Part 3/3 - NGC "obverse cleaned" Grading Analysis for 1880-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.

 

The 1880-S silver dollar shown below was given an "OBV IMPROPERLY CLEANED" disclaimer by NGC. The coin itself is somewhat prooflike and actually could have earned that accolade, but in my experience, no such award will be made for a "problem coin". The submitter did not agree with the "cleaning" disclaimer, thinking the coin was as nice as many similar coins the he has seen in fairly nigh grade.

 

In this case, experience gives me some advantage over the submitter, as it rapidly became apparent that the coin has, indeed, been cleaned. The last five images illustrate rotation of the coin under an unmoving camera and lighting source. In four of the five images, we can clearly see the hairlines, first in front of Liberty's profile when the lighting source is 90 degrees off right, sweeping down in front of the throat as the lighting source rotates 45 degrees to upper right. The crucial observation takes place in the final image, when the lighting source is directly above - which represents normal viewing conditions. In that case, the hairlines cannot be seen at all, making the coin appear original and non-cleaned. This greatly underscores the importance of examining a coin under all rotation angles in order to see evasive hairlines that suggest cleaning. It is easier to see these characteristics with a raw coin - the slab makes it a little more difficult to illustrate the problem with regard to getting the lighting angle "just right" through the slab.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[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.

 

The 1880-S silver dollar shown below was given an "OBV IMPROPERLY CLEANED" disclaimer by NGC. The coin itself is somewhat prooflike and actually could have earned that accolade, but in my experience, no such award will be made for a "problem coin". The submitter did not agree with the "cleaning" disclaimer, thinking the coin was as nice as many similar coins the he has seen in fairly nigh grade.

 

In this case, experience gives me some advantage over the submitter, as it rapidly became apparent that the coin has, indeed, been cleaned. The last five images illustrate rotation of the coin under an unmoving camera and lighting source. In four of the five images, we can clearly see the hairlines, first in front of Liberty's profile when the lighting source is 90 degrees off right, sweeping down in front of the throat as the lighting source rotates 45 degrees to upper right. The crucial observation takes place in the final image, when the lighting source is directly above - which represents normal viewing conditions. In that case, the hairlines cannot be seen at all, making the coin appear original and non-cleaned. This greatly underscores the importance of examining a coin under all rotation angles in order to see evasive hairlines that suggest cleaning. It is easier to see these characteristics with a raw coin - the slab makes it a little more difficult to illustrate the problem with regard to getting the lighting angle "just right" through the slab.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

[James_OldeTowne]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

My guess is there will be difficulty in those situations whereby the prooflike character was caused by the cleaning. In other words, if I polish a frosty coin, making it now highly reflective and mirrorlike, should it now deserve to be called "prooflike"?

[mikew148]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned. Picture 4 shows the damaged, non PL surface, quite clearly.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned.

 

Maybe, however is it logical? If a coin can be identified as a prooflike coin, it does not change simply because it is less prooflike due to improper treatment.

 

Again, why not label the coin as prooflike cleaned?

 

I understand it may not be prooflike in the areas cleaned, but not describing the fact that it was prooflike and handled improperly is just as illogical as stating a proof coin is no longer proof because it has impairment.

[mikew148]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned.

 

Maybe, however is it logical? If a coin can be identified as a prooflike coin, it does not change simply because it is less prooflike due to improper treatment.

 

Again, why not label the coin as prooflike cleaned?

 

I understand it may not be prooflike in the areas cleaned, but not describing the fact that it was prooflike and handled improperly is just as illogical as stating a proof coin is no longer proof because it has impairment.

 

I think NGC got this one right. I mean, How can they state that the coin used to be PL where the cleaning took place? They can't. The crime was in the cleaning, not the grading.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned.

 

Maybe, however is it logical? If a coin can be identified as a prooflike coin, it does not change simply because it is less prooflike due to improper treatment.

 

Again, why not label the coin as prooflike cleaned?

 

I understand it may not be prooflike in the areas cleaned, but not describing the fact that it was prooflike and handled improperly is just as illogical as stating a proof coin is no longer proof because it has impairment.

 

I think NGC got this one right. I mean, How can they state that the coin used to be PL where the cleaning took place? They can't. The crime was in the cleaning, not the grading.

 

I don't question the crime, only the logic of labeling.

 

Applying the Feld Hypothetical Rule, the OP it was somwhat prooflike and could have possibly received the designation. It follows that there is enough evidence that the coin is prooflike, and this quality was impaired by cleaning.

 

Again, would this be the same with an impaired proof?

 

I am not stating they got it wrong. I am stating brevity of factual labeling.

[Mikes new hobby-migration]

When i sent in and received these coin i examined them untill i was blue in the face, and did not notice the hairlines in any of my observations, but can clearly see then now, my question is now that i can see the hairlines, can i assume that the person that cleaned the coins only cleaned the field of the coin to make me think it was proof like? because obviously the cheek was clearly not cleaned, and now i see the hairlines i understand the "improperly cleaned" definition a little better. And i agree it should not receive a proof like designation because it was altered by some one.

