In my work as a numismatic writer and blogger, I often am asked to grade condition rarity via digital photography, without examining the item in my hand (apart from the keyboard). Usually I turn down such requests because my judgment may differ from that of a slabbing company, and then email complaints and demurs start to fly if my assessment differs.

Occasionally I will make exceptions, as I did for an auctioneer who specializes in excellent photography and who sells coins via the online portal Proxibid.

Recently the auctioneer emailed some photos of an 1884-S Morgan dollar, typically available for $100 or less in EF40 but that jumps in price as a condition rarity to $600+ in AU55 to $25,000 in MS62.

As such, this was an interesting case for me to take on when the auctioneer described the coin: "Here are some photos of the 84-S. Mirrored fields have some minor scratches; doesn't appeared to have been cleaned. Owner thinks it is MS60/62. It has some definite DMPL [deep mirror prooflike] qualities but sometimes that makes a coin look worse than it actually is. As you know an AU58 to MS60 is a big jump. Any input would be greatly appreciated."

Click on and expand the photos accompanying this post. You'll see in the first photo how I test for mint state. Many numismatists go for eagle breast feathers on the reverse, but my telling point is the hair above the ear on the obverse. That's how I can distinguish a slider (AU58, noticeable wear) from mint state (MS60 and above, little if any wear).

The hair here is inconclusive. It looks AU55-58. But this could be a weak strike. I'm leaning toward AU58, but it still can be MS60-61.

The next photo provides a straight-on shot of the obverse, and there are disturbing lines in different directions at various points in the fields, especially to the left of the profile. The coin may be cleaned. If not, it may be damaged in the cheek area or worse, tooled. I just can't tell from the photo.

I wrote the auctioneer, "Look with a loop to see if you discern uniform hairlines indicating tooling.I'm hoping those are album slide marks and not circulation marks or a poor attempt at altered surfaces."

The next photo shows mirrored fields. Such a coin's surface must reflect at least 4 inches away from newsprint to be designated deep mirror prooflike. This seems to show that. However, with top grading companies, the devices have to be frosted and distinct from the fields. This doesn't seem to have that quality.

Now go to the last photo here, a straight-on shot of the reverse.

The owner, who believes the coin to be MS60-62 DMPL, is typically looking on the bright side--literally. The left field is heavily marked, disqualifying the coin, unless the picture is faulty (I think not). The coin does have some deep-mirror properties (obverse field and devices, reverse fields--but not devices). There is too much noise for this to be DMPL, too. There's a chance of this being labeled proof-like, if the cheek isn't tooled.

If altered, the coin is a show piece for an album worth about $400 because of the mirrored fields.

My conclusion? There is too much noise on the obverse cheek and around the cheek to the extent that this will not slab at PCGS or NGC. Because 1884-S coins with this much going for it are exceedingly rare, there would be a better chance that this will slab at ANACS or ICG, although that is very doubtful as well. Slabbing by third- and bottom-tier companies is a telltale sign in numismatic circles that the coin didn't pass muster at first- and second-tier grading companies.

If sent to PCGS, whose standards I know best, my guess would be "Genuine, altered surfaces." At NGC, my guess would be "Improperly cleaned, AU55." But this is only as judged through a camera's lens. If analyzed with a loop in person, the coin may turn out to be low mint state, prooflike. Or worse: obviously doctored.

Here's what I proposed to the auctioneer: "Tell the owner that you need to send this to PCGS. It's worth the money to see how this will slab, if at all. Potentially, this coin may be a $400 or $7500 piece given the spread of those grades. I'd say chances are better than a lottery ticket."

The auctioneer liked that advice and is planning to submit the coin for grading. What is YOUR assessment?

Related posts:

1. Another New NGC Label “First Releases”
2. My Top 10 Morgan Dollar Varieties
3. Agreeing to Disagree on Grades

In my personal blog, I routinely monitor coin auctioneers selling on the Internet portal Proxibid, paying special attention to photography and lot descriptions.

Only a few auction houses (mostly coin dealers selling on Proxibid, such as "Silvertowne Auctions"), use precise numismatic terms for rarity (a truly scarce coin, such as the 1894 Morgan dollar in any condition) and condition rarity (usually a common coin in lower grades and a scarcity in mint state, such as an 1884-S Morgan).

To illustrate, an 1894 Morgan in a PCGS holder at Good 4 is worth $825 whereas an 1884-S in that grade is worth only $37. However, that same 1884-S coin at AU55 jumps in value to $650 and approaches $20,000 in MS62.

Bargain hunters on Proxibid often win condition-rarity coins because the auctioneer might not know numismatics well enough to fill out the lot description. However, increasingly we're seeing numismatic terms for mint state misused, calling almost uncirculated, uncirculated and choice uncirculated coins "gem," which has a distinct definition, that being "MS65" or better. (Sometimes the term "super gem" or "superb gem" is used for MS66 and above.)

