This large cent is stunning

[dan3e]

Ii like this coin!!! It is a definite keeper!!! Nice detail, nice luster, nice eye appeal! TRIFECTA!!!

[RockMyAmadeus]

First year of James Monroe's Presidency....

[Hard Times]

Never have I heard in an ANA grading guide or other guide that toning streaks due to poorly mixed alloy downgrades a coin. I find it adds to the eye appeal and it demonstrates originality.  

 

Okay, the ANA Grading Guide don't come out and say alloy mix, but they on the 12th page of color section (there are no page numbers in that section of the book) there is a 1795 Draped Bust silver dollar in EF-45 that has "a planchet flaw or rift at the left, at TED (UNITED) extending upward, a negative. Overall this is a "nice" example, but the flaw will dictate a slightly lower than usual price for this grade."

 

With Mint State coins, strike, alloy mix, planchet flaws and other mint cased defects kick in when the grade hits MS-65 and higher. A coin can be exactly as it was when it left the mint and not qualify for a grade like MS-65 or higher because of mint caused problems. This is just a fact of life.

 

Collectors are not going to pay super premium prices for coins with eye appeal issues. Grading services that put high grades like MS-65, 66 or 67 on such pieces are going to lose their credibility in the marketplace. When you buy an MS-65+ graded coin you expect a near perfect coin with no issues whatsoever.

 

Absolutely completely disagree that the poor ally mix on any coin hurts eye appeal. I think it enhances it......

[Hard Times]

The coin posted by the OP looks to me to be a MS-70ed Randall Hoard (although I must admit I don't know off the top of my head if this particular year/variety was present in the hoard) coin with some surface issues that likely looked much worse before it was improved.

 

A few related points...

 

The "blue" would be "blue green" if natural, like this coin: http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=394&Lot_No=599#Photo Whereas the particular shade of blue in the coin posted by the OP is MS-70, in my experience.

 

Keep in mind many of the Randall Hoard coins damaged by moisture in the kegs they were allegedly stored underground in. This, along with the bad alloy and followed by a soap, and you have the shiny blue coin pictured by the OP, IMO.

 

IMO, 64 is the right grade. Surfaces look clean enough for a 65, but the streaky nature of the obverse is a negative in the market. There is also some question as to the originality (or market-acceptability, if you will) of MS-70ed copper. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to read it's in PCGS slab -- they view these coins, particularly recently, with a suspicious eye.

 

 

Thanks your expert opinion and I guess you have dipped enough copper to have vast experience on what MS70d dipped copper looks like and what is deemed natural? You have obviously also been a grader for PCGS so you know exactly what they encapsulate? Man I post a gorgeous large cent, that the top TPG have graded and all this critical negativity? Last time I post a gorgeous cent. Mike why don't you post us something so I can tear it apart and say it should not be in a slab and HAPPY HOLIDAYS to you!

[Hard Times]

Here are my pics of the large cent. I ramped up the contrast about 5% to bring out its beauty. Say what you want about eye appeal and the mixed alloy and dipping, I will take it every time.

 

Happy Holidays, HT

 

 

 

[TomB]

"Man I post a gorgeous large cent, that the top TPG have graded and all this critical negativity? Last time I post a gorgeous cent."

 

I believe you may be getting as much critique and discussion regarding your coin as you are because in your first post you ask for discussion when you write-

 

"What do you think the grade is? Give an explanation that supports your grade."

 

You then responded yourself to many of the comments and kept the discussion moving forward.

[Hard Times]

Bill thanks for your input reading alloy issues with respect to grading. I have done some more exploring of 'Improper Alloy'. On Page 63 of 'Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection' by Travers and Dannreuther, PCGS, Edition #2:

 

"Improper Alloy

 

Improperly mixed metals can result in a variety of planchet problems. This may cause only streaky toning on some copper coins or even large gas bubbles under the surfaces, which sometimes explode, leaving a planchet flake or flaw. If poor mixing of the alloy leads only to streaky toning, the effect on the grade is minimal. This is quite common on 1908-S and 1909-S cents, including the 1909-S VDB....."

