Did This Eliasberg Pedigree Drop From Heaven Just For Us To Debate?

[TomB]

Everyone should realize upfront that this is not meant as a flame thread, neither is it meant as a gratuitous piling on aimed at a certain third party grading company for their pedigree requirements. This is simply an auction lot that I noticed this afternoon while looking through the recently closed Heritage lots. Therefore, please don't start flaming if members disagree.

 

I was going to place some bids in the Heritage Signature Sale, however, a recent numismatic purchase more or less put an end to the planned bids. That's okay, as I still like to see where the coins end up.

 

If you go to the Heritage site to look at the current lots you will see this pedigreed Eliasberg 1902-O PCGS MS66 Barber quarter. In the small images the coin looks very white while in the larger images it appears to have some toning to it. The only other recorded sale of a 1902-O MS66 Barber quarter through Heritage occurred three years ago so I looked up the previous lot and found it to be a 1902-O NGC MS66 coin. At first, the images did not just out at me. In my opinion, I like the NGC coin better since it has toning that I find attractive, albeit most probably do not. However, what intrigued me was that both coins are listed as being Eliasberg coins.

 

This got me thinking as I don't believe there were two certified MS66 1902-O Barber quarters in the Eliasberg sale. So, I read the auction description for both coins and not only did Heritage simply cut-and-paste the description, they also included the history of each coin. Guess what? They are the same coin!

 

The apparent dipping bothers me because I think the NGC slabbed coin looked attractive, although, as I already wrote, I can imagine that others might not like it. So, while I don't like the idea that it was dipped, I can't really argue with it since I did not own the coin. Also, the fact that the price is now doubled does not bother me one bit as the market is very hot and these coins are really undervalued anyway, in my opinion. To me, that is not an issue. The part that has me really wondering is this:

 

If the coin were bought in an NGC holder and then dipped, how does PCGS know it's the same coin in order to put the pedigree on it?

 

I guess one might argue that they could go by the Heritage images, however, this seems like a poor method to pedigree a coin as the coin is obviously altered from its previous state. Anyway, do you think PCGS would even attempt to waste their time tracking down the pedigree by looking at website images and comparing them? Also, do you think they would simply accept images handed to them from someone with the submitter stating it were the same coin? I would hope not. We had a very good discussion on the requirements for pedigree a week or so on the boards and it might be good to see what everyone thought about this in a hypothetical example vs a real world example. I have not re-read the thread yet so I don't know where people stood on the issue.

 

How do you think the pedigree got on this coin?

[IrishMike]

Tom, coin was sent to PCGS in the slab, they cracked and dipped it out for the submitter. Not that I know for a certainty that they would do this.

[TomB]

Does PCGS still dip coins for submitters? If so, then that answers that post very quickly.

[DonHeath]

Hmmm. If Mike has it pegged, that explains the sequence in a fashion that maintains the integrity of the pedigree. If not, what would the submitter send that would prove pedigree? The coin, cracked slab, receipt, old flip, or some combination? Since PCGS apparently doesn't guaranty pedigree, and in many cases the original submitter is several owners removed from the sale of a holdered coin with pedigree, it seems a worthless appendage without satisfactory accompanying documentation.

 

OT, but what is NGC's position regarding requirements for pedigree and subsequent guaranty?

 

BTW - I much prefer the original toning. It looked like it had tons of luster with nice surfaces. The dipped coin looks like lifeless. JMO

 

 

 

[Hoot]

I've heard of PCGS dipping/conserving coins for submitters in the past, and I'd suspect that's what happened in this case.

 

Hoot

[Tradedollarnut]

How do I think the pedigree got there? I think the coin wouldn't cross without dipping. I think the coin was then sent to NCS with grade guaranty and "conserved". It was then put back into the same NGC grade holder, with pedigree, and crossed. Bingo. PCGS MS66 with pedigree.

[TomB]

Another valid explanation I didn't think of! Argh!

 

You know, I spent too much time today reading science and my brain is probably fried. Thanks.

[classicalman-migration]

Ohh for shame, Tom. You could not come up with every possibility!!

 

With all the knowledge you share here and teaching chemistry also, I would think there should be times when the old grey matter just isn't functioning right

 

Besides, reading chemistry and dealing with valence states, covalent bonds and such would turn anyone's brain to pudding. don't sweat it, guy!!

[Coinosaurus]

I'm gonna post on this side since we're all a bit more erudite over here....or at least like to think we are

 

First of all I am going to announce my bias in favor of the dipped coin, mind you I haven't seen it in person but just going off the photos it looks nicer to me.