Traditionally, almost uncirculated grades are AU50-58; uncirculated, MS60-63; and choice uncirculated, (MS64). Now that major grading companies NGC and PCGS are adding plus signs to grades, those definitions have changed slightly, by adding the + sign to the highest grade in each category. However, MS63+ is still uncirculated and not choice.

Often we're seeing the term "brilliant uncirculated" used for toned coins. This 1934 Peace Dollar, which sold for $88 on Proxibid, was described as "gem brilliant uncirculated beautiful quality rare date silver dollar."

The coin is not gradable, worth only a small premium above its silver melt. Note the rim damage, which excludes a grade right off, as well as hairlines, rust-colored tone or residue, and bag marks. The lot description should read: "AU50 almost uncirculated rim-damaged Peace dollar."

The 1934 coin, by the way, is a condition rarity, worth about $50 in almost uncirculated condition, $110 in low mint state, and as much as $425 in choice uncirculated.

The same auctioneer, however, uses the correct term in describing a roll of 1926-S dollars as "choice uncirculated." In viewing some 212 lots, the auction company describes 45 coins as "gem" or some 21% of the consignment. Only four or five by my count rate that designation.

Morgan dollars illustrate condition better than almost any other coin, because of the large surface area and focal point of the cheek. An MS65 coin must have brilliant or pristine-like surfaces, with minimal contact marks. Any that appear should be minor in less important areas, perhaps near a rim.

This 1886 dollar has clean surfaces with a strong strike so that flow lines--a faint pattern of metal flowing toward the rim, often providing that cartwheel effect--can be seen. If the surfaces were clean, it could quality as "gem." However, this coin has hairlines on the cheek, a deep bag mark behind the eye and a scape in front of the ear. The lot description states: "gem brilliant uncirculated superb quality silver dollar." It should read: "brilliant uncirculated common date silver dollar."

In closing, an almost uncirculated coin should have adequate luster but exhibit contact marks and wear on the high points of devices. A brilliant uncirculated coin should not have tone; otherwise, it is just uncirculated. As for contact marks, an MS60 can have many caused by coins banging against each other in a bank bag, for instance, but little evidence of wear or "rubs" on devices. A choice uncirculated coin should have few bag marks and relatively clean surfaces.

A super or superb gem should have amazing luster and few if any visible contact marks.

Determining condition is difficult when inspecting a coin in person. It is doubly so when purchasing online. At least this particular auction house supplies some of the best photography on Proxibid, despite the oft-hyped lot descriptions, which may not even be intentional.

Moreover, this is one of my favorite auction houses. I have purchased quality coins from the company for years, mainly because I rely on his photography but not on his lot descriptions.

Never purchase a coin from an online seller without having access to crisp, expandable photos. Study them well, using a grading guidebook to sharpen your skill. My favorite books are Making the Grade by Beth Deisher and Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection edited by Scott A. Travers with text by John W. Dannreuther.

Related posts:

1. United States Mint 2012 Numismatic Product Prices
2. PCGS Announces New Services
3. Agreeing to Disagree on Grades–Take 2

The First Releases label was dubbed an alternative to the Early Releases label, which will remain the default designation on all submissions … unless the new blue label is specifically requested.

Even though Early Releases will be the default designation, both will be grouped together under the First Releases category in as much as both designations indicate that a coin was received by the company within 30 days or release by the U.S. Mint.

If you’re wondering about the difference between Early and the new First Release, NGC states there is no difference.

If you’re wondering, then, why the new label was launched, a company representative explains that it “was created in response to collector and dealer feedback.”

I don’t doubt the company’s word. NGC does listen to feedback—sometimes to its detriment, as happened when it eliminated crossovers for coins holdered by all firms except PCGS. (I still think ANACS, ICG and even PCI should have been included.)

The history of NGC’s Early Release label bears repeating. The label was created because of a class-action lawsuit in 2006. At the time, NGC and PCGS were using the controversial designation “First Strike.” In mediation, NGC abandoned First Strike and established an educational settlement fund. PCGS continues to use the “First Strike®” designation as a proprietary symbol and registered trademark.

Recently Steve Roach, associate editor of Coin World, published an article about premiums associated with Early Release and First Strike®.

He wrote that in 2006 the US Mint issued a consumer advisory clarifying initial beliefs about First Strikes. That advisory noted that “manufacturing facilities use a die set as long as the quality of resulting coins meets United States Mint standards.” Then the dies are replaced, “continually changing sets throughout the production process.”

In other words, the last batch of coins from the very first die pairs may be as good as—or perhaps imperceptibly less than—the first coins from second die pairs, and so forth.

If you’re confused by that paragraph, you may be more baffled about why NGC announced yet another premium label hearkening all that legal history in the first place (pun intended). Could it be that NGC customers providing feedback wanted to be “first” instead of “early,” perhaps to compete with PCGS’s First Strike® label?