 

In another section discussing grading of copper it discusses eye appeal and streaky toning, and what constitutes a detraction versus something positive. I guess that is in the eye of the beholder, but technically according to this PCGS guide, I would interpret that the streaky toning of this specimen does not affect the grade given above, but likely PCGS interpreted it as affecting eye appeal. I find this to be interesting because to my eye it enhances it. Grading is interesting when coins have unique features such as this one.......

 

[BillJones]

I really don’t know why you so hot under the collar. You asked for grading opinions, and many of us told you Choice MS-64, Brown, which means it’s a nice coin. Then you are angry because it’s not graded MS-65 or 66, and we try to tell you why it doesn’t grade at that level. Despite what you might think of it, it is not a "wonder coin." Darn few U.S. coins from this era are "wonder coins."

 

Getting any coin of that age to the MS-65 or higher levels is very difficult. Time, numismatic abuse (cleaning, dipping, etc.), and the primitive conditions at the first U.S. mint all get involved with that. Even a coin that looks exactly as did when it fell from the dies at the first mint will probably not grade MS-65 or higher. Coins on that level not only need to be almost perfectly preserved, they also need to be almost perfectly MADE. One might not agree with that, but for those who pay prices that get into five figuers for dates that are otherwise considered common, that's what they want.

 

Improperly mixed metals can result in a variety of planchet problems. This may cause only streaky toning on some copper coins or even large gas bubbles under the surfaces, which sometimes explode, leaving a planchet flake or flaw. If poor mixing of the alloy leads only to streaky toning, the effect on the grade is minimal. This is quite common on 1908-S and 1909-S cents, including the 1909-S VDB....."

 

 

... AND PCGS should have added "the effect on the grade is minimal" for most pieces EXCEPT those on the GEM Mint State level.

[BROADSTRUCK]

HT, This cent has a LOT of issues...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As it needs the word "NOT" or a "SHIP" on the reverse!

[Hard Times]

Bill I am not 'hot under the collar' nor am I 'angry'. But rather than respond further, I am going to drop it here and simply say you misunderstood my posts to you if you interpret them in this manner.

 

 

[BillJones]

Let me put this issue to you this way.

 

When I was still a dealer I once had a 1907 High Relief $20 gold in PCGS MS-64. It was a beautiful coin, that I would have loved to have kept in my collection, BUT it had a very light copper spot in the area of the sun on the reverse. A number of dealers said that was a problem despite that fact that it was very light, and copper spots of part of the playing field with U.S. gold coins from that era.

 

The copper spot is perfectly natural and in fact is a marker that the coin is genuine, BUT when someone is going to pay almost $30,000 for something, they can get fussy.

[Hard Times]

I would have loved that copper spot even at $30K, means it is natural and has unique character, but point taken.

 

Cheers, HT

[BillJones]

I would have loved that copper spot even at $30K, means it is natural and has unique character, but point taken.

 

Cheers, HT

 

The copper spot did not bother me at all, but I already had a nice High Relief in MS-63 in my collection and the dealer from whom I had thd MS-64 on consignment wanted too much for it to re-sell.

 

My intent here is to help you, not knock down your collection.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

Bill Jones

[MikeInFL]

Thanks your expert opinion and I guess you have dipped enough copper to have vast experience on what MS70d dipped copper looks like and what is deemed natural?

I have indeed, but I don't consider my opinion "expert". It is my opinion, take it for what you will. Even better, why not go out and buy a bottle of MS-70, like I did, and experiment for yourself!

 

You have obviously also been a grader for PCGS so you know exactly what they encapsulate?

Nope, never been a grader. However, I am an active large cent collector, and have been, on and off, since childhood.

 

Man I post a gorgeous large cent, that the top TPG have graded and all this critical negativity?

I'm sorry if you took my comments on the coin, which you requested, in a negative light. I was only being honest in my opinion of the coin and why it graded what it did, and apologize if you didn't like it or took it personally.

 

Mike why don't you post us something so I can tear it apart and say it should not be in a slab and HAPPY HOLIDAYS to you!

A link to my registry sets appears at the bottom of all of my posts.You can see the rest of my large cent collection here: http://www.pbase.com/miker/large_cents Your comments are welcomed.

 

If you would like to comment on a coin similar to your own, try this one:

 

 

It's a Randall Hoard coin graded 64BN by PCGS (and CAC). You might note the more blue-green shade of blue than your coin -- as this was the color I was referring to in my first post to this thread as an indication of natural coloration.

