PCGS Ultra-high grade Lincoln memorials

[Mark]

I have sometimes wondered if PCGS is wise in grading very recent Lincoln cents MS68 or MS69. I presume it takes even copper a while to react to any sort of chemical left on its surface. And I doubt whether PCGS can ascertain if a, say, 2003 cent straight from the mint was properly rinsed before it was struck and then put in a mint set. So I wonder if PCGS is wise in certifying these very recent coins so quickly or would they be better off letting the coins age for a few years? In other words, do you think a bunch of MS69RD recent coins will turn in their holders to MS something less than 69RD?

Mark

P.S.: I believe this is the first coin-post in the Lincoln cent forum. Yipeeeee!!!

[coppercoins]

Hi Mark, and welcome to the forum!

Insightful post there - I, first off, am a very strict grader and don't think there are a lot of MS68 or MS69 coins out there to begin with...but given that a slabbed coin indeed is really one of those lofty grades at the time it was slabbed, there's every chance (in fact probably greater than 75% chance) that the coin will eventually start to tone to whatever is on the surface of the copper, which could include fingerprints that don't show immediately among many other things. You're right on the mark regarding the problem, but I wouldn't know a good solution.

Secondarily, because of the problem, I would have a hard time paying the lofty prices people get for those coins. I'm much more of a raw coin collector, but if I were ever to assemble a grading set or something to that effect, I would want to make sure my MS68 and/or MS69 coin(s) are at least 10-20 years old. You never know what could happen with the new ones, even in a slab.

A slab might stop more contaminants from reaching the coin (albeit not completely true) but there's nothing that can be done for the contaminants that were on the coin before it went into prison. Dicey guess and a risky proposition.

[cladking]

Hey I'll go back and add more about Lincolns until you quit saying this one is first.

There is some tendency for coins of various dates to be made with the exact same techniques through out the year. There is also a tendency for some coins of some dates to have more trouble with tarnish due to special processes used at the mint for some dates. In the last few years a lot of 1969-D quarters in original mint set packaging have been turning an unattractive mottled color. Much of this though is determined by storage conditions and certainly a slab is often going to be near perfect for storage conditions.

One man's tarnish can be another man's toning.

[Mark]

Laz:

I totally agree that copper will do what copper will do. But for a cent that's, say, 10 years old, I presume it's already done whatever it will do. So if it's red withn no spots, then as long as no one fingerprinted it or spit on it putting it in the slab, I presume the cent will stay red and unspotted for a relatively long time once it's encapsulated. Indeed, it's for that reason that I have a slight preference for older slabs because I figure the metal already has a chance to demonstrate that it will turn, and if it hasn't, then probably I am safe in buying the coin. And it's for these reasons (copper will do what copper will do!) that I wonder about PCGS's strategy of slabbing high grade 2003, 2002, etc cents....

Mark

[cladking]

The '68 and '68-s coins are often tarnished in mint sets. Really large percentages of a lot of the pre-'84 cents in sets have been turning bad. About 60% of the '65 SMS cents have at least minor problems and the '66 is also often bad.

[Mark]

Clad:

Thanks for the info. I will print it out for future reference.

Mark

[cladking]

There is a lot of variation over the years in the quality of the coins that go into bags and mint sets. It is pretty consistent that the best examples go into mint sets though. It is sometimes difficult to believe this since sometimes nice gems are fairly common in bags and the mint set coins can look like dogs typically. But when you finally do find a superb gem it is probable that it came from a mint set. The zinc cents tend to be well struck and are often relatively unmarked. This is because zinc is a soft metal which allows for good strikes and the harder copper layer helps prevent scratches. The lighter weight also means less momentum when these collide.

The older copper coins are far more difficult to find in gem. The 72-D comes to mind as one that is extremely difficult to find with clean surfaces. These will get high grades from the services at times but are rare with unblemished surfaces. Many of the dates from the late 70's and early '80's also tend to be tough. After '85 the Lincolns in mint sets are often seen in virtually perfect condition. Many of these will also be very proof like and occasionally even have a hint of frosting.

[cladking]

In addition to the proof sets made each year by the mint, they also make a set of uncirculated coins. These typically include one coin from each of the mints striking uncs for the year. This years mint set is comprised of twenty coins; two coins from each the P and D mints of the cent, nickel, dime, half and dollar. And two of each of the five state quarters.

These coins are struck on single presses with new dies under increased pressure. The coins are then washed and dried and sealed in pliofilm packets. These sets have varied over the years and have been struck since 1946. They are usually listed with the proof sets in a separate category called mint sets.

The term mint set is sometimes used to refer to both mint and proof sets and the mint often refers to these as uncirculated coin sets so it does get confusing.

[Mark]

Clad:

What do you see as the long run (20 years or so?) future for the copper-clad-over-zinc cents? I "worry" that my current high-grade cents have pin hole sized holes and that these holes will eventually lead to the coins falling drastically in appearance.

Mark

[coppercoins]

I have another thread started on this subject that may be of interest, and it may help to reply there. I personally think a person is gambling when they pay any large sum of money for a zinc cent from 1982-1989 because of the problems they have had...but I said something to the effect in the other thread.

[cladking]

The zinc coins in unc have held up far better than I'd have predicted. Circulating coins are bad yet still a little better than expected. The older unc zincs are likely less stable than the newer ones. Lots of the '85 to date coins sure look good now though. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.