PCI target toning and other randomness

I decided to do a search for PCI on eBay, and beyond a ton of boards, I saw mixed in a PCGS MS64 coin that said PCI on it. This got me to thinking a few things:

1) Obviously PCI holders allow gas in somehow, or else that would make no sense... which led me to wonder why PCGS would grade *any* orange or yellow toned Morgans?

2) Given the gas permeable aspects of PCI holders, why would people leave nicely toned coins in them? I would think this aspect would accelerate the terminal toning process moreso than an alternate company's holder.

3) Are the holders themselves causing the toning process to speed up beyond what would be experienced in "normal" holders?

4) Given 1 & 3, why don't people submit Morgans to PCI specifically to have them tone? If this is indeed done, wouldn't that be considered AT?

To the other randomness...

In the last week, I acquired two 1883-O 36a VAMs, one SEGS graded and the other raw. The raw one looks either cleaned very harshly or MS60. (Seller had listed it as PL, but it clearly isn't in hand, but they were gracious enough to offer a partial refund, which I gladly accepted.) I don't know how else to explain it. The obverse looks UPL with a bunch of scratches (which includes an "x")... and the back has frosted fields with one large interruption... which is PL mirror. I thought the reverse looked a bit frosty in the fields, but thought maybe it was just a matter of poor photography. When I got the coin in hand, the contrast was a lot more significant.

Did the 1883-O series have super polished dies with specially prepared planchets? These aren't proofs, since I know those were rumored to exist, as far as I can tell.




The SEGS one was an overpay (offered about 95% of what you'd expect for NGC in the same grade), but I was actually quite pleased in hand. The only issue I have with the coin is a big black mark across the surface. That got me to thinking... Is the coin possibly MS details because of the black mark? It covers about 12-15% of the coin surface.



So, all in all, I'm pleased with my purchases, and I believe the SEGS coin may have sold quicker if the seller had color balanced to the lavender on the front side, a little better. I don't have photos of the coins in hand, but I'll do my best in a follow-up post to show my impression of how they looked in hand with color balancing.

Personally, I like the SEGS holder, and it's too bad PCGS doesn't buy them out for the holder patent. Then again, PCGS seems to be doing a great job of improving their holders on their own.

I decided to submit the raw along with my cousin's coins he found in a fire destroyed safe to ANACS under their 10 for $99 + $29 service. I hope Paul's group is able to conserve the coins that I sent in. None are especially important, but they represent a nice array of environmental issues, and I'd like to see what the conservation fee really covers. I included a very gross looking Philippines coin with thick verdigris (or possibly paint, who knows) to see what extend the conservation fee covers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's not like PCI has any monopoly on holders which aren't airtight. Nobody else's are either, with the (apparent) exception of the one PCGS just introduced in the last few months accompanied by that video of dropping one into a fish tank. Artificially-toned coins in TPG holders aren't difficult to find - heck, a certain seller owned up to doing it at the PCGS boards a few years back.

As regards the 1883's, you can assume that the first few strikes from any Morgan die will likely be of high quality and show PL/DMPL characteristics. PCGS shows 2600 of them in PL and 1700 in DMPL (likely exaggerated by crackouts). In the case of 36a (please accept my jealousy at finding two at once ), the dies were polished to remove clashing artifacts, so one can expect some nice surfaces on examples.

I believe the SEGS coin to be pretty color-accurate, based on the fact that the label and slab itself appear to be appropriately colored. Probably a tossup as to whether the marks would get it a Details grade elsewhere, although IMO the odds are in favor of "not."

 

Airtight and watertight are not the same thing. Something can be watertight and still allow air to pass.

 

That's true, but I figured it'd only complicate things and I didn't want to seem dismissive of NorthKorea's opinions. He(?) just posted two really nice coins and obviously has excellent taste in VAMs.

 

Here are the color corrections to what my eyes saw... or approximations thereof.

And, no worries about being dismissive. I understand that most holders are or would be gas permeable. I guess in the PCI case, I noticed they were mostly of that orange color, so I thought, perhaps, the holder itself might have been gassing into the coins.

 

Yes, a couple of holders are well known for toning the coins they hold (exactly as you say - the plastic itself is gassing the coins, rather than some outside source). PCI holders are well known for this (sometimes it is quite attractive, sometimes it isn't). The old, small, white "soap bar" ANACS holders are also known for doing this.

 

So, is it reasonable to fathom that the white plastic piece may have been responsible in both cases, so both PCI and ANACS sourced their holders from the same vendor?

 

I have no idea where they sourced their plastic from. They tone in different ways, and were used in different years, so I doubt it.

 

So I learned something. I never thought to blame the plastic itself. Always thought it was some of the other material inside the holder.

 

Why the assumption it was the same vendor? Or even the same plastic? There are dozens of hard white plastics, some of which are the most inert out there and used for medical aplication.

 

The inert ones don't tone coins.

 

There's a 22A AU58 available at $200, but I can't pull the trigger. I know that the 22A prices dropped over the last 18 mo or so, but I can't figure out if they're going to fall all the way to 36A pricing. Also, I *hate* AU58 coins. I always feel that I'm holding a slider when I see one.

 

Right - so why are you blaming the insert first, vs. the label, environment, etc???

 

Because of commonality and proximity. The coin is encased by the insert. Since the toning occurs at an accelerated rate, in multiple environments, the assumption would be that the difference is related to the holder in some way. Now, as to plastic insert vs paper flip? Again, my only reason was proximity. If it were the paper flip, one would expect the side closest to the flip to tone faster than the rest of the coin, but those specific flips (PCI & old white ANACS) yielded target toning.

 

ANACS toning from the white holders usually affected the part of the coin closest to the label. On Morgan dollars, you'd see a purplish crescent at the upper obverse rim.

The 83-O VAM 36A you show is an EDS obverse, which looks PL from your pictures. The reverse was already used with the VAM 22A, and so is MDS with no field reflectivity. The shiny patch is probably just a mark on the coin. I haven't noticed it on other VAM 36As.

 

Okay, then in the case of the old ANACS holders, maybe it was a flip issue.

Yes, it's a mark on the coin or break in the surface. It looks "rubbed" without being rubbed, if that makes any sense. Maybe bag friction? So, that spot is highly reflective. Hopefully, in the context of all the other issues with the coin, that isn't what gets it a "details" grade. If the coin gets a clean grade of even MS61, I'd be satisfied, to be honest. Ideally, MS-62 PL obv or something, which I've never seen assigned by a mainstream grader, but there's so much chatter on the fields and devices that I wouldn't be surprised to see MS60 details for excess bag marks.

 

See above, AFAIK, none of the "post-sale" slabs allow the "PCI toning" to occur.

 

There's a MS62 22A for $495 right now on eBay. It's listed without the A, but the photo is a 22A.

 

I may have picked up a third 36A today. MS63. Will know for sure once it's in hand. Even if it's just a 36, I won't mind, as the price was nice.

 

I have the coin in hand, and it's my third 36A over two weeks.

It's only MS63, so it's not worth having resubmitted just for the attribution. It's NGC anyway, so if I wanted the attribution, I'd have to crack it out for PCGS, since I think the 1% fee is excessive.




The weird brownish areas are now weird black spots, but the E clash is nice and clear, as is the M in the ear. I think I may be able to put together a die state sequence once I find my battery charger for my camera.