Flaws in newly received 2016-W gold quarter

[marvf]

I wonder whether the small flaws in my newly received gold quarter would disqualify it from a 70 or even a 69 grade?

I'll try to post a picture although I don't do this enough to know the best way to embed a jpg, so if there is no picture in this post, please help me.

The flaws are:

void under the "T" of QUARTER and a very small circular pit over the "O" of DOLLAR (see picture). The void seems related to lack of gold flow. I'm not sure what would cause the circular hole.

Thanks for you help. I'm trying to decide whether to send this back or not.

[Lastufka Collection]

The rim wouldn't bother me as much as the mark above the O. I would send it back for a replacement if it were mine.

[marvf]

Since these flaws are pretty obvious - the rim flaw can be seen easily with the naked eye - I don't understand why the quality control inspector let this out. The mint's publicity emphasizes that the coins are examined after striking before being released to shipping. Makes one believe that the coins are sampled randomly not individually as (I think) implied.

 

There's also a substantial "fin" partially around the rim on both sides as if the collar didn't fit tight enough to retain metal flow during the strike. This is similar to the "wire" edge on the 1907 HR $20. Do all the coins have this fin or wire edge?

[RWB]

Quality control does not mean "perfect."

[marvf]

No coin is perfect. Under high enough magnification, there are flaws on every coin. But we're not talking about microscopic defects. The long dimension of the rim flaw is almost the width of the entire rim. The circular pit is smaller, but still not something one would expect on a carefully controlled collector coin which is sold for multiples of its bullion value. Again we're not talking high number business strikes in the millions.

 

The "fin" is more interesting to me, and I would like to hear from others who have received the coin as to whether this is a common condition for this coin or not.

[coinman1794]

I wonder whether the small flaws in my newly received gold quarter would disqualify it from a 70 or even a 69 grade?

I'll try to post a picture although I don't do this enough to know the best way to embed a jpg, so if there is no picture in this post, please help me.

The flaws are:

void under the "T" of QUARTER and a very small circular pit over the "O" of DOLLAR (see picture). The void seems related to lack of gold flow. I'm not sure what would cause the circular hole.

Thanks for you help. I'm trying to decide whether to send this back or not.

 

Modern coins are frequently found with tiny round strike thru errors. That is what these appear to be. They typically do not affect the grade, at the services, because they are as-made.

[rrantique]

[marvf]

So what causes these strike-through issues? Just what is being struck-through?

[johnny9434]

Quality control does not mean "perfect."

exactly. your coin do what you think is right and what makes you happy.

[marvf]

I sent off a picture of the flaws on my coin to NGC customer service and got an unofficial response:

 

<<>>

 

 

So it appears that NGC (and presumably PCGS) DO take as-made flaws into account when grading modern mint products. They're obviously not going to commit to anything unless I send it (and pay) for their grading opinion, but their remarks concerning their general policy with respect to as-made "damage" on a mint product gives one pause. Unless the "damage" qualifies as an error, one will never get a "70" grade (or perhaps even a "69") for a coin with mint-made damage.

 

So the coin will be going back. They're still available.

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I wonder whether the small flaws in my newly received gold quarter would disqualify it from a 70 or even a 69 grade?

I'll try to post a picture although I don't do this enough to know the best way to embed a jpg, so if there is no picture in this post, please help me.

The flaws are:

void under the "T" of QUARTER and a very small circular pit over the "O" of DOLLAR (see picture). The void seems related to lack of gold flow. I'm not sure what would cause the circular hole.

Thanks for you help. I'm trying to decide whether to send this back or not.

 

Modern coins are frequently found with tiny round strike thru errors. That is what these appear to be. They typically do not affect the grade, at the services, because they are as-made.

 

A question, please. What would be your thoughts as to what the response may be from a Dealer if the OP was fortunate to have the piece be graded as a 70, and wanted to sell it for whatever the market price point for the 70 is, and the Dealer had also had a flawless 70 offered for sale at the same market price?

