PCGS must have gotten (97 - Environmental Details) stuck in the copy machine this weekend, because the group of three Fugios I submitted all got hit. Ugh... Now, that said, I knew one would definitely come back details - my 17-WW was pretty crusty, but I wanted it certified, and TrueViewed, and all the other benefits of giving it a tiny plastic house. The other two were both "Raised Rim" Fugios, a 12-Z and a 19-Z. Both had porosity, which I felt was market acceptable for the expected grades (incidentally, the grades received were all on point with my expectations). I guess my stance was, "yes, PCGS, there is some roughness on the flan, but a very good coin that's over 200 years old is likely to exhibit this." Their stance was, "na-na na-na boo-boo." I hope the TrueView pics hit soon - I'm interested to get a feeling from other collectors about this. Have you folks been similarly held to strict standards? I guess I'm in the EAC net grade mentality when I look at a coin and don't see the forest for the trees...
That is probably true, but doesn't make you by definition "wrong." Looked at from only a slightly different angle, TPG's are "pie in the sky" idealists who are unwilling to believe what they're holding is 200+ years old, so far from reality that they could only be ground-engaged if you threw them off a building, and even then for only a millisecond. Now that I think of it....
Don't forget TPGs go strictly off technical grade. The "net grade" process used by EAC accounts for flaws that virtually every copper from that era is going to have. That's why few EACers bother with slabs; they study the coins enough to rely on their own expertise. Remember with technical grading, ANY porosity whatsoever is evidence of corrosion that has been removed. Er go, it will details / genuine grade from a TPG.
I'm sympathetic to your grades. A 97 always seems to me as more expensive than a straight grade. That said, consider the position of the TPG. Their inception was to provide a standard for 'blind' selling. Now if a potential buyer received the coin and went ballistic due to the porosity they viewed as environmental damage. The TPG would be responsible for restitution. There's a almost 'loco parentis' role they play.
Pictures are up: Newman 17-WW - This is the one I knew would come back as a details coin, but the rarity of this die pair (Kessler R-H7) gave me reason to get it certified. Newman 12-Z - Also a rare one (Kessler R-H7), this one was the biggest disappointment. I have no idea what the shine around the date is. I do not recall it being there in hand. Newman 19-Z - The most common of the raised rim die pairs. I had higher hopes for this one...
I think the last one is the best. My Fugio is horrid. Down right despicable. Not worthy of any pics. BUT, I got it for free from a friend.
In looking at mas's fugio, I was thinking 'its kinda pretty all worn down' and also 'that is a pitiful condition of a coin'. No disrespect intended to another's coins, but what a hobby we have, when we retrieve these guys from being ignored, melted, or thrown away, and then give them a place of respect. It is good to be a collector. Mickey
This shows that you may not know the difference between a technical grade and a market grade as the TPGS claim to do by putting a VALUE on the coin. From my observations, the majority of circulated old copper will usually show some signs of "Environmental Damage."
