So I decided to send some of my 7070 coins in for grading UPDATE!

AnkurJ · January 15, 2012 1:17PM

I cracked them out years ago to put in the album, but decided they would be more liquid in slabs. That and I needed some for my registry type set. Rather than buy other examples, I decided to get them graded. These were all submitted raw. Here are the results:

38 1 24081890 1063 1804 1/2C Plain 4, No Stems USA VF25BN >>> Ex PCGS VF25
39 1 24081891 1165 1834 1/2C USA AU50BN >>> Ex ANACS AU53 small holder
40 1 24081892 1230 1854 1/2C USA AU50BN >>> Ex NGC AU58!
41 1 24081893 1549 1810 1C USA Genuine - Poor Details (98 - Damage or Tooling) >>> Poor details? I dont understand this. The coin has full XF details! Ex ANACS XF
42 1 24081894 1741 1838 1C USA AU55BN >>> Ex ANACS AU55
43 1 24081895 2020 1858 1C Small Letters USA XF45 >>> Ex NGC AU58! Was bought as an AU53.
44 1 24081896 3576 1864 2C Large Motto USA AU55BN >>> Ex PCGS MS63! I would love to hear the explanation on this one
45 1 24081897 3666 1852 3CS USA MS62 >>> Ex PCGS AU58! Another big swing in the opposite direction!
46 1 24081898 5351 1832 25C USA XF45 >>> Ex PCGS XF45
47 1 24081899 5432 1854 25C Arrows USA AU50
48 1 24081900 5448 1859 25C USA AU58
49 1 24081901 5654 1909-D 25C USA AU55
50 1 24081902 6144 1827 50C Square Base 2 USA AU55 >>> Ex PCGS AU55
51 1 24081903 6176 1837 50C Reeded Edge USA XF45 >>> Ex NGC AU55! YIKES!
52 1 24081904 6280 1854-O 50C Arrows USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned) >>> Again, whats with poor details? The coin has AU details. Ex ANACS AU55
53 1 24081905 6290 1857 50C USA Genuine (92 - Cleaned)
54 1 24081906 6574 1918 50C Lincoln USA MS65 >>> Ex PCGS MS64! Upgrade!
55 1 24081907 9390 1937 50C Texas USA MS65 >>> Ex PCGS MS65
56 1 24081908 7046 1877-S T$1 USA MS62 >>> Ex NGC MS60!
57 1 24081909 7357 1922 $1 USA MS63 >>> Ex PCGS MS63

I have to find out the grades on the others. Its amazing though how many of the NGC coins were overgraded. What surprised me more is how grades on many PCGS coins changed from MS to AU and some AU to MS! Another sign of the ever changing standard.
Images of the coins can be seen in my sig line link to the 7070 set.
Will post better images when they arrive back from my dealer.
Ankur

AMRC · January 15, 2012 1:20PM

You have done better than most when they have chose to have their 7070 coins graded. I have seen, much, much worse! Great job.

Billet7 · January 15, 2012 1:23PM

Some nice stuff! Congrats! Love the 1859 quarter, also the 1832 quarter...among many!

The reason the Gennies say Poor details is because that's what the point total is for the registry. If it's a genuine it gets the same quantity of points as a PO1...which essentially means that you've filled the hole, but received almost no points for it.

NotSure · January 15, 2012 1:30PM

You report the grade our hosts gave them. Can you tell us what YOUR grade on the coins were, AJ? We know you have a, well, a discriminating eye, at the very least, so I'm curious as to what you thought they were, how they matched up, etc...you know what I mean. If it's not too much work. I'm guessing you were really close, perhaps even or better, after all is said and done......EXCEPT for that 1810 cent and the '54-O half. You don't seem too happy about it now...

Not making sport, you know that, I respect your eye...just wondering how your grades stacked up against what they were entombed in. I just have a feeling it might take 3 times before they see what you see, perhaps, if you think it's worth it....

Enlighten us, if you wouldn't mind, please???? Thanks!

edited for grammar and a few add-ons

breakdown · January 15, 2012 1:34PM

Hey, Ankur, that's a good grade for the 1918 Walker, which is an underrated date in the series.

