Guess the NGC grade ; 1875 Twenty Cent Piece

No, I don't think the cleaned comments are outrageous. Look at the grade--if it weren't cleaned, with alleged cameo like that it would have been a sure Pf 65 if it were original. But I doubt it was. Here's a PR 65 PCGS that recently sold at an auction---



Original color, and patina. No attempt to make it look cameo by cleaning it. I don't think the OP's coin looks anywhere as original or has the same proof details that this coin does--even with original toning, one can see the extremely contrasty devices and fields..

I was not contradicting myself. I stand by what I say--it is a problem coin, and let PCGS make the final call on that one. If they say it is, so be it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Agreed, one final note... The original patina coin that you posted is wonderful. If it were dipped to remove the tarnish/toning and the devices underneath are frosted and the fields are mirrored then graded the coin would likely be a cameo. You would not be making it cameo rather the coin was already a cameo but was too hazy with original toning to make the call.

 

No you said it was a MS coin with probelms. So now you are saying it is a proof as I have proven ? Id call that a contadiction. I never said anything besides that it was a proof & that I believe it will grade as a problem free proof & that NCG had messed up. I did say that it has hairlines ,but I believe that those are not from a harsh cleaning as I stated before. A PF65 ?, the coin will never be that high of a grade . It will be a 62 of 63 because of the hairlines .Why not show some pics of a PF62 or PF63 ,I know why because 90% wont fit your argument.
Was the coin dipped ? Who knows it has just as good of a possibility that it has not as it has been. Just because you posted an example of a coin with tone that has a cameo contrast means nothing . In fact there are quite a bit more that look like the coin I posted that the one you did to try to validate your point. Ill say this dipping is an accepted practice ,even PGCS will do it for you . So dont kid your self that coins are not dipped & certified, it is an acceptible form of cleaning ,conservation , what ever you want to classify it as especially with old proofs. Im not sure what you are trying to win here ,youre beating your chest once again against a consensus of most here that it is a proof & will be certified as such .

 

I am not personally criticizing you--you posted on a "what do you think of the grade" thread, and didn't like the response you got. Too bad for that--don't post on a thread like that if you're too thin-skinned to deal with the responses. I reiterate that it is a A) business strike that has been extensively buffed. B) cleaned and dipped, and not gently. C) was graded generously by NGC. D) will most likely be a details coin from PCGS. Haven't changed my mind--the coin has been extensively worked on to make it look like that--most older proofs do NOT. I gave the example of the PR 65, as it shows a coin with the patina common to that type and that date--that coin is a much nicer coin than the one you posted, but the contrast and strike is consistent with a proof. Yours is consistent with being doctored. Sorry, but you don't like that, don't ask for opinions.

 

I have no respose after all that has been posted about the die markers of this coin . If you want to keep stating something that is opposite of what fact has been presented than you will continue to .

Once again incorrect , I asked guess the NGC grade . NOT "what do you THINK of the grade" .

I am the farthest thing from thin skinned & will admit when I am wrong especially when the evidence has been presented to show fact.

I agree to disagree with you . Have a good one -

 

Please post the PCGS grade when it comes back if you don't mind. My guess is that PCGS will put it in a PF62 holder.

 

Morgandude, A fact that you seem to be missing is that PCGS is very lenient when it comes to hairlines on proofs from this time period. If the coin is a proof, I expect it to be in a problem free holder -- say, 61 to 63 -- and you can bank on it. Don't believe me? Go to HA and search for PF 62 and 63 coins and stare at the hundreds/thousands of slabbed examples that look very similar to the OP's coin. That said, if it's a prooflike business strike then all bets are off as PCGS is much tougher on these, and I can understand and agree with your perspective....Mike

 

This coin is and has no way been "harshly cleaned". I believe it has been conserved because it is bright white. When you see the coin in hand it does not have that "obviously cleaned look" to it.

 

Well , as I said from the begining.....
Here she is for those who were interested in the results.



I'm bad ..... LL Numis J .

 

Atta boy bedford!

 

Okay, I like my crow medium rare.

 

Thanks for being a good sport , no matter what it gave way to a discussion on die dianostics ,market grading,how bad I am at taking pictures sometimes & how they can decieve the eyes of many.

 

Exactly--we're all here to learn. No matter what the discussion, that is a magnificent coin. I guess I am more used to Morgan Proofs that have fewer hairlines in that grade---mea culpa.

This is more what I am used to in older proofs--Morgans are great as proofs for not showing hairlines:

 

Congrats Bedford!

lol @ Morgandude -- the pic was funny.

 

I wonder why so many of you, *ahem* COUGH_MORGanDUDE-COUGH
thought it was polished. The hairlines are not strong enough to indicate harsh cleaning, and the TRUVIEW photo shows the detail and cameo.

 

I could tell it was a proof from 38 feet away. Congrats on the correct label from PCGS!

 

And What are these?

 

Yes they are marks, but Morgan Proofs show fewer hairlines than any other Silver coin. Oh by the way, who made you the John Madden of Cointalk. Not cool to post Detecti's coin and mark it up. If you have a comment on the dude's coin, do it oh his thread, and do it graciously.

 

It is pretty simple, hairlines always look much worse on coins with larger areas of the fields showing. On Morgans, the fields are pretty well protected by the the large devices and deep relief so they tend to still show very few hairlines. But on seated coinage, especially on half dollar pieces, the fields are very exposed and easily pick up hairlines over the years. Grading companies just compare one grade to another and fit the coin where it belongs within the series.

Congrats in the pick up Jason, that is the only series after 1840 that I have yet to aquire a proof example. Hopefully the N.O. ANA show will end my drought.