| Author |
 Replies: 9 / Views: 2,139 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1081 Posts |
I'm looking at a quite decent 1885 NFLD 5 cent....graded EF-40 by ICCS. All fine except there are a few strange details. One is that ICCS notes that the coin is obverse #2 on the ticket. As far as I know, there's no other version of the coin. So why would they bother saying it? Second, is that there's a little bit of wear on the obverse surfaces that looks as though it might have been cleaned. Which is not noted by ICCS. Am I being paranoid? Asking price is steep so I don't want to get burned. And hey, I've become more interested in paranoia since I learned that the world's out to get me...  |
|
|
|
Valued Member
404 Posts |
You know what they say - buy the coin, not the holder! I've seen some strange notations on ICCS holders, and Ive also seen grades I don't at all agree with from them - but the same is true of any TPG. This is to say, I don't necessarily see anything overtly wrong with the holder per-se. To me, that looks like obverse cleaning, but given the benefit of the doubt, it is at best an EF coin with some unattractive obverse wear. Although might be better in hand, if the price is steep, Id wait till 'the one' comes along. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
851 Posts |
You are right. Marking the flip with Obverse 2 is a bit misleading since there are no varieties of this coin. The Charleton guide shows that certain dates have the NF2 design (no dots before or after Newfoundland).
Not sure if it was cleaned or not. If so, it was probably a long time ago. This coin is so rare and in such beautiful condition I don't think an old cleaning would affect the value here. Not to me anyway.
Big price tag on this coin, I bet.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1081 Posts |
Yep, asking $1,600.... I would bid down and see where it lands....
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5585 Posts |
ICCS is not noted for paying much attention to the surfaces. They grade almost strictly on "wear" and frequently don't mention cleaning or environmental discolorations. They are also pretty tough on small silvers.
Edited by okiecoiner
04/06/2020 10:27 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1081 Posts |
I actually like ICCS - generally solid technical grades on the objective features with eye appeal left to the beholder. In this case I'm more worried that some unscrupulous dealer or collector has fooled with this in an effort to make a buck.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5393 Posts |
This coin is a great example of why technical grading is passe these days and there is a lot more focus on
Market Grading .
I have supported ICCS since day one , but lately the grading and results are all over the road map .
The coin in question , in my not so humble opinion , would not STRAIGHT grade at NGC , PCGS, or ANACS
these days as all of them have tightened up in the last year or so .
I see the piece as cleaned and EF is a stretch . The submitter got a very generous result !
That said the coin is still extremely difficult in anything better than VG . Realistic value is maybe
800 CAD or thereabouts ! I base this on YEARS of experience selling Newfoundland and Provincial
Coinage .
Advice look for a better coin , even a no problems VF if you can find one is a smarter choice!
Edited by Pacificoin
04/06/2020 12:39 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
9862 Posts |
 with pacificoin That coin's been cleaned not just dipped. EF only on a good day. Keep looking. "Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1081 Posts |
Thanks for your straight up answers. The more I look at it the more it looks like a VF-30 with an attitude problem. Glad I took the time to run my gut instincts past all of you lot!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1081 Posts |
I'll just come back to this and then let it drop. As regards the mysterious "obverse 2" on the ticket....what it probably means was that this was a rushed job. Maybe whoever did the grading had just looked at an 1888 where there's more than one obv and extended the same reasoning to 1885 where there is not. This was suggested by a very knowledgeable colleague and I think it likely nails it.
|
| |
Replies: 9 / Views: 2,139 |
|
Posted 04/06/2020 07:21 am