NGC states that the decision to do First Releases has no connection whatsoever to the PCGS First Strike® designation.

We appreciate that NGC listens to feedback, but think it may have gone too far on this one. It’s still a sensitive topic as many hobbyists believe these labels are meaningless. The company would have undergone less scrutiny if it simply eliminated the Early Release label entirely, combining those data with First Release figures in the future.

As long as collectors are willing to pay premiums for labels, slabbing companies will produce them. We realize that. However, transitions from one label to another—designating the same thing—need not be as confusing as this one has become.

Your thoughts?

Related posts:

1. Agreeing to Disagree on Grades–Take 2
2. Predictable CAC Submission Results
3. My First CAC Submission

Coin Update News decided to test that, first by purchasing from a reputable dealer five coins designated as having deep-mirror surfaces, sending them to PCGS and then cracking open those holders for resubmission to NGC.

Before disclosing the results, we will provide pictures and background information about the submission.

These five coins were purchased from a long-time Proxibid auctioneer whose company, Silver Trades, not only provides multiple photos of each coin but lengthy descriptions, often with a buyback guarantee if PCGS or NGC deem a coin ungradeable for any reason.

Here's how Silver Trades described the five coins in its catalog:

• 1880-s Morgan Dollar. Grades Gem Uncirculated ms65++ DMPL PQ, In Addition to being a Striking DMPL this example also has Beautiful Light Pastel Rim Toning. Virtually no bag marks of significance. The fields are near mark free deep mirrors. A spectacular coin.
• 1881-s DMPL Morgan Dollar. $1 Grades ms65 DMPL, Nice Deeply Mirrored Morgan. While the Devices are not heavily frosted the Mirrored Fields are Very Deep. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this coin is all original that this coin is all original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.
• 1883-cc Morgan Dollar. Grades Choice Uncirculated ms64 DMPL. A Beautiful Deep Mirror Proof Like Carson City Morgan Dollar. All Original with Great Eye Appeal. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this coin is all original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.
• 1884-cc Morgan Dollar. Grades Choice Uncirculated ms64 DMPL. Wonderful Deep Mirror Proof Like Example with Great Frosted Devices and Beautiful Mirrored Fields. A very Clean Coin with great eye appeal. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this is original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.
• 1885-o Morgan Dollar. Grades Choice Uncirculated ms64 DMPL. Wonderful Deep Mirror Proof Like Example with Great Frosted Devices and Beautiful Mirrored Fields. A very Clean Coin with great eye appeal. I will offer my personal buy back guarantee, that this coin is all original and will not come back Ungradeable by any major grading service.

Here are pictures of the coins as displayed in the Silver Trades catalog (click any image to enlarge).

When I received the coins, I felt the catalog descriptions were accurate for the most part, but that getting deep-mirror designations from PCGS or NGC was going to be difficult.

Generally, a semi-prooflike coin should reflect your finger at a distance of 1-2 inches; prooflike, 2-4 inches; and deep mirror prooflike (or "DMPL"), 4-plus inches.

The "DMPL" designation also has other requirements. Devices should be frosted with uniform reflectivity at 4-plus inches--on both sides of the coin. In other words, if a section of either obverse or reverse is duller without deep reflectivity, an otherwise "DMPL" coin could test prooflike or worse (no prooflike designation whatsoever).

On each of the coins, I noticed a small patch of duller than "DMPL" reflectivity.

But the coins were beautiful in their own right. Their cost was close to $1600 for all five, which would have been a bargain if they graded as described in the Silver Trades catalog. Deep-mirrored coins for these dates would be worth collectively between $2700-$3000.

The coins were sent in at the "Regular" submission rate, meaning that each was valued at $300 or more. Here is how PCGS graded them: 1880-S, MS64; 1881-S, MS63; 1883-CC, MS63; 1884-CC, MS63; and 1885-O, MS63PL.

Not one graded "DMPL."

Coins were cracked out of their PCGS holders and sent at the same fee level to NGC. Here is how NGC graded the same coins: 1880-S, MS65; 1881-S, MS63; 1883-CC, MS63; 1884-CC, MS63; and 1885-O, MS63.

What was gained with the 1880-S coin at NGC was lost in the 1885-O coin, meaning both services essentially graded the set of coins similarly. Their collective worth was about $800.

This is the gamble we take purchasing raw coins online, even from the most knowledgeable auction companies, like Silver Trades, which unlike many houses offers buyback guarantees on select coins like these.

Many hobbyists claim that grading is a subjective exercise, and it is to a degree, as this exercise documents--a degree of one point in the 1880-S and one less "prooflike" label in the 1885-O.

On occasion, one of the two major companies get a grade wrong. But their reputations are earned through consistency, and grades here by both companies fall into that category.

