Of course it could! I've been sending a real mix of coins to ICG mostly because I'm just curious as to how the grading process works, it's been quite an education. I wouldn't use PCGS or NGC given the expense, but I'd think ANACS or ICG would be perfect for this. ICG has a $10 special for Coin Talk members for US Coins ($15 for world coins) that I have taken advantage of, and their turn around time is good - 2 / 3 weeks total in my experience. The grades are tough but fair in my estimation. I was a bit miffed on how my 1921 SLQ was, in my view, undergraded, but after looking at it and reading about them, I get it (weak reverse feathers - EF obverse, VF grade overall).
It won't straight-grade, if that's what you mean. It will get a "details" grade from a TPG (third-party grading service), due to the issues it has (pitting, scratches, etc.) That being said, it's a US coin from the 1700s. Those are always fun, regardless, and often come with problems like this. You'd get it back in a holder that said "xx details" - with a description of the problem(s): scratches, corrosion, environmental damage, whatever. I see no reason that coin needs to be submitted for grading. As a matter of fact, the EAC (Early American Coppers) specialists are notably anti-slab. Sure, it's a "problem" coin, but it's still cool. Problems are the norm on early coppers like this. They lived a hard life.
I'll save you some money. VG details, post mint damage. Do you really need to get it in a plastic holder. A collector who is doing a lower grade year set would prefer to put it in his album.
ANACS and ICG would not straight-grade this coin. They'd note the problems on it. I can practically guarantee that. But even so, if it does get encapsulated by a TPG, at least it can be considered genuine. Not that you need a TPG to tell you that. The coin looks fine to me on the authenticity front. It's just not a straight-grade coin, is all. It has damage. Pretty typical damage, to be sure, but damage nonetheless. No straight-grade from a reputable TPG for damaged coins. So yes, if you must have it in a slab (again, I don't see the need), then a less expensive option like ANACS might indeed be the way to go.
I have kept my 1794 free - I don't think I'll send it in for grading for many of the reasons listed above - plus, it's awesome to hold it (but not for too long, with clean hands and infrequently)
Too many scratches and signs of pitting so it won’t straight grade. A details coin at best and no where worth the values you’re showing.
I’ll offer the other side of the coin (see what I did there?)….. Yeah, that was a really bad pun…. OK, seriously…. I purchased this 1794 raw. I was fully aware that it would be labeled as a damaged coin and that was my intention when I sent it in. I don’t sell my coins and there will come a day probably sooner rather than later that my wife will have to liquidate my collection. She couldn’t argue authenticity any more than I could tell you what half of her kitchen gadgets are. So, I wanted the coin labeled as genuine so that the old cent would be easier for her to liquidate.
And that makes sense. That’s a heckuva nice coin, regardless of the issues that put it in a “details” holder. The PCGS plastic makes sense in this context, given the value of the piece. Edit: I looked up the TrueView on it, out of random curiosity.
For those wondering why @Randy Abercrombie’s 1794 makes sense in the plastic while the 1798 in the original post might not, it all boils down to the cost of certification versus the value of the coin. That factor needs to be weighed in the decision of “slab or don’t slab”. But if @Johnny D simply wanted his coin in a slab regardless of the cost, then sure, why not.