[coinman1794]

I sent off a picture of the flaws on my coin to NGC customer service and got an unofficial response:

 

<<>>

 

 

So it appears that NGC (and presumably PCGS) DO take as-made flaws into account when grading modern mint products. They're obviously not going to commit to anything unless I send it (and pay) for their grading opinion, but their remarks concerning their general policy with respect to as-made "damage" on a mint product gives one pause. Unless the "damage" qualifies as an error, one will never get a "70" grade (or perhaps even a "69") for a coin with mint-made damage.

 

So the coin will be going back. They're still available.

 

 

 

Mint-made imperfections should not be referred to as damage. It is true that, sometimes, on occasion, mint-made imperfections will cause an otherwise MS70 to grade MS69, but this is typically due to eye appeal concerns. Most of these strike-thru errors are too small to be recognized as "Mint Errors;" they are ubiquitous and appear on the majority of modern mint products.

[RWB]

Damage happens after the coin is struck. If what you see bothers you, then return it for replacement, but do it quickly.

[coinman1794]

I wonder whether the small flaws in my newly received gold quarter would disqualify it from a 70 or even a 69 grade?

I'll try to post a picture although I don't do this enough to know the best way to embed a jpg, so if there is no picture in this post, please help me.

The flaws are:

void under the "T" of QUARTER and a very small circular pit over the "O" of DOLLAR (see picture). The void seems related to lack of gold flow. I'm not sure what would cause the circular hole.

Thanks for you help. I'm trying to decide whether to send this back or not.

 

Modern coins are frequently found with tiny round strike thru errors. That is what these appear to be. They typically do not affect the grade, at the services, because they are as-made.

 

A question, please. What would be your thoughts as to what the response may be from a Dealer if the OP was fortunate to have the piece be graded as a 70, and wanted to sell it for whatever the market price point for the 70 is, and the Dealer had also had a flawless 70 offered for sale at the same market price?

 

Most dealers would happily accept the assigned grade as gospel. My response would likely be, "I already have one of those for sale and don't need another. Plus, mine is nicer."

 

As I just wrote in another response, the services can sometimes dock an otherwise 70 to 69 when it has strike-thrus, if they are found to be distracting enough to affect the eye appeal.

[dcarr]

So what causes these strike-through issues? Just what is being struck-through?

 

When striking pure gold, it is quite difficult to get the striking force just right. Not enough force and the strike isn't full, of course. Just a little too much and gold will "squish" out between the collar and die, no matter how tight the die fits in the collar. And this is especially true with a splined (reeded) collar because there are small gaps between the splines where gold can be forced out even if the non-splined die is tight in the collar.

 

And whenever there is a little bit of finning with a reeded collar, small particles of gold "teeth" will inevitably break off the sawtooth-shaped fin. These loose particles of gold are then frequently struck-through and then fall out after the coin is struck. That is what happened to the coins pictured earlier in this thread.

 

[coinman_23885]

So what causes these strike-through issues? Just what is being struck-through?

 

When striking pure gold, it is quite difficult to get the striking force just right. Not enough force and the strike isn't full, of course. Just a little too much and gold will "squish" out between the collar and die, no matter how tight the die fits in the collar. And this is especially true with a splined (reeded) collar because there are small gaps between the splines where gold can be forced out even if the non-splined die is tight in the collar.

 

And whenever there is a little bit of finning with a reeded collar, small particles of gold "teeth" will inevitably break off the sawtooth-shaped fin. These loose particles of gold are then frequently struck-through and then fall out after the coin is struck. That is what happened to the coins pictured earlier in this thread.

 

Is this because of the softness of gold?

[RWB]

Good information.

[rrantique]

So what causes these strike-through issues? Just what is being struck-through?

 

When striking pure gold, it is quite difficult to get the striking force just right. Not enough force and the strike isn't full, of course. Just a little too much and gold will "squish" out between the collar and die, no matter how tight the die fits in the collar. And this is especially true with a splined (reeded) collar because there are small gaps between the splines where gold can be forced out even if the non-splined die is tight in the collar.

 

And whenever there is a little bit of finning with a reeded collar, small particles of gold "teeth" will inevitably break off the sawtooth-shaped fin. These loose particles of gold are then frequently struck-through and then fall out after the coin is struck. That is what happened to the coins pictured earlier in this thread.

