• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Quick little anecdote regarding PCGS "altered surfaces" designation....

13 posts in this topic

As a cataloger, often I do not agree with the PCGS "altered surfaces" opinion on various coins. In many cases, the coin merely appears cleaned, and in other cases, the opinion simply seems erroneous. Granted, many times a coin seems to have no obvious cause to prompt the designation, and only careful examination reveals the problem, but I think they tend to overly use "altered surfaces" as a catch-all. NGC seems a little more correct in their usage of the term, and strangely enough, ANACS excels in proper usage, again all in my opinion

 

Some months ago, I sold an uncertified seated quarter to a client as EF-40, and it appeared to be a normal, nicely original coin with only slightly glossy surfaces. He threw it on the tail end of a small submission and was completely surprised (as was I) that PCGS bagged it for "altered surfaces" (this was just prior to their new "genuine" holder). Of course, I quickly refunded for the coin and upon inspection, could find nothing really wrong with it. A month goes by, and just on a whim, I rubbed it quickly and briefly between my fingers, which I guess made it a little less glossy if anything, and asked if he would kindly resubmit it on his next submission.

 

Lo and behold, it graded XF-45! I went ahead and re-sold the coin to him at my original XF-40 price, which meant he got at least $50 extra premium value, and naturally he could not be more pleased with it, now that it's in a slab.

 

It may be that rubbing the coin removed something that they just did not like, but to me, the coin looks really no different at all. So I guess the moral of this story is: If the coin seems legit, you can always resubmit. And maybe, just maybe, resubmissions add a little to the bottom line hm ...?

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

Perhaps you can help me with this issue. in 2003 I cracked a NGC Morgan PF-65. Lightly dipped it, submitted to PCGS in 2003 and PCGS body-bagged it as "altered surfaces".

 

It looks a lot better than the pre-crack version.

 

What might you suggest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I mention the Doritos consumed just prior to thumbing the coin lol ?

 

I didn't want to mention anything about Doritos for fear that you would think I was overdoing it.

 

Chris :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad you are not the only one perplexed by the use o "Altered Surfaces" for coins with no obvious problems or no problems at all. Sometimes I think "Altered Surfaces" is code for "try again". After giving these coins a thorough second look (and maybe a long soak in acetone), if I am convinced the coin is fine I will submit again, and usually half of those get graded. Of the half rejected again, I usually try NGC or ANACS, and usually at least half of those grade.

 

Now, not every "Altered Surfaces" coin I get back gets re-submitted. Many times I see the problem and then just sell the coin as is -- the PCGS "genuine" and NGC/ANACS "cleaned" coins do remarkably well on eBay (will full disclosure by me of the problem in my description).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a cataloger, often I do not agree with the PCGS "altered surfaces" opinion on various coins. In many cases, the coin merely appears cleaned, and in other cases, the opinion simply seems erroneous. Granted, many times a coin seems to have no obvious cause to prompt the designation, and only careful examination reveals the problem, but I think they tend to overly use "altered surfaces" as a catch-all. NGC seems a little more correct in their usage of the term, and strangely enough, ANACS excels in proper usage, again all in my opinion

 

Some months ago, I sold an uncertified seated quarter to a client as EF-40, and it appeared to be a normal, nicely original coin with only slightly glossy surfaces. He threw it on the tail end of a small submission and was completely surprised (as was I) that PCGS bagged it for "altered surfaces" (this was just prior to their new "genuine" holder). Of course, I quickly refunded for the coin and upon inspection, could find nothing really wrong with it. A month goes by, and just on a whim, I rubbed it quickly and briefly between my fingers, which I guess made it a little less glossy if anything, and asked if he would kindly resubmit it on his next submission.

 

Lo and behold, it graded XF-45! I went ahead and re-sold the coin to him at my original XF-40 price, which meant he got at least $50 extra premium value, and naturally he could not be more pleased with it, now that it's in a slab.

 

It may be that rubbing the coin removed something that they just did not like, but to me, the coin looks really no different at all. So I guess the moral of this story is: If the coin seems legit, you can always resubmit. And maybe, just maybe, resubmissions add a little to the bottom line hm ...?

 

:)

 

 

: If the coin seems legit, you can always resubmit. And maybe, just maybe, resubmissions add a little to the bottom line ...?

 

(thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you resubmit a coin (effectively paying twice the normal fee for service) be sure to include the numbers from your CLCT stock certificates. That will help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you resubmit a coin (effectively paying twice the normal fee for service) be sure to include the numbers from your CLCT stock certificates. That will help.

 

:signfunny::roflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all your thumb might not have made any difference, James. It was just that on one submission one group of graders body bagged it, and on another submission group graded it. I've also come to the conclusion that if you send in several coins at once, that the services body bag at least one piece for no good reason other that hopes of getting more money from a second submission.

 

I have never re-submitted a coin to the same service twice after it got a body bag. If one service body bags it the first time around, and I think that their opinion was full of it, I don't think that service deserves a second serving of my money. I’ve had several instances where PCGS body bagged a coin, but NGC graded it at the level I thought was fair. And I’ve had instances where NGC body bagged a coin and PCGS graded it at a fair level. I think the services lack consistency and with that I believe that rhyme and reason do not always prevail when it comes to rejections for certain types of real or imagined defects.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites