This post is partly a vent and mostly a request for help in understanding. I just got back a submission from one of the two top TPGs and this 1794 large cent got body-bagged as "Not Suitable for Certification". I called and spoke to a nice representative who was unable to provide an explanation for the cause of the refusal to certify except possibly that the coin was too damaged to permit a confirmation of being genuine. The coin was submitted for variety attribution. I had no difficultly at all attributing it as the S-65 and that attribution was written on the submission form. I can see no indications that the coin is anything but genuine. Despite the rims being a bit beat up, the edge lettering is intact. I fully expected the coin to be returned as about a VF-Details-Damaged but a body bag was a complete surprise. Can anyone opine on this situation? Maybe @Jack D. Young ? Thanks.
Interesting, I wish in times like these I knew more about them. It has an odd look to me, like maybe intentional.
Whether intentional or not, it shouldn't make a difference. Looks like it should have been slabbed with a details designation to me too. Bruce
Looks to me like the rims have been worked to hide more serious issues. I'd have called it Details - Tooled.
It certainly looks genuine to me. NGC says "NOT SUITABLE FOR CERTIFICATION - Coins that are severely damaged or otherwise impaired. The surface condition of these coins makes it impossible for NGC to render a conclusive opinion about authenticity, Details Grade or both. The grading fee is refunded less a $5 handling fee." https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6436/ Another blurb says "On occasion, NGC will not encapsulate a coin and return it with a label that says “Not Suitable for Certification.” This notation is used for coins that are severely damaged or otherwise impaired. The surfaces of these coins are such that it is impossible for NGC to even attempt to authenticate them or assign a grade." https://www.ngccoin.com/submit/coins-we-grade/not-encapsulated/ I can only guess that it fell into the "severely damaged" category, but it seems perfectly capable of being authenticated to me. Try ANACS or ICG?
@KBBPLL, that seems the most likely reason for their determination. But I find it difficult to believe that this coin is so damaged they can't make a determination. I've seen coins slabbed that were little more than blanks or so corroded it's hard to make out what they are, and they get slabbed. Since they never allow anyone to really challenge their determinations, that leaves me pretty well stuck.
When counterfeiters make copies, they often slip up with the dentiles. The dentiles below the date bother me. The one with the circle in it below the space between "7" and "9" does not look right to me. It does not appear to be damaged, yet it was not made that way on the die. I also question the odd pit of the left side of "E" in "STATES." That does not look natural to me. Were they concerned that this is some sort of cast copy? Other aspects of the coin look sharp and clear, like a genuine piece. Yet other parts have an odd look to them that one would not expect to find on a genuine piece.
I went back and re-attributed this coin and confirmed that both sides match all the attributes of the S-65. Additionally, I took photos of the edge (see below) and confirmed that the edge devices are the correct B edge of 1794 with the points of the leaf next to R in DOLLAR pointing "up", i.e. up towards the top of the R. Note that lettering is mirror-reversed since I used a flashlight reflector to capture the edge. It seems extremely unlikely to me that a counterfeiter would go to all the trouble of ensuring that obverse and reverse match to a correct die pair and also ensure that the edge lettering is correct. (Are there any cast counterfeits known with edge lettering?). So, was the TPG lazy? Did they not want such a scudzy coin in one of their holders? If they thought or suspected it was counterfeit, what were the tells?
This. ANACS will have no problem authenticating and grading and attributing it, with a details addition. The only thing I know is that PVC damage will cause them to reject it, but paying them to conserve it will fix that as well in the event that is the reason.
I would concur that it should at a minimum be encapsulated as details, not body bagged. So many far worse, and in many cases intentional, encapsulated coins as such appear on EBAY every day. That said, and on the other spectrum, I've seen far too many straight graded off of the assigned grade simply because it's a rare coins. Many showing clear wear on the high spots, almost uncirculated by definition, getting a mint state grade.Their reasoning obviously varies, but it either is or is not a grade. Is it a personal passion on their part, or someone of influence dictating such grades? Finally, obviously they need to explain in writing why this is so when the coin is returned. Or do they and forgot it your case? I have not submitted enough to know since none came back without being encapsulated.
I do not send early copper to that TPG... It is an easy out when there is no real in-house expertise to take that road in my opinion. And no reason to not holder this coin. I agree that ANACS or ICG would have no problems certifying it and I would send to either; ANACS has been my choice for less than perfect early copper for many years though... Love the image with the edge view!
