Excellent Grading Skills

Rim, we do not know what caused the spots. We do know that they are on the coin. Some may have been there when graded (but then it should not have been an MS-66...that's minus one against me). That and the other's opinions have made me lean to that fact (if gun to my head).

What I will say with 100% certainty, in agreement with you, is that this type of corrosion takes many years to develop and many, many more years to develop in a sealed slab.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Insider. It's clear that you are having a hard time understanding what others have to say or you do not understand what you are saying. You keep talking in circles.
I'm finished with this thread as well.

 

The top coin was graded recently. I feel if I had sent it in, it would have come back 63BN.

Here it is compared to a 65BN. I feel like this is one PCGS "missed". And by a mile.

66BN


65BN

 

No way. At minimum, the surfaces are too clean for a 63. Those carbon spots people are arguing about are the definition of "not distracting." People seem to forget that they're looking at a huge blowup of the coin, and that all those spots, except the one on the reverse near the C in CENTS are going to be practically unnoticeable.

It's hard to tell what kind of luster it has, but I can't see any possible universe in which that coin comes back 63. With good luster, it's an easy 64 and with excellent luster, I wouldn't have a problem at 65.

Edit: I completely missed that the bottom coin in this postis a completely different coin! That coin is undergraded for sure. Minimum 66, if the luster isn't totally flat.

 

This is a good lesson in grading.

The first coin is LDS, it hurts that "instant eye appeal". LDS coins have to have their attributes more carefully considered than EDS examples.....like the bottom coin. I suspect the luster is hiding in the first coin's picture. LDS luster tends to be more spread-out rather than clearly defined cartwheels, I like to call it "halo luster". After photographing thousands of coins I can say (at least for my setup) LDS coins are more challenging to photograph. I think this coin must have pretty strong halo luster, especially around the portrait, to be in a 66 slab. I suspect you'd have to see this in hand to fully determine it.

Obviously, the second coin is proof-like from very fresh dies. The mint was using sand-blasted dies for proofs. Many of us believe they experimented with the same process on the production lines. A lot of 1909's with that look exist as well as a pretty scarce number of other early issues. The luster dances for the camera. I think it has potential for 67.

 

Thad, LDS coins suffer from having so much detail existing at all planes of the shot. I think we skate so close to the edge of sufficient DoF in high-end shooting that we're not always getting enough, but the (normally) relatively-sharp delineations between field and device mask it.

I've wondered what would happen if you threw a truly maximal number of megapixels at a coin, sufficient that you could back well off on the magnification and open the aperture while still getting a ~1500px image, more than large enough to use online.

 

I may be the minority here, but I agree with 66 on both coins. As has been noted, the late die state really washes out some of the details, but beyond the carbon spot on the reverse, it is a really clean coin as far as hits and other distractions go. Not all coins of the same grade are created equal and the grade merely notes the state of preservation.

 

When was that? Were they conserving the artifacts, too? That was the SS Republic, wasn't it?

Chris

 

I don't know what the reverence towards NCS is, anyway. Coin conservation is chemistry, and obeys the same laws of physics as everything else. It's hardly "magic."

 

And I thought we all had a good grasp of the English language

I think most say the spots occurred after slabbing...right.

IMO, they occurred before due to their intensity. I really don't GAS but it is a fun discussion.

However (drum roll) I think the probability that they were on the coin when graded (as I believed) is lower (BECAUSE of 66 grade) than they were not. So...if the correct answer was a matter of life or death, I would vote with the pack. Now, what don't you understand about that?

NOW, if the OP is still around. Please give us the TPGS and the label #'s and I will find out when they were done. That should be interesting. Oh, and anyone can check the TPGS verify site to see if the spots were there and save me a few phone calls...Thanks.

 

Dear god, it's already been posted. Read before you post. The spots were on the coin when it was graded. You were correct. Look at post #43.

 

Carbon spots kill a grade.

Yes, if I remember correctly. It was a long time ago and I have been inside NCS many times but not recently. Brian Silliman was their also.

The artifacts were done in another location in the building. The thief who went to the ANA museum and took a bunch of their coins worked at NGS on the artifacts for awhile. His name slips me right now.

 

We were talking about gloves in the lab.

 

Dear God yourself...then why is everyone arguing that the spots happened AFTER the coin was slabbed! Makes me want to quit this thread also (NOT)

 

I'm no where near your skills and use a modest setup as you know - here is a coin that has blinding, amazing luster, I failed to really capture it....but it you can tell it's not really so much cartwheel luster as it is halo luster:

 

Carbon spots are purely an eye appeal factor. According to the PCGS Official Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, second edition, p. 28, "There can be a little minor spotting for copper coins" in MS65. For MS66 (pp. 27-28), it simply states "The eye appeal will almost always be above average for a gem-quality coin, and many MS-66 coins will be superb in this category. Any negative factors must be compensated for in another area."

The coin in question has very mark-free surfaces, and, IMO, excellent eye appeal. I can see literally nothing that would keep it out of MS65, unless the luster is impaired, and, with great luster, I can see it as a 66.

 

Too bad they don't follow the written word

PS: Eye appeal is a combination of everything. Carbon spots kill eye appeal.

 

Successfully depicting luster accurately takes technique which works against showing detail and color accurately. Luster needs direct lighting; the rest need a little diffusion. Can't have 'em all.

You do pretty darn well for the equipment you're bringing to bear.

 

You can always crack it out and send it in yourself to see what PCGS says the second time. Good test if you don't mind spending the money.

 

Exactly correct, the guys with the most sophisticated setups understand this. The other thing is you risk cutting through the patina to show luster. This tends to bring out minor imperfections that are not apparent in-hand.....and cause people to usually under-grade based on pictures.

This is one of the reasons I cannot stand buying coins over the web. Most people show 2 shots of a coin, those shots absolutely cannot 100% convey what one sees in-hand. I think the OP's first coin fits well into that category.