 

Here's my scientific question about "originality" - it seems to me that with an electron microscope, or some other scientific doohickey, one could actually measure the height and volume and separation of the flow lines on the coin. The luster on the dipped version of this coin seems quite good from the photo, not super dipped out or anything. I speculate that the dipping in this case did NOT significantly impair the flow lines, and I think this could actually be measured. I think when we put numbers on this and realize that dipping is maybe a 1% impairment (or whatever) then maybe we can agree in some cases that dipping is OK (goodness knows I have a coin or two that could use it). The real problem is repeated dipping over time, not the one shots which like this.

[TomB]

Thank you, classicalman, for cutting me some slack. I was feeling seriously moronic for missing two very legitimate possibilities.

 

I must say that of the two explanations offered, I think the submission to NCS for curation, with grade protection, and then the PCGS crossover makes more sense to me. Kudos to IrishMike and TDN for taking the time to not only read through my flawed post but to give a reason.

 

Coinosaurus brings up some interesting points. First off, the choice of the dipped coin as being more attractive is a choice that I think most people in the hobby/industry would make. As for the issue of an electron microscope being able to visualize the changes brought about by dipping, well, it has already been done. In an issue of The Swiatek Numismatic Report there were before and after photos of a 1964 JFK that had been overdipped. I write overdipped because it was allowed to be in solution for 15 seconds and this is well beyond what most people would leave a coin in for. These images are also published in Scott Travers' book The Coin Collector's Survival Manual. Anyway, the images from a scanning electron microscope show dramatic changes in the flow lines. For those of you not familiar with flow lines, these are the microscopic raised lines on a coin that cause the appearance of luster. The dipping stripped those lines off almost completely.

 

Dipping is cumulative, that is, once a coin is dipped and the flow lines removed, another dip will do more stripping of the surface metal. In the case of this coin I agree that it does not looked overdipped and it is evident that the market agrees. I simply prefer the coffee toning on the coin before it was dipped.

 

 

[DonHeath]

Looking at the image and not the coin, what I see when I look at the conserved coin is a blotchy cheek, an almost leopard-like pattern in the obverse field (particularly the right obverse field), and the beginning of a dark retoning at 8:00 obverse. What I see in the first image is a nice original looking coin with tons of luster. I prefer coin #1. I suspect I'm in the minority. I think sometimes conservation is appropriate, but I'd have left that one alone.

 

TDN, very logical as usual. I think sometimes conservation is appropriate. I don't know if NCS conserved this coin, and I'm grateful NCS offers their service to collectors as I believe it takes many coins out of the hands of amateurs, but if I owned that coin, I'd have left it alone, even though it's probably more saleable now. Sometimes I'd rather see a coin like that and believe under the toning the surfaces were flawless than to see the surfaces and know they aren't.

[Coinosaurus]

So, the next step should be obvious........there must be some way of scientifically characterizing the "skin" on a coin and being able to predict which kinds of skin react better to dip (i.e. before you dip it can you consistently predict what the flow lines will look like afterwords). The crackout boys, of course, already do this by sight (and experience) to lesser or greater degrees of success.

[mlovest]

What do you mean by dipping the coin?

[TomB]

The term dipping is commonly used when a coin is subjected to a brief immersion in a mildly acidic solution and then washed clean with water. The dip, usually a thiourea based product, will dissolve silver sulfides and silver sulfates on the surface of the coin and will leave a mildly toned coin looking much brighter. If the dip and subsequent wash are done properly, and on a good candidate coin, then the coin would look very much like "new". What the dip actually does is to remove the flow lines from the surface of the coin and, with repeated dips or a single over-dip, the luster is killed and the coin looks flat and lifeless. Dipping is exceptionally common in the hobby/industry and the grading services typically do not hold it against a coin. In fact, coins are often upgraded after a dip.

 

I have never dipped a coin and I do not support the idea of dipping a coin unless it is done to remove a harmful surface contaminant. Otherwise, I would leave it alone.

[James_OldeTowne]

Gentlemen, let me first say that I personally do not put a premium on pedigreed coins, though Dennis disagrees with me. However, there is one advantage to knowing the pedigree of a coin, and that is the ability to see if it's been "changed" throughout its history. I can tell you from first hand experience (no not talking about the Norweb....) that many, many pedigreed coins have shamefully been dipped to "improve" them for salability. I used to have scathing remarks on our website that denounced the premium certification services place on dipped coins, and I believe it still holds true.

 

There's something to be said for removing ugly toning or surface contaminants, but dipping coins strictly for the speculative motive of getting them upgraded, which is what I believe to be the motive for most dips, is shameful.

 

I'm completely convinced that the two "Eliasberg" coins you've referenced are absolutely one and the same coin.

 

James