1883 Morgan - How does this happen?

[wdrob]

 

The following two pictures are of the same coin. The first it was graded as a MS65 DPL - somewhere along the line someone cracked it out and resubmitted to PCGS and it went from a MS65 DPL to a MS66 DPL.

 

I can understand how coins can be later graded higher but what I do not understand is how a coins appearance can go from the first picture (where the cheek could be used for a acne treatment commercial) to that of the second where it looks as though she went to an skin care doctor.

 

I would just easily say it was photo perspective and lighting conditions, however if the coin still had those bad marks on the face how then could it end up in a MS66 DPL?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just curious....

 

 

 

[SuperDave]

The first set of images represent what a digital camera is capable of when it comes to deceptive appearance. Most of what's there is breaks in the frost as opposed to marks, something a digicam will present as equal if one doesn't specifically correct for the phenomenon. This is evidenced by the typically-huge Heritage images of this coin in the PCGS 66DPL slab, which they handled in 2008. Heritage's imagery is not Top-3 but certainly large and accurate enough to come to conclusions regarding the originality of the cheek, and in this case they've two different sets of it under differing lighting. Plenty of evidence for someone experienced with digital imaging to understand how unfortunate the first set (from the NGC slab) was in its' treatment of the coin.

[wdrob]

Plenty of evidence for someone experienced with digital imaging to understand how unfortunate the first set (from the NGC slab) was in its' treatment of the coin.

 

Dave,

That first photo was when it was in a PCGS slab as well and it was not from Hetitage. It was from a Goldberg auction 2/5/2006. The second, or cleaned up photo, is from Heritage in the auction 7/30/08.

 

I do not have a reason to believe that Heritage juiced the picture since that photo looks more in line with what I would expect from a MS66 DPL whereas the same coin in 2006, prior to being cracked out and resubmitted, in my opinion would not be worthy of a upgrade.

 

I was just curious if this would have been an example of the 'coin doctoring' that PCGS and possibly others, are trying to combat?

 

Maybe that coin, as it is represented in that photo from Goldberg, is in fact worthy of a MS66 DPL, as I am not a grader qualified even for my own purchases.

 

I just don't see it.

 

 

[SuperDave]

My opinion's based solely on the Heritage images and uncounted thousands of high-res digital coin images I've shot myself. Based on my experience, I don't see evidence of doctoring in the Heritage shots, and I think those shots are large/sharp enough to reveal doctoring if it happened (not to mention - to my mind - supporting the grade shown). With that in mind, I can only conclude that the Goldberg/MS65 shots were unkind to the coin, and it would hardly be the first time I'd seen such.

[Kurtdog]

I can understand how coins can be later graded higher but what I do not understand is how a coins appearance can go from the first picture (where the cheek could be used for a acne treatment commercial) to that of the second where it looks as though she went to an skin care doctor.

I don't think Clearasil® would do it. It would have to be something stronger, like Proactiv+®.

[delta]

How do we know the coin wasn't just properly cleaned?

[Matt_dac]

As online consumers we are at the mercy of the picture quality but in my novice opinion it's a camera whitewash. You can still see the telltale marks on the cheek and the grading companies seem pretty good about identifying cleaning attempts.

 

 

[Raisethis2]

There's no doubt that the vertical scratch on the cheek has completely disappeared in the second set of pictures. What gets me is the cloudiness on the reverse of the second set of pictures around the mintmark and "ICA" in America disappeared even though the first set of pictures was overexposed IMO.

 

I think it was cracked and dirt of some type was removed with a good old fashioned acetone bath. Nothing wrong with that if done correctly.

 

 

[BillJones]

It has been my experience that some Heritage images can hide or considerably reduce the actual intensity of scratches. I learned that lesson the hard way. It's almost the intensity of the light that Heritage uses drowns out the marks so that they do not show.

[wdrob]

 

There have been many plausible explanations and a combination of 2 or more of the theories could explain it very well.

 

I just happened to stumble across this coin, by chance, while looking up the pop reports and grade examples for a coin that I have. When I run across an example like this it makes it very difficult to approximate a grade of a coin in my possession based off the images.

 

I did ask the question in the context of trying to better understand the examples I run across and not to criticize the owners coin. I was mainly curious if others might have thought one or more of the unethical 'doctoring techniques' were possibly in play here.

 

 

[robec1347]

Just a simple change in position of the lighting can hide or expose any number of distractions.

 

The purpose in this case may or may not have been to hide any disturbance. I may just be their default setup.

[CaptHenway]

Whoever said "The camera does not lie" was never exposed to modern photography.

[messydesk]

Whoever said "The camera does not lie" was never exposed to modern photography.

The camera doesn't lie, it just doesn't tell the whole truth.

 

A static picture is not a perfect substitute for seeing the coin in person. In some cases, it can be a fairly good one, but in others it falls far short. Of course, you never know just how good the picture is until you can compare it with the coin in hand.

[Kurtdog]

I don't know why you guys are ruling out the possibility it was cleaned.

[physics-fan3.14]

How do we know the coin wasn't just properly cleaned?

I don't know why you guys are ruling out the possibility it was cleaned.

 

Gentle conservation, such as a properly rinsed quick dip, cannot erase bag marks or contact marks and cannot restore broken luster. The question is about the difference in appearance of the cheek - how in the first picture it looks all beat up and then in the second picture it looks flawless.

