AT coin in PCGS holder

Still came back in a body bag.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The reason I say it's passable for 66/67 even with the reverse issues is I had a 68 for my ASE that had a scratch on the OBV. I still say PCGS were the ones who scratched it, but w/e... lost ~$2k on that one, if so.

 

Actually ANYTHING that happed to the piece AFTER it rolled under the safe WAS 100% NATURAL.

 

I would say this coin MAY be worth asking price to PCGS. It has to be horribly embarrassing for them to have this travesty of bad AT in their slab. I have seen a lot of weird NT over the years, so I am usually a lot more open minded about what CAN happen, but this looks like a straight heat job IMHO.

 

I think this is why NGC just ATs them all. The only one that ever really knows if it was AT or NT was the person who owned it while it toned, the rest of us just form opinions based off of what we believe should happen. AT or NT I can't say for sure as it isn't so out there it couldn't have happened even if it is unlikely, but NGC does get to avoid being the subject of these discussions by not passing any of them

 

Do you think it's possible the seller (or someone before the seller) made a small crack or hole in the holder and somehow smoked the coin? The obv looks like there's an entry point for the gas that then circulates when it hits the other end of the holder.

 

Not impossible, and used to happen with the old rattler holders but to me the reverse doesn't look like something that was gassed with the various colors and the band across the middle.

 

I agree. It looks most like a "heat job" where high heat forces too fast of a reaction.

COULD it have been gassed? Yeah. Its hard to say it wasn't, my opinion is just based on seeing heated, gassed, "helped" and NT over the years. Each typically has its own look, but of course overlap.

 

I am not convinced it was definitely a heat job either thought possible. I think we could say it likely was placed in an environment that helped it along but I am not sure someone was directly playing with the conditions it was in to that extent. The obverse kind of has that look but the reverse is throwing me with how someone could make that pattern in a matter of minutes with such aggressive intervention

 

I suppose it's entirely possible that the coin was "painted" with something that the standard review doesn't pick up that would have shown up on the "sniffer" test with the PCGS Secure label.

 

I can't help but be cynical of almost every toned coin I run across, especially Morgans. In case you were curious the PCGS cert site does not have a picture.

 

For fun though go to the 87s for ASEs in coin facts and view all the pictures and look at the two surprise coins in there lol

 

My understanding was the photos are a part of the PCGS Secure program. Did they start imaging all coins with the new holders?

 

No unless they're just doing it for their own databases and not releasing it. Some they will randomly image if they need one for coin facts but its still basically just trueviews and secure coins getting imaged.