Interesting PCGS Slab

[jerseycat10]

Notice the ".91" code, indicating "Questionable Toning", but no mention of "Questionable Toning" on the label, just "PCGS Genuine".

 

I can potentially see this leading to confusion in the marketplace.

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I sort of understand there may be confusion, because a person may not be familiar with the code(s).

 

However, I would also think a person would immediately wonder why there is not a grade assigned to the coin, and question the reason why.

 

I can also understand a 3PG being reluctant to declare it is questionable toning in words on the label, when the point of the code(s) is to alert the person.

 

At the very least, I think logic would dictate a person would ask what the grade is and why there is not one stated.

 

If the market place is about grade indication, as many (the majority of persons) have stated in the collecting community, I think the confusion is more apt to be a matter of what is the grade if it is not AT.

 

 

Disclosure: Edited to change the word "sated" to "stated", since I have never met a collector that is actually sated due to collecting.

 

[RWB]

The use of obscure codes was a topic of discuss on the PCGS board several years ago. Eventually the company began using words to describe the coin's problems. I think the codes were dropped.

[Nutmeg Coin]

If you ask for a grade and it has problems the kicker is they will say AU/Unc. details with the problem noted. If you don't want the problem noted on the label, they won't give you the grade level either.

[Conder101]

When PCGS first started slabbing problem coin they simply stated GENUINE on the label, no details grade, no explaination other than the code number. So this appears to be one of the early problem coin slabs. They only did it this way for something like 6 months or less before going to the details grades.

[BillJones]

It's also interesting that the coin has the gold "snifter shield" on it. That is supposed to indicate that the coin has not been subjected to a chemical treatment that the device can dedect. Yet this coin got docked for "questionable toning" which is produced by chemical reactions.

 

This is a confusing slab label for sure.

[Conder101]

The gold shield only indicates that it went through as a Secure Shield submission, part of which is using the "sniffer". The shield does NOT indicate that there was nothing done to the coin. It may have been the results of the "sniffer" that resulted in the questionable toning designation if it detected certain "banned" chemicals.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Taco Bell napkin.

[RWB]

My mongrel dog can do "sniffer" tests too....haven't tested him on coins - yet.

[CascadeChris]

Oddly enough some sniffers use live trained honey bees. Something like 10 or 20 in each machine in little boxes. When they detect particles they have been trained to detect, say cocaine, their tongues stick out and an optic device either a camera or laser if I recall detects the tongues movement. And apparently accuracy is high. Not sure if technology has moved beyond this type of sniffer device but it would be cool to think our coins have in small part been "bee approved"

[johnny9434]

If you ask for a grade and it has problems the kicker is they will say AU/Unc. details with the problem noted. If you don't want the problem noted on the label, they won't give you the grade level either.

the best of both worlds ( like it or not ) just saying

[WoodenJefferson]

...ah, put a piece of tape over the label but leave the word 'Genuine' exposed and anyone who knows little to nothing about coins in slabs would be fooled, "It says right here this coin is genuine." Well sure, that means it's a real Peace dollar alright but those in the know immediately begin to wonder why was this particular Peace dollar was un-gradable? (not fooled)

 

It's just an extra bonus to be informed as to why, which is still a matter of opinion as to being a 'problem free' example.

 

[coinman_23885]

It's also interesting that the coin has the gold "snifter shield" on it. That is supposed to indicate that the coin has not been subjected to a chemical treatment that the device can dedect. Yet this coin got docked for "questionable toning" which is produced by chemical reactions.

 

This is a confusing slab label for sure.

 

I don't think the toning is questionable; I think it is blatantly AT. Does PCGS just use the same code for AT and QT?

[physics-fan3.14]

Your question about the slab appears to have been answered.

 

I will only add: there is absolutely nothing questionable about that blatantly AT coloration.