On a personal level, I feel that these coins are worth more than $800. They failed in large part because I could not see the small duller patches undermining reflectivity and thereby depriving them of "DMPL" and even "prooflike" designations.

I would not have made the same mistake purchasing them at a coin shop and inspecting them first-hand with a loop. That said, I also would likely have paid close to $1600 if I purchased these premium-quality coins at a coin show without the knowledge of what qualifies as "semi-prooflike," "prooflike," and "deep mirror prooflike."

In the end, that's what this post is about. Make sure the coins have frosted devices with no duller patch of reflectivity. You'll also need uniform reflectivity of 4-6 inches before having a shot at the coveted "deep mirror" designation.

You may not be able to do this with an online purchase. So take your chances, or only purchase prooflike and deep-mirrored coins already holdered by PCGS and NGC.

Related posts:

1. PCGS Promises No Fee Increase, Adopts New Policies
2. Slabbing Judgment Calls
3. PCGS Announces New Services

The coin was similar to the silver one at right, only it was made of base metal. I do not have permission to show the specific coin, but suffice to say, as soon as I held it, I knew it was a counterfeit. It felt as light as an aluminum alloy, or tin, and the minting of it had seams as if hot metal was poured into a mold and then cooled.

Ancient coiners minting Tetradrachms used iron dies that often left traces of rust. There was none on this coin, which was smooth and dull gray. For more on ancient minting practices, click here.

To participate in the Proxibid auction, I had to agree to terms of service, which stated for this particular session: "All information is believed to be accurate, but the auction company shall not be responsible for the correct description, authenticity, genuineness of or defect in any lot, and makes no warranty in connection therewith."

Despite that, as soon as I notified the company of the fake, its representative told me to return the coin; and within five days, the auctioneer refunded my money. That's excellent customer service.

Then it occurred to me that many coin auctioneers on Proxibid also are dealers. Presumably, several belong to the American Numismatic Association or the Professional Numismatists Guild. Ethics codes for both companies warn against the selling of counterfeits.

The ANA states that members must not "sell, exhibit, produce or advertise a counterfeit, copy, restrike or reproduction of any numismatic item if its nature is not clearly indicated by the word 'counterfeit,' 'copy,' 'restrike,' or 'reproduction,' incused in the metal or printed on the paper thereof, with the exception of items generally accepted by numismatists and not in any way misrepresented as genuine."

PNG states that members have to "refrain from knowingly dealing in counterfeit, altered or repaired numismatic items without fully disclosing their status to my customer."

When those auctioneers on Proxibid use boilerplate language, such as this--"It is the Bidder’s responsibility to determine condition, age, genuineness, value or any other determinative factor," essentially avoiding the ANA or PNG ethics codes--are those members living up to their membership standards?

A few coin dealers selling on Proxibid do not publish terms of service, neglecting to address the illegality of selling counterfeit coins. Here are specific legal references:

Section 486, Title 18, Chapter 25 of the federal code: "Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

Section 473 of that chapter states: “Whoever buys, sells, exchanges, transfers, receives, or delivers any false, forged, counterfeited, or altered obligation or other security of the United States, with the intent that the same be passed, published, or used as true and genuine, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

There are other laws, too, such as the U.S. Hobby Act of the Federal Trade Commission, which reads, in part:

"Imitation numismatic item means an item which purports to be, but in fact is not, an original numismatic item or which is a reproduction, copy, or counterfeit of an original numismatic item. Such term includes an original numismatic item which has been altered or modified in such a manner that it could reasonably purport to be an original numismatic item other than the one which was altered or modified."

In researching this column, I analyzed terms of service on Proxibid addressing counterfeit coins, and to my surprise and relief, several coin auctioneers addressed the issue of selling fakes in online Proxibid sessions. Here is a sampling:

Weaver Signature Coin and Currency Auction: "We will accept returns on counterfeit coins (which we NEVER intend to sell) or if we made an error in denomination description. Buyer must contact us within 5 days of receipt of coin to request return as a counterfeit. On receipt of coin we will verify identity & make necessary refund. Any coin removed from the original packaging or holder is considered sold & may not be returned."

Key Date Coins: "I Guaranty that all coins going through these Auctions are Authentic. If you find a coin that is not I will refund the total price of that item."

Crawford Family Auction: "All efforts are made by Crawford Family Auctions to represent authetic,(unless other wise described)merchandise. The Exception is for Gold, silver, platinum & coins specific to metal content, gems and jewelry. If you purchase jems, jewlery, coins, or precious metals, in regards to silver,gold, or platinum content and it comes back as not genuine. Crawford Family Auctions will refund your purchase."

West Coast Auction Co. L.L.C.: "If for any reason an item purchased with a certificate of authenticity is false (due to a re-evaluation from other outside authenticating companies), the buyer must submit that information as proof to us and we as an auction company with also have it evaluated by a very reputable forensics company to determine its authenticity. If in fact an item was sold through our company as false (determined false) we will be happy to refund the total purchase price paid for that item."