 

If you are coming to FUN, I'd be happy to show you the coin in-hand and discuss the finer points of MS-70 versus natural toning and what, in my opinion, the market views as attractive and unattractive. PM me if you are interested.

 

Take care & happy holidays to you too....Mike

[robec1347]

Mike, I think that large cent just looks ok.........

 

 

 

 

in your set. It would look much nicer in mine.

[Hard Times]

 

If you would like to comment on a coin similar to your own, try this one:

 

 

It's graded 64BN by PCGS. You might note the more blue-green shade of blue than your coin -- as this was the color I was referring to in my first post to this thread as an indication of natural coloration.

 

Take care & happy holidays to you too....Mike

 

Looks like a nice large cent. I have quite a few, graded by NGC and PCGS copper coins and tokens that have various types of what may be deemed as blue toning at some level on them. I can't imagine they would grade all of these if their toning were artificial so I was quite surprised with your comment that you were surprised that PCGS graded my large cent. My apologies that I was miffed, but when one goes out and pays the kind of currency that we do for these coins, then when someone suggests it has artificial toning when it is certified by a top TPG, well it was disconcerting to say the least so I perhaps over-reacted. I had stated earlier in the thread, that the previous owner, who is a reputable fairly well know and regarded dealer who posts regularly ATS, sent in this specimen to PCGS 3 times and got the same grade (MS64) all three times. Hence, while PCGS would not budge up to 65, which mystified this dealer and frankly myself, but nevertheless, 3 times PCGS did not find the blue toning artificial. So I was surprised by your comment that suggests it is. Irrespective of how the toning got there PCGS certified it and apparently took issue with the toning streaks on the obverse. If that is how they want to grade it, and it appears from the comments on this thread that those lovely and original toning streaks are deemed to be detracting rather than adding to the eye appeal and originality (for heavens sake) then that must be why a large cent like this will can't get a higher grade. Frankly if the blue is truly artificial toning, then I think PCGS will have to re-imburse me for it since they certified it. I think that is their rule isn't it? I guess I will show them at the next show we are both at, lay the claim in front of them, mention a CS board member suggests this, and see where it goes.

 

Having said that, to be convinced that blue toning on mine is artificially produced as you suggest, I would have to see someone take a similar copper piece and produce this type of toning by whatever artificial mechanism it takes. I would take up your offer to discuss this further at FUN, but sadly, I can't come this year. Wish I could, I enjoyed the freezing tundra that was Orlando FUN last year.

 

Happy Holidays, HT

 

 

 

 

 

[Keigwin]

Not to derail this entertaining and highly educational thread, but I thought I'd share the lovely 1817 large cent I bought last week from Hard Times. This is an ex-Jules Reiver, ex-George Ramont specimen, graded AU58 by NGC.

 

Sadly, it has no attractive alloy-mix issues.

 

I'm a little afraid to ask opinions. .

 

Two sets of photos, from slightly different lighting conditions. MS70 blue is more evident in the second set.

 

Thanks, HT! I love it even if no one else does.

Lance.

 

[MikeInFL]

I have quite a few, graded by NGC and PCGS copper coins and tokens that have various types of what may be deemed as blue toning at some level on them. I can't imagine they would grade all of these if their toning were artificial so I was quite surprised with your comment that you were surprised that PCGS graded my large cent.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you heard of the term "market acceptable"?

 

My apologies that I was miffed, but when one goes out and pays the kind of currency that we do for these coins, then when someone suggests it has artificial toning when it is certified by a top TPG, well it was disconcerting to say the least so I perhaps over-reacted.

No need to apologize. I know precisely how you feel. I was in your shoes just a few years ago.

 

I had stated earlier in the thread, that the previous owner, who is a reputable fairly well know and regarded dealer who posts regularly ATS, sent in this specimen to PCGS 3 times and got the same grade (MS64) all three times. Hence, while PCGS would not budge up to 65, which mystified this dealer and frankly myself, but nevertheless, 3 times PCGS did not find the blue toning artificial.

Either I'm wrong, or PCGS thought the toning was natural or market acceptable.