[jayman1970]

Some coins with details grading have multiple problems,but only one is listed on the holder.

[mikew148]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned.

 

Maybe, however is it logical? If a coin can be identified as a prooflike coin, it does not change simply because it is less prooflike due to improper treatment.

 

Again, why not label the coin as prooflike cleaned?

 

I understand it may not be prooflike in the areas cleaned, but not describing the fact that it was prooflike and handled improperly is just as illogical as stating a proof coin is no longer proof because it has impairment.

 

I think NGC got this one right. I mean, How can they state that the coin used to be PL where the cleaning took place? They can't. The crime was in the cleaning, not the grading.

 

I don't question the crime, only the logic of labeling.

 

Applying the Feld Hypothetical Rule, the OP it was somwhat prooflike and could have possibly received the designation. It follows that there is enough evidence that the coin is prooflike, and this quality was impaired by cleaning.

 

Again, would this be the same with an impaired proof?

 

I am not stating they got it wrong. I am stating brevity of factual labeling.

 

The fact that the coin has non PL surfaces in an area of the coin means it's not PL. Can you say with 100% certainty that this coin was PL in the cleaned area? NGC is not going to, or should they ever, guess what a surface of a coin looked like before the damage was done. That would be speculation. Their job is to look at the coin and grade it for what it is. In this case an improperly Cleaned Coin.

 

It's a shame that this otherwise beautiful coin now lives in this holder, but NGC had no choice. It is what it is.

 

What would you have them do in this case?

 

 

[MarkFeld]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned.

 

Maybe, however is it logical? If a coin can be identified as a prooflike coin, it does not change simply because it is less prooflike due to improper treatment.

 

Again, why not label the coin as prooflike cleaned?

 

I understand it may not be prooflike in the areas cleaned, but not describing the fact that it was prooflike and handled improperly is just as illogical as stating a proof coin is no longer proof because it has impairment.

 

I think NGC got this one right. I mean, How can they state that the coin used to be PL where the cleaning took place? They can't. The crime was in the cleaning, not the grading.

 

I don't question the crime, only the logic of labeling.

 

Applying the Feld Hypothetical Rule, the OP it was somwhat prooflike and could have possibly received the designation. It follows that there is enough evidence that the coin is prooflike, and this quality was impaired by cleaning.

 

Again, would this be the same with an impaired proof?

 

I am not stating they got it wrong. I am stating brevity of factual labeling.

 

John, if a coin is produced as a Proof, it remains such, even if circulated and worn. Of course at a certain point, unless it is a Proof-only issue, it might be impossible to make the determination.

 

A prooflike dollar, on the other hand, is supposedly deemed such, based in large part on the reflectivity of the surface, from such and such a distance. If the surfaces have been impaired to the extent that they no longer exhibit that reflectivity from such and such a distance, it justifiably, no longer qualifies as a "prooflike".

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned.

 

Maybe, however is it logical? If a coin can be identified as a prooflike coin, it does not change simply because it is less prooflike due to improper treatment.

 

Again, why not label the coin as prooflike cleaned?

 

I understand it may not be prooflike in the areas cleaned, but not describing the fact that it was prooflike and handled improperly is just as illogical as stating a proof coin is no longer proof because it has impairment.

 

I think NGC got this one right. I mean, How can they state that the coin used to be PL where the cleaning took place? They can't. The crime was in the cleaning, not the grading.

 

I don't question the crime, only the logic of labeling.

 

Applying the Feld Hypothetical Rule, the OP it was somwhat prooflike and could have possibly received the designation. It follows that there is enough evidence that the coin is prooflike, and this quality was impaired by cleaning.

 

Again, would this be the same with an impaired proof?

 

I am not stating they got it wrong. I am stating brevity of factual labeling.

 

John, if a coin is produced as a Proof, it remains such, even if circulated and worn. Of course at a certain point, unless it is a Proof-only issue, it might be impossible to make the determination.

 

A prooflike dollar, on the other hand, is supposedly deemed such, based in large part on the reflectivity of the surface, from such and such a distance. If the surfaces have been impaired to the extent that they no longer exhibit that reflectivity from such and such a distance, it justifiably, no longer qualifies as a "prooflike".

 

I certainly understand.

 

The OP stated the coin is somewhat prooflike and could have earned that accolade, but being a problem coin it will not.

 

Feld Hypothetical Rule applys.

 

This does not set aside what the coin is - a prooflike coin that was improperly cleaned. What impropriety is caused by labeling thus?

 

Again, if it can be deduced that the coin was prooflike, and due to improper handling is now less so, then label it such.

 

The coin in question is not receiving a grade, it is receiving a description. "Cleaned" is not a Grade.

 

My illustration via an impaired proof is exactly what you state: impairment does not change the fact that it is proof.

 

It follows that if a coin can be seen to have beeen prooflike had it not been for an improper cleaning of a certain part of the coin, then its should be stated correctly as such. This is not a Grade issue. It is a labeling issue.

