Appearance review issue
0

13 posts in this topic

3,303 posts

I send this type II gold dollar into NGC under appearance review:  https://i.imgur.com/hFQz14Z.jpg  https://i.imgur.com/xD60CQe.jpg

It appears that something had been on the surface to cover obverse scratches:  https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/374980-002/58/

Where does NGC draw the line on problems that "scratches" presents for market value of coins they certify? Someone said the ANA does not define "scratches" in their grading guide.

hFQz14Z.jpg

xD60CQe.jpg

Edited by Nutmeg Coin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
856 posts

I see the obverse scratches and yes sometimes these AU coins are just that; a circulated coin. I just bought some better date Peace Dollars to complete my Dansco set and I am far more satisfied with AU 58 coins than a details UNC coin.

Edited by numisport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,303 posts

The question is if a coin has significant scratches when should it be details graded, when should it be net graded and when should it be straight graded?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,796 posts
39 minutes ago, Nutmeg Coin said:

The question is if a coin has significant scratches when should it be details graded, when should it be net graded and when should it be straight graded?   

There is no easy answer. I have posted a number of times that the decision whether to assign a details grade or a straight grade can be just as difficult and subjective as the decision regarding what numerical grade to assign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,871 posts

The decision often factors in the desirability of the specific piece. I've seen a Draped Bust dollar with heavy graffiti grade problem free because it was an R7 die marriage, for instance. Any other die would have been no-graded.

Generally, and if all else is equal, I draw the line with scratches that are not normal circulation marks; cuts, staple scratches, and other blatant damage not resulting from coin on coin contact are what bother me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,303 posts

The impaired coin was in an NGC 58 holder.  It was sent in under appearance review, I had to pay shipping to and from.  A quick dip and reholder and it was sent back to me.  No information was provided.  There were scratches on the surface, I sent it back, again no communication to me.  It just got sent back to me.  I doubt that they would have been so cavalier had it been sent in raw for grading.  It is all about making money.  But I paid $650 in good faith for the coin, and have all these extra charges tacked on due to my intention to do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
512 posts
On 11/5/2018 at 9:10 AM, MarkFeld said:

There is no easy answer. I have posted a number of times that the decision whether to assign a details grade or a straight grade can be just as difficult and subjective as the decision regarding what numerical grade to assign.

I think NGC does a good job considering which coins were work horses in the economy at the time vs absolute rarity and condition rarity as they factor that in when it comes to the final decision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,303 posts
21 hours ago, Numismatic, A.A.S. said:

I think NGC does a good job considering which coins were work horses in the economy at the time vs absolute rarity and condition rarity as they factor that in when it comes to the final decision...

But the gold dollars were generally not workhorses.  Maybe the silver and copper coinage was.  They were keepsakes and curiosities especially the type IIs.  

I have had coins that cac flagged as problem coins that PCGS agreed to no grade, straight grade here; I have also had a lot of quality coins get tagged "improperly cleaned" to the consternation of me with long term dealers agreeing about.  So the question is would the result be the same if the coin were raw, that would be truly objective if coins sent in under appearance review were graded raw with the label covered.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
512 posts
1 hour ago, Nutmeg Coin said:

But the gold dollars were generally not workhorses.  Maybe the silver and copper coinage was.  They were keepsakes and curiosities especially the type IIs.  

I have had coins that cac flagged as problem coins that PCGS agreed to no grade, straight grade here; I have also had a lot of quality coins get tagged "improperly cleaned" to the consternation of me with long term dealers agreeing about.  So the question is would the result be the same if the coin were raw, that would be truly objective if coins sent in under appearance review were graded raw with the label covered.  

Excellent Point, I personally get frustrated with the *star* designation on coins which are clearly possessing excellent eye appeal and fall into that category like so many of the other stars I have but then it's a no go by our host...same ones probably would plus at PCGS, I believe your question is at the pinnacle of the main issue...the result would not be the same if the coin was raw...it also reminds of an example given years ago where you take 5 Top experienced graders and cover those labels and end up with 5 different grade outcomes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
856 posts
On ‎11‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 2:26 PM, Nutmeg Coin said:

The impaired coin was in an NGC 58 holder.  It was sent in under appearance review, I had to pay shipping to and from.  A quick dip and reholder and it was sent back to me.  No information was provided.  There were scratches on the surface, I sent it back, again no communication to me.  It just got sent back to me.  I doubt that they would have been so cavalier had it been sent in raw for grading.  It is all about making money.  But I paid $650 in good faith for the coin, and have all these extra charges tacked on due to my intention to do the right thing.

I think you did the right thing. I once purchased a '58 Jefferson in Pf 69 Cameo I decided to keep with a small corrosion spot near the date. After a year or so that small but noticeable spot started to bug me so I sent it in for review. For accuracy the spot most certainly was there at holdering and they downgraded it to 67 Cameo. I was pleasantly surprised when they said they would replace the coin. After a few weeks I received my replacement coin: a near perfect 69 Cameo coin with even heavy contrast, yes a rare low pop coin. Moral to the story is don't assume because they are rare that they cannot be replaced. Keep in mind they can make it right but it is their decision whether they buy or replace your coin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,303 posts

NGC hit me with a bill for conservation on the appearance review coin today; I believe that it had been puttied up to cover some hairlines which popped when it was conserved.  JA once explained that to me on a PCGS coin, saying it was like "make-up" designed to cover-up facial issues.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0