Crossover Attempt to NGC

this is all I have of the holder.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That’s actually more than enough. That’s the current holder so it was graded in the last two years unless it was reholdered during that time which is much less likely

 

I'm assuming you mean regarding that 1863 au50 - yeah, could be - what makes you think that? - I'm always interested in why or how people determine that. Perhaps the narrow band of residue around the devices? If so it would probably be an old cleaning. Similar to the obverse of the topic coin. From what I've experienced with PCGS of late they don't seem to reject cleaned coins if they aren't damaged by the cleaning - like some old coins that are absolutely bright white and get full grades - obviously dipped. And I even wonder about some that pass CAC scrutiny - silver in circulated grades that are totally the same dull gray color throughout. Seems kind impossible for those not to have been wiped clean at some point - wouldn't they have some uneven toning from being handled?

 

Yes. The dirt around the letters and devices with clean fields is a key giveaway.

 

Pretty much every seated coin has been wiped or spit shined at some point in its history

 

I was going to say that as well, but I decided against it since your coin was not the one being discussed. What I saw was the white/light gray look, which is a completely unnatural color for a silver coin of this age and grade. Plus, there are clear hairlines all over the coin evident in your picture.

That is a common misconception. It is not dirt. It is the previous layer of patina that was not removed in the past abrasive cleaning attempt. As the coin tones to a darker gray, these areas around the devices will become darker, thus looking more like dirt.

In addition, dirt can accumulate around the devices during circulation and the coin is still original. Look through your spare change. This is usually most common on cents. I've had several arguments with people about the originality of a coin that had dirt around the devices. They said that this 1876 cent was cleaned when it was quite obviously original but dirty. I think you can see the fallacy of your diagnostic now.

 

I'm not going to have time today (no color or emojis) to read this interesting discussion and the comments but I will probably do that in the future and write more. For now, I'll comment on the 1876 coin which "looks" quite natural and original including the usual crud found around the relief on Indian cents.

@TypeCoin971793 is correct! Dirt around the devices on a coin with no dirt in the field ONLY signifies that a coin is dirty! The condition of the field and the color of a coin is what indicates cleaning. I suspect if this coin were imaged in a different light and a different orientation we would see why it was called cleaned. The only thing I see is an unusual, and irregular "pink" splotch on the "N" in "One" that also shows traces on the "E." I suspect the coin may have been recolored. Unless there are hairlines all over it too, it can be easily fixed and straight graded.

 

Nice AU50 and a better date!

 

Those pictures were the ones that the people were judging cleaned/original from. They did not see it in hand. Their only justification was the dirt. In hand, there was no pink or hairlines, and the color was exactly what I'd expect for an original IHC.

 

TypeCoin971793, post: 2950768, member: 78244"]Those pictures were the ones that the people were judging cleaned/original from. They did not see it in hand. Their only justification was the dirt. In hand, there was no pink or hairlines, and the color was exactly what I'd expect for an original IHC."

I though a TPGS said it was cleaned. Anyway, my opinion of your coin stands. I do not like anything about the splotchy "N."

 

I think all 3 seated coins could have had an old cleaning or wipe if is nearly impossible to tell from a photo. So many have had this 80-100 years ago and now have very original looking surfaces why I like to buy where I can examine in hand. I agree pcgs has been super strict on bust and seated coins lately. Have had my share of issues with them calling original toned coins cleaned or environmental damage I have a trade dollar high au with beautiful toning. First time was environmental damage this time cleaned. May try ngc and try to cross it after. I feel ngc is often a grade higher on this stuff than pcgs and less strict on old surface issues. That being said. I prefer pcgs and find their holders easier to sell. I think the coin is an au 50 but the lack of luster could put it at a solid 45. I think it would cac at those grades provided the surfaces are good but not at 53

 

CAC is more inconsistent than PCGS or NGC in my opinion. Green stickers only matter when you get close to top pops.