Buy the coin, not the holder . . .

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

There is something wrong with that phrasing, or maybe I am interpreting incorrectly and you do agree with the Grade, or your satire skills are improving.

 

I see what you're talking about. Is there another possible explanation? Just seems strange that PCGS and CAC would both get it wrong.

 

I see what you're seeing.

But if it's in PCGS plastic and has a green bean, I'd have to say that it's "market acceptable", because it's market accepted.

It also makes me despair of ever being able to grade gold accurately myself, but that's nothing new.

 

My eye, my grade, my gold = FPG "First Party Grader." I hope you get it!

 

I withhold judgement unless the piece is in hand.
It is impossible to accurately grade a mint coin from a photo, and 3X more so for a PQ Gold piece.
The best in the business can't.
My amateurish comment is that coppering is at play, and the GC photo is not quite capturing the subtleness.
What I do know, is the Bidders that have placed a hard bid have viewed the coin and are quite capable of identifying any fault with the coin, and bid accordingly.

 

And, just in case it was a thought, it is not Iodine. The fellow that wrote the book addressed that concerning this coin.

 

Date and around the stars, very obvious.

 

Which book is that, and was he addressing this particular coin, or this type?

 

Gotta agree with @ToughCOINS. Is there a "rare and expensive coin" bias favoring this TPG and CAC grading decision?

 

The cleaning "Erm Erm, conservation/restoration" was probably done by PCGS. It's ok to make your coins more visually appealing so long as you pay the TPGs to do it.

 

From a photo, it does make me wonder.

 

Yes. This particular piece.

 

I believe that this is exactly why they did it. PCGS, and any other company, would rather get $300 out of a coin than $200 or less.

 

Those surfaces are very odd looking, especially in the TrueView. I bet it’s a blazer in hand after whatever was done to it as far as luster though (which was probably the reason they did it.)

I don’t think what we are seeing is “thinning of the frost” but a combination of original skin still remaining on the coin after conservation (star halos) and the gaps in the fields in the images is just due to the lighting. I would be willing to bet the coin has uninterrupted, bold cartwheels. For example, look at the same area in the TrueView, where it is clearly frosty vs. in the GreatPhoto where it appears deficient.



Not my cup of tea personally, but CAC stickers coins that have been conserved all the time as long as it hasn’t been taken too far. Often times, it’s too far for me though.

 

While I would agree with your thoughts on cleaning signs, very tough based on an image. I've seen quite a few ms coins, in hand, which show different patina around the devices than in the open fields, which is what I think is going on here. Is it an M67? The bag marks on the cheek and just above the nose seem more of a 66. Just my opinion there.

 

You're all nuts.

The coin has some light oxidation over pristine surfaces.

 

I am confused. What process could clean a coin with this incredible precision around the stars and date, even within the closed shapes? The different surface runs right up the very boundary of the devices, yet does not touch them.

I would expect that such an alteration has to be made to the die itself, where the fields are the highest surface and the flattening spans over the cavities that become the devices.

I do seek to understand better, because I don’t really understand this look.

 

I don’t either, the more I look at it I keep thinking it’s perhaps just toning around the devices instead of conservation, but the halos are so dramatic in the TV that it looks unnatural and made me think it was a light dip of some sort with the thickest parts around the date and stars hanging on. In any case I’m not of the opinion that it was harshly cleaned. Looks much more natural in the slab images for one thing.

 

Doesn't look like cleaning to me,the luster is perfect and undisturbed as well as the surface besides a little oxidation on the surface as stated above which really shouldn't effect the grade at all as a near perfect example.Not sure if I remember correctly but I believe some of my grandfather's coins looked like this after being stored in brittle cardboard for some time.