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

The 2 images just posted by Mainebill look like the same coin to me; identical marks in front of the neck and in the hair behind the ear. Thanks to Luckydas' excellent research, It looks like the details coin was chemically treated to hide the old cleaning and a lot of light marks. This leads me to wonder, was the coin "silently" net graded by PCGS, or did they miss the old cleaning completely and net grade it for the dark toning? I don't know. What I can conclude is that coin doctoring is alive and well, and not confined to the high end of the market. Folks shopping for coins like this had best be able to see them in hand, or be reviewed by a trusted 3d party, prior to bidding/purchasing. A worthwhile thread and very sobering.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Amen. Doing coin shows and hearing what goes on behind the scenes it's scary. And doctoring is more common on coins of this level as its not as likely to come back on someone as it would in a mid 5 figure coin

 

This was the label on the slab:



This was the coin in that slab:





This is what the coin looked like after I removed the smoke damage:





Color me unsurprised about the OP coin.

 

agreed, not the same coin

 

The coin on page one of this thread is the same one which was doctored and is being discussed here. NOT the one which coinchemistry212 and Treashunt are comparing; that one is a different coin, which I brought into the discussion as an example of a non-doctored coin, graded AU53, which brought $7500 at auction.
It was relevant, because we were discussing the price/level of detail on the first coin, which was net-graded vf35, even though it has MORE detail than the AU53 coin.

Sorry for causing the confusion. Please refer to the image on page 1 of this thread to see the coin we are discussing.

 

It has to be a knowing net-grade, not just dark toning. Otherwise, the detail is so strong, that it would have to get a high grade, even if ugly toned. Indeed, it was previously in an "AU details" slab. If this coin were problem-free, it would be a 53 or better, depending on luster. Bad luster could bring it no lower than 45. (I can post a couple examples of exactly such coins, if you wish). There is no way an experienced PCGS grader could miss this. So they must have been aware that something was wrong, but maybe couldn't tell exactly what. So they just dropped the grade drastically.

 

OK here are two examples of highly detailed coins which were downgraded for dark toning, but "seem" to be honest, with good surfaces. Both are ef-45, but have details of 50, similar to the coin being discussed from page 1. I have examined in-hand the first coin (PCGS45): Nice surfaces; just way dark, much darker than the photo.
To me, it means that the doctored coin from page 1 was downgraded to 35 because PCGS knew that the coin had been messed with, not just naturally dark, as these two examples are. So, it was a case of net-grading, it seems.

 

Ok, I know I just confused things by presenting two more coins. Just to be clear, here is the coin that is actually being discussed as doctored, both before and after:

 

Wow, Superdave; that 1921-d now shows monster hairlines that were previously hidden by the toning!

 

Yes, and they were hidden with smoke. I could smell it the moment I cracked the coin.

 

The 1801 looks like it should have got an environmental damage details grade. I've seen far better get that. IMO that ones fugly the 1803 looks nice but looks like it's a secondary tone after a dip or cleaning. I'd need to see that one in hand to make a positive determination tho

 

Yeah , Mainebill, I think the 1801 is ugly and hard to see, even in hand, in good light. I saw it at Baltimore Whitman show in November. But I couldn't see any damage to the surfaces; it looked good except for being dark and a weird purple color. Tons of detail, though, and a scarce variety (b-4).
The 1803 is more attractive; I've considered purchasing it. I can't say if it's original toning, though; I haven't seen it in hand. There seems to be real luster underneath that dark toning, which would imply originality, no?

 

speaking of "smoked" coins, here is an 1886 nickel I bought raw from a major dealer years ago. At some point I decided to give it an acetone soak, and what do you know.

post acetone, slightly tilted to show the surfaces:

 

Yuck. I like my ribs smoked but not my coins

 

Ugh. Looks like it went from a nice "AU" to a cleaned AU/MS.

 

@SuperDave and @ksparrow , I just want to be sure I'm understanding your two posts.

Are you saying that the smoke on the surface of the coin was hiding those hairlines underneath? Or are you saying the smoke helped cause those hairlines? I'm thinking the later and want to make sure I understand. In each case, the coin looks dramatically worse after the dip, but didn't look all that great pre-dip either.

 

Premise: I believe they are the same coin.

So NGC grades the coin as AU details, someone buys it and cracks it out, cleans/dips it and it re-tones. They submit to PCGS and it receives VF35, which you believe is a net grade due to the clean/re-tone. I'm seeing your logic.

So what did they do to accelerate that re-toning? The edge view holder was unveiled at the 2008 Baltimore Expo. Seems an awful short time for a coin to re-tone to that level.

 

Yes, I think the coin was "smoked" to hide the hairlines. The appearance in hand was very muted luster, and for a couple of years I just kept it without much thought. Then I read somewhere about various things being done to hide hairlines including organic materials, which led to the acetone soak. Now it is always possible that this coin was in the collection of a heavy smoker, but since most collectors store their coins in albums or envelopes, in a cabinet or some other enclosed space, it makes me think that it was a deliberate application. And it accomplished its purpose.

As to the doctored dollar, I have no idea what chemical compound was used. Probably common knowledge among the "docs" though.

 

Here is a straight on photo of the 1886 nickel obv. you can see some hairlines but not as repulsive as the tilted image.