The Key Date Bump?

I was perusing eBay yesterday and came across this 1877 Indian Head Cent. It's graded XF40 by PCGS and received a CAC sticker. Looking on the reverse of this coin, I see significant gouging on the coin between 12 and 1 o'clock. To me, this looks like damage to the coin. Am I missing something? I understand this is a key coin and the TPGs tend to be a little softer on them...and other than that it's a lovely coin. But, I feel this coin shouldn't have graded because of this...let alone receive a confirming CAC sticker.

The only conclusions I can draw is both PCGS and CAC were really generous with this coin...or my brain has fallen out and this isn't damage.

Any thoughts?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/162292080234?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Yikes, don't know how that got the bean, or the generous grade. I suspect foul play. LOL.

 

I cannot tell for sure, but I am pretty sure what I am seeing are strike-throughs. Notice how weak the rim is there. And if it were gouges, the deepest gouge should be on the highest point (the shield). Instead, that is the shallowest gouge.

BTW, I have not a clue what was struck through.

 

You might be right. The denticles and the rim is very light all through that region. Perhaps that's what they saw too. Do you think they down graded the coin at all because of this (I would at least consider it a defect)? The details of the coin seem consistent to an XF at least to me?

 

If that is damage how did it even sticker? I could see PCGS letting it slide, but then CAC letting it slide too? Very odd. I noticed the weakness too. So maybe it is some sort of strike through.

 

@CamaroDMD Your comments are 100% correct. The coin is heavily gouged and the fact that it is graded w/CAC sticker is very sad. I suspect foul play. There is NOT a struck thru in the world that ever looked like that!

PS. The coin is an XF-40. Not net graded.

 

clearly scratches

 

It happens and it isn't the first coin with egregious damage that I've seen in a slab clean graded and I'm willing to bet it won't be the last either.

 

VERY TRUE but CAC?

 

When TPG's do this, it puts into question coins that have been graded years and years ago, perhaps some were overlooked too and given a "straight grade." Problem coins that is.

 

Good point, that I think is a first.

 

This is what really made me wonder. I agree, I can see PCGS letting it slide with damage...but I can't imagine that CAC would confirm the grade. I'll admit I was so focused on the "gouges" that I missed the weakness throughout that whole region. A strike through would make sense.

 

Actually I would tend to disagree with one part of the above, e.g. that key date coins get a break. In certain series, key date coins have a much tougher time getting a grade. For example, in the Franklin series it is VERY difficult to get an FBL on a 1953-S. I've seen '53-S's with bell lines that would be a no brainer in other date/mm NOT get the FBL because of the value added to a 1953-S with the FBL designation.

 

This depends a little on the time frame. When NGC and PCGS were started, they were very strict with regards to "problem" coins. In fact, without PCI, ANACS, and ICG grading and slabbing everything, I doubt the "Big Two" would EVER have started slabbing problem coins! That, and customer fury over stupid "body bags" forced the change.

Over time, the commercial market forces (bigtime dealer submissions) forced a little wiggle room at the "details/no details" line. Rational like "a 100 year old coin can have scratches, cleaning and rim bumps" is often cited.

As for me, I believe a grading company should evaluate a coin with all its pluses and minuses but I a dreamer.

 

IMO, key dates get a break in grade. However, when there is a very large price jump, it tightens up for ALL coins in the series. That said, as for designations such as BL, FH and steps that are separate from the grade, it does not matter as much. If they make it, they get it + the added value.

 

although a 1953-S would be a valuable coin with FBL, it is not a key date, but rather it exemplifies what a condition rarity is.

 

The more I look at it, those do look like scratches. So if that is the case, two different companies overlooked that. However I dont see someone like Gary Adkins selling a tampered with slab either.

 

Hard to believe CAC would sticker that coin.

 

Looks like a damaged coin to me. How these obvious flubs occur is beyond me, key date or not.

 

I would be surprised if there is no correlation between the weakness in that area (rim, shield, wreath) and the gouges.

I would be shocked if PCGS and CAC missed them. Or they saw them but forgave PMD and then, in spite of it, considered the coin high-end for the grade. (I get that the coin earned points for original surfaces, which JA loves.)

Which leads me to believe both services felt it was as-minted.

I too couldn't say what caused it. Wire from a brush?

Whatever. To me, it is an eyesore and not a coin I would want in my collection.
Lance.