1871 Penny For Your Delight (I hope!)

[7.jaguars]

Look carefully at this one, because IMO what seems obvious is not. No tricks though. GTG & comment if you see fit. I'll add my own comments later....

[World_Coin_Nut]

Nice coin. Not sure what you are trying to point out but I enjoyed the picture.

[7.jaguars]

This was BODYBAGGED for scratches. Under magnification there are two light curvilinear lines in the left lower obverse field; these are clearly very light scratches in the die; I bought the coin as it was superior except for the minimal obverse toning spots and the flans abrasion just in front of and below the chin and behind the ribbon. On very close inspection, these are not wear or cleaning but minimal flans pre-strike imperfections. Honestly, this is the type of stuff that makes me not take a lot of faith in graders (this was graded ATS).

[World_Coin_Nut]

I have a number of coins that have had the same thing happen. My feeling is that is that if it is not visible with the naked eye, they should leave it alone. I don't understand how that can get a details grade when this coin got a straight grade. I bought it because I didn't have one, I collect Wildman coins. It has nice detail but (to me) it has been obviously cleaned.

[rmw]

Looks like a nice coin to me.

what does bodybagged and ATS mean?

[Conder101]

ATS = Across The Street  If you are on NGC's site it means PCGS, if you are on PCGS's site it means NGC.

Bodybagged is a term that meant a coin submitted for grading that was returned in a flip because it had a problem, cleaning or some other reason that would not permit it to be graded as a problem free coin.  Now that the services are slabbing problem coins with detail grades this very rarely happens anymore.  A coin will still be bodybagged if it has active PVC contamination (Or they may recommend that you have it conserved), if it is a fake, and if it has been deliberately altered to resemble something else (altered date, added mintmark etc.).  There may be a few other reasons.  If the OP coin was submitted within the past few years I would be very surprised if it was bodybagged.  He may be misusing the term to mean a coin that received a detail grade.  I can see no reason why that coin would come back bodybagged.

[7.jaguars]

BB'd for scratches...These as said were on the die, even those between the "7" and "1" under magnification.

[rmw]

I can't believe the BB is for those scratches, which I do see.

Even if they were Post production, so what, knock off a point on the grade. Surface quality on Unc coins is a large determinate to the grade and often the ONLY one.

If that is the reason , that's ridiculous.

i would either resubmit or go ATS.

[rmw]

To my eye I'd give it a 64 at least.

compare it to the 1869 penny in the recent Heritage auction , which has similar but more extensive "granularity " on similar spots on the obverse and more surface marks than this piece .

it was given a 65 ATS.

It goes to show that grading is subjective.

And the coin itself speaks, not the holder.

[7.jaguars]

Yes, thinking I will on that. That 1869 penny way overgraded - compare to the Gerald Jackson 1869 sold by SpinkAmerica about 3-4 years ago! I handpicked this one because in balance it was a very nice piece (from a major UK dealer).

[rmw]

Out of the 500 plus British pieces in my collection, the majority of which have been graded 65 or higher, I have one details piece, a 1684 tin farthing, given an AU environmental damage grade.

Tin pieces literally dissolved into dust in this period if exposed to a lot of humidity ( think England) or air. A lot of so called better quality tin farthings have been dredged up from 300 plus years buried in the soils of the Thames River. If that ain't environmental, what is?

[rmw]

I will have a look at the 1869 Spink America piece. Thanks for letting me know about it

[World Colonial]

I had this happen once but on a Bolivia pillar 4R.  This was pre-details grading.  I sent it in a second time to NCS and it came back straight graded which in my opinion was the correct outcome. 

I also have a second coin which is currently designated "UNC details" for "surface hairlines".  There are lines across the coin ( I don't have it with me so don't recall the specifics) but I don't believe the coin was ever mishandled.  I suppose a dead giveaway is that I was the only bidder for it at live auction but to me, it looks like the coin has die polishing lines, as I don't see any break in the luster.  (The coin looks somewhat PL.)  Anyway, I'm not about to ever sell it in a details holder and probably will eventually crack-it and out and consign it back to the same firm. 

I don't see any indication on this 1871 penny that it isn't "market acceptable".  And as a prior post stated, I find the quality of coins in both numerical and details holders inconsistent, in both directions and this also includes coins I own.  Problem is if a nice coin is in a details holder, it is subject to a substantial financial penalty, even if it looks better to most collectors versus an inferior one with a numerical grade.

[rmw]

Shouldn't die polishing lines show up as raised surfaces versus the rest of the coin whereas cleaning lines show up as digs into the surface? My 1893 proof halfcrown has raised lines. Was graded accordingly as a 65.

[Conder101]

Even blowing up the images I don't see anything in the way of two curved lines at the lower left of the obv.  I do see two at the lower right, but those are definitely raised lines and are as struck.  I don't see ANYTHING that should have resulted in this being bodybagged, or even details graded.

[7.jaguars]

I totally agree with World Colonial. I have no problem with them BBing a coin, but perhaps they are a bit hasty on some of these. I am totally unsure how some of those coming up to auction at such venues as Heritage get straight graded when they do have problems that are not just seen in the photos but are substantiated when then seeing them in hand. And then there is a coin such as this....

Actual hairlines are another issue in that many of us who have seen many coins over time will note those that take a coin down to a "2" or "3", and then see the coin graded "64"that is coming up to auction from a big consignor. I will cite an example of this:   the 1902 matte British coins & esp. the crown and the larger gold. Wow, inconsistency is the name of the game (perhaps there are not so pleasant assessments that could be made but don't want to get banned).

Sorry about the rambling...

[rmw]

I have the British 1902 proof set, which was described as FDC by a large auction house in England. I sent them to NGC and got 61-63 on ALL of them due to "hairlines" which are on virtually all of the 1902 Proof pieces and which are die polishing lines to my knowledge. Ive never figured out the grading on any of the 1902 proofs as most are consistently graded for the same thing.

[World Colonial]

5 hours ago, rmw said:

Shouldn't die polishing lines show up as raised surfaces versus the rest of the coin whereas cleaning lines show up as digs into the surface? My 1893 proof halfcrown has raised lines. Was graded accordingly as a 65.

I don't have an image of the coin to post and I'm not the expert in the difference.  However, I see no evidence the coin was cleaned.  It's an 1832 Mexico Real which might have retoned but if cleaned in the past, it doesn't show any indication of it.

[physics-fan3.14]

On 8/5/2017 at 0:29 AM, 7.jaguars said:

This was BODYBAGGED for scratches. 

My first impression of this coin was "Wow - those are smooth and highly lustrous original fields. That is an attractive coin." My second impression of this coin was "What are those weird marks in the obverse right field behind her neck?" I see the lines in the left field, and the ones on the bottom of the right field definitely look like die marks. 

However, what are the vertical marks just to the left of the "F"?

 

On 8/5/2017 at 0:29 AM, 7.jaguars said:

 (this was graded ATS).

World coins graded by PCGS? There's your problem. 

[7.jaguars]

Clash marks from reverse.

[rmw]

Clash marks are pretty common for pennies in this period.