"Just Having Fun" MS68 PCGS Slab! 0

[coinman_23885]

By all accounts, the only REAL problem that anyone has had in this entire thread are those marks. If Heritage acknowledges their existence, would you concede that their description is unbiased?

 

Don't forget the PVC.

 

P.S. This is the type of coin where I would describe the toning and conclude with "the images speak for themselves" or "please see the images to see the quality of the piece for yourself" without additional commentary on the grade or surfaces.

Edited May 25, 2016 by coinman_23885

[Afterword]

The only description of the coin's appearance that I would want, would be something that the image did not show or did not show adequately. I would not expect the marks to be mentioned at all, as long as they are clearly visible in the image provided and not anything other than ordinary post mint marks.

 

In the case of the dime in the OP, if the marks on the reverse were mint made, which cannot be determined from the image, I would expect this to be mentioned in the description.

 

[Wondercoin]

"If Heritage acknowledges their existence, would you concede that their description is unbiased?"

 

Of course, I would "concede" that their description was unbiased with just about whatever they write.

 

Look... "reasonable men may differ". I may agree with PCGS that the coin is an MS68FB. Someone else might believe the coin is only MS67+FB quality (many of the MS68 slabbed quarters I routinely see I believe are only MS67+ quality). I have no problem with that. What I can say is that in my opinion those are likely the only two grade options an experienced grader looking at the coin would come up with. Any talk that the coin is an MS66 or even a low end MS67 (without bands) is "hogwash" I believe.

 

Starting tomorrow, I will be out of the country for the next several weeks so it may be more difficult for me to revisit this thread. But, when I can, I will.

 

As always, just my two cents.

 

Wondercoin

[lehigh96]

"If Heritage acknowledges their existence, would you concede that their description is unbiased?"

 

Of course, I would "concede" that their description was unbiased with just about whatever they write.

 

Look... "reasonable men may differ". I may agree with PCGS that the coin is an MS68FB. Someone else might believe the coin is only MS67+FB quality (many of the MS68 slabbed quarters I routinely see I believe are only MS67+ quality). I have no problem with that. What I can say is that in my opinion those are likely the only two grade options an experienced grader looking at the coin would come up with. Any talk that the coin is an MS66 or even a low end MS67 (without bands) is "hogwash" I believe.

 

Starting tomorrow, I will be out of the country for the next several weeks so it may be more difficult for me to revisit this thread. But, when I can, I will.

 

As always, just my two cents.

 

Wondercoin

 

For the record, that question was posed to Mumu, not you Wondercoin. As far as the grade of the coin goes, I will trust that both the opinion of the PCGS graders and an extremely knowledgeable Roosevelt collector, and conclude that the assigned grade is deserved.

[Afterword]

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The assumption to be answered correctly would first have to eliminate the possibility that it did not occur after encapsulation.

[coinman_23885]

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

 

I would submit the coin to PCGS under the guarantee for the residue. PCGS would most likely bathe it in acetone and reholder it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

 

I would submit the coin to PCGS under the guarantee for the residue. PCGS would most likely bathe it in acetone and re-holder it.

 

Makes sense. I doubt the op coin went thru that process originally and considering when it was encapsulated, It would not surprise me if there was the slight beginning of pvc that would have been very hard, if possible at all, to detect especially with the sea green/ocean foam shades of toning. Who knows if it is or isn't without exam. But if they do so, The grading could possibly be impacted. Maybe not. I guess that is what gambling is.

[RWB]

Sea green...ocean foam...? Geeeeezzzzz.

[Afterword]

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

 

I would submit the coin to PCGS under the guarantee for the residue. PCGS would most likely bathe it in acetone and reholder it.

 

 

 

 

So you are positive the coin has PVC contamination from the image provided by the OP?

 

Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

[Afterword]

The assumption to be answered correctly would first have to eliminate the possibility that it did not occur after encapsulation.

 

 

 

 

Yes, the presence of something to examine would be necessary to make any meaningful determination.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Sea green...ocean foam...? Geeeeezzzzz.

