coinman_23885

3 hours ago, Afterword said:

At least with Carr, he was able to defend himself against the ridicule and small, petty and cruel jokes. It is too bad this type of thing did not disappear along with the old message boards.

To paraphrase Carr supporters, sometimes there is not enough fun in this hobby.  Lighten up!

1 minute ago, allmine said:

we all know that most older Proofs can be known by their die varieties-and that is a really pretty 1908-S IHC...

Some of Breen's "specimen" or "proof" coins were unique or near unique.  Moreover, many of them lacked the traditional die diagnostics associated with proofs of the issue (see, e.g., Breen's 1917 putative matte proof wheat cent).

43 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

I'll cut you a deal! $50 and I'll declare it a Branch Mint Proof! Just send it to me!

There might be precedent for calling it a specimen.    I wish I could actually view one of the 1927 specimen coins (as recognized by PCGS in hand).  Here is the catalog description for a PCGS SP65 1927 Buffalo nickel (see second paragraph):

(P.S.  I am not making fun of the authenticator at all.  I respect JA and the two major services).

Quote

Specimen 1927 Buffalo Nickel, SP65
Probably Struck From Chromium-Plated Dies
One of Only Three Pieces Known

1927 Special Strike 5C SP65 PCGS. Twenty years ago, I closely examined one of the most interesting discoveries that has ever crossed my desk. Three Specimen 1927 Buffalo nickels had just been certified by NGC after being sold to Jim Halperin at a coin show. The source of these pieces was unknown. However, after consulting with Walter Breen it seemed reasonable to conclude that these coins came from the estate of John Sinnock. Sinnock was a "quiet and unassuming" man, according to Neil Harris, former editor of The Numismatist, but he was "always trying new things." Sinnock's collection was consigned to the joint ANA-CNA auction conducted by Kelly and Charlton in Detroit in 1962. In that auction, lot 352 contained 10 Buffalo nickels. Three were dated 1927, three 1930, and four 1934. All were described as Uncirculated and the lot sold for $60 on a $75 estimate. Of course, no one knows today whether the three Specimen coins were the same three 1927 nickels in this lot from Sinnock's estate, but Walter Breen thought it was a reasonable conjecture.

One of the problems encountered when these coins first appeared is that they were totally unsuspected. There is no actual documentation that says such coins were struck. No one knew they existed. And yet when they appeared the physical evidence from the coins themselves was incontrovertible. When John Albanese of NGC examined the coins, he stated: "I could have sworn they were Proof." However, "It's terribly hard to call them a Proof without any backup. ... We couldn't call them Uncirculated or a Proof. They are definitely something special. We felt classifying them as Specimen was the proper thing to do."
Jim Halperin purchased two of the coins from an unspecified source. His impression at the time was noted in a Coin World article shortly after purchase: "Two of the coins came to me as standard MS-65s, but when I examined them, I was impressed by their extraordinary texture. It reminded me of the Satin Finish Proofs minted in 1936, but to see texture like that on a 1927 mintage was unbelievable! It didn't seem possible."

Several months of on-again, off-again investigation of these pieces ensued. It was suggested that these special nickels were distributed to members of the Assay Commission. The problem with this theory is that the Assay Commission only dealt with gold and silver coins. There also was a medal struck and given to members of the 1927 Assay Commission. What was certain about these pieces is that the reverse die was leftover from the matte proof strikings from 1913-1916. This was first observed by Walter Breen who wrote an opinion of one of the coins where he stated in part: " ... with complete knife rims, in all details comparable to 1913-16 'Type I' Proofs. Surfaces are satin finish and untampered. (The diagonal line on reverse flat rim about 8 o'clock is in the original die from which hubs and working dies came; no business strikes are brought up enough in strike to show it.)"

The first breakthrough in discovering the origin of these coins came from an entry in the 1928 Report of the Director of the Mint: "At the Philadelphia Mint a chromium plating plant has been installed and is being used for greatly improving the wearing qualities of dies, coin collars, machinery parts and models." George Hunter at the Philadelphia Mint said chromium-plated dies had been used on U.S. proof coinage since 1972, and he said these dies left telltale signs when they were used. Chromium-plated dies show microcracking in a "crazing pattern." In more common parlance, coins struck from such dies show a "dry riverbed look" in the fields. This microcracking is very subtle and is more easily seen toward the edge of the coin in the thin area between the light and dark areas of the coin's surface. Strong magnification is also required, he suggested between 10x and 50x. The three coins all had evidence of microcracking. On this particular coin the evidence can only be seen on the obverse because the plastic lip of the PCGS encasement covers the reverse rim.
It is our opinion that these Specimen strikings most closely conform to Dr. Judd's definition of an experimental coin:

" ... include those struck with any convenient dies to try out a new metal, such as aluminum, a new alloy, such as goloid, or a new denomination; those which represent a new shape, such as the ring-dollars; those which represent a new use of an accepted metal, such as nickel for a ten-cent piece; and those representing changes in planchets for the purpose of preventing counterfeiting, sweating, filling or the clipping of the edges of the coins. Those struck in the proper metal, where it is specified, are experimental pieces ... ."

