Why is this a PF70?

[Touvex]

Just received this a few days ago, but upon a closer look - noticed some flaws on the coin, as per picture - how is this a PF70?? You can clearly see flaws on the letters “E” and “L” very noticeable to the naked eye...  what are your thoughts guys? Would you keep this?

[TringSilver]

It's hard to tell in the photo. 

I'll give you spot for it 😜

[Touvex]

Lol! Another photo with a blue circle

[Pete]

If this was your coin and you sent it for grading I would challenge the grading people.
Otherwise it looks a pretty awful proof - unless the marks are exclusively on a capsule - as the field looks grubby and well handled so has someone mishandled this previously ?
 

[Touvex]

1 minute ago, Pete said:

If this was your coin and you sent it for grading I would challenge the grading people.
Otherwise it looks a pretty awful proof - unless the marks are exclusively on a capsule - as the field looks grubby and well handled so has someone mishandled this previously ?
 

Thanks Pete, i bought this graded just a few days ago, the marks are defnitely on the coin, it looks like the matt finish didnt apply to certain parts of the letters... agree, not a good proof at all.

It's even worse under a loupe as the other letters are also not finished well.

[NewCoins]

Did you see decent photos before you bought it ?

Still, you should have got some confidence from the NGC grading it a 70 you would have thought. 

 

BTW what coin is it ?

Edited May 23, 2021 by NewCoins

[GoldDiggerDave]

Any pictures of the front of the case? 

[Touvex]

7 minutes ago, NewCoins said:

Did you see decent photos before you bought it ?

Still, you should have got some confidence from the NGC grading it a 70 you would have thought. 

 

BTW what coin is it ?

Not close up enough to see these - but you are right, we buy pf70 because we dont want coins with flaws 😕 should be able to trust NGC! If not the royal mint...

4 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

Any pictures of the front of the case? 

Yes pic below - why do you ask?

[Touvex]

[GoldDiggerDave]

5 minutes ago, Touvex said:

Wow! the pictures on the NGC look like they have been taken at a far left angle to cast a shadow over the missing frosting.  The photo's on the NGC are so bad it's got to be an attempt to cover up the poor quality of the finish of the coin, hasn't it?  

[Touvex]

WOW... thanks @GoldDiggerDave. But why would they do that, why dont they just grade it lower!

would you return this if you got it?

Edited May 23, 2021 by Touvex

[GoldStatue]

I've always wondered where the graders draw the line on the statement "no post-production imperfections ", maybe they classed the missing frosting as a part of the production and not miss handling after the coin has been made. I remember a few of those matte sovereigns from a few years ago getting 70's with clear missing areas of the matte finish on them.

 

[GoldDiggerDave]

Just now, Touvex said:

WOW... thanks @GoldDiggerDave. But why would they do that, why dont they just grade it lower!

would you return this if you got it?

Return it........I'd throw it back.   No way would I accept this from the mint in this quality  never mind the NGC.   The NGC are not only looking like a blind person graded the coin it's looking like they are trying to hide it with the "shady" photography.  Then again it all could be an over sight, I'd like you to ask them the question.  

The photo has been taken with an acute lefthand light source to cast shadow on the right of the coin. 

Are they trying to say this is okay and the imperfections are production issue and not  post-production so they have slapped on the PR70 grade?  

No way is this coin FDC so it can not be PR70UC

 

[MrFreezerrr]

Not amusing offcourse. Something I always keep in mind when buying graded stuff like games/cards/coins etc...: ‘ask for clear pictures, then buy the item, not the grade’. Certainly with  expensive items, asking a couple of extra photos (if possible) from different angles is no overkill.

[GoldDiggerDave]

45 minutes ago, GoldStatue said:

I've always wondered where the graders draw the line on the statement "no post-production imperfections ", maybe they classed the missing frosting as a part of the production and not miss handling after the coin has been made. I remember a few of those matte sovereigns from a few years ago getting 70's with clear missing areas of the matte finish on them.

 

We're on the same lines, so what if during the production process the coin rolled off the desk along the factory floor and got flattened by the forklift tuck. Maybe that's how the first domed coin came about?  😭😭😭 

Edited May 23, 2021 by GoldDiggerDave

[Touvex]

31 minutes ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

We're on the same lines, so what if during the production process the coin rolled off the desk along the factory floor and got flattened by the forklift tuck. Maybe that's how the first domed coin came about?  😭😭😭 

😆😭

Thanks guys, will get back in touch with the seller... just not great that even PF70 coins has to be looked over somewhat, i'm new to this, so thought that a PF70 would be as good as gold!