AnkurJ · January 15, 2012 1:34PM

Notsure: I bought these in 2007 so do not recall what graded I thought they were. But other than early copper, I was looking at all XF to AU for the most part. It was early on in my collecting years, and I did depend on the label more than I do now. I completed this set in 3 months.

AUandAG · January 15, 2012 1:40PM

Interesting. But, it never fails to amaze me that we sometimes forget about the mints.
I see the Philly, Denver, New Orleans and SF represented but no CC, D or C.

bob

Billet7 · January 15, 2012 1:43PM

If I remember correctly most of these were crack-outs, No?

AnkurJ · January 15, 2012 1:47PM

<< If I remember correctly most of these were crack-outs, No? >>

Yep

My wife wasnt happy with me those few months. Always heard hammering coming from the garage.
I actually even cracked out a doily....yea I know. But I had no idea they were worth a premium.

Sonorandesertrat · January 15, 2012 1:52PM

All things considering, you did well. The real question is this: do you agree with the recent grades, or feel that the original ones are more accurate?

NotSure · January 15, 2012 2:10PM

<< I cracked them out years ago to put in the album, but decided they would be more liquid in slabs. That and I needed some for my registry type set. Rather than buy other examples, I decided to get them graded. These were all submitted raw. Here are the results:

38 1 24081890 1063 1804 1/2C Plain 4, No Stems USA VF25BN >>> Ex PCGS VF25
39 1 24081891 1165 1834 1/2C USA AU50BN >>> Ex ANACS AU53 small holder
40 1 24081892 1230 1854 1/2C USA AU50BN >>> Ex NGC AU58!
41 1 24081893 1549 1810 1C USA Genuine - Poor Details (98 - Damage or Tooling) >>> Poor details? I dont understand this. The coin has full XF details! Ex ANACS XF
42 1 24081894 1741 1838 1C USA AU55BN >>> Ex ANACS AU55
43 1 24081895 2020 1858 1C Small Letters USA XF45 >>> Ex NGC AU58! Was bought as an AU53.
44 1 24081896 3576 1864 2C Large Motto USA AU55BN >>> Ex PCGS MS63! I would love to hear the explanation on this one
45 1 24081897 3666 1852 3CS USA MS62 >>> Ex PCGS AU58! Another big swing in the opposite direction!
46 1 24081898 5351 1832 25C USA XF45 >>> Ex PCGS XF45
47 1 24081899 5432 1854 25C Arrows USA AU50
48 1 24081900 5448 1859 25C USA AU58
49 1 24081901 5654 1909-D 25C USA AU55
50 1 24081902 6144 1827 50C Square Base 2 USA AU55
51 1 24081903 6176 1837 50C Reeded Edge USA XF45
52 1 24081904 6280 1854-O 50C Arrows USA Genuine - Poor Details (92 - Cleaned) >>> Again, whats with poor details? The coin has AU details.
53 1 24081905 6290 1857 50C USA Genuine (92 - Cleaned)
54 1 24081906 6574 1918 50C USA MS65
55 1 24081907 9390 1937 50C Texas USA MS65
56 1 24081908 7046 1877-S T$1 USA MS62 >>> Ex NGC MS60!
57 1 24081909 7357 1922 $1 USA MS63

I have to find out the grades on the others. Its amazing though how NGC coins were all overgraded. What shocked me more is how grades on many PCGS coins changed from MS to AU and some AU to MS! Another sign of the ever changing standard.
Images of the coins can be seen in my sig line link to the 7070 set.
Will post better images when they arrive back from my dealer.
Ankur >>

Thanks for finding ewhat you can, AJ. Very interesting. Except for the Trade $1 ('except the Trade $'...like it's 'New Hampshire SHQ'!!....lol)...that Trade was a nice boost upwards, as was the '52 3 center...you are right, a big jump the other way. Seems the hoses were out on the '58 Small Letters cent...from an ANACS 58???