The most elaborate and instructive service term was by Silver Trades, which "guarantees all coins to be genuine."

Silver Trades also outlines a process: "If after receiving the coin, a buyer questions the genuineness of a coin is, the buyer has 10 days from receipt of the coin to return the coin to Silver Trades. The coin must be in the original holder and holder must not have been opened. Silver Trades will determine if the returned coin is the actual coin sold. Silver Trades will ship the coin in question to PCGS or NGC, at Silver Trades discretion, for determination if the coin is genuine or not. The buyer is responsible for all costs associated with grading and shipping if the coin is deemed genuine by PCGS or NGC. If coin is deemed not genuine, Silver Trades will refund purchase price of coin and shipping and grading costs."

This is an incredibly helpful policy. However, each one of the above auctioneers would be in compliance with numismatic ethics.

If you bid in online coin auctions, please do read the terms of service. And if no term addresses counterfeit coins, email the auctioneer to ask what internal policies are in place should a bidder win a fake coin.

If there is any pushback, reference this article.

Related posts:

1. House Passes Bill for US Marshals Service Coins
2. Online Coin Photography
3. CAC Sticker Helps ID Counterfeit

In an email blast, Willis wrote: "Effective immediately all World coins graded through Secure Plus will be eligible for the PCGS unlimited guarantee. That means every coin in a Secure Plus holder now comes with a 100%, no limit, guarantee for grade and authenticity. This includes all Chinese coins."

Willis also noted that all World coins except Modern (1955 and later) must be submitted through Secure Plus. "Anyone wishing to send a Modern World coin through Secure Plus can continue to do so," he noted. Given increasing concerns about counterfeit World Coins, this is a reasonable policy.

A big change occurred in the PCGS policy concerning Crossover submissions to Secure Plus. They now will be allowed. (Standard Secure Plus fees apply plus an additional charge of $10 per coin.)

PCGS has come a long way in a short time, concerning Secure Plus, and Coin Update News was at the forefront of encouraging policy changes. We applaud Don Willis for taking criticism to heart and making changes we believe ultimately serve the hobbyist.

In a March 26, 2010 post, we noted that PCGC Plus grades required submission in pricey categories: "Ultra rarities, 2-5 days turnaround, $600 fee; rarities, $200,000 maximum value, 2-5 days turnaround, $250; Walkthrough (in house), $100,000 maximum value, 2 days turnaround, $125; Express, $20,000 maximum value, 5 days turnaround, $65; reholder, $20,000 maximum value, 10-12 days turnaround, $20. (There are show express, show and show gold fees, too.)"

That no longer is the case.

In a March 29, 2010 post, we encouraged PCGS "to award the plus sign for any submission without requiring a special price list for certain types of high-end turn-around services, the same way that its rival Numismatic Guaranty Corporation does with its star designation on routine submissions. If it’s about eye appeal, let’s not make it about price, too."

That no longer is the case.

In a May 25, 2010 post, we noted that Crossovers were not accepted in PCGS Secure Plus.

Now that no longer is the case.

In an April 21, 2011 post, we questioned why PCGS was not awarding "plus" signs at all fee levels of evaluation.

That no longer is the case.

On Oct. 12, 2011, we noted "the second major change in service that PCGS has made in the past four months. In June, the company added plus grading at no extra charge for all Economy submissions, including both Standard as well as Secure Plus. PCGS Secure Plus also was expanded in June to include Economy level submissions, and coins graded 'Genuine' also were allowed in Secure Plus holders."

We know that our criticism at times may have sounded harsh to PCGS, long considered the leader in grading consistency, and that our continuous advocacy for the hobby might have been viewed as meddlesome or worse.

In the end, though, Don Willis has shown that he listens to criticism, feedback and counsel. That kind of leadership is more important now than ever in numismatics.

Related posts:

1. PCGS to Host Coin Grading Contest at 2012 FUN Convention
2. PCGS Announces New Services
3. PCGS Changes Plus and Secure Policies

The sets come in deep blue boxes whose color contrasts perfectly with the mint, proof and reverse proof state coins featuring West Point, Philadelphia and San Francisco mint marks.

However, to holder the five-coin array, PCGS and NGC require that each set be submitted in sealed U.S. Mint shipping boxes. This is a valid policy that prevents coins that can be purchased individually, such as the bullion 2011 Eagle, from being labeled as emanating from an anniversary set.

NGC and PCGS are handling requests for return of blue boxes differently. NGC's policy requires a submitter to request the return of the box. A simple $1 handling fee plus additional mailing is billed to the person's account.

PCGS's policy was announced in an email by Don Willis, President, who noted that the 25th Anniversary program "has been a smashing success for the Mint" and that most submitters "ask to have their Mint set packaging returned ... placing severe demands on PCGS."

