Thanks to @CircCam help, I am free of this coin….. I am unabashedly a white coin guy. I totally get the appeal towards toned coins, but these toned black coins hold zero eye appeal in my view. I suppose technically, the coin may have earned its MS65 designation and when @CircCam sold the piece for me, it realized MS65 money… But to me, this is akin to buying a high dollar sports car with a flawed paint finish. Never been happier to part with a coin than this one.
Mint set toning is definitely not for everyone- I’m ok with this coin at 67 as the reverse surfaces still look nice but I’m into that crusty stuff. 62 feels better considering the dip and retoning but she’s still tolerable at least. *pulls out I HATE CAC portfolio and throws another rusty dagger into John Albanese oil portrait* Haha. Jokes aside, these are some scary examples and thanks for sharing. Poster child for why dipping is sometimes the right thing to do. Glad that turned out well, Randy! That was an odd coin, a hammered strike would have at least helped make some level of sense of the grade but it didn’t have one of those either. I like this look on Jefferson Nickels, reminds me of old stuff I used to find in my grandma’s basement. Though that look is probably not what most people are looking for in their gem coins. Lol
In defense of NGC, I am not so sure that that 1945-S nickel looked like that when it was slabbed 20+ years ago. I doubt that the graders would have certified it if it looked like that then. My guess the coin was dipped and not rinsed properly. The left over acid attacked the piece, and left what you see today. This is the reason why I avoid bright white silver and red copper coins in new to fairly new holders..
The pictures don't really show the full luster and detail.I don't think it was messed with,Paul before said the coin most likely looked like this as the graders around 40 years ago loved crusty war nickels.It was within the right price range and the truly unique look is kind of satisfying.
Here's another one,it's not truly ugly but some people find the crusty look unattractive.Coin just shifted a bit in the slab and some marks are on the holder.
I guess we have different tastes. I would say that coin has environmental damage on the right on both sides. I won't give it a straight grade, and I'll reiterate that I think the coin “went bad” in the holder. If you bought that one 25 or so years ago, and it looked like that, I’ll stand corrected. Even so it would be a strong pass for me.
No kidding, I would have assumed they got that look from sitting in Whitman albums but now that you mention it- you see it all the time in old NGC fatties and substantially less in anything else.
Yes I mentioned them in regard to John Milton’s comment about his opinion that the first Jefferson posted was dipped then encapsulated. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the holder itself, I actually like some coins I’ve seen that toned in them. Just observing that the “blackened” look doesn’t seem to be prevalent in newer holders so to me it lends some credence to his theory.
TPGs tend to be quite lenient on 1877 IHCs, even factoring in the generally weak strikes (particularly at the top of the obverse).
No, it’s not a travesty. It’s just that some people have built it up as something that is perfect, which it is not. You need to know something about grading, and if you don’t, you need advice from trusted sources. You can’t rely 100% on grading services.
It seems crazy that a major TPG would goof, and the company that claims to verify grades ALSO goofs. I’m specifically talking about the L graffiti on that gold. How could half a dozen professionals miss that?