Do I sense any disappointment, aside from the 2 I mentioned prior, on the other grades assigned? And if you don't mind, see if you can figure out the rest of the 'what you thoughts vs. what you gots' for grades. Thanks, and congrats on the upgrade on the Trade $1 (nice jump for what you probably got it for) and for the 3 center not taking a nose-dive!!! Oh. last thing....what type ANACS holders (except for the small white one, you mentioned, especially the type the '58 cent was in??? Seems after the small white holders were fini, ANACS has been all over the place with their gradings...especially these last few years, when all they did was swap locations and employees. All just for future info, AJ....but it looks like you really have to l oook at the newer ANACS holder. They say bargains can be had, but if there was tooling......perhaps bargains can be restricted to the snall white ones. The newer ANACS slabs I've crossed, or cracxked out and sent raw.....I've been beaten up on. Sorry for such a long post, but the knowledge I can gain from what our hosts thinkk, as to what they were...it'll be interesting to hear your thoughts on this,,,not to mention seeing what they used to be/what you expected!

NotSure · January 15, 2012 2:14PM

AJ, I know it's alot, what I'm asking, but I'ze just tryin' ta lurn me sumfin' new!!!

Thanks, really, as I know it's
a) none of my business, and
b) alot of work

I appreciate it!!!

AnkurJ · January 15, 2012 2:18PM

Notsure: the 1858 cent was in an NGC AU58 holder, but was obviously overgraded. I bought it as an AU53 and paid 53 money for it. Comparing it to PCGS graded examples, I can see it as an XF45. On the other coins, I will have to see them to recall what I thought. As I said, many were purchased years go when I knew much less than I do now....or at least pretend to know now

The ANACS holders were a mix. Some small, some newer blue label. The 1810 Large cent was in a problem ANACS holder marked corrosion for a small spot on the obverse. Looking back I shouldnt have bought it, but live and learn. The 1854o Half was in a problem free newer ANACS holder, but did not come back problem free. I will have to take a look at it when it arrives. If nothing else, this has been a great learning experience.

And the 1858:

AJ

morgantype · January 15, 2012 2:51PM

Judging by your photos, the 1858 has some details at about AU 50/55 range.

I think it is the lack of luster that dropped it to a 45.

My two cents on this one.

I am not too far behind you on this, I have about 6 coins to go on my 7070, with a large majority being crackouts.

Thanks for the learning experience.

RYK · January 15, 2012 3:03PM

I do not have all of the answers, but it seems to me that as far as value goes, there were few significant swings.

1. Perhaps the "poor details" are some kind of mechanical error.
2. The FE cent has some digs in the field. Maybe the coin was netted down for them.
3. Could the 2c piece have had some wear or damage from cracking out and mishandling?

All in all, not a whole lot different than I would expect--a frustrating and expensive exercise.

droopyd · January 15, 2012 3:23PM

<< The reason the Gennies say Poor details is because that's what the point total is for the registry. If it's a genuine it gets the same quantity of points as a PO1...which essentially means that you've filled the hole, but received almost no points for it. >>

What happened to details grading then?

droopyd · January 15, 2012 3:24PM

<< Perhaps the "poor details" are some kind of mechanical error. >>

Several other people have reported that their gennies were slabbed with "poor details."

AnkurJ · January 15, 2012 10:02PM

I figured with Net grading they would assign a technical grade. I don't understand the poor details.
Regarding the 2 cent piece, I guess it could have gotten some wear by the one time I put it in the album and took it out.

mbogoman · January 15, 2012 11:00PM

<< I figured with Net grading they would assign a technical grade. I don't understand the poor details. >>

Did you specify "Genuine with Details Grading" on the submission? I know it sounds elementary, but the default is the "old Gennie" without details grading. I just received grades on Friday for a recent submission where two of the coins had been cleaned and I had specified Details grading - one of them shows "Genuine - AU Details (92 - Cleaned)" and the other shows "Genuine - UNC Details (92 - Cleaned). I'm not sure, but anecdotal evidence suggests that there may still be a few kinks to be worked out in their internal systems...

RedneckHB · January 16, 2012 12:34AM

Looks like NGC and PCGS are equally consistant.

Halfhunter06 · January 16, 2012 12:40AM

I cant believe one of the coins went from a 58 to a 45 holder!!!!

AnkurJ · January 16, 2012 12:47AM

<< Looks like NGC and PCGS are equally consistant. >>

You mean equally INconsistent.

RYK · January 16, 2012 12:57AM

People forget that coins can change over time, especially on the surface, even in a few years. I have seen it happen before, and I am sure I will see it again.