Willis, of course, is correct. As he notes, "the size and weight of the Mint set packaging requires that it be returned separately from the coins resulting in extraordinary handling and cost."

The PCGS policy is spelled out in the following release:

• Effective for all submissions postmarked after November 18, 2011 PCGS will charge a return shipping fee for 25th Anniversary Mint set packaging.
• Return shipping fees must be included in the original submission.
• Return shipping fee for up to two 25th Anniversary sets is $20. That is two Mint sets for $20. Return shipping fee for one set is $20 as well.
• Return shipping fee for three to five 25th Anniversary Mint sets is $30. Any number of Mint sets from three to five will cost $30 to be returned.
• Return shipping costs for over five 25th Anniversary Mint sets will be based on the above costs. (ex. Five shipping boxes of five Mint set packages will cost $150.)

PCGS will not return Mint set packaging for submissions received without prepayment. Nor will the company accept phone calls requesting shipment after a submission has been received.

First of all, it should be acknowledged that both companies are doing their best to grade coins in a deluge of submissions. Secondly, requests for return of packaging and explanations about policies have been tying up Customer Service inquiries on other submissions due to the huge number of anniversary sets sent in for grading. Thirdly, there are legitimate billing and shipping issues associated with returning packaging.

That said, it is interesting to see how both companies handled the snafu. On the one hand, NGC is going out of its way with customer service, to the point of returning all paperwork and keeping track of billing issues. It has delayed the company's typically swift processing of new submissions by 3-4 days.

PCGS's policy seems harsh at first blush. But the company is focusing on its operations and the timely return of submissions, as it should.

The question is what will be done with those boxes that are not being returned? As demand for the sets rises--see this post from Louis Golino on exorbitant pricing--those boxes are going to come in handy. Dealers will be tempted to assemble their own sets from a combination of lesser MS/PF coins and single-issue sale Eagles (the very reason that holdering companies require sealed U.S. Mint shipping boxes).

Perhaps in the future the U.S Mint will devise a marketing mechanism that separates coins from packaging, at least on its limited edition/high demand products. For instance, coins can be placed in inexpensive sealed cardboard boxes with a special U.S. Mint label attached to collector boxes, enabling hobbyists who want to grade coins to keep the boxes without burdening slabbing companies.

Coin Update News wants to hear from you, our readers. What do you think of the 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle Set packaging Snafu? How, if at all, have you been affected? What do you recommend?

Related posts:

1. US Mint Receives Orders for All 100,000 25th Anniversary American Eagle Sets
2. Secondary Market Values for 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle Sets Expected to Rise
3. 25th Anniversary Silver Eagle Set Scheduled

When it comes to photography, however, bidders eager to score bargains often overlook the most fundamental component of any deal, and that is, the ability to see the product as it really is, or as close to reality as possible.

eBay has specific rules, many emanating out of lawsuits, in coin auctions, including these:

1. Include all relevant information that you know about the item, such as origin, date of issue, and condition.
2. Include all information about any alterations that may have been made to the item.
3. Ensure that any replica coin (U.S. or foreign) is clearly and permanently marked with the word "COPY" as required under U.S. law.
4. In addition to including appropriate photos, clearly state that any replica is a "reproduction," "replica," or "copy" in both the title and description.
5. Treat in lot descriptions as a "raw" or uncertified coin any item not certified by NGC, PCGS, ANACS, ICG or NCS
6. No estimate of value (even if personal opinion) or reference to a price guide may be included in the title or description if the lot is not certified by the above grading companies.
7. Include a clear picture of the actual item being sold—don't use only stock pictures.
8. In addition, listings for certified coins must include an image of the item, showing the coin in its graded holder. The image needs to be clear and the grading company, grade, and certification number should easily be readable. Note: Coins minted before 1980 must show the full front and back of the holder. Coins minted in 1980 or after must show the full front of the holder.
9. The listing includes a photo of the coin being sold. Images that are dark, out of focus, edited, or might be misleading aren't allowed. Also, stock photos aren't allowed.
10. Coins that are sealed in original U.S. Mint packaging must include a photo showing the actual packaging.

To be sure, purchasing coins from eBay comes with its own set of issues, from dealing with dozens if not hundreds of sellers, some as ornery as they come, to navigating PayPal policies and surviving disputes in the Resolution Center. However, when it comes to eBay, at least adversaries know precisely and numismatically what they are trying to resolve.

Often that cannot be said about the leading auction portal, Proxibid. (For top auction houses, see rankings in Proxiblog, as these mostly provide everything that top sellers in eBay do plus better bargains.)

For more than a half year, Proxiblog has campaigned for quality control, especially in online coin photography. Only a handful of auctioneers then were providing photos of obverse and reverse, and many of those could not be expanded to detect varieties and condition. Now most coin auctioneers provide visual basics. For the most part, photography continues to improve, not only because of advocacy by Proxiblog but also because Proxibid's quality control officer understands what is at stake and works behind the scenes to rectify issues.

