Would this mark keep it from an MS69?

[bcgator-migration]

Hello all,

 

Long time lurker, current NGC member, and first time poster hoping for some input from the masses...

 

I'm working towards completing a collection of MS69 1oz Gold Pandas, and wanted to ask your opinion on this 2004. The obverse is as close to flawless as possible, with nary a blemish anywhere even under 10x magnification. The reverse is also close to flawless with the exception of a single mark 1.75mm long at about 2 o'clock in the mirror fields near the rim. It's easily seen in the closeup macro shots here, though very difficult to find with the naked eye, and even these photos required the coin to be at an exact angle vs. my light source to get the mark to be visible to my macro camera lens.

 

Would this mark be enough to keep it from grading MS69? I'm still learning how to grade coins and I know that what's viewable under 5x-10x vs. what's viewable with the naked eye is a very large difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Raisethis2]

I'd think so.

[bsshog40]

First off welcome to the forum. Well I think a better condition of the coin could be seen better out of the flip. In the flip, the coin looks to also have some slight spotting or haze. An MS69 grade is about flawless also. From your pics, the mark shows to be fairly easily seen. I would say MS68, but then again, hard to really judge from the pics.

[Oldtrader3]

That scratch may drop this coin's grade to MS68, or maybe not? It is not very large but I have had coins dropped a grade for similar. Good luck with that.

[cpm9ball]

Welcome to the neighborhood!

 

It would be my guess that it would keep it from 69, too, but first, I have to ask you if it is really a scratch or could it be a strikethrough?

 

While a scratch and a strikethrough are both recessed into the surface, a scratch would show metal pushed to the side (crater effect), whereas, a strikethrough wouldn't. It seems rather strange that the scratch (if that's what it is) would extend all the way to the raised rim but not show any nick or mark on the corner (drop-off) of the rim itself.

 

If you have access to a microscope, you might be able to determine whether it is a scratch or a strikethrough.

 

By the way, a strikethrough would not affect the grade.

 

Chris

[bcgator-migration]

Thank you to everyone for your replies, and your welcomes, I appreciate it.

 

bsshog40, I agree it would be easier to judge out of the plastic, but it's sealed in the original mint plastic and if I were to decide not to grade it, it would be easier to sell to another collector if it were still sealed.

 

Chris, I have never heard the term "strikethrough", but I have a lot to learn so I'm glad you mentioned it. After reading your note, I put the coin back under a 10x loupe and the line you see actually does extend to the rim, where it turns and extends perfectly straight up the vertical rim of the coin, and then turns again and extends for just a fraction of a millimeter onto the rim. Under magnification, it almost looks like a piece of lint pressed into the coin, that extended from the field up onto the rim, because it actually turns two "corners".

 

I'm thinking it would be very difficult for someone to scratch the coin and have the scratch run up the vertical part of the rim unless they were being deliberate and very precise about scratching that part of the coin. It seems a scratch would skip the vertical part of the rim, if it was caused by someone accidentally running something across the surface from the field to the rim.

 

As for any cratering, my 10x loupe isn't strong enough to give me that kind of view, but it appears there's no cratering on the vertical part of the rim or where the line turns the corner or up on the rim itself.

[SBH]

i agree it looks like a struck thru,by the way it curls at the lower end.if you see any other problems at all you might hold off on the grading.nice pictures by the way.

[bcgator-migration]

Thanks for the input sbh, I appreciate it. Other than what you see there in the photo, the coin has no other issues. The Panda side Obverse is superb - it's an easy 69, possibly 70, based on the obverse alone. Even under 10x magnification, there's not a speck or dot anywhere on the Panda side. With that mark on the reverse being the only problem, and possibly being only a strikethrough as opposed to post-mint damage, I'm inclined to take my chances. If I do, I'll follow-up with the results.

[Bruceswar]

I say this one makes MS69. That is one cool looking coin. Congrats and welcome to the forum.

[bcgator-migration]

I say this one makes MS69. That is one cool looking coin. Congrats and welcome to the forum.

 

Thanks Bruce, I also think it's a cool coin. 2004 was the first year in this series with 2 pandas on the coin, and it's one of my favorite designs in the series.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Good call on that Chris, makes sense that it is a strike through.

[cpm9ball]

Good call on that Chris, makes sense that it is a strike through.

 

Thanks, Charlie!

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

Chris, I have never heard the term "strikethrough", but I have a lot to learn so I'm glad you mentioned it.

 

BC,

 

A strikethrough can occur on just about any coin, and can be caused by almost any type of debris......fabric, thread, wire and even grease-filled debris that has built up in one of the devices and subsequently dropped out onto the planchet just before striking.

 

Here is one of mine, a 2006-P Kennedy, that looks like it may have been a piece of wire that caused the strikethrough.

 

Chris

[bcgator-migration]

That's a great photo Chris...amazing to think that the same thing that caused that on your coin, caused the mark on my coin, but in completely different proportions.

 

Which makes me wonder...when I see a tiny "hole" in the surface of a coin, something the size of the period at the end of this sentence, where it actually looks like a pothole in the surface under 10x or greater magnification, is that also a strikethrough but by something minute?

