Part 2/3 - NGC "obverse cleaned" Grading Analysis for 1882-S silver dollar

[James_OldeTowne]

Disclaimer: I was compensated to create three discussions with regard to questions about NGC grading. The goal is to elicit additional input from our fellow board members.

 

Shown below is an 1882-S silver dollar for which NGC supplied an "OBVERSE IMPROPERLY CLEANED" disclaimer. The submitter did not agree that the disclaimer was appropriate, as the coin might appear to be as nice as, or nicer than competing coins in straight-graded holders.

 

To my eye, the evidence is quite light, and may not really pertain to "cleaning" at all, as the hairlines could well be merely incidental. Nevertheless, they are there and without being able to know the source of the hairlines, NGC's stance is understandable, as the hairlines show up as rather brief, but fairly numerous wispy white lines in the obverse left field. Note from the last two images that the hairlines may be seen at one illumination angle, but I simply rotated the coin a little under identical lighting conditions and viewing angle to show that they can be easily missed. This underscores the importance of rotating a coin in-hand when looking for evidence of cleaning. It is easier to see these characteristics with a raw coin - the slab makes it somewhat more difficult to illustrate the problem in this case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Disclaimer: I was compensated to create three discussions with regard to questions about NGC grading. The goal is to elicit additional input from our fellow board members.

 

Shown below is an 1882-S silver dollar for which NGC supplied an "OBVERSE IMPROPERLY CLEANED" disclaimer. The submitter did not agree that the disclaimer was appropriate, as the coin might appear to be as nice as, or nicer than competing coins in straight-graded holders.

 

To my eye, the evidence is quite light, and may not really pertain to "cleaning" at all, as the hairlines could well be merely incidental. Nevertheless, they are there and without being able to know the source of the hairlines, NGC's stance is understandable, as the hairlines show up as rather brief, but fairly numerous wispy white lines in the obverse left field. Note from the last two images that the hairlines may be seen at one illumination angle, but I simply rotated the coin a little under identical lighting conditions and viewing angle to show that they can be easily missed. This underscores the importance of rotating a coin in-hand when looking for evidence of cleaning. It is easier to see these characteristics with a raw coin - the slab makes it somewhat more difficult to illustrate the problem in this case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My question would be if cleaning can not be proved, much less improper cleaning, and there is a very reasonable chance that the coin could be innocent, then is it proper to definitively condemn the coin as improperly cleaned?

 

Would it be better to label the coin as questionable cleaning or possible cleaning?

[James_OldeTowne]

I have grown to greatly dislike the term "cleaned", period, with regard to grading. At least as the issue pertains to abrasive procedures, a much better term would be "improper hairlines", or perhaps "excessive hairlines". That would express the source of the grading disclaimer without necessarily condemning the process which imparted the hairlines.

 

I am referring, of course, only to abrasive procedures, rather than those that clean coins chemically or in other ways.

 

Edited to add: In other words, there are numerous opportunities and scenarios under which coins receive hairlines under proper conditions. The mere act of sliding a coin over a rough wooden countertop during a poker game can cause hairlines, yet there is nothing suspicious or illicit in their nature. Or someone could pick a coin up out of a mud puddle and wipe off the mud, thus imparting hairlines. I personally believe the pendulum has swung a little too far toward excessive caution in some cases. Why not simply grade the coin MS-60, which is an implicit way of stating it has problems?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I have grown to greatly dislike the term "cleaned", period, with regard to grading. At least as the issue pertains to abrasive procedures, a much better term would be "improper hairlines", or perhaps "excessive hairlines". That would express the source of the grading disclaimer without necessarily condemning the process which imparted the hairlines.

 

I am referring, of course, only to abrasive procedures, rather than those that clean coins chemically or in other ways.

 

I agree with your points.

 

The cabinet friction fiction abuse comes to mind, as does the die wipe stripe.

[physics-fan3.14]

I absolutely see hairlines. Hairlines are most commonly associated with cleaning of some sort, and destroy the appeal of a coin (despite all of your devil's advocate type scenarios above - I don't care why the hairlines are there, just that they are). You can argue about the terms on the label, or the cause of the hairlines, but the commonly accepted term is "improperly cleaned." Hairlines are not market acceptable, no matter what the cause. Thus, I agree with the label, and I agree with the details grade.

[James_OldeTowne]

Hairlines are not market acceptable, no matter what the cause. Thus, I agree with the label, and I agree with the details grade.

Proof coins at the PF-64 level have some hairlines, and at PF-63, they almost always have obvious hairlines. And below that, we've all seen coins that were positively infested with them. Yet the subject coin has FAR fewer hairlines than most any PF-64.