Below is a sampling of issues involving photography:

Here is a house that only photographs the box of a coin, but not the coin itself.

This house takes blurry pictures of coins at sunset.

This seller notes scratches on the reverse but doesn't show the reverse.

This house even manages to muck up the photography of a PCGS coin so that the certification cannot be seen.

That said, some Proxibid auctioneers are improving their photography because they know that this is the main ingredient for return customers and higher profits. Check out this link for representative samples.

To test for adequate photography when purchasing on Proxibid or any portal or online shop selling coins, determine whether the photo would be able to capture one of the top 100 VAMs, also needed in set registries, and that is the 1887/6 Morgan dollar. Check out the photos on VAMWORLD to see the level of photography needed to capture this much-desired variety.

Also, we recommend not purchasing coins from any seller or auctioneer that provides only pictures of obverse, whose pictures do not expand and/or lack VAM-sharpness, that show only boxes or stock photos and whose lightning is inadequate or too bright.

A major pitfall on Proxibid remains photography and lighting. In the past, even with these guidelines, I have purchased doctored and misrepresented coins. Several auctioneers are selling ungradable dipped coins photographed against black backgrounds with strong lighting, a technique that obscures the dipping, especially when combined with overenthusiastic lot descriptions.

That said, upon being informed, other auctioneers have vastly improved their photography.

The temptation of Proxibid is the prospect of a deal, and I've enjoyed many. There's a skill to purchasing on the portal that is beyond the scope of this post. Moreover, Proxibid's state-of-the-art technology and superior customer service are the best in the business. I still buy coins from Teletrade, Great Collections and eBay whose quality controls are uniform and transparent. Usually I look to these sites when I need specific coins.

Despite tens of thousands of sellers, and dozens of coin-related lawsuits, eBay has managed to standardize quality control for the vast majority of its items. In time, I believe, Proxibid will follow suit.

Related posts:

1. PCGS Announces New Services
2. NGC and Park Avenue Numismatics Announce Free Online References
3. Coin Update Readers Asked to Help in Coin Theft

In this week's Coingrader Capsule we'll look at close calls, coins that I considered submitting but then decided against because of:

• Bagmarks, caused when coins jostle against each other in a bank bag or cloth sack.
• Dipping, using chemical solutions to remove unattractive toning.
• Fingerprints, leaving prints by mishandling a coin.
• Questionable color, evidence of cleaning or doctoring.
• Rub, the slightest trace of wear on the high points of a coin.
• Slider, an almost uncirculated coin that appears on first blush to be mint state.

Let's illustrate each one.

Bagmarks. This mint state 1880-S Morgan Dollar may look as if it qualifies as deep mirror--frosty devices contrasting with prooflike fields; but the obverse bagmarks keep it from that designation. (The reverse has fewer bagmarks, but it only takes one side to lose the DMPL [deep mirror] designation.) A top-grading company, such as PCGS, will require a "mirror" depth of 2-4 inches for prooflike and more than 4 inches for "deep mirror." Those terms are taken literally, as in holding one's finger 2, 3, 4 or more inches from the coin and still being able to see the finger clearly (as in a mirror). So this coin, one of the commonest Morgans, is likely to earn an MS60-62 prooflike, putting the value at about $55. The coin to me is worth more than that, and likely will to someone else for sale in my booth. But if I slab it, I'll have to charge $85 to cover the cost of that process. Best to keep it raw.

Dipping. Most collectors like their Barber Dimes bright white, with no toning or spots. Several chemical products remove toning and spots and, if used properly with larger coins, such as a Morgan, may actually remove unwanted tone or spotting while still maintaining luster. But dipping small coins like a dime is risky because there just isn't enough metal, and stripping off the thinnest layer leaves telltale micro pock marks, as in this 1916 example. At best this might grade MS60, worth about $70, or might earn a Genuine or Details label. The fee to slab is just not worth it.

Fingerprints. This 2001 Buffalo Commemorative was shipped from the US Mint in a capsule and must have been virtually flawless. It came in a two-coin package, with an example from Philadelphia and another from Denver. The Denver coin was pristine, so I am sending that to NGC with other modern commems. This one, however, has fingerprints on the obverse. Whoever initially purchased it just had to hold it. As such, the best I can hope for is an PF69 designation, but this will probably come back lower. The only reason I slab such modern commemoratives is the hope for an MS or PF70. Otherwise, the US Mint package is as attractive as any holder.

Questionable color. This coin has traces of rainbow toning on the obverse. The toning is not uniform, moving from one color to the next as in a rainbow, but more spotty. Sometimes that can occur authentically, but it almost always throws up a numismatic red flag. Then I saw the telltale clue: The reverse shows signs of a light cleaning. Often that causes retoning. Case closed. This is not going to PCGS. I'll note the questionable color if I decide to sell it.

