Same coin, $17,000 difference in holders

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by TypeCoin971793, Jul 2, 2020.

  1. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody who doesn’t know anything...

    This really isn’t excusable...

    C9C49E50-06BB-45FC-AD43-4882FF3F9019.jpeg 068162A7-9079-435D-A6B8-DA004A24B599.jpeg
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Dave Waterstraat

    Dave Waterstraat dave700x -1883 O nut

    Somebody knows somebody.....
     
  4. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

    Looks closer to the VF to me. Porous too. How could they justify the 58?
     
    HoledandCreative and harrync like this.
  5. LRC-Tom

    LRC-Tom Been around the block...

    I can see somewhere in between...
     
    Jack D. Young likes this.
  6. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    What are the dates for the 2 gradings ?
     
  7. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    It gets under my skin when I had some nice early copper coins that they sent back to me in body bags years ago. Later, after I sold them, I saw the same coins in straight grade holders.

    As for OP coin, it was wrong on both counts. It might have rated an extra 5 points in the VF holder, but sure isn’t an AU now.
     
  8. GoldFinger1969

    GoldFinger1969 Well-Known Member

    This is a perfect example of what I have talked about for many years here....this is a 15-point increase...granted, it's a rare coin where opinions vary alot more than on a Morgan or Saint....and it's going from 35 to the 50's (or lower), not like taking an MS63 Saint/Morgan up to MS66 (a 3 point increase that would be hard to do unless drunk).

    Again....anybody know the 2 grading dates ?
     
    LA_Geezer and johnmilton like this.
  9. Tuco

    Tuco Active Member

    I agree, maybe after the FBI wraps up their investigation into PSA they should give PCGS a look.
     
    wxcoin and johnmilton like this.
  10. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody who doesn’t know anything...

    I don’t know when exactly it was graded, but it sold in the VF35 holder in Feb 2017, and then in the AU58 holder in June 2017. Take that for what you will.

    Read each of the descriptions.

    8CBCEF3F-F951-4EB3-9696-CC706D348AAF.jpeg CEDD50E9-EC89-4BF9-9677-593BF68BB6AE.jpeg
     
    fiddlehead, wxcoin, Two Dogs and 2 others like this.
  11. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

    The EAC grades in the descriptions are a bit bothersome as well. Does HA actually use someone from EAC for that, or do they just throw out a number 'X' points below the TPG? o_O
     
  12. messydesk

    messydesk Well-Known Member

    It's plausible that they thought it would be a Bad Idea to say a TPG 58 was EAC 15.
     
    buckeye73, wxcoin, NSP and 2 others like this.
  13. thomas mozzillo

    thomas mozzillo Well-Known Member

    I was just going to ask the same question that @Beefer518 did. Who determined the "Our EAC grade...."?
     
    Beefer518 likes this.
  14. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

    Its not like EAC grades ever match the TPG grades, and I've always been under the impression that they aren't there to appease a TPG, but to grade a coin based on their much stricter guidelines.

    Seems like HA has 'in-house' EAC 'specialists' that get a paycheck from HA, and HA doesn't want to rock the TPG boat.

    I wonder how the EAC would explain the discrepancy in something where their institution is implied to have reviewed the coin and gave it the two different grades, presumably only months apart. As for PCGS, I've never liked their grading personally, and realize they are a for-profit organization, and keeping certain clients happy keeps their bank accounts fat.

    So who got ripped off worse? The owner that submitted the coin and got the 35, or the guy that bought it as a 58? I think if i bought it as the 58, I'd be pretty ticked off if I saw the earlier auction.
     
  15. Conder101

    Conder101 Numismatist

    The EAC grades are usually assigned by Mark Borckardt. He is a very well known and respected EACer, and the ANA named him Numismatist of the year this year.
     
  16. Beefer518

    Beefer518 Well-Known Member

    I wonder what he would say about this.
     
    Cheech9712, GoldFinger1969 and wxcoin like this.
  17. hotwheelsearl

    hotwheelsearl Well-Known Member

    Like coins, people can be bought
     
  18. CircCam

    CircCam Victory

    Great catch, @TypeCoin971793. On what planet does that coin get graded AU58? Good grief...
     
    GoldFinger1969 and Beefer518 like this.
  19. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    To help less experienced collectors understand this, the flat spot to the left of Ms. Liberty’s eye is a strike issue. There was probably no detail there from the day the coin was made.

    The rest of the detail would qualify as an EF, but the coin has finely granular surfaces. A few of those marks were probably on the planchet from the beginning. The die did not flatten them. But most of the other tiny pits are from mild corrosion, which is very common for copper coins from this era. It’s also to be expected because the metal is reactive. The coin probably has had some expert restoration work done in it.

    Despite that, this piece is a very nice example. From the commercial point of view, an EF-40 grade is fair. BUT with the original mint surface totally gone, there is no way that this coin could be graded AU, let alone AU-58, which says the coin is a hairbreadth from Mint State.
     
  20. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random nobody who doesn’t know anything...

    This basically sums up everything that is wrong about the (post-1700) coin industry. The slab determines the value of the coin. The coin is completely unable to hold its value on its own anymore.
     
  21. johnmilton

    johnmilton Well-Known Member

    I forget if it was NGC or PCGS who body bagged this 1797 1 over 1 half cent. I think their excuse was "artifical toning." The graders who did that should have stuck to grading Morgan Dollars. They obviously knew nothing about early copper.

    This is an interesting blundered die. The die maker placed the first "1" in the date too high and then punched it in correctly. Many of the survivors from the this common mintage (by 18th century standards) were struck with badly broken dies and lack much of the major design elements. This piece is a fairly early die state and well struck.

    The old ANACS graded this VF-35. I'd would say that it is a VF something.

    1797HalfCentO.JPG 1797HalfCentRJPG.jpg
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page