[cpm9ball]

That's a great photo Chris...amazing to think that the same thing that caused that on your coin, caused the mark on my coin, but in completely different proportions.

 

Which makes me wonder...when I see a tiny "hole" in the surface of a coin, something the size of the period at the end of this sentence, where it actually looks like a pothole in the surface under 10x or greater magnification, is that also a strikethrough but by something minute?

 

It depends! You have to remember that something in the shape of a small dot would probably have to come from grease-filled debris building up in one of the devices and then falling out onto the planchet before striking. The problem is that there aren't too many examples of incuse devices in that shape on a die. The first one that comes to mind to me right offhand is the raised dots which separate E PLURIBUS UNUM on the legend of the Morgan dollar.

 

Chris

[bcgator-migration]

Sorry Chris, I understand what you're saying, but I asked the question vaguely. I'm talking about little potholes, that in size may only be as big as the period at the end of this sentence, but under magnification actually look like missing pieces from a broken window. At the right angle, under a direct bright light, they look like little black potholes in the surface of the coin. I hope that makes more sense. I've never seen them count against the grade, so I assume they're caused during minting, I just don't know what they are.

[Bruceswar]

BTW I would leave this in the original package. I would not submit this coin.

[BillJones]

The mark that would make the difference between a Proof or MS-60 and a 70 is so minor that you can barely photograph it. If it is easy to see in a photo chances are the coin is a 68 or less.

[bcgator-migration]

BTW I would leave this in the original package. I would not submit this coin.

 

Is that because you're more a collector of sealed, OMP, ungraded coins? You've already stated you believe it's an MS69. Do you just not like gold, or gold Pandas, slabbed?

 

And BillJones, I understand exactly what you mean - even small marks can make a huge difference in grading. But isn't it necessary to differentiate between post-mint vs. minting marks? I ask because I've got dozens of slabbed coins that received high grades despite noticeable marks, and I assume it's because those marks were not a result of post-minting damage (lint marks are just one example).

 

There seems to be wide dissension about the level of scrutiny that should be exercised when critiquing a coin, and I say this not because of how this short thread has developed. It's apparent in numerous threads on numerous coin-collecting message boards. On the one hand, both PCGS and NGC describe grading primarily with the naked eye first, and following up with 5x magnification, and going beyond 5x only occasionally. But I've read plenty of comments, from people who seem far more experienced than I, regarding close scrutiny under high magnification to determine grade. I've got some beautiful proof gold coins that received 69DCAM or 69UCAM grades from both companies, yet in a high-res macro photograph you can find more marks than you can count. Either the grading companies are wildly over-grading, neglecting all these marks I can easily capture in even a mediocre photo, or there are marks that count against the grade and those that don't, as Chris has suggested.

 

I'm not new to coin collecting - I've been collecting for more than 2 decades - but I am new to understanding grading. And ironically, the more I try to learn, the more it seems that grading coins is like cooking chicken - there are 5000 ways to do it, and nobody is necessarily wrong. So the more I read, the more I learn, but I'm not necessarily any closer to the "best recipe", so to speak.

[BillJones]

Either the grading companies are wildly over-grading, neglecting all these marks I can easily capture in even a mediocre photo, or there are marks that count against the grade and those that don't, as Chris has suggested.

 

 

I’ve found that with my experiences in coin photography that any mark on a coin will be emphasized beyond what it appears when you look at the coin with the naked eye or even a 10X glass. I’m not sure why this is, but for me it’s been quite true.

 

As to the pre and post mint scratches and marks quite often it does not matter. An MS or PR -70 must be a virtually perfect coin. That means that it not does not have any spots or scratches that can be found with a strong glass, but it must also be a top notch example of the minters’ art. In other words it must be a perfectly struck coin with no manufacturing defects. The same pretty much applies to any coin with pretensions of making MS-66 or higher IMO. A weak strike knocks a coin down to MS-64 at best, and even then it’s more like MS-63 or lower.

 

And yes that means that some issues of coins have no possible MS or even PR-70 grade coins because the entire issue was not that well made.

 

[bcgator-migration]

Thanks Bill, I appreciate the input. I had absolutely no illusions of this coin being an MS70 in any way. I'd be ecstatic if it came back an MS69, and wouldn't cry in my cornflakes if it came back an MS68. I'd prefer it not come back an MS67 or lower. Given my result experiences and submissions - including a gold Panda that I rescued from a pawn shop, which was stored in a baggie loose with other coins and came out covered in carbon and copper spots, and had multiple scratches on the reverse but went through NCS conservation (for the spotting) and came back an MS67 - I would be surprised if this didn't grade MS68 or better. I know it's not always appropriate to try to extrapolate the grading result from one coin onto another, but given that both are gold Pandas, I think it's a fair comparison.

[Bruceswar]

BTW I would leave this in the original package. I would not submit this coin.

 

Is that because you're more a collector of sealed, OMP, ungraded coins? You've already stated you believe it's an MS69. Do you just not like gold, or gold Pandas, slabbed?

 

I like all my modern coins in the original packaging. Just ask yourself what is worth more now? A 1901 Proof set in a PCGS holder(s) or one in the original package. The answer is clear. The original holdered set is far rarer and thus worth more to most all people. I am not counting super high grade proofs, or the PF 70 equivalent.