 

So why the double standard?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Hairlines are not market acceptable, no matter what the cause. Thus, I agree with the label, and I agree with the details grade.

Proof coins at the PF-64 level have some hairlines, and at PF-63, they almost always have obvious hairlines. And below that, we've all seen coins that were positively infested with them. Yet the subject coin has FAR fewer hairlines than most any PF-64.

 

So why the double standard?

 

You show a business strike, and then mention proofs. Two completely different grading scales - you know that. The two are not comparable, even though they are similar.

[coinman1794]

A proof with obvious hairlines should be labeled as improperly cleaned, but so should this 1882-S dollar.

 

Proofs were generally handled differently so they were subject to different types of damage, and they also display their flaws differently than frosty coins, so there are natural differences in how they grade.

 

The presence of surface damage, and not the act of removing dirt/contaminants is what constitutes the cleaned designation.

[James_OldeTowne]

Hairlines are not market acceptable, no matter what the cause. Thus, I agree with the label, and I agree with the details grade.

Proof coins at the PF-64 level have some hairlines, and at PF-63, they almost always have obvious hairlines. And below that, we've all seen coins that were positively infested with them. Yet the subject coin has FAR fewer hairlines than most any PF-64.

 

So why the double standard?

 

You show a business strike, and then mention proofs. Two completely different grading scales - you know that. The two are not comparable, even though they are similar.

You generalized with the statement "hairlines are not market acceptable, no matter what the cause", and I showed that right off the bat, it is not a good generalization because it ignores grading of proof coins. But let's not even generalize that far, and stick to circulation strikes.

 

For fun, I searched Heritage archives on Morgan dollars for "hairlines", and 918 items showed up. These are ONLY the examples where the cataloger bothered to mention them - obviously numerous other coins have hairlines not called out specifically in the text.

 

Here is a random example , and here's another one , and here is yet another . These are coins with obvious hairlines showing in the images, yet all have been found market acceptable and straight-graded. I would agree that an excess of hairlines might be deemed as not market acceptable in many or most cases, but to imply that they are never acceptable is easily disproven by this simple exercise.

[physics-fan3.14]

Perhaps I was too absolute, James, as I am wont to do. Let me rephrase - hairlines are not market acceptable to me. The TPGs can do whatever they want, as they usually do - I do not like coins with hairlines, and avoid them if at all possible (and it doesn't matter if they are proof or business strike).

[Raisethis2]

 

 

NGC uses the term "improperly cleaned " whenever a coin exhibits hairlines or has been dipped impairing luster more than they're comfy with allowing. The use of the term is a money maker because any coin submitted which is returned to it's owner in a body bag or slabbed will invariably be resold only to be submitted again and again.

 

There's no economic incentive to become more forgiving or descriptive by either of the top TPG's in my humble opinion. What really gets my dander up is that the TPG's seem to be more forgiving of older or more important coins.

 

Maybe that's just me though...

[Deerefan8420]

I think NGC got this one right. The hairlines are there. I understand that if you rotate the coin in hand that some of the hairlines are no longer visible. But what's one of the first things a collector does when he gets a coin in his hand? He rotates it to different angles to see if there are any imperfections not visible through the current angle of the coin. Well, maybe not every collector does that but I know that I do. And cleaning a coin imparts different characteristics on the surface of the coin that is more easily observed under magnification. If the submitter is not happy with the current grade, he can always send it in for a regrade. Another grader at NGC may see the coin differently than the one who graded it before. Grading is always subjective and varies from person to person. But that's just my two cents, for what it's worth.

[mkman123]

hard to see, but I'm not good at grading things

[James_OldeTowne]

Perhaps I was too absolute, James, as I am wont to do. Let me rephrase - hairlines are not market acceptable to me. The TPGs can do whatever they want, as they usually do - I do not like coins with hairlines, and avoid them if at all possible (and it doesn't matter if they are proof or business strike).

(thumbs u Thanks much for the clarification!

[coinman_23885]

I agree that the hairlines could be incidental, but I think NGC made the correct call. I would have placed it in a details holder as well.

 

 

The submitter did not agree that the disclaimer was appropriate, as the coin might appear to be as nice as, or nicer than competing coins in straight-graded holders.

 

They also sometimes slab AT, puttied, lightly cleaned, and other dogs in error. I would caution your submitter about relying on small sample sizes.

[coinman_23885]

Hairlines are not market acceptable, no matter what the cause. Thus, I agree with the label, and I agree with the details grade.

Proof coins at the PF-64 level have some hairlines, and at PF-63, they almost always have obvious hairlines. And below that, we've all seen coins that were positively infested with them. Yet the subject coin has FAR fewer hairlines than most any PF-64.

