1926 2.5 Ind. Before and after a PCGS restoration job.

Still an UGLY MS63 coin but at least they removed all the "silly putty". ..

Here's the original thread about this coin.

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an-ugly-1926-pcgs-ms63-2-5-ind-purchased-on-ebay.262890/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't think it is ugly now at all. If you do, sell it for a discount...

 

Did they make you pay for this service?

 

PCGS make you pay? They make you pay for everything.

[That's why I like to buy stuff that someone else has already done the 'paying' on]

 

It looks far better.

 

That coin ain't ugly! None of us'll be that good looking when we're 89 years old.

 

Yes, I think it cost like $36 .. I sent 3 other coins (through a PCGS dealer) along with this 2.5 Ind for grading and the total came to $146 including shipping & insurance.

 

Hoo boy, PCGS sure does love money. Not that I was priorly unaware of this.

 

They screwed up and you still have to pay

 

This is true! Very many coins with this type of altered surface have been slabbed. This is a traversty that a grading 101 student would catch even though they get easier to spot as they change over time.

IMO, these mistakes (made before the TPGS knew how to detect this type of fraudulent alteration) are the same as slabbing a counterfeit. They have a duty to fix these coins for free or buy their mistakes back! I should not pay them a dime and if they tried to charge me I should blast this all over the coin periodicals and Internet.

 

definitely learned something reading original thread. strange they decided to use putty on a coin like this that without the putty isn't a problem coin to begin with. Also strange that PCGS missed it somehow and didn't take care of the mistake on their dime

 

Why would PCGS have any responsibility to pay for conservation? The coin was graded MS63 before, and MS63 after, correct? Are you saying that any time you send a coin in that you don't like the look of, and ask that it be conserved, that they should pay for it, even if the grade comes back the same? I think they would only pay for the service if it came back at a lower grade. What am I missing?

 

Isn't this more than just a coin they didn't like the look of though, isn't it a coin that should have not been slabbed in the first place? (honest question)

If so I just kind of assumed they would take care of resolving the issue as a token of apology for the original screw up. Guess it's not something they'd be responsible for but like in this instance the OP bought the coin trusting PCGS, he wouldn't have bought it in the first place if he had to pay for conservation just to achieve the grade he purchased it assuming it was.

 

You don't get it. PCGS slabbed a fraudulently "doctored" coin. PERIOD. There are hundreds of coins (actually probably thousands) like this in TPGS slabs. The coins are "puttied" to make them look better than they are. The matte color imitated original "Mint frost." The TPGS's know better now. It was a learning process for all of them.

Now, they removed the residue and reholdered the coin at the same grade. All is well right? Heck NO. They got away with charging the sucker for hiding their error.

One other thing. I'll bet if that coin is cracked out and sent in for grading it will come back as a 61 or 62!


This member get's it!

 

A few years ago this wouldn't have cost him anything, it would have been covered under the grading guarantee. But now the guarantee specifies that it does not cover coins that have "gone bad" in the holder after slabbing.

On the other hand we really don't know if they actually charged him for it or not. He didn't send it in himself, he submitted it with other coins through a dealer. He paid what the dealer charged him. The dealer may have been reimbursed for the grading fee and didn't pass it on.

It might also depend on how it was worded on the submission form. If he sent it in under the grading guarantee they may have conserved it for free and sent it back. If it was sent in for "regrading" or "conservation" then they may have simply charged for those services. How you word your request can make a big difference. And we may not know how the submitting dealer worded the request. And you probably can't learn any details as to why they charged or didn't charge as they did because since he isn't the submitter they probably wouldn't tell him anything.

 

The responsibility is only to the market value of the coin, which did not change, correct? I do understand your point, but I don't agree. And neither would PCGS. This is a coin that turned bad in the holder after grading.

 

Nice try but there is a catch...actually two.

1. IMO, this coin would never have graded above 62 if the surface had not been - shall we say, enhanced.

2. This form of alteration can be detected by a YN instructed for ten minutes on the use of a stereomicroscope & fluorescent light - even before it changed in the holder. That way, it would not have been straight-graded & slabbed in the first place. Unfortunately, both these tools are frowned upon by the TPGS's. That type of lighting shows the loss of luster from friction wear too easily and viewing a coin at 7X with both eyes lets you see too much!

Here's something I'll bet you didn't know, coins like this** were considered fraudulent alterations. They were not certified as genuine and sent back as alterations by the authentication services years before PCGS was around.

Most coins are graded by naked eye. As long as that's the case, lots of things will continue to slip into slabs...including counterfeits.

And as to "market value," I'm a businessman. If I conserve that "dog" and it does not have the eye appeal it once had or shows actual wear, do you think I'm going to lower its grade and pay the difference?

** To my best recollection, this particular type of alteration did not show up until the late 1970's. Prior to that, a less effective surface alteration - "thumbing" was popular and easier to do.

 

So you have seen the coin in-hand and are a professional at grading Indian Quarter Eagles? The pix are not good enough to grade by.

 

Suckers pay $$$

 

Yet after conserving it, PCGS sent it back still in a MS-63 holder. So with their current grading standards they still think it is a 63. And they did regrade it, the serial number changed.