This coin got an AU55 from PCGS: http://teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=2877&lot=1974&imagetype=j2 This coin got a Genuine, Scratch/Rim Damage No grade: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300437781073 Admittingly, I'm relying on photographs here, but doesn't this seem a bit inconsistent?
If you are not seeing anything difference between the photos of those two coins then I suggest you make an appointment with the eye doctor. That e-bay coin has been scrubbed so much the lettering on the reverse is nearly gone in some parts and the seller lists it as uncirculated. Sure it's certified "genuine" but there's a definite reason why it only got a "genuine" grade.
The 1854-o is known for a weak strike and the "No Grade" code on the PCGS holder isn't for cleaning. It's for rim damage or scratches. Hence my confusion.
Now I'm confused. Calls 'em as I see's 'em. I'm probably a little jaded when it comes to e-bay sellers listing something as "uncirculated" when it's holdered in a "genuine" slab.....
Here's my guess: many $3 golds were used as jewelry and I suspect the rim damage may have been a ring that was de-soldered.
In the description, the seller says it's AU, which is probably generous. What I want to know is how the other coin escaped a "No grade" holder, given that the scratches are at least as bad. I suppose some additional hidden rim damage would account for it.
When you can explain how that could happen with the graders having no idea who the submitter is - then we'll talk. Nope, PCGS accounts for it. PCGS is the single most inconsistent grading company there is. They are known for doing stuff like this.
I would want to see both coins in hand and preferably raw before making any strong statements or even inferring inconsistency. You can't grade from photos of raw coins, much less make a call for a feature hidden from view in a slab (rim problems). To suggest otherwise would be disingenuous, in my opinion.
BOOYAH! :thumb: To add on to what has been said, that one you bought, should have been slabbed, in my opinion, or at least I wouldn't have touched it with a ten foot pole.
I'm bringing this back up because I feel it is important. No guys, there is no hidden rim damage. The 1 coin was placed in a genuine holder for being scratched - and nothing but being scratched. Here are the complete descriptions that PCGS gives for Genuine holders - No Grades PCGS will not grade and encapsulate any coins with the following problems: 86 No Opinion – our experts are unable to determine a coin’s authenticity – fee refunded 87 Not Eligible For Service Selected – the coin is too valuable for the chosen service level – fee refunded 90 Questionable Authenticity – the coin is most likely a counterfeit. 91|N-1 Questionable/Artificial Toning (or Questionable Color for copper) 92|N-2 Cleaned – surface damage due to a harsh, abrasive cleaning 93|N-3 Planchet Flaw - Metal impurity or defect in the planchet – depends on severity 94|N-4 Altered Surface - Whizzed, harsh cleaning, thumbed over (using a pasty substance to cover defects or alter the appearance). 95|N-5 Scratch - depends on the severity of the scratch 96|N-6 No Service – coins we do not certify (i.e. medals, some privately made issues, etc.) or cannot certify (i.e. over-sized coins) 97|N-7 Environmental Damage – i.e. corrosion, coating (lacquer), excessively heavy toning, etc. 98|N-8 Damage – deliberate surface damage, i.e. graffiti, spot(s) removed, etc. – depends on severity 99|N-9 PVC (Poly-Vinyl-Chloride) – a plasticizer used to produce vinyl that will leach out of the holder and onto the coin, eventually damaging the surfaces. If there were rim damage, or possible other damage, on the coin then the 98 code would have been used. But the 95 code was used - specifically because the coin is scratched. It is my opinion that anybody who ignores the obvious, especially something as obvious as this, is reaching. They are searching for an excuse, any excuse, to justify PCGS doing something this inconsistent. Well what excuse do you use when something like this happens to the exact same coin ? Not one just like it or similar - but the exact same coin ? There have been countless incidents of a coin being submitted, body-bagged; then re-submitted and graded. There have been examples of a coin being graded as XF, re-submitted and graded as MS64. And these are not just isolated incidents, they happen over and over again. So if the TPG exhibits such inconsistentcy with the exact same coin, then why in world is it out of line to expect them to show inconsistency with coins that have similar damage ? The answer is it isn't out of line. It IS what they do. And it will continue to be what they do until you, the market decide not to accept it anymore. You are the ones who let them get away with it. And when you start calling them on the carpet for it - it will stop. But until then, they'll keep right on pushing the limits just to see what you will accept and what you will not. You've seen this happen with toned coins. And it continued until people, you people, started complaining about it and posting about it in various forums. And then the TPGs tightened up on toning didn't they ? Well they will regarding damage too. And with the two coins in this thread, there is no question. There is no doubt. Anybody with eyes can see that. Both coins are damaged. Both coins have undeniable scratches. And the severity of those scratches is equal on both coins. All you have to do is look at them to see that. So quit making excuses. Stop reaching to find some explanation, some reason to explain the actions of the TPG. It's as obvious as the nose on your face what happened - the TPG screwed up. Damage is damage folks and that's what it should be called.
Unfortunately, one of the places where PCGS is inconsistent is their documentation of the "No Grade" codes! On both these pages, Code 95 is noted as "Scratch / Rim Dent:" http://www.pcgs.com/grades.chtml/ http://www.pcgs.com/faq.chtml
Fair enough. Now looking at the coins in question is there any doubt in your mind that a rim dent significant enough to stop the coin grading from grading is not there ? Yeah, the slab hides a tiny portion of the rims, but you can see 90% of the rims. That coin was not "bagged" for any reason but the scratches. And the scratches on the coin that was graded is every bit as severe. That is my entire point. To pretend otherwise, is just to fool yourself. Because it sure isn't going to fool anybody else with a pair of eyes.
It was also my point when I started this thread, but I can't see anywhere near 90% of the rims. Nor am I assuming that the photos aren't, shall we say, putting the coin in the best possible light for the sale. None of which changes the fact that I believe the AU55 1856 is a scratched coin and should be slabbed accordingly.
