Net Grade This Details Coin #1

So, I've decided to alternate between two games: Net Grade This Details Coin one day, and Which One Would You Rather Have on the next.

Ebay Pics: PCGS UNC Details

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

UNC details? Really? I mean, I see there's a lot of detail on the reverse, but it's clearly been buried or something, so I don't see how it could even theoretically be graded higher than AU details.

 

There is no grade for a coin like this.

 

My personal opinion is Fair-2. For all purposes, this coin is ugly.

 

I'd like to see a link to the listing. I'm curious what the seller has to say about it.

 

The obverse looks VG details to me. They must've been three sheets to the wind when they graded that one as UNC details. I agree with an FR or possibly PO net grade.

 

Here you go, being offered to you on sale for only $719, but the seller accidentally used the 1879-CC Morgan Dollar in the Ron Guth description... http://www.ebay.com/itm/1805-Draped...860714?hash=item4d2d24af6a:g:TP0AAOSw~CRTrEqH

 

Wow, that BIN price is outrageous! Over $700 for a hunk of silver that used to be an 1805 quarter? I couldn't even tell if it was a quarter, half, or dollar based on the pics. Given the scarcity of the coin, I could see it selling for maybe a little less than half his asking price.

 

Another question: Do you think the "UNC Details" label was an error?

 

I'm guessing they used the reverse to grade it unc and the obverse was chalked up to damage. I'm thinking this is saltwater damage.

 

I've seen this coin for sale for nearly a year. Unbelievable that they call it an UNC. Also, originally it was priced at twice that. A year ago.

 

Yup. We all know that saltwater etches silver.

 

That sounds like a good theory. I don't think the label was an error in the sense of "mechanical error," but I do think it's wrong. I could never justify grading that coin higher than AU details based on the reverse.

 

Call me crazy, but that doesn't look much like a quarter to me.

 

Apparently there was enough unc meat left on the bone for them to call it unc. If the reverse is unc then the obverse is as well. So that mixed with a diagnosis of saltwater / beach damage gave it the grade as they wrote off the "wear" as erosion from moving water and sand over many years. If it was unc before it went in the water and they can still tell (from the rev on this one) then they should correctly grade it nomatter what it "looks" like, no?

 

Since when does one side automatically determine the condition of the other, particularly on a damaged or corroded coin?

All coins were unc before whatever individual lives they've lead, but that doesn't mean they rightfully should still be called as much today, no matter their present conditon. Even if the reverse was believed to display enough remaining meat to be worthy of the designation, the condition of the obverse cannot, or perhaps I should say "should not", simply be ignored.

 

IMO, grading the coin UNC details would require some evidence of luster. I'm saying the shield on the reverse is showing me the possibility of AU detail, but I'm not seeing any possible way to call it UNC.

 

I don't. Obviously it does not have the value that other Unc Details would, but in all likelihood that coin never saw any circulation and just corroded away some where for many year meaning technically it is uncirculated.

 

I'm just postulating here guys. Curious what @SuperDave thinks though

 

"Dear PCGS,

Please put down the crack pipe.

Sincerely,

Me"

My mind, it is boggled. Where do I start? Um....well, it's B-3. We can tell that much.

We know the shield lines can remain reasonably complete and sharp into well-circulated condition, so an obverse like this WORN into Good (I'm being generous) condition can be accompanied by the appearance of much better shield detail. That said, given the corrosion, we really don't know how_much_detail is actually left on the reverse. The strict reverse detail visible here isn't far off Good itself - no real detail visible anywhere, just outlines.

But think about it. The reverse is heavily corroded, and the obverse isn't. If the obverse was somehow protected from the corrosive process - let's postulate a shipwreck coin obverse-down in a stack or similar - then the obverse is a fair representation of original condition. If the obverse was so corroded that the owner - or PCGS - had to clean it to show the surfaces, why is there still a little corrosion showing?

Acid wears all faces at an equal rate, so an Uncirculated coin losing this much detail to is wouldn't fit their pretty little holder - the diameter would have been eroded too.

I think the seller puts it best:

When a high-volume, Top-Rated seller inserts a caveat into the auction copy hinting at disbelief of the assigned grade - and this isn't "boilerplate" language for him; I checked other auctions - you need to stand back and think a bit.

There isn't a snowball's chance in Venezuela that this coin is "Uncirculated." Logic dictates that we know it was at one point, but that point was over two centuries ago.

Frankly, certain details make me suspect the thing's originality in the first place. The (viewer's) right wing has voids exposing what *seems* to be a nice flat field area, which is a bit of a red flag. I'm kind of bothered by the fact that the lettering/devices are so pitted from corrosion while the fields are so nice and flat, but I am far from experienced with evaluating coins at this level of corrosion so I could be completely off on this.