 

I've not seen the coin in-hand, and the color could certainly be off, but I've seen that shade of blue many times after a soaping or MS-70 application, and that's what led me to say what I did. I could certainly be wrong.

 

Frankly if the blue is truly artificial toning, then I think PCGS will have to re-imburse me for it since they certified it. I think that is their rule isn't it?

Not quite in practice...if they deem it "market acceptable", as it appears they have, you will not be reimbursed. And remember, PCGS is the sole arbiter of that decision.

[Hard Times]

Keigwin, I don't think you have anything to worry about, it is a stunner, but I do offer full return if you are concerned about dipping.

 

 

[Keigwin]

Keigwin, I don't think you have anything to worry about, it is a stunner, but I do offer full return if you are concerned about dipping.

Sorry, no chance of a return. And no worries about color. I was just having a little fun.

 

I like it so much I cracked it for my set. Thank you for selling it to me!

Lance.

[Hard Times]

'I know precisely how you feel. I was in your shoes just a few years ago.'

 

MikeinFl - You were Mephisto's too? I don't think you understand so let me state it clearly this last time. I like the coin I bought, I feel it was properly conserved, and that is why PCGS graded it - the conservation brought out its beauty. If you have other tastes in what you want to buy, that is fine I have no problem with that and I respect that but it is a bit disingenuous to claim you have great knowledge on what is 'correct' to collect and I don't as the statement above implies. Be aware that many folks, like me, don't mind having properly conserved, top TPG graded coins in their collection and I don't feel bad about it at all as your statement above implies that I should feel bad about it and am not educated to what is correct to buy, even with the alleged MS70 tones coming out which are stunning.

 

I won't start a thread again with a new coin I just bought and naively ask for grading opinions, that is my mistake here because I was not looking for negative criticism and was not prepared to hear it. Instead I thought I was posting a stunning large cent for others to enjoy. Lesson learned.

 

 

 

[BillJones]

Here is the Maton Head cent from my type set. It is an 1818 in NGC MS-63 brown. This is the world's most common Randal hoard cent variety, an N-10.

 

Although this is no gem it's big time keeper for me. My wife gave to me as a wedding present. It was bought raw (and yes I picked it out), 27 years ago. And yes how the time flies!

 

[dean1345]

Even though I don't think the 1817 would receive a star rating, I would LOVE to

have it in my EAC collection.

[Hard Times]

Thanks Dean! Nice Randall Hoard LC Bill!

 

I have been mulling over what to do about the allegation that my 1817 large cent posted here with its lovely blue surface on the reverse, that one person suggested was AT despite being certified by PCGS. Needless to say that was a shocker to my system. So I started researching this out and I absolutely disagree with MikeinFl about this. Please see the thread I started about this issue.

 

You can imagine how disconcerting it is to have experts tell you a coin you just put alot of emotion (and currency) into is basically not good and AT despite what a top TPG thinks. So this past day has been a bummer, but that is why I decided to look into the issue. See what you think in the other thread, and if someone can prove MS70 causes patinated copper to instantaneously turn to blue toning, please provide proof through chemistry.

 

Happy Holidays, HT

[MikeInFL]

Prove it to yourself. Go to your laundry room with a handful of circulated pre-1983 pennies. Take some laundry detergent and pour over the cents. Rub it in bit with your finger, then go to the sink and wash them. When they are dried, flash them into the light. Please report back what you find, but you should note some of them turn blue when flashed, particularly the ones with a bit of "skin". Happy holidays to all...Mike

 

p.s. I never implied what was "correct" to collect, and if you looked through my website you most certainly should have noted quite a few "problem" and "conserved" large cents, and even an AT IHC that was likely the result of MS-70. They are what they are and if you like your coin, that's all that matters.

 

p.s.s. another way to duplicate the color is to send a penny through a wash-dry cycle.

 

[Tradedollarnut]

I'm very sorry to say, but if your dealer doesn't understand why that coin didn't receive an MS65 then it's time for a new dealer. It's a problem coin all the way around...negative eye appeal on the obverse and questionable color on the reverse.

