| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 3,970 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
I have been and always will be one of ICCS's biggest fans as I consider them honest, ethical, competent and the very best 'standard' for Canadian coins. I realize that sometimes they can be a little easy on grading problem coins in that occassionally they don't mention light cleaning or they 'net' grade without saying 'officially' that they net grade. The coin I'm about to show you has (IMHO) been whizzed. ICCS I thought, always identifies a whizzed coin as being 'whizzed' on their holders. However this one has not been identified. What makes it worse is I'm very sure that they have seen that it is whizzed by virtue of their grade. They graded the coin AU55. I believe they have net graded the coin due to the whizzing because if you 'minus' the whizzing, the coin should be an ms64 or ms65. Here's the coin..... (oh and by the way, I'm not mentioning the vendor because I know that they are very ethical and I don't want to imply any wrong doing on their part or ICCS's part). I believe that this is just one very isolated example of a 'bad' ICCS graded coin. Please notice the 'displaced metal' on the edges of the high points as evidence of whizzing. (obv, metal has been moved North to south) (rev, metal has been moved south to north).   Edited by doubleeagle59
12/17/2013 12:48 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
595 Posts |
The surfaces do not look whizzed to me. The excess metal on the high points look like some sort of Machine Doubling to me. Imagine what would happen if the coin is shifted sideways after it is struck and the die is not quite retreated all the way. The high points with sharp edges would be deformed and metal moved in a consistent direction on those high points. There are also a few small rim dings - perhaps that is what gave it the AU grade, or they saw a tiny bit of wear. Nice coin in any case  |
|
New Member
Canada
49 Posts |
Unless they witnessed the coin being "whizzed", then they made the proper decision by not saying it was. I find the term itself used loosley in coin discussion. JMHO
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2426 Posts |
I cant see any signs of whizzing.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
2495 Posts |
For those of you who see no signs of whizzing, I have to ask then, why isn't the coin graded ms64?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1192 Posts |
Surface and color look off. My first thought was counterfeit based on the grainy looking surfaces.
Definitely a problem coin, whizzed could be the culprit. Although it could be "environmental damage" or something else.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
595 Posts |
The colors might look off because it looks like the images are scans, which can really do some funny things to luster. What is the luster like in hand?
I do not see and wear on this coin, though perhaps some luster breaks on the cheek. Perhaps this with the small rim dings net-graded it as AU? I do not see any evidence of whizzing though....
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36744 Posts |
I don't see the normal brush marks around the lettering as seen on whizzed coins.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9864 Posts |
The coin does not appear to have been whizzed.Grading online is a rough estimate only,we're looking at pic through 2 layers of plastic and under who knows what kind of lighting.Really would need to see this coin in hand as ICCS did.
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
867 Posts |
The lustre looks "disturbed" hence the AU grade vs a MS grade....remember, the graders use a 4-10x power magnification when doing their certification.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
I have some whizzed cents and they were graded by ICCS as such. I also have some nice " Machine Doubling" on a few coins also graded by ICCS at the same time and not graded as whizzed because they're not. Your 25 cents piece looks great but also it's very hard for us here to see the luster through 2 sheets of plastic. The darkness on the jowl and neck might be due to some loss of luster due to rubs etc.. The flatness of the reverse almost looks specimen like. I'd be proud to own that piece any day..  |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
ICCS does NOT penalize a coin for lack of lustre, unlike PCGS.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
Here's two ICCS au55 'no problem' graded coins for comparison. All must agree that technically, the very first one (the 1891 in the opening post) is miles better and should have been graded by ICCS as a mid to high MS grade, if not for an unmentioned 'problem' the coin exhibits.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5324 Posts |
Maybe just a bad day at ICCS?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
11922 Posts |
It does look better than an AU-55...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1554 Posts |
Gorgeous Coin, and as far as I can see from the scans, there are NO SIGNS OF WHIZZING ! had this coin been whizzed there wouldn't be any contact marks on the Queen's face and as for the #'s and legend's on Vicky coins being doubled or built up, that is quite common place on Victorian Era coins. Looking at this piece, it looks like it may have been a "first" strike. (dies were FRESH and NEW) I have an I.C.C.S., 1891, quarter, MS-63, that has the same toning as this coin. A year that is EXTREMELY difficult to obtain in grades above EF-40, what are you guys waiting for, grab it NOW! ebay # 221338669684 (this coin has my endorsement!) Glenn  Edited by glenzy1
12/17/2013 6:07 pm
|
| |
Replies: 25 / Views: 3,970 |
Posted 12/17/2013 1:20 pm