 

So why the double standard?

 

The official rationale is that collectors mainly collected proof coins in the 19th century and it was a common practice for the collectors to clean them; business strike coins, however, were thought to be treated differently. This has given rise to the double standard that you reference. Regardless, I agree that the distinction is rubbish and proof coins with significant hairlines should not grade in problem free holders. If this means that few, if any, end up in problem free holders, then so be it.

 

On another subject (but that relates to the submitter's comments about seeing similar coins in holders), the grading services were often very loose and in the days of body bags (i.e. before the introduction of details grading) and many coins were deemed "too nice" to body bag; thus, they were silently netgraded. In addition to 19th century proofs, early bust coinage also sticks out in my mind. Many lightly cleaned pieces were graded in problem free holders. Certainly your submitter may come across such coins in the future and should be aware that the fact that a TPG accepts it in a small number of cases, does not necessarily mean that it is or will be market acceptable in the future.

[coinman_23885]

The cabinet friction fiction abuse comes to mind, as does the die wipe stripe.

 

I agree regarding the cabinet friction abuse, but was going to save that for a future thread. I'm not sure why a collector should care whether the wear came from being in someone's pocket as opposed to "cabinet" or "album" induced friction, but the point of the story is ultimately the same: what is sometimes accepted by third party grading services is not always going to be accepted in the future (and of course, errors happen; however, I doubt that the TPGs would consider these abuses "errors"). This is why CAC has become so popular in my opinion.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Good discussion.

 

I also don't care for the term "cleaned" in many cases; we should be able to get an exhaustive thesaurus out and come up with better and more precise terms. I have heard some dealers use terms like "brushy", but not apropos on a coin holder. Whoever was responsible for damaging all these coins should be ridden on a rail out of town!

 

PMG uses the term "net" for currency, preferable to "apparent" what PCGS uses. The latter term has the connotation of "so called", "apparition", etc., not real. Probably too late now for them to come up with a different nomenclature for their net notes.

 

BTW I had a details graded Saint come back from NGC before the New Year, put it on a window sill for a month and it graded MS64 at a major grading service! So there is hope for all those details graded coins, put it in a Wayte-Ramond style holder for a year or so, and you may get a numerical grade!

[jimjum12]

I have grown to greatly dislike the term "cleaned", period, with regard to grading. At least as the issue pertains to abrasive procedures, a much better term would be "improper hairlines", or perhaps "excessive hairlines". That would express the source of the grading disclaimer without necessarily condemning the process which imparted the hairlines.

 

I am referring, of course, only to abrasive procedures, rather than those that clean coins chemically or in other ways.

 

Edited to add: In other words, there are numerous opportunities and scenarios under which coins receive hairlines under proper conditions. The mere act of sliding a coin over a rough wooden countertop during a poker game can cause hairlines, yet there is nothing suspicious or illicit in their nature. Or someone could pick a coin up out of a mud puddle and wipe off the mud, thus imparting hairlines. I personally believe the pendulum has swung a little too far toward excessive caution in some cases. Why not simply grade the coin MS-60, which is an implicit way of stating it has problems?

 

.....the voice of reason in a sea of madness. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

P.S. I still fail to see why it even matters below a certain grade.....unless excessive and obtrusive.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Here is an example of a much better date "ugly" 3 Bust half I sold a couple of months back: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=251195891869

 

The coin had the merits of an AU with some cleaning in the fields; so a decision was made to net it down in my opinion. As an XF details or AU details coin what would it have been worth? Considerably less. I fully understand that the grading services need to protect themselves by net grading certain coins.

[brg5658]

You can argue about the terms on the label, or the cause of the hairlines, but the commonly accepted term is "improperly cleaned."

 

Actually, I have seen dozens of coins with more specific terms on the labels from NGC. The "improperly cleaned" description is only used when one of the more specific descriptions is not abundantly relevant. "Improperly cleaned" is noted by NGC as the most generic and uninformative of the descriptions, so James is justified in his annoyance with the vague term, IMO.

 

Here is the full list of "improperly cleaned" descriptors used by NGC.

[Raisethis2]

After reviewing this discussion I'm left with the opinion that some coins (generally older proof and bust issues) get a pass when lightly cleaned or hairlined and numerical grades while common business strikes with ANY cleaning flaws get body bagged or downgraded to near worthless (market graded) status.

 

I'd like to see the TPG's at least clarify with much greater detail what the issue with the coin actually is. I've submitted coins with full cartwheel, visible luster and zero hairlines that come back because the color is unacceptable (I guess). An accounting of the actual issue would be helpful.