Are you smarter than PCGS?

[EZ_E]

Although I do have lots of respect for their service and contribution to the hobby, they ain't always right!

 

Here is a gorgeous type coin that I purchased a few years ago in an ANACS AU53 slab from Northern Nevada Coin. It has beautiful album toning. I even Asked Greg Margulies' opinion and he said it is definitely original and that man knows his stuff! (where is that masked man, btw?)

 

Anyway, PCGS returned it as questionable color last month. I just don't have it in my heart to agree.

[physics-fan3.14]

I scrolled down and looked at the pictures before I read your post. Honestly, the first thing I thought was "Maybe thats real, maybe its not?" Either way, it definitely looks market acceptable, and in hand I bet its really pretty.

[James_OldeTowne]

My gut reaction was immediately "AT". The problem is the way the color begins at the edges, flows up to the design, then suddenly stops. But then - mysteriously - it reappears WITHIN the recessed design elements. Yet at the head, it flows over the raised areas. This is not typical of album-induced toning. It just isn't consistent.

 

I know that coins very much like this get certified all the time as NT, but we all know that the errors go both ways, and I can easily be wrong. It's just my unscientific opinion....

[thebeav]

I've had quite a few smaller seated types over the years with similar album (probably Waite Raymond) color. That would be over a period of 30 years. Long before this type of color actually had value.

Love the coin........

[Coindude]

I've said this before and have to say it on this one as well. The coin looks cleaned, and the color looks relatively "new" for a coin that age. So, I must say, AT.

[truthteller]

I've said this before and have to say it on this one as well. The coin looks cleaned, and the color looks relatively "new" for a coin that age. So, I must say, AT.

 

 

I must agree. The color progression on the reverse is not original. Someone with knowledge of early type originality would know this.

 

 

 

TRUTH

[coinman1794]

I don't rightly know because this type of color is "possible" from an album. I qualify that by saying I don't think there's anything original about this coin, and it was likely dipped before going into that theoretical album (which could have made it extra suseptable to dramatic color changes).

 

Two terms are being bounced around here, original and natural, and they do not mean the same thing. Not original does nto automatically mean not natural, and thus AT, for instance.

 

 

[TomB]

It's surfaces have been stripped and then it retoned. Whether or not the toning might be considered natural, secondary toning or AT is something I do not know. Regardless, it is not original.

 

As for your title, being smarter than someone or some corporate decision is not the same thing as having more knowledge.

[Doogy]

Vic,

 

I vote for the missing category that reads:

 

"I think i'd have to see it in hand, to really get a feel for the coloring before rendering a decision"

 

while a long-winded category, it best describes my take.

 

 

[realone]

Sorry to say I see a dime that looks to good to be true color/toning wise; I see a reverse that looks harshly cleaned and thusly toned over to cover the abrasive cleaning results. The colors also look a little odd imho, sorry again.

[Barndog]

yes, the graders likely saw the color first, but they no doubt after that they noticed the areas that demonstrated lack of color and the surface characteristics that were very evident in those areas. So, perhaps they are thinking "all these hairlines (looks that way in the pic), looks like someone toned it up a bit to cover up the hairlines" -- so questionable color. All questionable color means (to me) is that the graders could not be certain the color was natural.

 

Submit again!

[EZ_E]

I appreciate all of the input. But, I think that most would agree that it is a pretty coin and I hope to get it graded so that I can add it to my type set.

[michael]

It's surfaces have been stripped and then it retoned. Whether or not the toning might be considered natural, secondary toning or AT is something I do not know. Regardless, it is not original.especailly so on the reverse!!!!!!

 

 

 

just based on the reverse i would have done exactly the same thing

 

sorry to say

[jgrinz]

hmmm I went unnaturally toned because of the comparison to this coin which IS graded by PCGS ... PURPLE on the edges look like an unreal color to me on this coin ...

 

[RareSov]

Looks too good to be true - first thought

 

Looks wrong - second thought

 

Why ? take a look at the U in united and the OF , especially the O. Where is the color ?

 

Edit - looks much better though in those pics ? I don't see white areas..

[okbustchaser]

Whether it is completely NT, completely AT, or some combination of the two it is by definition "questionable color" if ANYONE questions it. Therefore, there is only one possible answer to your poll.

