!!

WS

NJKen · January 3, 2012 3:29AM

<< Updates from the peanut gallery:

I received a reply PM from Don Willis and he said PCGS will do a re-do on the coins in question at no charge and pay for shipping both ways. That's a pretty fair resolution if you ask me...

I also perused the shared order page and came across several Genuine with Details grades with the Details grade running the gamut from G to AU and everywhere in-between. So what happened on the OP's order - who knows?

Edit: It should be noted that "Details" grading is NOT the default selection for Genuine slabbed coins. You've got to check the "Details" box to get the service. >>

I really appreciate the effort to take the time out of your own day to help out someone you don't even know, I know it sounds kind of cheesy but I genuinely mean it. I will be sending these back in.

Also, I will be trying to take better pictures of these later today, unfortunately I do not have a macro lens yet but will do my best.

mbogoman · January 3, 2012 5:59AM

<< I really appreciate the effort to take the time out of your own day to help out someone you don't even know, I know it sounds kind of cheesy but I genuinely mean it. I will be sending these back in. Also, I will be trying to take better pictures of these later today, unfortunately I do not have a macro lens yet but will do my best. >>

You're welcome. Not a problem at all. That's what these boards are for - to learn a little and help out others who share the same hobby...

NJKen · January 3, 2012 6:26AM

Ok here is the best I can do photo wise on these 3 coins. As mbogoman stated Don Willis is graciously willing to re-grade these but I really don't to make a stink over this but kudos to PCGS.

1877

1916-D Questionable Authenticity

1918/7

Thank you once again to everyone!

stealer · January 3, 2012 12:39PM

<< another poster writing about grades in has that POOR details thing on a coin he thought was VF.

boy oh boy what a way to destroy confidence and cast a foul stench on this 'new idea'. I was so so so afraid that they wouldnt 'do it right'...simply look at the coin like a 11 year old kid and grade it like the redbook wants. so, instead...the write POOR on a nice circulated piece with great details...oh my oh my oh my.......... who, who does this possibly benefit?

and graders and a finalizer...they agree on that, eh?

wow. >>

I don't think "poor details" is saying that the coin has the details equivalent of a PO1 coin, rather, it just has literally poor details.

NJKen · February 2, 2012 3:34AM

Just a follow up to this, I sent the coins back in and am currently waiting to hear the results of the regrade.

commoncents05 · February 2, 2012 3:39AM

The "Poor Details" has been discussed here numerous times. The coin comes back in a regular Genuine holder, and is only worth 1 point in the Registry. Therefore it has the equivency of a PO1. Did it actually say "Poor Details" on the holder? I'm going to guess not.

-Paul

Sent these worn oldies into our host for slabbing today... Plus 1877 Counterfeit Indian?? **GRADES

Comments

Leave a Comment