I am have recently been trying to grade shield nickels. I checked this nickel against PCGS photograde and read the grading standards for the coin and think it is at F-12. Would you agree?
I found plenty of "red nickels" in my metal detecting days. No amount of cleaning will restore it without making it look horrible.
It is actually red. I see many like that. Is that considered environmental damage for it to be red? I didn't realize color has to do with environmental damage. I understand corrosion. Are you talking about the small black parts? If so, that is minimal. I am not worried about it too much, I am not demanding perfection for what I paid for a coin that old.
I don't see what being red has to do with being dug up. What makes you think that there are not nickels that weren't dug up that are red toned?
The ops coin is a dug coin and is corroded. I have several sheiks nickels with the same problem and they came from the ground
So is it environmentally damaged or corroded? I do see some corrosion but not severe like others, maybe the black stuff if it has not turned black do to age. Toning is also damage isn't it to some? I do realize every old coin over 150 years old if not in mint conditions seems to be a "problem" to some. Those people should probably fork out the money for mint state coins. I know Detecto contacted me wanting to buy a silver roosie that I didn't even have for sale and certainly don't want to root through my spare dimes I don't need for my set to find him a perfect specimen for cents over melt. He should pay the $6 MS-65 price. There is a for sale section here I know. If I wanted to buy silver or sell a standing liberty, I would go there. There is I heard an issue with weakness of strike with these as well since the dies just weren't advanced enough to penetrate the copper-nickel. Don't get me wrong I have seen many coins corroded or environmentally damaged. I am going to look for examples of corrosion or environmental damage so I have an idea what others are talking about. Here is one that is definitely more severe but looks like a good example to base it by: http://www.ebay.com/itm/5-Cents-1881-Shield-Nickel-Rare-Key-Date-Mintage-68-800-Corroded-Low-Grade-/370658073456?nma=true&si=ITHRsYVDkavGzRKaV5WW7vnlgM0%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 I also saw this information about coin damage at NGC and talks about if corrosion is severe or unattactive it can result in a "DETAILS" grade. I don't consider this coin neither severe or unattactive. Atleast that is my opinion. It is red, so what. Why would I try to change that? http://www.ngccoin.com/details/environmental-effects.aspx
A original not dug sheild nickel will not have the dark pitted surface. The pitting is caused by acidic soil. Not all coins are perfect and the ops coin is very similar to my 1868 in my personal collection.
To be honest, I did see some type of weird surface. You may be right, this coin may have been dug like you said. It isn't unattractive though and it at least it would get a DETAILS slab by NGCs definition, not that I care to try and submit it. So am guessing maybe VG or Fine details.
That is if they thought the damage was severe or unattractive. I certainly don't think it is an unattractive coin so it would have to be severe enough. Don't grading services tend to be more leniant toward older coins?
