1801 1$ PCGS GTG; is this coin AT (artificially toned)

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

So, what do you think of this coin now?

 

It doesn't look like the same coin to me. Notice the gash on the bust that is missing on the coin you pictured in your original post. I stand by my original comments - the coin does not look artificially toned. I don't see any evidence of cleaning, of course, I might feel differently if seeing it in hand.

 

I'm also not convinced it's the same coin. The PCGS coin has some scratches across from the 3rd star on the obverse, underneath the bow, that I don't see on the NGC coin.

 

Good catch. I'd say it's the same coin because the nick beneath Liberty's chin and that scratch that extends from the ear lobe are present on both coins. That said the retoning job doesn't look bad; they must've done a pretty decent job since PCGS gave it a numerical grade.

 

It is absolutely the same coin. Many tiny nicks appear in exactly the same spots; the top hair ribbon, the ear, the field in front of her neck, the back edge of her head above the ribbons. On the reverse, the shield is full of identically placed nicks, on the left shield edge, and just inside the left edge, a little higher, there are nicks at the top of the first set of vertical lines where they meet the horizontal lines of the shield top part. However, it is true that there are, in fact, many light marks which are difficult to see on the toned version of the coin. That is exactly what the toning does; it hides small defects. And it does it well. I actually feel that this artificial toning truly helped this coin. But it is deceptive, and intended to falsely bring a higher price by obscuring defects. If the price were lower, I would still gladly buy this coin!

 

NSP said: "That said the retoning job doesn't look bad; they must've done a pretty decent job since PCGS gave it a numerical grade."

I believe that grading of early silver is pretty often a crap shoot. Cleaned coins frequently get a numerical grade, provided that they look fairly nice. I have followed the grading history of other early silver coins, and watched them go from details holders to numbered graded holders. I have seen some details coins sell for high prices if they were really nice coins. This suggests that others also view early silver grades as ....not completely reliable, to put it mildly.

 

This also goes to show you just how subjective grading truly is..

 

Yes, TPG coin grading is subjective, and plagued by the vagueness in deciding just exactly what kinds of impairments call for a "details" condemnation. And it seems capricious for the TPGs to sometimes slab a coin as "details", and at other times to net grade a similar coin at a lower numerical level, as in this case. The coin was previously "AU details, improperly cleaned". Now it is "VF-35". Both are similar price values, but they say quite different things about the perceived quality of the coin. The guidance thus communicated is quite muddled and ambiguous. Is this a "nice, original 35" or a "crappy, abused 50" ? It seems that it is neither, so a net grade is an odd designation imho.

After all is said and done, I like the coin better with the artificial toning.
So, was the "coin doctoring" a bad thing? It is certainly deceptive.

 

I know of a PCGS coin that was previously in a details holder "cleaning", but is now number graded at a lower grade, but....with a CAC sticker! What the heck does that mean? What does it say about the opinion of the first grader who thought it was cleaned? And then, when they later net graded it lower, were they just trying to justify their previous negative feeling about the coin? If PCGS changed their mind about the coin being cleaned, shouldn't they just give it a number grade at the same level as the previous "details" designation (eg, xf, AU, etc.)? As far as I know, CAC does not put their sticker on any cleaned or impaired coin. So, somebody is just plain wrong here, and I'm willing to bet that it is NOT CAC.

 

It is undoubtedly the same coin and doctored. My first call was xf 40 and cleaned and retoned the color was way to uniform and muddy to be the original surfaces. My thinking at first was old retoned dip. But this has been doctored to get the hairlines out of the fields as well. My initial thought for the price was stay away. Now it's stay far away. Though the coin is visually more appealing now I still wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole

 

Cac misses it sometimes and has stickered coins that were found to be doctored

 

Tp grading is often subjective and often a crapshoot I can't count the number of times I've sent a coin got a details grade scratched my head and said WTF and cracked it out sent it back and got clean grade on it not that long ago I cracked a dime that was ngc ms details reverse cleaning. I looked and looked with a loupe couldn't find a thing other then funky uneven toning on the whole coin I cracked it and sent it thinking a solid 63 maybe a 64 it came back straight 65 which made me scratch my head again as there wasn't enough luster or surface appeal in my opinion for a 65 grade

 

You just described grading in general. No one has baby sat all the coins all these years. Every grade we assign we are all making subjective judgements at every step of the process.

 

A moderate scratch/gash in the hair on the obverse devices shouldn't just disappear with a clean and re-tone piece, and I see no evidence of tooling/smoothing (and I am not sure you could successfully tool away the marks without obliterating major details of the obverse devices). I am still not convinced it is the same coin.

Edited: The hit under the chin is going the opposite direction on the two coins also. I stick by my assessment - NOT the same coin.

 

I'm too lazy to do the reverse... It isn't the same coin; not even close IMHO. (Click on the image to zoom in.)

 

Those are definitely two different coins, but the one Luckydas is comparing the cleaned one to is in the original post. The cleaned one and the one in the original post are the same.

 

The coin to the right is not the original coin posted

 

This is the original

 

No doubt it's the same coin