In what universe is this coin NOT CLEANED?

[JTO]

Grading services, especially PCGS, seem to give a pass to high ticket or marque coins.

 

I tried this once before but it got bogged down on the peripheral issue of the role of the auctions houses in this issue. It drives me crazy when I send in a perfectly good coin and get it back "code 92" or improperly cleaned or maybe that's code brown. Here is another shining example of a coin that is er... Proof-61?

Or should it be Proof Unc details?

 

The upper red arrow shows a protected where the abrasive cleaner could not reach and the lower arrow show the "hairlines" or improper cleaning marks on Liberty's leg. These features eliminate the possibility that these are just highly reflective die polishing marks.

 

What if this were a 1983 Kennedy half with the same surface, what do you think the grade would be?

 

John

 

See more journals by JTO

[CyberspaceVoid]

I agree, but it is not only occurring in marquee coins. I have seen a LOT of coins over the past few years that don't deserve the grade they receive. Many, if not most, are submissions from who I would call "important" (i.e. high volume) auction houses or major dealers that likely have a "special relationship".

 

I personally tried this experiment out. I submitted a select coin to a TPG (I will not be saying which one) and received a grade. A little low perhaps but not unjustifiable. I then broke it out, resubmitted it thru the services of one of these "important" clients to the same TPG, and when it came back it had mysteriously improved by several additional grade increments and the damage notation disappeared.This is reason that TPG plastic now have "beans" etc as trust in the TPGs is being destroyed

 

I later cracked out the above coin as it made me embarrassed to show people. The old adage, "Buy the coin, not the plastic." has never been truer than today .... that or know whom to submit your coins thru.

[Six Mile Rick]

A 180 year old proof that surely got in the wrong hands one day during it's time. Tooth brush and baking soda

 

Probably sent to Sacks or Heritage in a raw collection and then submitted by them. You would be surprised the grades they get from submitting raw sets and then auction off the next month.

[coinman1794]

Proof coins are graded by the number of hairlines, as they generally do not develop bag marks, but the delicate fields do develop hairlines, even with light handling. The hairlines are thus reflected in the grade. If this were business strike, it would be called cleaned, without question, but the rules for Proof coins are very different.

 

I'm sure the rarity factor is also an important consideration, but it is the coin market, not the grading service, that gives a pass to "marque" coins, and the grading services have always been known to market grade.

 

[RWB]

The holder should state: "Cleaned (by an insufficiently_thoughtful_person with no knowledge of numismatics, too much time on his hands, a liking for shiny things, and a tube of toothpaste or banking soda.)" OR -- maybe something more verbose.

[jackson64]

I'm calling BS on this one coinman--sorry but I have had dozens of proofs get the old "improperly cleaned" label and subsequent body bag ( several that had never even left the mint packaging I must also mention.)

[RWB]

Maybe the authentication companies should encourage proof coin submissions in the original packaging? I'm thinking primarily of coins issued in soft-packs where it is easy to cut one coin from the package.

[coinman_23885]

Many collectors in the 19th century routinely cleaned their coins; thus, many older proof coins have hairlines (and are also prone to acquire hairlines from other mishandling as well as pointed out by another poster). The grading services are lenient on them as a result. With regards to the coin in the original post, it looks cleaned to me, and I would not buy it. This is also the reason that I avoid lower graded proof coins from the 19th century as the lower graded pieces are covered in hairlines, particularly as you go farther away from gem.

[AHFreak]

Coinman is correct, it is not labeled cleaned because it's a proof. If it were a B.S. coin, it would wit out question be a "details" coin. Anyone who has one (and anyone who doesn't shouldn't be commenting about how to grade coins, if u haven't the slightest of basic understanding of grading, why comment about the grade of a coin? ) if u haven't, you should go read the ANA's grading standard of US coins, then you would know that the basic definition of a "PR63" is a proof that is convered in hairlines. So with this proof being in worse condition than your average "hairline covered proof", they graded it PR61.

 

Many of you won't like it or agree with it, but that's the current market standard.

 

 

[AHFreak]

Maybe the authentication companies should encourage proof coin submissions in the original packaging? I'm thinking primarily of coins issued in soft-packs where it is easy to cut one coin from the package.

 

From what I understand, not only do they not encourage it but they do not accept submissions like that. To much work for them to have to cut them all out.

[RWB]

Hmmmm...that would eliminate the kinds of complaints I see on message boards about original proofs being called "cleaned."

[AHFreak]

I follow your logic for sure Roger, but as someone who submits a decent number of exactly what you are talking about, (specifically 1956-1964 proof coinage, proofs that i personally cut out of the cello myself). I have seen my fair share of problem proof coins that came that way straight out of the cello, they are problems in the cello and problems out of the cello. Ive heard many guys, even a few savvy dealers who believe that a proof coin has to be a good coin as long as it is still in the cello, as if it can only get hairlines outside of the cello. This is definately FALSE. Many are hairlined before ever going in the cello, and many become hairlined while in the cello.

 

My point is that if you sent proof coins in the cello, you would be wasting money grading coins that sell for more raw than they do in a low grade holder.

Maybe that's your point to Roger, im never quite sure with you;)

 

 

IMO- These guys who complain about "all original" proof coins being graded details coins should not be complaining at all, nor should they be placing blame on the 3rd party grading companies. Instead what they should do is learn how to effectively look at, and grade the proof coins they are submitting. If they did that, maybe they would stop sending proof coins that warrant a details grade.

[RWB]

Understood. The point was that consumers are paying authentication companies for an impartial opinion. Accepting coin in original packaging more-or-less ensures that what the companies see is what the consumer sent - even if it is defective in some way from mint handling or otherwise.

 

I.e.: let the experts use all of their expertise.

 

"Maybe that's your point to Roger, I'm never quite sure with you..."

I understand this, too. There are times when my questions are not entirely clear. Sometimes it's intentional in an effort to get readers past "traditions" and "assumptions." Other times, well, it's like letting the dog do the taxes....

[Walkerfan]

With regards to the coin in the original post, it looks cleaned to me, and I would not buy it.

 

I agree with this, whether it's the accepted standard or not.

 

It's obviously harshly cleaned and it's not a coin I'd be happy with.