As I venture more into the realm of modern world and US coins, the question of "details" coins comes up. Coins that are deemed to be defective in one way or another by the standards of modern coin grading. Improper cleaning, various forms of damage - both intentional and incidental - are just a couple of the host of potential problems a coin may possess. NGC lists 72 separate notations they use to describe these defects. Most modern collectors shun coins that have any problem that may potentially result in a "details" grade. The general feeling is that a low-grade coin, or even no coin at all, is better than buying one that might have one of the 72 issues listed above. No doubt this is, in general, excellent advice; though I will say that as someone expanding from ancient coins into moderns it can seem a bit unreasonable at times. But of course, modern coins have much more to lose than ancients, which have already "seen it all", so to speak. My real question is: in cases where a straight-graded coin is out of reach, would you settle for a "details" example? In other words, are there any circumstances in which a "details" coin would be acceptable and welcome into your collection? Or is it really better, in your opinion, to have no coin at all than a "details" one? For me, there are tons of coins I'd love to have that are totally out of my reach. There are also plenty that I technically could afford, but don't want to spend the money. For example, say a certain US coin I'd like to have costs $600 at bottom grade, but I'd never be willing to spend more than a few hundred on that type. However, I can get a decent "details" example - cleaned, damaged, whatever, as long as it's not totally destroyed - for $250. To me, that seems like an acceptable compromise - I think having a coin is better than not having a coin. But I am curious where the rest of the Coin Talk community falls on this question. Please feel free to vote and then explain your vote, possible exceptions, or whatever! A few "details" coins from my collection (both were removed from their slabs.) Whizzed. Worse than generic "cleaned" in my opinion, but this one isn't too bad. It's in good condition otherwise and a scarcer date. BRITISH JAMAICA Time of Victoria, 1837-1901 CU Penny (30.1mm, 9.40g, 12h) Dated 1895. Royal mint, London, UK Obverse: Crowned bust of Queen Victoria left within beaded circle, L C WYON (engraver) below bust; VICTORIA QUEEN above, * 1895 * below Reverse: Coat of arms of Jamaica within beaded circle, JAMAICA above, * ONE PENNY * below References: Numista 14273 Mintage: 36,000 Formerly in NGC encapsulation, graded AU details. From the Globus Collection. Tooled. For me, this is normally a deal-breaker, for both modern coins and ancients. But the designation on this coin seems a bit over-zealous. I'm actually not totally sure where PCGS thought it was tooled - I think in some of the letters where someone obviously was intending to clean out some crud and ended up going a little too far? Anyway, I didn't care because the main reason I bought this coin was for the provenance - from the Farouk Collection. It was basically the only affordable Farouk coin in that auction! FIRST FRENCH EMPIRE Napoleon Bonaparte as Emperor (1804-1814, 1815) CU 5 Centimes (29.1mm, 6.74g, 12h) Dated 1808. Strasbourg mint, France Obverse: Large N within wreath struck incuse on raised rims Reverse: 5 CENT. in two lines, mintmarks and engraver’s signature below; NAPOLEON EMPEREUR and date struck incuse on raised rims References: Numista 8023 Mintage: 108,000 Formerly in PCGS encapsulation, graded UNC Details. From the Richard Margolis Collection. Ex Sotheby’s March 1954, lot 2181 (part.) From the Palace Collection of King Farouk of Egypt (1936-1952).
Yes, I have a few of them. For me, it is because they have been verified as "authentic." For example: 1916-D Mercury Dime.
There's certain coins where I wouldn't be able to practically or realistically afford them otherwise. Of course I'd prefer them to be problem free when possible, but sometimes it's just not. And honestly sometimes "problems" aren't really that severe that it detracts significantly from the appearance of the coin. One of my favorite coins in my collection is a bust half that yes, is significantly dented, but the detail on it is otherwise excellent, and had it been problem free I probably wouldn't realistically been able to afford it. I still enjoy looking at it despite its problems.
I totally agree with your compromise @The Meat man , that would be my approach too. From my perspective the ""details stigma definitely gives opportunity to buy coins I would otherwise not be able to afford and in some instances create opportunities because these coins are automatically passed over by purists collecting grades. I appreciate that your comments are concerned with modern coins @The Meat man but my advantage is that for 50 years I collected raw coins and only latterly have collected slabbed coins to prove provenance. Shipwreck coins for example are usually detailed in some manner and many 17th Century coins are detailed as "cleaned", of course they are if they have been recovered from the ground. The same applies to slabbing ancients the bulk of which undoubtedly came from the ground. I have some great 15th and 16th Century coins bought from USA auctions as detailed cleaned that as soon as I crack them out of the plastic become examples that I could not have afforded raw. Ultimately as I collect history and not grades I would rather buy a details coin than no coin at all.
For certain types of Detail’ed coins, I think of the designation as a signal to do extra diligence. We have seen on this forum that certain categories, namely Cleaned, Questionable Color, and Wheel Mark may be very difficult to find on the coin. If I were a dealer, “Details” could complicate the next sale, and that is enough reason to avoid them. Since I am only a collector, resale is not the issue. My own enjoyment is all that matters. Maybe I cannot find the cleaning, or the altered surface (like yours). Or, if the questionable color may seem undetectable, attractive, or insignificant. Then I stand a chance to acquire a coin at a substantial savings. Here is a cleaned coin. We discussed it on this forum and failed to come to a consensus about whether it is or not. Either way, it’s a great coin, and if I cannot perceive a flaw, then it’s a great coin for me. If an indiscernible flaw knocks half-a-dozen points off the grade, then it’s also a great coin for my wallet.