 

It is not my fault if you are a couch potato that doesn't go to the beach

[RWB]

Must be sand scratches on the reverse...?

[PocketArt]

Maybe this one should be a 68+? Hard to tell if this is truly full torch designation. However; appears not to have as many nicks. Nice color.

 

http://www.collectorscorner.com/Products/Item.aspx?id=25220779

 

 

 

 

[PocketArt]

Here are a few more. These three examples appear to have nicer surfaces and these PCGS examples also have a decent color. Just a comparative analysis on grade which I do from time to time for my own study.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-D-Roosevelt-Dime-NGC-MS-68-FT-Great-Color-/381646586711?hash=item58dbe8c357:g:b9QAAOSw7ehXQ3EL

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1946-S-Roosevelt-Dime-10C-PCGS-MS68-FB-Full-Bands-Top-Pop-11-0-3-000-Value-/172216300512?hash=item2818e433e0:g:57wAAOSwFGNWQ8uc

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1949-D-PCGS-MS68-HIGH-GRADE-TONED-ROOSEVELT-DIME-10C-EXCELLENT-SPECIMEN-TOP-POP-/121825142720?hash=item1c5d5827c0:g:PBAAAOSwxN5WV4Yg

 

Rich

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2016 by PocketArt

[MJ]

You need to compare the same date and mint mark. In theory it shouldn't matter. In reality it does.

 

mark

Edited May 26, 2016 by MJ

[numisport]

Cant open picture now but what about bag mark on the cheek. Small coin such as this can't have marks on the obverse in an obvious place !

Edited May 26, 2016 by numisport

[PocketArt]

I don't doubt what your saying is true Mark. I thought Sheldon scale would be impartial; but not privy to how these grades are assigned with pristine examples on dates and mint marks that are scarce in high grade.

 

Seems more like a beauty pageant.

[numisport]

Here are a few more. These three examples appear to have nicer surfaces and these PCGS examples also have a decent color. Just a comparative analysis on grade which I do from time to time for my own study.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1952-D-Roosevelt-Dime-NGC-MS-68-FT-Great-Color-/381646586711?hash=item58dbe8c357:g:b9QAAOSw7ehXQ3EL

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1946-S-Roosevelt-Dime-10C-PCGS-MS68-FB-Full-Bands-Top-Pop-11-0-3-000-Value-/172216300512?hash=item2818e433e0:g:57wAAOSwFGNWQ8uc

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1949-D-PCGS-MS68-HIGH-GRADE-TONED-ROOSEVELT-DIME-10C-EXCELLENT-SPECIMEN-TOP-POP-/121825142720?hash=item1c5d5827c0:g:PBAAAOSwxN5WV4Yg

 

Rich

Indeed these 3 examples appear to be legitimate high grade coins worthy of a superb gem grade IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PocketArt]

numisport, that's what I understand too; there appears to be a disconnect with the OP 64-D Roosevelt when compared to the 68 examples I posted in terms of surface quality. Even thought they are different dates; I didn't realize there could be partiality with the 64-D. Would of thought grading standards applied across the board with all Roosevelt's.

[Afterword]

"Would of thought grading standards applied across the board with all Roosevelt's."

 

Perhaps they do, and you are missing a part, or parts, of the grading equation that do not show in the images. In the case of the OP's dime, for example, if eye appeal influences the grade significantly, as some suspect (including myself), and given the fact that eye appeal is highly subjective, the grader's concept of what constitutes eye appeal would trump yours, and perhaps trump some flaws in the coin as well. You would not see why the flaws do not affect the grade the way you think they should, and you may not see what makes the coin so attractive to the grader.

 

Even the best images do not tell the whole story of a coin's assigned grade.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Afterword

[coinman_23885]

I am assuming it would be preferable to determine whether a coin was or was not PVC contaminated before it was encapsulated. Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

 

I would submit the coin to PCGS under the guarantee for the residue. PCGS would most likely bathe it in acetone and reholder it.

