| Author |
 Replies: 350 / Views: 24,521 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
I think that it can mean a few different things, but the owner with coin in hand might be the best one to know for sure why.....It just struck me as odd that it graded as MS-66 DMPL at SEGS, but altered surfaces at PCGS... that is quite a great disparity.
I wonder how can these two US grading companies vary so much.... (I can understand a difference in numeric degree), but two supposedly experienced graders not agreeing on either DMPL or altered surfaces really does not speak well for one of those companies that supposedly verifies the coin with a second opinion before it leaves the company's hands on its way back to the customer.
Is altered surfaces even possible on DMPL?
|
|
Moderator
  United States
23522 Posts |
A flawless DMPL coin which has been hurriedly dipped, using tongs, to remove toning will have two spots of toning 180 degrees apart on the denticles where the tongs prevent the dip from contacting the coin. This is one explanation.
I have seen SEGS slabs that said both DMPL and cleaned.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
Thanks Dave....so much stuff has just not made much sense to me today, this was just one more....I appreciate your willingness to tutor.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Playing catch-up missed this 1881 toner:  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
this is one explination but there are others. and not to disagree dave, but what are the other reasons they could say Altered surfaces?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
3660 Posts |
It is hard for me not to just stop and stare at certain toned coins like that Fenton....sometimes the toning almost looks heat related, sometimes it will look like a sunset, or an oil slick....sometimes it is downright ugly.....(you've got a pretty one there).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3076 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
381 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6396 Posts |
Don't know what problem PCGS found on my '83-CC. Maybe there's artificial frost added to the devices? It appears to meet DMPL requirements for reflectivity but mark-wise I think it's closer to 65 than 66. In general PCGS is reluctant to slab coins from lesser TPGs like SEGS and PCI. I think they hit many such coins with the all-purpose "altered surface" rejection for possibly imaginary defects.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1304 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1582 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
That SEGS 1883 CC looks fine to me I think the PCGS grader was too strict half the coins in TPG slabs are dipped |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2373 Posts |
1884 toner   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
509 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 350 / Views: 24,521 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 12/20/2010 12:35 am