I have no qualms about buying a details coin if it appeals to me. "Does it appeal to me" gets complicated, though. Scratched in a way that indicates normal service? Doesn't bother me much. "Cleaned"? That can range from @RonSanderson's coin above (maybe someone at the TPG needs to clean his glasses) to a brutally scrubbed and shiny coin (which would need to be really appealing in some other way). Intentionally altered to appear as something it's not (whizzed, smoothed or tooled)? That's a higher barrier, and I'm somewhat less likely to find it appealing. (Counterexample: Randy's bar cent...) It seems like TPGs consider chopmarks on Trade dollars acceptable, even though they're indisputably a post-mint intentional alteration. I understand their historic appeal, but I'll never understand granting a coin with them a straight grade. And then there's the whole question of "natural", "artificial", and "market acceptable" toning...
I have no problems with buying details coins. I have several. It really depends on what the details are. If they don't bother me then I buy them. Buy the coin not the holder right? I see many straight grades that in my opinion should be details. I find a great way to get a nice coin (my opinion of nice), for a cheaper price.
I tend to stick to straight graded coins but at time have found "detailed" coins that are quite acceptable when the price of a clean graded version is far too high. a good example is my 1917 t1 SLQ.. I could have bought a lower clean graded coin for what I paid for my "cleaned" example but I would not have been as happy with it... In the end it came back graded UNC-details/cleaned. It should have also gotten FH but they don't add that on "detailed" coins...
I have been collecting coins since I was 5 years old. In 67 years of collecting coins I never bought a Details coin until this year. Now I own 2 of them. My first one was a 1893-S Morgan. Still cost almost $4,000 but it doesn’t look details at all. Here’s my second details coin, which I bought because the price was good, it’s 115 years old and it’s a mint error that's been graded.
Unequivocally, yes. I was collecting long before anyone ever heard of a TPG. History and eye appeal are my drivers. I have a cabinet full of details graded high profile coins and I love them regardless of what the label may say.
this is a very good example. This Bar Copper was my dream coin since I was a pimple faced coin geek. It is detailed for a tooled reverse. Somebody tried to scrape grime from between the bars. I can live with that.
Unquestionably. It is irrelevant for my 2 point grading system of acceptable and unacceptable in any case, the rules for which are determined by my knowledge base. The only general rule I have about cleaning is that it must be reasonably unobtrusive, with nothing better available. However, a high grade cleaned coin with 2 or 3 low grade companions in a corpus is a no-brainer for me. Conversely, a cleaned high grade rarity with a couple of uncleaned high grade companions is unlikely to please. I do not like coins that have been dipped, which is something the TPGs find acceptable for some reason. Over time, these tend to adopt a predictable pinkish hue with some gold tones. 500 year old silver should look like 500 year old silver. Remarkably, I actually have a favourite coin for it's beauty - my Cnut Quatrefoil penny struck by WINAS at Crewkerne, in Somerset. It is posted elsewhere on the forum, but again, here it is - Thankfully, quite a few number collectors would pass on it due to the peck marks on the reverse, because otherwise I would have struggled to find a higher grade piece in the corpus of around 3 dozen coins in all types for the mint. Peck mark details are a lottery, as there is serious inconsistency in their treatment. Happy Days. FYI, the red toning is stronger in hand. BEAUTIFUL.
Yeah for me, this is where the real question starts. "Details" can vary so much in kind and degree. A somewhat unobtrusively-placed hole will probably be more acceptable to me than a harsh cleaning. Scratches are another thing that often only slightly diminishes a coin's appeal to me.
Wow, that does seem like quibbling to call it tooled. Kind of like my Farouk coin. It's a lovely historic piece!
What do you all think of this? I suspect it would get a "details" designation from a TPG if I sent it in. I actually bought this coin from a European auction house just on a whim - it was the earliest US coin I owned. It also happens to be an interesting variant - the "No Stems" triple error. NGC and PCGS value this at around $200 in VG. I got it for less than half that even after including auction fees and (pre-tariff) FedEx shipping from Europe. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CU "Draped Bust" Large Cent, stemless wreath variety (28.57mm, 10.79g, 6h) Dated 1802. Philadelphia mint Obverse: LIBERTY above draped bust of Liberty right, with hair tied in ribbon; date below Reverse: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA around wreath containing ONE CENT in two lines; 1/100 below. Reverse die S-241. The reverse die was evidently mis-engraved at first but corrected and used anyway. The errors are still visible, with the last "S" in STATES being originally engraved too low, as well as the fraction bar at 6 o'clock. The lack of wreath stems is a third blunder. An interesting and somewhat scarce mint error coin.
I watch details coins being auctioned all the time. There is no shortage of bidders and many bring strong prices.
I didn’t cast a vote, only because I felt none of the answers represented my perspective. There have been details coins I’ve bought because the “offending” issue was so much less serious for the issue than normally encountered. A most memorable example was an 1849-O Half Dime I bought in an MS Details holder which, were it not for a rather well-hidden scratch was an MS64 or MS65 coin. That coin was stolen a number of years ago.
