Tag Archives: cryptocurrency

Grading is subjective, but PCGS methods are not

Posted on by

PCGS and other top holdering companies–NGC, ANACS, CAC–evaluate a coin’s grade through a rigorous process involving expert visual inspection, magnification, adherence to the 70-point Sheldon Scale, and a final verification, focusing on wear, strike, luster, and eye appeal, then encapsulating it in a secure holder with its assigned grade for impartial certification.

Grading is subjective, but only to a small degree at top holdering companies. The problem, however, especially with PCGS and its popular CoinFacts site about retail and auction values, is that consignors and auctioneers use that data and inflate it to get higher bids on inferior lots.

Here’s an obvious example below. The seller states that these coins came from an elderly gentleman. All of them are graded MS70, the ultimate on the Sheldon numeric scale.

These inflated grades just aren’t accurate; these are just common coins in lower grades–almost 5 to 10 points lower on some. What irks expert numismatists, however, are sellers who feature the grades of basement holders and then cite PCGS values.

Below is an outrageous listing of a common Peace dollar with artificial toning, exposing the metal to sulfur or chemical, turning purple, blue and yellow hues and rendering the lot as silver melt–not the ridiculous opening bid of $4,000. This holdering company may be associated with the seller rather than with another reputable company. I’m not sure about that. But it doesn’t matter. This is a ruined coin, in my opinion.

Here’s another exaggerated grade, again quoting sight-unseen PCGS prices on a coin that was cleaned, dipped and re-toned, worth about $200 by my estimation in this condition and certainly not $78,000.

Let’s do one more:

The above coin has grease stains, poor luster, with some interesting toning. I wouldn’t bid higher than $75. And then I would have to spend time carefully using MS70 detergent methods to try to remove those stains–almost always a futile attempt that renders the entire coin as cleaned.

If you want to have your own coins graded, be sure to use PCGS, NGC, ANACS and CAC. You can read about each grading company here, as well as ones to avoid.

If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups, YouTube and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.

California Gold Coins v. Souvenir Tokens

Posted on by

California Gold Coins, also known as pioneer gold, are among the most sought-after Americana coins minted during the Wild West pioneer era. Unfortunately for collectors, online auctions often are flooded with modern replicas and tokens.

Here’s a souvenir token billed as an 1852 ½ dollar California gold coin.

Every word of that description is wrong. The token was not manufactured in 1852; is not a half dollar; not a coin; not gold; and does not come from California. Many of these are manufactured in China or sold by a U.S. tourist shop. They typically are gold plated or brass, as these samples:

Unscrupulous sellers buy these replicas, take them out of the holder, and then offer or consign them individually as California fractional gold. (See “California Gold Scam.”) Authentic pioneer gold has a denomination on it, such as 1/4, 1/2 and 1 DOLLAR. The word “dollar” is sometimes abbreviated as D. or DOL.

Here’s is an example of a token vs. a real coin:

Here’s another example of an authentic California gold coin:

Also, California gold coins are designated with “B-G,” initials from the last names of Walter Breen (“B”) and Ronald J. Gillio (“G”) who wrote the reference book, California Pioneer Fractional Gold.

It’s difficult to identify those BG numbers without the book. But you also can use the illustrated PCGS database for the series, comparing your raw coin to the denomination, year, value and type.

To learn more about small and token gold, visit Mike Locke’s California Gold website. He describes dozens of tokens and their values.

If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups and social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.

Polished, Prooflike, Deep Mirror

Posted on by

Online sellers, lower-tier holders and clueless consignors sometimes designate cleaned and polished silver coins as prooflike or even deep mirror prooflike.

First, some definitions, from PCGS:

Prooflike (PL) – PCGS designates Prooflike for coins that grade MS60 or better and show clear reflectivity, i.e. mirrored surfaces at a distance of two to four inches. If the cartwheel effect or striations cause an area to lose clarity, the designation will not apply.

Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) – PCGS designates Deep Mirror Prooflike for Morgan Dollars that grade MS60 or better and show deep reflectivity, i.e. deeply mirrored surfaces. The differences between PL and DMPL is one of degree.

Polished coins (essentially now silver melt) may reflect four or even more inches. But they have a distinct unnatural look, as in this 1921 Morgan reverse:

Compare that with a real DMPL Morgan Reverse, this with cameo devices:

This near-prooflike 1881-S Morgan below is erroneously billed as deep mirror. It has a nice cartwheel surface, and probably is gem, retailing for about $215. A DMPL at that grade would be worth $1,150. Small wonder he wants just $390.

Bidders should be skeptical about the DMPL designation on lower-tier holdering companies. This one below is cleaned and artificially toned, in my view, not worthy of a grade in a PCGS or NGC holder:

The trick is to know how DMPL looks in a top holder and to compare it to a raw coin offered on HiBid. This is DMPL, both sides:

Normally I would bid on this one, calculating the grade at MS64 DMPL. Those are selling at major auction houses for around $400. The bid on this coin already is at $220 with four days to go before hammer. With mailing and buyer’s fee, I would be at $320 on a $260 bid. If you calculate $45 for PCGS holdering, that already puts the coin near auction-selling prices.

So I won’t bid.

If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups and across social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.

Fake Ancient Drachm

Posted on by

Ancient coins are copied for a number of reasons, selling as souvenirs in museums and tokens in online venues like Etsy, eBay or Amazon. They are also frequently counterfeit, preying on bidders who lack knowledge of ancient numismatics.

As such, these are among the most risky to bid on in HiBid, Proxibid, LiveAuctions and similar platforms.

I won this fake Aegina drachm with a bid of $35 from a HiBid seller who described it as authentic. The description did not include weight.  These coins typically sell for hundreds of dollars.

When I received the token, I could tell it was cast rather than struck by inspecting the rim and surface. I used my coin microscope to get a closer look at the casting. Notice the fine bubbles rather than struck silver imprints.

Here is an authentic drachm, ca 350-338 BC, 18.5 mm, 5.81 g.

My token was underweight at 17 mm, 5.7 g. Worse, it was base metal. Look at the rim of the token in this photo, and you can see why this is a counterfeit rather than an ancient coin. The rim is smooth rather than rounded.

Granted, my fake drachm had the right inscriptions and devices, a tortoise with a segmented shell on the obverse and an incuse pattern with N-I in the upper sections and a dolphin swimming in the lower left section. But my fake’s devices had the mushy look of the casting.

My advice is to learn all you can about ancient coins by purchasing guidebooks or visiting educational sites like Proxiblog. Better still, even with that knowledge, often it is difficult to detect counterfeit Greek and Roman coins based on seller photos alone. You need a lupe and the coin in your hand to be sure. So go to established auction sites like GreatCollections or Heritage to buy holdered coins.

Here’s a turtle stater, Isle of Aegina c.525-480 B.C., 12.09 g, that I won in a GreatCollections auction for $591 realized price.

It’s in my bank box with a few other ancient coins.

If you like posts like this, subscribe so you can be informed whenever there is a new article or column.

Proxiblog also has thousands of followers on Facebook Coin Groups and across social media. To get the latest discussion and commentary, be sure to friend us by clicking here.

You can find more information about types, varieties, errors, grading, bidding and buying in Coin News Updated: The Essential Guide to Online Bidding. Please consider buying or gifting the work for a friend, as it underwrites this hobbyist blog. Thank you.