[Hard Times]

Thanks TDN, your obviously authoritative and rich guy opinion is absolutely correct on what constitutes a problem coin in a PCGS MS64 holder - NOT

 

PCGS of course did not know what they were doing when the graded this, they did not realize that they were grading a problem coin as decreed by TDN or they would have rejected it as is their written policy for problem coins. Of course you, TDN are the true authority of what constitutes a problem coin, and TDN has multiple offers from the top TPG's to come be a grader with them and revolutionize with TDN's wisdom of what a problem coin is so that they can get this right. Puhlease..............

 

MikeinFL, I have received several PM's from others on the board here that absolutely disagree with you that the reverse of my large cent has toning anything to do with MS70. Also, one may ask, if MS70 was indeed used to conserve this coin, which is highly doubtful, then why is the obverse not showing blue toning yet has as vibrant in luster as does the reverse? Just like the Randall hoard coin you present above, the two sides are very different in toning. Why would the conserver not be systematic in their conservation of the coin and only apply this to one side? That goes completely against human nature and I doubt strongly anyone conserving this coin would just apply a conservation agent to one side. If so, then it is hard to credit the blue toning you imply as AT as being AT. Having said that, the blue toning on my large cent is very subdued and intermixed with brown patina, just as it should be with NT processes. On the other hand, your Randall cent is the same blue color that is shown on chemically altered indian cents ATS. .................

 

Not sure what the experiment you propose has anything to do with my large cent and you claim of MS70 toning? Are you implying that your laundry detergent and MS70 are the exact same chemical formula? I very much doubt it. Can you unequivocally say that all copper with blue toning obtained is through a laundry washing with detergent or by MS70? Of course you can't. It is possible that blue toning of various shades in/on copper can be the result of NT? Of course it can. So isn't it then just possible, that when detergent is used to clean a copper coin in the laundry, that if blue toning emerges it could have actually been there before the surface gunk was removed? Of course it could have been. Others on various boards suggest this. No single post anywhere I can find has presented a chemical reaction or any other hard science that suggests MS70 can do this to a coin instead of remove gunk and bring out the toning that was already there. If they have, then you need to show me rather than keep claiming that MS70 causes an immediate reaction on copper that tones it blue. For that condition to be met, MS70 has to have certain chemical characteristics that the manufacturer claims it does not. So the issue is still completely open in my view without demonstrable or quantifiable results. I will in fact test this and see exactly what is going on, but the laundry experiment you propose is simply silly as I note in the next sentence.

 

Silly me, I have managed to wash pre1983 pennies in the laundry many times through life, just can't seem to get them out of my pockets. Any hey, they don't have blue toning. Silly me...........

[Tradedollarnut]

Enjoy your coin. If it looks like the image, then you bought a problem coin. Of course, images don't tell all the story.

 

I'd be happy to pay for a resubmission raw if you want to go for MS65 on your own. Would be interesting to see if your dealer was blowing smoke up your patootie. I don't recommend taking me up on that offer, however.

[MikeInFL]

Hi HT!

 

You asked quite a few questions and touched on quite a few issues. I hope you don't mind if I parse your response finely and respond in kind....

 

PCGS of course did not know what they were doing when the graded this, they did not realize that they were grading a problem coin as decreed by TDN or they would have rejected it as is their written policy for problem coins.

Again please don't take this the wrong way, but you are being naive. Please do some research on "market acceptable", for that is the reason this coin was slabbed, IMO.

 

Of course you, TDN are the true authority of what constitutes a problem coin, and TDN has multiple offers from the top TPG's to come be a grader with them and revolutionize with TDN's wisdom of what a problem coin is so that they can get this right. Puhlease..............

TDN is an experienced collector, trying to help you, and has no reason to lie or talk down your coin.

 

MikeinFL, I have received several PM's from others on the board here that absolutely disagree with you that the reverse of my large cent has toning anything to do with MS70.

Really? Who? Have they actually used MS-70 on copper?

 

Also, one may ask, if MS70 was indeed used to conserve this coin, which is highly doubtful, then why is the obverse not showing blue toning yet has as vibrant in luster as does the reverse?

I have no idea why some coins, or only some parts of coins, react with MS-70, only that it happens. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you would spend as much time experimenting as you have taken writing all these posts, you would have already found out for yourself.