 

That said, I do think that based on what I have seen over the past year that it would have slabbed this time last year, but I am not suprised that it failed now.

[BillJones]

As soon as I looked at the coin, AT flashed into my mind. Sorry. The colors are just too bright and too uniform. I can't say that I've ever seen a coin with natural toning that looked that way.

[mommam17]

I agree with Bill Jones. My first thought when I looked at coin was AT. Does not look NT, too good to be true.

[MarkFeld]

To me, the best giveaway that the coin is (in my opinion) AT, is the light pink or purple color that appears over a good portion of the reverse border.

 

By the way, I disagree with those who say the color is "too good to be true", as there are plenty of equally or more attractive coins out there which are, indeed, NT. Think about that for a moment - you might even remember having seen some of them.

[RGT]

It's surfaces have been stripped and then it retoned. Whether or not the toning might be considered natural, secondary toning or AT is something I do not know. Regardless, it is not original.

 

I have to agree with Tom (and several others). I have noticed that most (maybe all) circulated coins with this kind of blue color were cleaned/dipped and retoned. But the first thing that I noticed, and Mark already posted, was the purple near the rim. The color starts as yellow near the center and transitions through purple to blue, but then turns back to purple at the rim. I can't think of any natural toning environment that would cause that.

 

As for your title, being smarter than someone or some corporate decision is not the same thing as having more knowledge.

 

When I was in college I co-oped at Argonne National Laboratory. I met a student there who was 23 years old and completing his reserch for his PhD in Chemical Engineering (after having been a high school drop-out). He made the comment to me that there was a big difference between being smart and having a lot of knowledge. I have found it to be very true through the years but I have never heard anyone else say it that way.

[BillJones]

If it's of any help here is silver coin from the same era that is naturally toned.

 

 

BTW I don't care for 1843 half dime in the PCGS holder that was posted on page 2 of this thread. It looks AT to me also.

[coinman1794]

To me, the best giveaway that the coin is (in my opinion) AT, is the light pink or purple color that appears over a good portion of the reverse border.

 

By the way, I disagree with those who say the color is "too good to be true", as there are plenty of equally or more attractive coins out there which are, indeed, NT. Think about that for a moment - you might even remember having seen some of them.

 

I agree with Mark about the pink/purple reverse rims. That is not a typical natural color.

Also, natural toning can be spectacular, or horrific. As for those who point to specific breaks or anomilies in the toning as evidence of artificiality, I will ask you to keep in mind that toning is a natural process of oxidation caused by sulfurous compounds on the surface of silver. Contaminents, air flow, moister, and other environmental factors (coin holders, for example) determine where and how a coin tones, and there is no reason it has to be evenly toned or attractive. Nor is there any reason it can't be spectacular. If the coin has contaminents in curtain places, it might tone everywhere but those spots, or vice versa.

 

Determining AT can only be done by comparing the types of colors to well known original pieces, and by studying the underlying surfaces of a coin to see if it has ever been stripped. Even then, its all guess work, becuase many types of AT are just the natural process of oxidation speeded up with a catalist.

[realone]

I wanted to reply to my statement of " too good to be true" and what I meant by that. As the above poster said toning doesn't have to be beautiful, it can be toned down right fugly, believe me I had one, now being sold on Heritage next week btw but no longer mine but the photo is enhanced to make it appealing. And that was what I was getting at, with my above statement, it seems coin doctors either because they can't control the toning process well or that they just want to get as much bang for the buck/ their time will attempt to tone things in a big way, a stand out way, as much wild colors as possible to end up with a stand out toned coin thinking that they will hit pay day. I am not saying that I found the toning colors appealing but that it definitely stands out and asks to be noticed so when a buyer buys it they think that they are purchasing a monster toned coin that will justify the premium paid. Bottomline the toning colors are off with this one.

[Oldtrader3]

Having thought about this coin and owed a few seated dimes over the past several years, I find that I have to agree with the majority. This seated dime is recolored and green is not the correct shade for this vintage of a dime.

[EZ_E]

Of course, I'm disappointed to hear the majority's opinion but I appreciate hearing it.