PCGS ... this is indefensible!

Maybe NGC seen these already which lead to their PCGS beating article.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I ate it, along with the Cheeto.

 

1839 looks like it was pitted

 

The only way to truly verify the authenticity.

 

There's so many services the TGP offer .. Lol ....
A must read article ....................................
http://news.coinupdate.com/pcgs-adds-new-and-simpler-services-raises-fees-1733/

 

PCGS needs to speed up their guarantee submission system, last time it took me 3 1/2 months to address the problem. Also on some coins with a little dirt, verdigris, pvc, dark toning takes less than a minute with the top conservation people.

 

I can verify it was a Cheeto.

 

Old news! This "update" from PCGS was from three years ago...

BTW, ICG was doing coin conservation for customers at no additional charge in 2012 before PCGS or ANACS got into the field. Mike Fazzari who works for ICG now was one of the founders of NCS while he was a grader/authenticator at NGC.

 

Bottom line is big old copper grading is best left to EAC grading.

 

These are EAC G04's.

 

I can't help but notice the irony though since EAC net grades

 

Earlier, on my phone, I thought the 1850, 1855, and 1857 looked borderline acceptable. They look so much worse on a larger screen.

 

And now you know why, their in problem free holders ...

 

I'll take a #575 card over a TPG holder every time.

 

For what it's worth I send currency to PCGS and Coins to NGC, I have heard different opinions that PCGS takes their evaluations to a higher degree, well now that is in question,who knows... Oh those NGC Labels are much more eye appealing and I'd say are helping people sell their coins.

 

Whoever handles the evaluation, you can assume they're being pushed to the limits of productivity, as evidenced by some of the egregious errors which occasionally slip out in their slabs. And the fact that the labels themselves are seen as having some appeal is one of the greatest problems facing the hobby. What does the label have to do with the contents?

 

IMO, most EAC members know more about copper coins than most (?) of the TPG's, coin dealers and collectors. Some members of EAC actually work or formerly worked at TPGS. I was a member of EAC for several years but the minutiae about the coins was too much for me to absorb. I do recommend collectors interested in copper read the EAC grading guide. Fortunately, the only folks to use EAC grading are EAC dealers and members as it is based on "net grading" which is STUPID.

Although, this quote must be an attempt at humor:

It makes my point!

IMO, at least two of the PCGS coins above have enough design detail that they could have been graded MS if they did not have problems. PCGS has net graded them and left them as straight grades. IMO, this was stupid on their part as it pollutes the value of their opinion. Which is it PCGS? Are you going to net grade an MS coin down to AU or grade a coin AU-58 corroded or even MS-60 corroded which they are! A submitter has no idea how you are going to grade their coin now. This net grading approach clouds the issue more.

I find NOTHING in that press release that relates to these coins and how they were graded. They do not appear to be "restored."

 

What about the surfaces on them that makes you think Environmental Damage? I'm not familiar with this series...

 

Two factors:

1) Physical surface irregularity and porosity. This is best evidenced here by the 1839, which plainly shows the surface etching common to long burial in acidic soil. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest this one might have been deliberately darkened to hide the cleaning it received - note the swirls of lighter color on the reverse where the artificial darkening didn't "take."

2) The combination of "reasonable" or "lighter" color with much darker areas on the same coin. The 1836 is the best example - it's unreasonable to expect surface areas as dark as it shows in places in conjunction with the center areas being so close to "appropriate" color. A reasonably expert evaluator won't think nature did that.

 

Good God, what this implies...
Thanks for the info.