[SuperDave]

Wow. Somebody made some stupid profit on this one - it hammered for $920 at Goldberg, and $6325 at Heritage a little more than two years later. Here are the two appearances (Heritage requires membership to see their archived images):

 

http://images.goldbergauctions.com/php/lot_auc.php?site=1&sale=34&lot=1815〈=1

 

http://coins.ha.com/c/item.zx?saleNo=1114&lotNo=2205

 

There's insufficient detail in the Goldberg images - the "zoom" is digital, and does nothing to improve actual resolution - to draw any accurate conclusion as to what's up with the cheek. There's no doubt in my mind (look at the reverse) that the coin was dipped prior to the PCGS submission. As to whether or not the dip removed some of what was on the cheek, we'll never know, although it certainly looks like the dip removed that vertical slash on the cheek. But, contrasting the two sets of Heritage images, one can see enough detail to tell that it's very unlikely anything "mechanical" was done to the coin to improve its' appearance. They're large-enough for the "bad" aspects of digital photography to somewhat work in our favor.

[Kurtdog]

How do we know the coin wasn't just properly cleaned?

I don't know why you guys are ruling out the possibility it was cleaned.

Gentle conservation, such as a properly rinsed quick dip, cannot erase bag marks or contact marks and cannot restore broken luster. The question is about the difference in appearance of the cheek - how in the first picture it looks all beat up and then in the second picture it looks flawless.

Call it what you need to, I'll play along. I just don't know why you're all discounting it, after delta mentioned it. I don't think the first picture is good enough to tell what the nature of that is on the face. Her hair above the ear shows more detail in the second picture, too, and if that's due to the photography, that's some photography. It looks more to me as though that area was cleaned.

 

[Kurtdog]

There's insufficient detail in the Goldberg images - the "zoom" is digital, and does nothing to improve actual resolution - to draw any accurate conclusion as to what's up with the cheek. There's no doubt in my mind (look at the reverse) that the coin was dipped prior to the PCGS submission. As to whether or not the dip removed some of what was on the cheek, we'll never know, although it certainly looks like the dip removed that vertical slash on the cheek. But, contrasting the two sets of Heritage images, one can see enough detail to tell that it's very unlikely anything "mechanical" was done to the coin to improve its' appearance. They're large-enough for the "bad" aspects of digital photography to somewhat work in our favor.

The emphasis above is mine. I missed this reply, before I replied, but doesn't PCGS now have a "conservation" service? I say that because this looks like a professional job. I'll also say, if there's anything I have little doubt on, it's that Heritage doesn't "photoshop" images. Heritage isn't eBay. It's not dealing with amateurs.

[SuperDave]

There's insufficient detail in the Goldberg images - the "zoom" is digital, and does nothing to improve actual resolution - to draw any accurate conclusion as to what's up with the cheek. There's no doubt in my mind (look at the reverse) that the coin was dipped prior to the PCGS submission. As to whether or not the dip removed some of what was on the cheek, we'll never know, although it certainly looks like the dip removed that vertical slash on the cheek. But, contrasting the two sets of Heritage images, one can see enough detail to tell that it's very unlikely anything "mechanical" was done to the coin to improve its' appearance. They're large-enough for the "bad" aspects of digital photography to somewhat work in our favor.

The emphasis above is mine. I missed this reply, before I replied, but doesn't PCGS now have a "conservation" service? I say that because this looks like a professional job. I'll also say, if there's anything I have little doubt on, it's that Heritage doesn't "photoshop" images. Heritage isn't eBay. It's not dealing with amateurs.

 

PCGS does *now,* but they didn't in 2008.

[robec1347]

There's insufficient detail in the Goldberg images - the "zoom" is digital, and does nothing to improve actual resolution - to draw any accurate conclusion as to what's up with the cheek. There's no doubt in my mind (look at the reverse) that the coin was dipped prior to the PCGS submission. As to whether or not the dip removed some of what was on the cheek, we'll never know, although it certainly looks like the dip removed that vertical slash on the cheek. But, contrasting the two sets of Heritage images, one can see enough detail to tell that it's very unlikely anything "mechanical" was done to the coin to improve its' appearance. They're large-enough for the "bad" aspects of digital photography to somewhat work in our favor.

The emphasis above is mine. I missed this reply, before I replied, but doesn't PCGS now have a "conservation" service? I say that because this looks like a professional job. I'll also say, if there's anything I have little doubt on, it's that Heritage doesn't "photoshop" images. Heritage isn't eBay. It's not dealing with amateurs.

PCGS didn't have a "conservation" service in 2008 when this coin was a 66 and sold in the Heritage auction.

[Kurtdog]

Yes, that's right, the date is dispositive. Oh well. I guess we leave it at, whoever did it, it looks pretty darn good.

[wdrob]

 

How do we know the coin wasn't just properly cleaned?

I don't know why you guys are ruling out the possibility it was cleaned.

 

Gentle conservation, such as a properly rinsed quick dip, cannot erase bag marks or contact marks and cannot restore broken luster. The question is about the difference in appearance of the cheek - how in the first picture it looks all beat up and then in the second picture it looks flawless.

 

 

PF accurately pinpointed my original intent about the disappearance of the marks and slash. I was not contending that their was photo play, since it had to have went before a grading team the second time to garner the MS66 DPL, if it even looked 80% close to the original pictures in 2006 then in my mind it was not worthy of the TopPop.

 

I don't dismiss Delta's suggestion or anyone else that brought up a quick dip. But like PF, I know that a dip will not remove marks. And if you had dipped it into a strong enough solution (e-zest, etc..) then you would surely be taking a huge risk in departure from the DPL characteristics as the acid would effect the mirrors.

 

After all the suggestions, ideas, and discussion I feel even more confident that this coin is indeed the work of a pro - outside of the grading services. Maybe automotive metal filler (Bondo) and an airbrush?

 

I guess there would be no way to determine what happened unless the owner stepped up with better pictures but I don't see that happening, however a future trip to the auction block might reveal more.