JTO 116 posts Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) ridiculous variations in grading standards depending on the coin and who submitted it. I have said it before; Marquis coins submitted by auction houses get upgraded and put in holders that regular coins submitted by regular people would never dream of getting. But was told: "Oh no the grading is completely anonymous and above Board". This coin is in the Stack's auction and as a chain cent would qualify as Marquis coin. If I submitted this coin it would come back with details grading, corroded. How can you explain this coin getting a pass on the corrosion and being slabbed in a regular PCGS Holder? The reverse is worse. Look at the coin and then at the holder, can you honestly tell me that coin belongs in that holder? See more journals by JTO Edited September 29, 2015 by JTO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Six Mile Rick 2,742 posts Posted September 29, 2015 Kinda makes you wonder what else we subjected ourselves to by becoming a registered coin collector member. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LJRambo111 24 posts Posted September 29, 2015 Well, we know that all of the grading company's as well as Ebay all cater to the big boys, They get better labels and probably better results as well. Kinda sad that we can't get a retro labels or special labels but the big company's can. Preferential treatment no doubt. It's kind of like the reward for submitting volume. one hand washes the other. I wonder if we will get better results if we have the big coin company's submit our coins? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkFeld 13,115 posts Posted September 29, 2015 How do you know who submitted the coin for grading? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Six Mile Rick 2,742 posts Posted September 30, 2015 The free PIZZA coupon for lunch ----- Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky One 487 posts Posted September 30, 2015 "clerical error"? In the old days, back when I started collecting in the mid-1960's, this would have been called poor, porous, or poor, corroded. Poor because of the corrosion, not because the details are better. Today we live in a world of pretenders, things are no longer what they appear to be because every pertinent term in society seems to have been perverted or corrupted. The coin should be withdrawn by PCGS and corrected before they lose any more credibility. Just my humble opinion... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky One 487 posts Posted September 30, 2015 Well, we know that all of the grading company's as well as Ebay all cater to the big boys, They get better labels and probably better results as well... I wonder if we will get better results if we have the big coin company's submit our coins? years ago I submitted a lot of coins through a big time professional dealer and the quality of grades coming back through him was better than if I submitted it myself or through an 'unknown' dealer so you might have something here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RWB 13,648 posts Posted September 30, 2015 (edited) "clerical error"? In the old days, back when I started collecting in the mid-1960's, this would have been called poor, porous, or poor, corroded. Poor because of the corrosion, not because the details are better. Today we live in a world of pretenders, things are no longer what they appear to be because every pertinent term in society seems to have been perverted or corrupted. The coin should be withdrawn by PCGS and corrected before they lose any more credibility. Just my humble opinion... How dare you write the truth....! Value is today measured by hype, tweets, moronic copycats, and "likes." Edited September 30, 2015 by RWB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky One 487 posts Posted September 30, 2015 "clerical error"? In the old days, back when I started collecting in the mid-1960's, this would have been called poor, porous, or poor, corroded. Poor because of the corrosion, not because the details are better. Today we live in a world of pretenders, things are no longer what they appear to be because every pertinent term in society seems to have been perverted or corrupted. The coin should be withdrawn by PCGS and corrected before they lose any more credibility. Just my humble opinion... How dare you write the truth....! Value is today measured by hype, tweets, moronic copycats, and "likes." isn't that the truth! sigh Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaiser14 80 posts Posted October 1, 2015 The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkFeld 13,115 posts Posted October 1, 2015 The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis. Agreed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cladking 1,863 posts Posted October 1, 2015 The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion". Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MarkFeld 13,115 posts Posted October 2, 2015 The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion". Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape? I believe the answer is no - not in that kind of "bad shape". And to the original poster - who do you think submitted the coin? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coinman1794 4,875 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky One 487 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis. since you didn't quote me, I don't know what thesis you are referring to but maybe you meant to reply to someone else? If not, please explain... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky One 487 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion". Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape? yes, I collected copper for a long time and ran into a lot of high grade (as in full detail) coins that were obviously struck on bad planchets, even severely corroded ones. This one doesn't look like it though, but without holding it in my hands I wouldn't put any money on it. As for the dies- I have seen plenty of examples of coins struck from severly rusted dies and there would be raised bumps even on the highest points of the coin and it doesn't appear to have any. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coinman1794 4,875 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The coin is in an old blue holder so it was graded in the late 1990's. That Stacks has it now in no way enhances your thesis. From what I can see, this is the holder type used around the mid-2000s. I think the barcode was added in the early 2000s (so this cannot be a 1990s slab), and the two numbers above the serial number line were removed sometime in the late 2000s. I don't think the holder type means anything here, whatsoever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky One 487 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities. yes, unfortunately, this is the reality of the day. Forty or fifty years ago coins like this were still thrown in the bargain box and largely ignored because nicer exaplme were always available back then and no one really knew how many of what were out there because there were no population reports to show proportion. I have seen too many net graded coins in straight grade holders and I personally think it is improper, and especially deceptive to new collectors with little experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coinman1794 4,875 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The coin has an unusual look to it. The wear is on top of the "corrosion". Is it possible that it was the planchet or die that was in bad shape? It is very possible that the planchet was already actively corroding when' the coin was struck, though I see a lot of corrosion that has eaten away parts of the design, which indicates post-mint environmental damage. I do think this was nearly an XF coin before the corrosion etched it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coinman1794 4,875 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities. yes, unfortunately, this is the reality of the day. Forty or fifty years ago coins like this were still thrown in the bargain box and largely ignored because nicer exaplme were always available back then and no one really knew how many of what were out there because there were no population reports to show proportion. I have seen too many net graded coins in straight grade holders and I personally think it is improper, and especially deceptive to new collectors with little experience. Agreed! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coinman1794 4,875 posts Posted October 3, 2015 The sharpness of the remaining obverse detail is clearly nicer than F15. This coin has been net graded due to heavy surface roughness and corrosion. Sometimes a nice early coin will be silently net graded down, rather than given a no-grade label. I don't condone the practice, but it happens frequently, especially with rarities. yes, unfortunately, this is the reality of the day. Forty or fifty years ago coins like this were still thrown in the bargain box and largely ignored because nicer exaplme were always available back then and no one really knew how many of what were out there because there were no population reports to show proportion. I have seen too many net graded coins in straight grade holders and I personally think it is improper, and especially deceptive to new collectors with little experience. Colonials are a great series to inspect for pre-minting planchet corrosion and flaws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scott A 92 posts Posted October 5, 2015 That is some very generous grade for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
USAuPzlBxBob 1,174 posts Posted November 10, 2015 I'll say one thing, that is one seriously cool looking coin! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