TomB · January 16, 2012 2:04AM

<< I have to find out the grades on the others. Its amazing though how many of the NGC coins were overgraded. >>

Truly, PCGS and NGC have their own proprietary grading standards that do not overlap perfectly. Therefore, because a coin changed in grade from its NGC given grade to its new PCGS given grade does not mean that one company overgraded the coin or the other company undergraded the coin. Both companies may have graded the coin accurately per their own proprietary standards.

oneor11 · January 16, 2012 2:09AM

After reading a bunch of red books on particular coin series, it seems plausible to me that grades given in the past would change based on updated knowledge about a series. For instance, I would imagine that perhaps some weakly struck coins could have been misinterpreted as wear, etc.

Sonorandesertrat · January 16, 2012 2:14AM

<< 

<< I have to find out the grades on the others. Its amazing though how many of the NGC coins were overgraded. >>

Truly, PCGS and NGC have their own proprietary grading standards that do not overlap perfectly. Therefore, because a coin changed in grade from its NGC given grade to its new PCGS given grade does not mean that one company overgraded the coin or the other company undergraded the coin. Both companies may have graded the coin accurately per their own proprietary standards. >>

I agree--the grading standards can differ, depending on the type of coin. The marketplace does not always place the same value on the two sets of grading standards, not surprisingly.

Walkerguy21D · January 16, 2012 2:50AM

<< I agree--the grading standards can differ, depending on the type of coin. The marketplace does not always place the same value on the two sets of grading standards, not surprisingly. >>

To this point, a few years back I acquired a choice '39 Head of '40 large cent from Tom Reynolds. Still had traces of original red on the rev, and virtually no rub.
He EAC graded it XF45. I sent it to NGC, and I came back in an MS61 holder. I submitted it to PCGS, and it came back AU53. Personally I grade it AU58. Same coin,
many different 'opinions'.

droopyd · January 16, 2012 3:48AM

<< Did you specify "Genuine with Details Grading" on the submission? I know it sounds elementary, but the default is the "old Gennie" without details grading. I just received grades on Friday for a recent submission where two of the coins had been cleaned and I had specified Details grading - one of them shows "Genuine - AU Details (92 - Cleaned)" and the other shows "Genuine - UNC Details (92 - Cleaned). I'm not sure, but anecdotal evidence suggests that there may still be a few kinks to be worked out in their internal systems... >>

That would make sense, though I'd think with the rollout of the details grading service that it would have become the default.

AnkurJ · January 16, 2012 7:59AM

<< Hey, Ankur, that's a good grade for the 1918 Walker, which is an underrated date in the series. >>

I wish it was a Walker! It's actually a Lincoln commem.

renomedphys · January 16, 2012 8:02AM

OK fine, but how are you gonna get them thar slabs in all those pesky holes, now?

Sonorandesertrat · January 16, 2012 8:08AM

<< OK fine, but how are you gonna get them thar slabs in all those pesky holes, now? >>

Troublemaker

BAJJERFAN · January 16, 2012 8:08AM

<< People forget that coins can change over time, especially on the surface, even in a few years. I have seen it happen before, and I am sure I will see it again. >>

Didn't you have a Battle Creek Morgan that was changing in the holder?

AnkurJ · February 6, 2012 8:19AM

Updated the rest of the coins. Its amazing how much the coins that were in NGC holders downgraded. Actually ANACS holders netted better results. Overall a mixed bag and im pleased with the results.

breakdown · February 6, 2012 11:36AM

<< 

<< Hey, Ankur, that's a good grade for the 1918 Walker, which is an underrated date in the series. >>

I wish it was a Walker! It's actually a Lincoln commem. >>

Well, then it's a good grade for a Lincoln commem! Overall, i think you did well.

sawyerjosh · February 6, 2012 11:45AM

<< I do not have all of the answers, but it seems to me that as far as value goes, there were few significant swings.

1. Perhaps the "poor details" are some kind of mechanical error.
2. The FE cent has some digs in the field. Maybe the coin was netted down for them.
3. Could the 2c piece have had some wear or damage from cracking out and mishandling?

All in all, not a whole lot different than I would expect--a frustrating and expensive exercise. >>

Poor details are used by PCGS because of their registry sets. They don't want problem coins trumping those without problems.

So I decided to send some of my 7070 coins in for grading UPDATE!

Comments

Leave a Comment