 

Thanks Dan.

[dcarr]

So what causes these strike-through issues? Just what is being struck-through?

 

When striking pure gold, it is quite difficult to get the striking force just right. Not enough force and the strike isn't full, of course. Just a little too much and gold will "squish" out between the collar and die, no matter how tight the die fits in the collar. And this is especially true with a splined (reeded) collar because there are small gaps between the splines where gold can be forced out even if the non-splined die is tight in the collar.

 

And whenever there is a little bit of finning with a reeded collar, small particles of gold "teeth" will inevitably break off the sawtooth-shaped fin. These loose particles of gold are then frequently struck-through and then fall out after the coin is struck. That is what happened to the coins pictured earlier in this thread.

 

Is this because of the softness of gold?

 

Any malleable metal can "fin" when struck. Gold is softer and more malleable than most. So this is seen more often on pure gold coins, although the same thing can happen with silver, but to a lesser extent.

 

[marvf]

Thank you all for the opinions and explanations.

I'm not sure just how the grading services define "damage," but I posed the question to NGC with the modifier "as-made" or "mint-made" so I believe the response from NGC should have encompassed coins with strike-through faults. That said, I have returned my coin for replacement.

As these are slabbed by the major grading services, it will be interesting to see whether any that come back as "70" possess strike-through marks.

[Conder101]

Most dealers would happily accept the assigned grade as gospel.

When selling yes, not when buying.

 

My response would likely be, "I already have one of those for sale and don't need another. Plus, mine is nicer."

If dealers accept the assigned grade as gospel then this statement makes no sense. Since a 70 grade by definition is "perfect" then by saying yours is nicer you are saying it is better than perfect.

[valk1999]

Most dealers would happily accept the assigned grade as gospel.

When selling yes, not when buying.

 

My response would likely be, "I already have one of those for sale and don't need another. Plus, mine is nicer."

If dealers accept the assigned grade as gospel then this statement makes no sense. Since a 70 grade by definition is "perfect" then by saying yours is nicer you are saying it is better than perfect.

 

I have some examples of multiple submissions that come back graded as "70" where one coin is "nicer" than the other. It typically has to do with the rim of the coin, rather than the graded surfaces, but to me a perfect rim makes one coin nicer than the other. It causes me stress to select which coin I might sell or trade so I usually end up keeping both. The most recent examples are the baseball hof coins and 1998s matte proof silver Kennedy halves.

 

The defects shown in the original post would be unacceptable to me and I would definitely exchange them. I've had more than my share of recent USMint products that are unacceptable and needed to be returned for exchange.

[valk1999]

Household order limit lifted...

[MarkFeld]

Most dealers would happily accept the assigned grade as gospel.

When selling yes, not when buying.

 

My response would likely be, "I already have one of those for sale and don't need another. Plus, mine is nicer."

If dealers accept the assigned grade as gospel then this statement makes no sense. Since a 70 grade by definition is "perfect" then by saying yours is nicer you are saying it is better than perfect.

 

But the grade of "70", as used by the major TPG's, does not require a perfect coin.

[Conder101]

I have some examples of multiple submissions that come back graded as "70" where one coin is "nicer" than the other. It typically has to do with the rim of the coin, rather than the graded surfaces, but to me a perfect rim makes one coin nicer than the other.

Then by definition some of those "70's" are not 70's.

 

But the grade of "70", as used by the major TPG's, does not require a perfect coin.

I know they don't. That's why what once required a "perfect" coin (and which was not actually obtainable, more of just an ideal or theoretical grade) no longer does.

[valk1999]

I have some examples of multiple submissions that come back graded as "70" where one coin is "nicer" than the other. It typically has to do with the rim of the coin, rather than the graded surfaces, but to me a perfect rim makes one coin nicer than the other.

Then by definition some of those "70's" are not 70's.

 

But the grade of "70", as used by the major TPG's, does not require a perfect coin.

I know they don't. That's why what once required a "perfect" coin (and which was not actually obtainable, more of just an ideal or theoretical grade) no longer does.

 

We'll just have to disagree on that one....and I wouldn't sell any of them for less than the value for 70 graded items. ? Therein lies my dilemma.