Should slab labels that say "Details" also state the reason? 0

[RWB]

Collectors are now paying a substantial premium to have ordinary coins authenticated and "graded." Some of these are returned with a label that says "Details" but which often does not state a reason for the "details" statement. Should TPGs be explicit about their determination?

[ldhair]

They should. I actually thought they already did. I have not sent anything in in quite a while.

[GoldFinger1969]

Yes, definitely....it says DETAILS and then doesn't give any details !!!

It's like something from SEINFELD or CURB YOUR ENTHUSIASM.....

 

[J P M]

Yes I think so .I have seen some Details with a answer. Like  AT. Cleaned , Improperly Cleaned. Damaged reverse  and so on

[Sandon]

   I've never seen a label from any grading service with a "details" grade for a coin that didn't briefly describe the perceived impairment with some such term as "cleaned", "scratched", "damaged", etc.  Can you show us an example?

   For a time before PCGS began giving "details" grades, they would encapsulate an impaired coin as "Genuine" without a description of the impairment, and I think they will still do this if you want them to. Not many submitters do.

[JT2]

Yes i agree if they say that it  has been cleaned; there should be a explanation as to where they see the cleaning.  I would also love to hear how they figure out that a coin has "improper color" or "Questionable color"  especially when you remove it from the OGP and put it in a flip.  Would love to hear how they determine this

[RWB]

This thread from another sector in the galaxy inspired my question: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1090077/au-details-coins

The photos don't show anything conclusive about the "Details" designation on these three eagles. For the high fees paid the submitter should receive better information.

[J P M]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:23 AM, RWB said:

This thread from another sector in the galaxy inspired my question: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1090077/au-details-coins

The photos don't show anything conclusive about the "Details" designation on these three eagles. For the high fees paid the submitter should receive better information.

Those coins looked nice but the 1915 does have two rim hits that is my opinion is why it got the details grade. The 1912 has some hits on the reverse .The 1916 also had two rim hits but they could be considered bag marks IMO. I am not holding them so nothing I see in the photo is absolute. Just a observation

Edited April 10, 2023 by J P M

[RWB]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:34 AM, J P M said:

Those coins looked nice but the 1915 does have two rim hits that is my opinion is why it got the details grade. The 1912 has some hits on the reverse .The 1916 also had two rim hits but they could be considered bag marks IMO.

And that is the problem -- we're left guessing about the "details" designation. That is not the result one should receive from a professional operation.

Edited April 10, 2023 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 4/10/2023 at 8:42 AM, RWB said:

And that is the problem -- we're left guessing about the "details" designation. That is not the result one should receive from a professional operation.

It might be that the TPGs can tell the difference between a soft gold Double Eagle that was cleaned a century ago with velvet or a soft cloth vs. someone trying to alter the surface in the last few years/decades.  I'm not sure, I'm speculating.

I wager that many collected coins -- like the MCMVII High Reliefs -- were handled by human fingers and people wiped them with what they thought was pristine velvet or whatever passed back then as fine cleaning materials (todays microfiber towels).  If you saw a speck of dirt or a fingerprint on your coin, nobody back then probably thought twice about wiping it.

[Sandon]

   I checked the certification numbers of the three "Indian" eagles in the PCGS forum post linked by @RWB, and the impairments were described on certificate verification and presumably on the holders as well. One was described as "damaged", one as "cleaned", and one as having an "altered surface". NGC wouldn't have encapsulated the "altered surface" piece, assuming that the NGC graders reached the same conclusion. 

[RWB]

That was not mentioned by the original poster, and impression given was that the label simply said "Details." If the descriptors are on the slab, then my comments are incorrect or incomplete.

Edited April 10, 2023 by RWB

[Henri Charriere]

I am going to fight the impulse to ask what prompted you to make this inquiry now after all these years.  On anti -counterfeits, of which you are a card-carrying  member, the late great Oldhoopster, speaking for the congregation with sepulchral awe stated, in so many words... While not exactly classified, making such inquiry is bad form and consequently We do not assist the errant coiner in perfecting his craft."  Now, on the matter of details, one treads on sensitive ground. Again, this is not classified information so the inquisitive collector is forced to comb thru the archives and inevitably comes up with two factors.  One is time is money; the other is lack of space.  There simply is not enough room on a slab to accommodate an Q.A.-like dissertation on the intricacies involved in the matter and how a decision was reached and confirmed (finalized).  This has been broached a number of times over the years on the Forum and I assumed it was SOP due to volume of submissions and time constraints with the advent and remission of Covid-19 precautions complicating timely turn-around times. Do I agree reasons should be stated on Details?  Indubitably. Judges routinely provide reasoning behind their opinions; ideally, graders ought to as well if only to level the playing field.

Edited April 10, 2023 by Henri Charriere
Further elucidation

[EarlyUS.com]

Quick story - I recently purchased a bust quarter online with a mediocre photo, but encapsulated by NGC as "VF details/cleaned".  Upon receipt, I realized that the coin was not only cleaned (severely, in my opinion), but also holed and plugged.  The seller allowed me to return the coin for them to reevaluate, they agreed and refunded me.

My point is, if TPGs are going to do "details grading/reason", then the reason should ascribe to the most harsh detriment, in this case, holed and plugged.  I can tolerate a cleaned coin in my collection if it is for a die-marriage that I simply need, and I value sharpness over surface quality anyway, but it would have to be an extremely rare variety for me to want a holed and plugged example.

PS: I assume the seller sent the coin back to NGC for reevaluation as well.

[robec1347]

I thought NGC put codes on the label, which described the reason for a Detail grade

PCGS had a list of codes. The code doesn’t describe exactly where the problem is. They leave that up to the coin owner. 
 

they will put coins in holders if any of these codes apply:

 82  Filed Rims
91  Questionable Color
92 Cleaning
93  Planchet Flaw
94  Altered Surfaces 
95  Scratches
97  Environmental Damage
98  Damage 

They will not put coins in holders if they are given the codes below
83  Peeling Lamination
86  Authenticity Unverifiable 
90  Counterfeit
99  PVC Residue
 

[J P M]

I thought this was a good one. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1351227/1943-D-Jefferson-Nickel-PCGS-Genuine-Unc-Details-from-photo

[robec1347]

On 4/16/2023 at 5:26 PM, J P M said:

I thought this was a good one. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1351227/1943-D-Jefferson-Nickel-PCGS-Genuine-Unc-Details-from-photo

Besides the description on the insert, the code for Environmental Damage (97) is also there.