[Leonmarsh]

Is it the same coin look at the 5 completely different in the ngc pic to the one you have 

Where did you get it 

[Leonmarsh]

The O and U also very different 

Maybe just the angle if you bought from a trusted seller you will be fine 

[sovereignsteve]

5 hours ago, Touvex said:

Would you keep this?

Depends where you bought it and on what description you based your buying decision?

I would guess it was advertised as NGC graded PF70. What grounds would you have for returning it?

Seems to me your gripe is with NGC not the seller.

[AppleZippoandMetronome]

Its an interesting problem this. By NGC's definition of what should get a 70 I understand completely why some missing frosting wouldn't affect the 70 grade but one certainly has to wonder how long that will stand. The Royal Mint has had this problem a number of times before with matt finish sovs having issues and of course all of the recent 1oz gold proof QB completer coins that got sent back. One has to wonder how many other coins out there have these slight minting imperfections and at what point if ever will they become something that gets factored in to the grade of a coin. It might grade a 70 by NGC's standards but it is most definitely not a perfect coin.

[GoldDiggerDave]

5 hours ago, AppleZippoandMetronome said:

Its an interesting problem this. By NGC's definition of what should get a 70 I understand completely why some missing frosting wouldn't affect the 70 grade but one certainly has to wonder how long that will stand. The Royal Mint has had this problem a number of times before with matt finish sovs having issues and of course all of the recent 1oz gold proof QB completer coins that got sent back. One has to wonder how many other coins out there have these slight minting imperfections and at what point if ever will they become something that gets factored in to the grade of a coin. It might grade a 70 by NGC's standards but it is most definitely not a perfect coin.

Maybe there’s that many RM coins with frosting issues they are bending the grading system?  This is not giving the NGC any credibility or trust IMO. PR70UC in this instance is nowhere close to FDC, there has always been a certain degree of interpretation or subjectiveness but anyone can see imperfections with the naked eye you don’t need to be a numismatic expert to see this.  
 

Is the NGC grading RM coins more leniently for better words? And for what reason would they have for doing this? 

 

 

[AppleZippoandMetronome]

5 hours ago, GoldDiggerDave said:

Maybe there’s that many RM coins with frosting issues they are bending the grading system?  This is not giving the NGC any credibility or trust IMO. PR70UC in this instance is nowhere close to FDC, there has always been a certain degree of interpretation or subjectiveness but anyone can see imperfections with the naked eye you don’t need to be a numismatic expert to see this.  
 

Is the NGC grading RM coins more leniently for better words? And for what reason would they have for doing this? 

 

 

I don't think the RM are being shown any special favours by NGC. I think this just shows that NGC's own definition of what grades as a 70 clearly allows for faulty coins to reach that grade. I'd have to imagine there are just as many faulty coins from other mints out there that were given a 70 because the fault was seen to be part of the minting process and not something that happened to the coin afterwards. Problem is NGC is now so big I can't imagine them pivoting on how they grade at this point. If enough collectors actually cared about quality I would think there would be a market for a company that does take these imperfections in to count when grading a coin but again with the current companies so well established and so heavily promoted by many within the community its hard to imagine it would gain traction. I have to imagine the mints would also oppose such a move as it would inevitably mean less of their coins would grade at the top.

[GoldDiggerDave]

10 minutes ago, AppleZippoandMetronome said:

I don't think the RM are being shown any special favours by NGC. I think this just shows that NGC's own definition of what grades as a 70 clearly allows for faulty coins to reach that grade. I'd have to imagine there are just as many faulty coins from other mints out there that were given a 70 because the fault was seen to be part of the minting process and not something that happened to the coin afterwards. Problem is NGC is now so big I can't imagine them pivoting on how they grade at this point. If enough collectors actually cared about quality I would think there would be a market for a company that does take these imperfections in to count when grading a coin but again with the current companies so well established and so heavily promoted by many within the community its hard to imagine it would gain traction. I have to imagine the mints would also oppose such a move as it would inevitably mean less of their coins would grade at the top.

Just like modern educational  pass rates.  Keep lowering the bar so more hit the higher grades. 
 

Joking aside, no coin should be getting the top grade with visible production imperfections IMO. 

[StackemHigh]

In my view errors should be allowed maybe letters at a different angle or a slightly weaker strike but obvious damage or missing frosting should be a big no no.

Quality with errors ok 

Damage no chance!