 

A comparison description would be a copper cent labeled brown, red brown, red, etc. Colors are not Grades.

 

Is a technical Grade of lets say 64 less so because of color? That may be true of market grading. It should not be so for technical grading.

 

The same logic should be applied.

[mikew148]

My only question is why should the coin not be labeled as prooflike cleaned?

Wouldn't that be technically corrrect?

 

Would it be market grading correct?

 

The coin is undeserving of a PL designation as it is no longer PL in the areas where it was cleaned.

 

Maybe, however is it logical? If a coin can be identified as a prooflike coin, it does not change simply because it is less prooflike due to improper treatment.

 

Again, why not label the coin as prooflike cleaned?

 

I understand it may not be prooflike in the areas cleaned, but not describing the fact that it was prooflike and handled improperly is just as illogical as stating a proof coin is no longer proof because it has impairment.

 

I think NGC got this one right. I mean, How can they state that the coin used to be PL where the cleaning took place? They can't. The crime was in the cleaning, not the grading.

 

I don't question the crime, only the logic of labeling.

 

Applying the Feld Hypothetical Rule, the OP it was somwhat prooflike and could have possibly received the designation. It follows that there is enough evidence that the coin is prooflike, and this quality was impaired by cleaning.

 

Again, would this be the same with an impaired proof?

 

I am not stating they got it wrong. I am stating brevity of factual labeling.

 

John, if a coin is produced as a Proof, it remains such, even if circulated and worn. Of course at a certain point, unless it is a Proof-only issue, it might be impossible to make the determination.

 

A prooflike dollar, on the other hand, is supposedly deemed such, based in large part on the reflectivity of the surface, from such and such a distance. If the surfaces have been impaired to the extent that they no longer exhibit that reflectivity from such and such a distance, it justifiably, no longer qualifies as a "prooflike".

 

I certainly understand.

 

The OP stated the coin is somewhat prooflike and could have earned that accolade, but being a problem coin it will not.

 

Feld Hypothetical Rule applys.

 

This does not set aside what the coin is - a prooflike coin that was improperly cleaned. What impropriety is caused by labeling thus?

 

Again, if it can be deduced that the coin was prooflike, and due to improper handling is now less so, then label it such.

 

The coin in question is not receiving a grade, it is receiving a description. "Cleaned" is not a Grade.

 

My illustration via an impaired proof is exactly what you state: impairment does not change the fact that it is proof.

 

It follows that if a coin can be seen to have beeen prooflike had it not been for an improper cleaning of a certain part of the coin, then its should be stated correctly as such. This is not a Grade issue. It is a labeling issue.

 

A comparison description would be a copper cent labeled brown, red brown, red, etc. Colors are not Grades.

 

Is a technical Grade of lets say 64 less so because of color? That may be true of market grading. It should not be so for technical grading.

 

The same logic should be applied.

 

 

 

Currently, the coin does not meet the criteria for a PL designation. Did it at one time? Possibly.

It's not NGC's responsibility to determine past conditions of coins. They're grading what we send them.

 

Regarding the copper color question......Color names such as RB or Brown are naturally occurring conditions of the metal. If you had a copper coin with AT/questionable color, that would be more of an apples to apples comparison, and NGC would details grade it as well. I say apples to apples because these would both be things that were "done to" the coins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Yup, damaged coin. Clearly shows hairlines. I don't understand what the question is?

[coinman1794]

This piece is actually harshly cleaned, and unfortunately, the submitter does not know what he's talking about.

[James_OldeTowne]

the submitter does not know what he's talking about.

But he wants to learn . I give him much credit for that!

[jerseycat10]

This piece is actually harshly cleaned, and unfortunately, the submitter does not know what he's talking about.

 

Disagree. Don't think it is severe or prevalent enough to be considered harsh.

 

This, on the other hand, is harsh cleaning, and I have no idea why NGC did not label it as such:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=131307&lotNo=26918

[Coindude]

Jersey, I believe that the coin you have linked is beyond Harsh! The only thing left for this one would be to have it polished. Maybe the coin in question isn't "harshly" cleaned, but it is thoroughly cleaned and by something worse than a dishcloth.

[mkman123]

glad to see NGC grading things correctly!

[coinman1794]

This piece is actually harshly cleaned, and unfortunately, the submitter does not know what he's talking about.

 

Disagree. Don't think it is severe or prevalent enough to be considered harsh.

 

This, on the other hand, is harsh cleaning, and I have no idea why NGC did not label it as such:

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=131307&lotNo=26918

 

I will rephrase my statement: this 80-S is very harshly spot-cleaned; i.e., it was cleaned very harshly in one spot. There can be no disagreement about that, and this coin could never as grade problem-free.

[coinman1794]

the submitter does not know what he's talking about.

But he wants to learn . I give him much credit for that!

 

That's good to hear, James!

[coinman_23885]

I agree with Uncirculated details cleaned. The hairlines are obvious.