Increasing amount of Problem Coins in Detail Free Holders

All of the major auctions that wrapped up in the last few weeks had some spectacular material to be sure. However I also noticed quite a bit of dreck. Perhaps its just a coincedance based on the coins I looked at but I noticed many problem coins that were not labeled so. Now the TPG's definitely miss the boat every now and then but it seems they are off much more frequently these days.

All the more reason to buy the coin and not the holder

The first coin the 1695 Louis D'or was graded XF 40. After seeing the coin in hand I thought it deserved a details grade just based on the hairlines. However how is that huge gash across the head accepted as problem free lol

The second coin was graded MS 65. That is just silly as the coin is covered with hairlines and scratches

Has anyone noticed a similar trend perhaps across the U.S coins as well?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I pulled a rare date peace dollar out of a recently slabbed MS64 holder that had "gunk" in at least 3 different places along the rim. Hard to see until you actually examined the coin - which makes me question PCGS altogether.

I probably should have sent it back - but instead I broke it out and am going to re-submit as raw. I think it's better than 64, but I was shocked that it had residue in multiple places - and passed PCGS.

It's going to NGC this time, who I believe is more strict on Peace Dollar grades.

 

The scratches do not appear to go over the main design on the 2nd coin.. possible die polish lines?

 

Although I don't necessarily disagree with the underlying point, I think these two have "excuses" for what they received. The D'or looks like a serious die/planchet issue - note how it goes all the way to the rim - and one makes allowances for gold so easily receiving scratches in circulation. In-hand, it all may fall on the side of "acceptable circulation artifacts."

The scratches on the 1926 do not have the look of deliberacy to me. Cleaning lines should be heaviest in the open fields, not near the devices - that's an indicator for die polishing. And some coins just seem to attract scratching - the 1937/38 Australian Crown obverse comes to mind.

 

I have found a quite few Lincoln cents with that problem roll searching lately - what the hell do they polish the dies with, 240 grit sandpaper?

 

That's actually a pretty good observation however I don't think it can be die polish lines. This coin has a mintage of 10 or at the maximum 20 or so. A die would never have the need to be polished after churning out so few coins. If we were talking about 10,000 or so then yes I'd be inclined to agree. And of course what really concludes it isn't die polish lines is that none of the other 2 franga prova coins that I've looked at have those patterns of lines which rationally leads me to conclude the coin is just scratched/hairlined up and a problem coin

 

How do you explain the scratches stopping at the design features then?

 

I actually think the scratches do go over the design features. They are just a bit more subtle. But I definitely see your point as to why they aren't prevalent in that area. However I still don't think it's die polish lines for the reasons I mentioned earlier

 

I would tend to agree with you. I notice this more with the newer PCGS and NGC holders(actually any TPG) than in the old slabs. Having said that there are some in the older holders that probably turned after they were slabbed. And as you said buy the coin not the slab.

 

OK, with that additional context I can see your point. Maybe not deliberate cleaning - I'd expect more "organization" to the scratches for that - but it sure hasn't been treated kindly and if that stuff isn't on the die it's no 65.

 

If there's only 10 or 20 of them, odds are good that they'll be more lenient than if there were 100,000 or 200,000 of them. Kind of like what PCGS did for this half dime:

http://www.stacksbowers.com/BrowseAuctions/LotArchive.aspx?AuctionID=5001&Lot=2045

It looks like someone took a wire brush to the reverse, but since it's THE super rare 1802 they were nice and numerically graded it. They claim that the scratches are toned over but if it were any other date I'd be willing to put money on it not grading.

 

Personally, I think the whole 'details' grade thing is STUPID! Grade the darn coin, and if there are any problems note them (VF-35, Scratched, or AU-55, Cleaned) The fact that something untoward has happened to the coin does NOT mean it is not a viable example of the particular issue. The two cent coin in my Avatar is a beautiful uncirculated example that PCGS called "Uncirculated Details: Questionable Color". No indication if the level of detail and lack of contact marks would make it equivalent to MS-60, MS-63, or MS-65. Besides the fact I question their assertion on the color, I have no indication (for my $90+ cost of submission) of the appropriate level of strike and handling quality. Thanks but no thanks, PCGS. Needless to say my days of submitting to TPG's ended with that first coin.

 

Yep thanks for posting that. Exactly the kind of thing I thought was going on. That coin should be in a details slab 100%. Heck it has heavy scratches and gouges covering the coin all over lol. I never really understood the rarity bump. It's almost like its a ploy to make the people who are buying this stuff feel better about themselves.

I'm sure I resonate with many people when I say that all coins should be graded the same but the market is what the market is!

 

Um, yeah, its got scratches and bumps... its A CIRCULATED COIN!!!!!! So, "XF-40, Scratched" would be a fair and descriptive grade.

 

They really shouldn't. Different time periods had different technologies that varied even within the various mints. Charlotte gold should not be held to the standard that Philadelphia is, just like New Orleans Morgans had much poorer strikes than its peers. Something struck at the turn of the 1800s was very different than the turn of the 1900s.

Holding coins to the same standard that were made 100s of years apart would be completely ignoring the processes and technological limitations of the various time frames

 

Whatever you think of the 2 examples, I believe that the OP's main point is correct.

 

If your argument held the TPG's could not grade the majority of coins they do. Forget about the silly American mints. How would it be possible to find a grader who knows about the "functionalities" of all mints throughout history ranging from ancients to say 15th century mints in France in order to appropriate the correct standard?

At the end of the day coins are coins. I don't care what technology produced them whether hammered, milled, or machine struck. Grading them correctly* according to one unifying standard and calling them for what they are would do a lot of good for this hobby

 

There is nothing silly about them.

Why wouldn't it be possible for someone with a passion for that who grades coins for a living to have studied up on the available knowledge on the issue? When/If more information is discovered adjustments are made but as with anything else in life all you can do is go by the knowledge available at the time.

It would actually do a great disservice to many coins treating everything the exact same. There's numerous examples where a great full strike from one mint is very uncommon and deserves to be appreciated while other mints its fairly common and your method would lump them together and treat them the same.

If you really want to get technical you would have to hold all the coins of the past to today's standards since everything should have the same standard and moderns are now the new standard.

 

Only in the sense that they have a value and are used to pay for things. Gold isn't the same as silver which isn't the same as copper ect. Various different methods have been used to make them throughout the years ect. There's actually drastic differences in various coins throughout history

 

Do you realize that this is overstruck over an older coin? What this means is that there are traces of the older coin and therefore this is NOT considered as damage.