 

 

 

 

So you are positive the coin has PVC contamination from the image provided by the OP?

 

Could PVC be positively identified with a coin in hand and in a holder?

 

What I am seeing appears to be a residue sitting on the coin's surface and is not part of the surface (i.e. it does not look like toning). Given the blueish-green color of the residue (which is a textbook indicator of PVC), the odds are overwhelming that it is PVC given the popularity of the chemical in some coin holders.

 

An in hand inspection would only reveal what has already been described - that it is a residue sitting on top of the coin with textbook characteristics of PVC. If you wanted a scientific analysis (and even in science nothing is 100%), PCGS would need to remove the coin from the holder and use any number of analytical chemical techniques (e.g. Raman spectroscopy, x-ray spectrometry, FT-IR, etc.) to tell for sure. It is my understanding that the PCGS sniffer uses some of these technologies, so it should be able to determine the identity of the residue; however, this is overkill.

 

Regardless of whether we agree with the grade or not, conservation is warranted to prevent whatever residue is on the coin from potentially harming it. Assuming that is has not etched into the surfaces, the coin should clean up well in an acetone bath and would be reslabbed likely at the same grade.

 

Assuming that the coin is truly a MS68FB notwithstanding the hits/marks, it won't stay that way if the residue is corrosive (and if it is PVC, which it appears to be, it is).

[Afterword]

Thanks for answering my questions.

[numisport]

numisport, that's what I understand too; there appears to be a disconnect with the OP 64-D Roosevelt when compared to the 68 examples I posted in terms of surface quality. Even thought they are different dates; I didn't realize there could be partiality with the 64-D. Would of thought grading standards applied across the board with all Roosevelt's.

I thought that was known as technical grading as is used for most modern coins.

[physics-fan3.14]

numisport, that's what I understand too; there appears to be a disconnect with the OP 64-D Roosevelt when compared to the 68 examples I posted in terms of surface quality. Even thought they are different dates; I didn't realize there could be partiality with the 64-D. Would of thought grading standards applied across the board with all Roosevelt's.

I thought that was known as technical grading as is used for most modern coins.

 

Technical grading is never used on modern coins. Market grading is.

[numisport]

numisport, that's what I understand too; there appears to be a disconnect with the OP 64-D Roosevelt when compared to the 68 examples I posted in terms of surface quality. Even thought they are different dates; I didn't realize there could be partiality with the 64-D. Would of thought grading standards applied across the board with all Roosevelt's.

I thought that was known as technical grading as is used for most modern coins.

 

Technical grading is never used on modern coins. Market grading is.

Physics fan I think you should start a new thread on differences between market and technical grade. My proof Franklins and Washingtons were selected for eye appeal not sky high grade. These I think have low technical grades but knockout eye appeal. Should they be proof 69 Cameo and market graded rather than 66 Star Cameo graded technically ?

[EleMint Man]

 

Like I said Lou!

[dragon]

IMO coins like common Roosevelt dime this are a prime example of why pcgs does more harm to the rare coin hobby than good.

 

Pose the question to even the most ardent, hardcore collector of Roosevelt dimes and ask what they'd pay for this dime out of its plastic holder and you'll see my point. I think most collectors would rather get 'hosed' from an unscrupulous dealer buying a raw dime that's been whizzed and retoned as an MS65 as opposed to paying ten grand for this coin in it's pcgs holder with the MS68FB grade attached. Is this coin an example of how pcgs certification protects the collector? JMO

[Nutmeg Coin]

"The standard for the rare coin industry" . The standard of what?

[Treeman]

Long thread, but I learned a lot!

 

Buy the plastic, not the coin.

 

"There are two sides to every coin" is just an expression that doesn't hold up in grading...

 

Grading is just an opinion, so, when they get it really wrong, they are excused.

 

Modern common coins are worth more than rarities, as long as someone sticks a high number on a plastic slab. The number does not even need to reflect reality.

 

Coin collecting used to be more fun, back when people collected the actual coins...