The Key Date Bump?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

excellent points

 

I totally agree, this is not a coin I would want in my collection.

 

Thank you!

I agree with everything you say (except maybe the wire brush bit).

 

I agree both probably felt it was as minted. If not the rational was probably that it happened a long time ago likely during circulation which seems to get some wiggle room in XF and below grades. Had that been an AU or better they very well may have details graded it anyway. Would be interesting if it was sent into the error service how it would come back.

 

As far as my experience with collecting graded Ikes go the CAC bean is absolutely worthless....

 

Just a couple of small or light scratches. After all, it's a circulated coin. Nice buy!

 

I forgot all about this old thread. Hope some other members who made comments see it also. Good eye Bob. Those marks are into the coin and not Mint-made by any stretch of the imagination. I have learned that scratches on a coin come in different degrees. Example: a hairline and a half inch long light staple scratch. When they get this deep and heavy many numismatists call them gouges. See below. This coin is badly damaged. I'll guarantee that the damage was not missed.

1877 Indian heads often come with areas of weakness that are more obvious it seems in lower grades (probably because most we normally see are in a lower grade than the OP's damaged coin. There is NO correlation between the damage and the weak areas of this coin.

 

Let's see what the expert says. Opinion @mikediamond ?

 

Mike is an expert on minting errors. All of us are experts on gouges made into a metal surface. Coins like that - straight graded and then "beaned" should be an embarrassment to both PCGS and CAC. IMO, it undermines their reputation.

When I first saw this thread, my initial reaction was to send the link to CAC. While I think nothing will be done with this slab due to financial penalties. There may be a way for CAC to have its sticker removed.

 

Yep!

 

I also believe the marks are scratches/gouges that occurred after it left the mint. If it were a planchet defect, I would expect the gouges to be more irregular since the metal would be flowing up into the rim and shield area. These look too straight and smooth to have been subject to metal flow during striking. Think about overstruck coins. On the flat areas, there is a lot of metal movement as seen by the flattened, distorted, and obliterated devices from the original coin. I would expect a similar effect on a planchet defects because of the metal flow. Also, I can’t say with certainty from the pic, but there MAY be some raised areas around the gouges caused by metal displacement particularly where one of the heavy gouges meets the rim. This isn’t definitive proof but I feel it explains the gouges better than a planchet defect.

As for the weak rim, Snow writes that many 1877 Indians are weakly struck

 

Actually, this is a perfect image to say with 100% certainty that these are gouges into the coin when it was damaged. As you pointed out and something so easily seen: "...some raised areas around the gouges caused by metal displacement" provides all the proof a person working at a TPGS needs to see.

This coin is an abomination! Shame on everyone who straight graded it. That's because TPGS were to be a protection that enabled us to purchase coins "sight unseen." Who here would not be enraged to pay the going rate for an undamaged specimen and receive this dog! "Surprise, surprise, sucker!


Who here would keep it? Only the uninformed who cannot tell damage from a planchet flaw. They would not stay uninformed for long should they try to sell it. Live and learn.

 

There is raised metal on the edges of the gouges. Therefore, they are scratches.

Only proves that TPG and CAC opinions are completely worthless, IMO. Especially for Indian Cents and technical AU-58 pre-1839 classic US coins.

 

While I must agree with your opinion, one coin or several thousand in the millions graded PROVES NOTHING but an occasional human error or possible purposeful deception for some reason we'll never know. Therefore, because OUR personal grading standards may be different, it only makes the TPGS and CAC worthless to us. I believe the majority of dealers/collectors consider them worthwhile.

 

The examples I gave, IHC and technical AU-58 classic coins, are pretty consistely overgraded. I've seen many AU-58 CBHs in MS-61/2/3 holders and VF/EF IHCs in respective EF/AU holders. Those are pretty obvious cases, not just a disagreement of a point or two.

I'd be surprised if more than 50% of 1877 IHCs are properly graded with respect to this forum's standards.

 

I agree again; however, long time collectors either get with the program or be frustrated until we die. One thing is certain, no matter what, we will die and all the new collectors will use liberal standards of today. Then history will possibly repeat for them and they will bitch!

The grading standards have changed and it will continue until coins are graded with an image and it stops. Then they will always have the same grade.

PS What exactly are "this forum's standards?" From the opinions I've observed here, that is a hilarious statement!