 

Just like the Randall hoard coin you present above, the two sides are very different in toning. Why would the conserver not be systematic in their conservation of the coin and only apply this to one side? That goes completely against human nature and I doubt strongly anyone conserving this coin would just apply a conservation agent to one side.

I suspect both sides of your coin were treated, however, only the reverse reacted in such a way to show the distinctive electric blue hue. I can't explain why this happens, only that it does. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you would put your keyboard down and do some experiments, I am beyond confident you would learn this for yourself.

 

On the other hand, your Randall cent is the same blue color that is shown on chemically altered indian cents ATS. .................

It is not the same color, as I have stated several times. If you saw a coin that turned blue from MS-70 and my coin side by side, like I offered to do at FUN, it would be immediately evident.

 

Not sure what the experiment you propose has anything to do with my large cent and you claim of MS70 toning? Are you implying that your laundry detergent and MS70 are the exact same chemical formula?

No, I am not implying that. But I am TELLING you that both detergent (I used Tide) and MS-70 result in a blue color on copper in some (but not all) cases.

 

Can you unequivocally say that all copper with blue toning obtained is through a laundry washing with detergent or by MS70?

Nope. I never used the word "all", and for good reason. I believe some of the blue-toned coins are natural, but in truth I have no way of knowing. I do KNOW that MS-70 turns copper blue.

 

So isn't it then just possible, that when detergent is used to clean a copper coin in the laundry, that if blue toning emerges it could have actually been there before the surface gunk was removed? Of course it could have been.

I cannot dispute the possibility, any more than you can dispute it does not happen. So, why is my conclusion (backed up by direct first-hand experience) wrong and yours is right?

 

That said, if the blue toning was there before the application of soap, where are the other colors? Remember, toning is the result of a thin film growing, and as it gets thicker it changes color. This is typical of all naturally toned coins. Where are the other colors on these coins?

 

Where are all the blue-toned copper sans gunk if it were there the whole time?

 

Others on various boards suggest this.

Really? Who? Have they actually used MS-70, or are they like you, never tried it but spent good money on (or deal in) blue-toned copper, and/or just want to hear what they want to hear?

 

No single post anywhere I can find has presented a chemical reaction or any other hard science that suggests MS70 can do this to a coin instead of remove gunk and bring out the toning that was already there. If they have, then you need to show me rather than keep claiming that MS70 causes an immediate reaction on copper that tones it blue.

I don't "need" to show you anything. Do the experiments yourself, and if your results are any different from Greg's or James' or my own, I will publicly apologize to you, Rick, and everyone else.

 

For that condition to be met, MS70 has to have certain chemical characteristics that the manufacturer claims it does not. So the issue is still completely open in my view without demonstrable or quantifiable results. I will in fact test this and see exactly what is going on, but the laundry experiment you propose is simply silly as I note in the next sentence.

Please do. I look forward to your results.

 

Silly me, I have managed to wash pre1983 pennies in the laundry many times through life, just can't seem to get them out of my pockets. Any hey, they don't have blue toning. Silly me...........

I suspect you're not paying close enough attention. Repeat the experiment again (don't use brand new shiny coins, the color change requires some skin to be present on the coin), and this time look carefully.

 

Listen, nobody likes to realize the coin they just bought isn't viewed in the same way by others. Nobody likes to think their coin's color may be unnatural. It is a bitter pill to swallow, so I can completely understand why you may be skeptical and emotional. Please believe me when I tell you I am only trying to share my own personal experience with these coins so that you don't repeat the same mistake that I and others have made.

 

PLEASE TRY IT YOURSELF!

[Tradedollarnut]

I have an 1820 large cent that is currently raw after being body bagged at PCGS. The dealer I bought it from sold it to me after he received it back and claimed that it came out of a rattler MS64 holder ... he cracked it seeking an MS65 [i have no reason to disbelieve him]. The coin is blue like the reverse of the coin in question here and IMO not natural tho very beautiful. I bought the coin because I liked it and it was cheap, but I know it will never be slabbed. I tried it once myself with the same result.

 

However, IF this coin had been resubmitted IN THE HOLDER for grade review, it would still be in a PCGS 64 holder as it's not so horrid that PCGS would want to pay to have it removed.

 

So - what do we know from all this? Blue copper gets bodybagged by the services SOMETIMES and is in their holders SOMETIMES.