Rub. This is one of the most difficult details to detect, at least for me, a slight friction or wear on the high points of a coin, that can be caused by any number of factors, such as coins "rubbing" against each other while in storage. Another type of rub is caused by coins kept in wooden or other abrasive container without protection of a flip. That will wear down areas of a coin over the years as the box is taken out of a drawer and returned. This Jamestown Expo US Mint 1907 So-Called Dollar (HK-346) has a slight rub on the obverse cheek of Pocahantus. I'll put it in a protective holder and sell it as almost uncirculated.

Slider. A slider, quite literally, is an almost uncirculated coin that can pass for mint state if not carefully analyzed for wear. This 1888 Morgan Dollar is a perfect example. It has that creamy toned look that PCGS loves with mint state coins. I've sent in several and got MS65s in return. But this one would be lucky to get an AU58. The cheek is relatively mark-free; but the portion above the ear and into the hair is worn, worn, worn. I'll sell this one for $50 or so in my booth.

There are other types of problems, and we'll explore them in other posts.

Often collectors who lack knowledge about these problems believe a coin is more valuable than it actually is. Judgment can be harsh if that coin is sent to a top-tier grading company. Being able to distinguish these problems, so as not to submit such coins for slabbing, saves time and money and spares the disappointment.

Related posts:

1. PCGS Announces New Services
2. House Bill Calls for Suspension of Presidential $1 Coin Program
3. Low Mint State PCGS OGHs

This is the second major change in service that PCGS has made in the past four months. In June, the company added plus grading at no extra charge for all Economy submissions, including both Standard as well as Secure Plus. PCGS Secure Plus also was expanded in June to include Economy level submissions, and coins graded “Genuine” also were allowed in Secure Plus holders.

Coin Update and Coingrader Capsule had advocated for many of those earlier changes, as we discuss in this post applauding Willis and the enhanced emphasis on serving customers.

These new changes are in the same mode, and again we applaud.

One of our favorites is a new option, "Genuine with Details," offered at no extra charge. NGC offers this service, which is helpful in ascertaining a coin's general condition. For instance, an 1884-S Morgan dollar is a condition rarity in mint state, with PCGS values at $25,000 in MS62. An 1884-S graded "Cleaned--AU Details" in a PCGS holder would have wide appeal and enhanced value. In particular, this service will go far with condition rarity coins and ones offered for bid in online auctions, competing with NGC Details coins on portals like Proxibid and eBay or in houses like Heritage and Teletrade.

However, some Details descriptions are undesirable on certain coins. For instance, I keep in my bank box an 1862-S Liberty Head quarter eagle that was once part of jewelry. It don't want that in a holder that states: "Genuine (98 - Damage or Tooling)." I'm not trying to hide the damage. The reason is the rarity. That label just doesn't do justice to a coin with fewer than 100 known to exist.

Now collectors have a choice.

According to Willis, "You can now choose from three Genuine Service options. 1) Do not holder Genuine Coins; 2) Genuine with Details; 3) or the standard (default) Genuine service. Genuine with Details will print the coin problem as well as a details grade. We will not be using numeric grades."

This matches NGC Details service but differs from how ANACS, for example, labels details coins, assigning a specific number of the Sheldon scale along with the details, such as "Cleaned AU58 Details."

Willis says new submission forms will be available in a few weeks, but "Genuine with Details" is effective immediately. Simply write it on your submission form, he says, noting that one cannot mix Genuine services on one submission form (which again makes sense from a handling perspective).

Willis also announced:

• Secure Plus will now be offered on all services for all coins through Grading and Regrading submissions (no crossovers). This includes Modern ($20), Mint Errors ($65), Special Issues ($65) and Show Economy ($75). This is effective immediately. Note: Request this on the submission form until new forms are available.
• All coins, both US and World, minted since 1955 and valued up to $1,000 can be submitted under the Modern Service.
• Chinese coins minted from 1955 to date will no longer have to be submitted through Secure Plus. This will be effective for all orders received after November 15, 2011. Note: All World Coins minted before 1955 must be submitted through Secure Plus (which will help identify counterfeits).

Other changes concerned upgrading Collectors Club membership and shipping account charges.

In recent months, PCGS also has provided excellent customer service. We see all these changes as competitive and helpful. In the past, again as we have noted in older posts, such as this one, Coingrader Capsule has encouraged PCGS to de-emphasize its marketing niche as the premier grading service and to move toward more customer friendly service.

To his credit, Don Willis has responded proactively. In today's news release, he states, "If you have any issues or suggestions please contact the PCGS Customer Service department or see one of us at any show."

We appreciate his moving the company in a continuously upward trajectory.

Related posts:

1. PCGS Promises No Fee Increase, Adopts New Policies
2. PCGS Changes Plus and Secure Policies
3. PCGS Currency Announces Registry Set Award Winners