While these pieces do not neatly fit into any of the categories listed by Dr. Judd, one can easily see that coins struck from a new process would fit into the experimental coin category.
The striking details on this piece are, of course, beyond reproach. No trace of weakness can be seen on either side. Because of the plastic encasement it is impossible to see the curved die scratch on the left side of the reverse rim. The coin displays all the necessary features to qualify it as a Satin Finish proof. Each side shows lovely light blue and rose colored toning. This particular coin can be distinguished from the two others known by the presence of a tiny spot on the end of the Indian's nose, a cluster of carbon specks below the chin, and several in the reverse field that are no higher than the bison's hooves.
Ex: Jim Halperin; Larry Whitlow; Andy Lustig; "Southern Gentleman." (NGC ID# 278W, PCGS# 3987) 

Fees, Shipping, and Handling Description: Coins & Currency (view shipping information) 

Sales Tax information  | PCGS Guarantee of Grade and Authenticity  |  Terms and Conditions 

Bidding Guidelines and Bid Increments

Glossary of Terms

12 minutes ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

Never Fear! Julian Liedman has taken up Breen's obsession with unauthenticated, undocumented, completely ludicrous "branch mint proof" claims. If you want to sell a PL coin for a ridiculous premium, just convince Liedman that you've got the formerly unheard of specimen strike, and he'll sell it for thousands more than it's worth! 

Are you encouraging me to send him the 1937-D buffalo nickel with prooflike fields?   

Speaking of odd nickels, here is a new Buffalo nickel I recently acquired.  I only wish Breen were alive.  I wonder if I might have been "awarded" a letter for this one which has prooflike fields in hand:

"Many of the claims for "specimen" or special striking" or other weirdities are nothing but foolishness based on a failure to understand the range of normal coinage produced with equipment available at the U.S. Mints."

This is an excellent summary of why I discount Breen's work.  Most of it seems to be based on speculation and a lack of understanding of contemporary manufacturing methods.  Every coin with a nice strike or reflective/unusual properties was suddenly a "specimen" or "proof" when in likelihood, the pieces represented normal variations of business strikes.  For instance, in attributing his branch mint proof 1906-D dime, Breen relied heavily on strike and the reflectivity of the fields.  True proof coins of the era were not double struck as Breen opined, and he overlooked the reality that a coin struck from a fresh dies very easily could have a strong strike and reflective fields.  There are multiple prooflike coins known for the series, so it is likely that Breen's "proof" was nothing more than a semi-PL or perhaps even fully PL dime worth a premium, but certainly far less than a true branch mint proof would be worth.

@RWB - I've read in various places that some of the proof coins from the WWII era were available for months or sometimes years after the coins were produced.  Is there any chance that the Mint may have circulated excess satin proof 1936 Buffalo nickels?

11 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

I agree wth almost everything you wrote above. But the strike looks better than any I remember, so my guess was/is a satin Proof.

That would make sense.  Are you thinking potential environmental damage?

On 7/1/2017 at 9:10 AM, MarkFeld said:

It actually looks more like a matte (proof) than a type one or type two proof. I look forward to hearing about the results. 

It looks like a stripped, sharply struck business strike to me.  I cannot think of any reason the Mint would produce a 1936 matte proof nickel.  My understanding is that the original matte proof coinage (1913-1916) was disliked by collectors and would not have sold well at all in the 1930s.  Even the early satin proofs were less favored by collectors hence the excessive polishing implemented later in 1936 that would continue throughout the early modern proof era (i.e. throughout the 1940s).

The 1917 looks like it has a trivial finned rim and may be from a slightly misaligned die.  I have never seen this on a proof coin.  It looks like a business strike to me.

@RWB

I understand what you are saying and worded my question awkwardly.  If Breen was correct that the 1935 nickel or even his "proof" 1906-D dimes were intentionally struck multiple times, wouldn't there be microscopic evidence to support it?  So far, nothing has been offered to prove his contention other than a crisp strike.  The fact that Breen did not know how proof coins were even struck only supports my belief that these are fabrications.  Also could Breen perhaps, in the case of the Barber Dime, merely be mistaking it for an early PL business strike?  Those exist for the series.

4 hours ago, WoodenJefferson said:

There, I fixed that for ya...I think Roger was the one disagreeing. Oh and here's the accompanying letter to the so-called 'specimen'

WALTER BREEN
Box 352, Berkley CA 94701
August 12, 1989
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
This certifies that I have examined the accompanying coin and that I unhesitatingly declare it genuine and as described below.
It is a 1935 buffalo nickel described as a "specimen striking". It has extraordinary sharpness, obviously and visible from two blows from the dies. This extra impression has imparted not only extra design detail as on a proof, but extra sharpness on the inner and outer rims, again as on proofs. Surfaces are satiny, though unlike the 1916, 1917, 1927 or 1936 type one proofs; it is uncertain if any special treatment was don to the surfaces as normally with proofs. This is the first such piece I have seen.

Respectfully submitted, Walter Breen
 

So here is an interesting question... When coins are struck multiple times, particularly in the 1930s and before, what is the likelihood that the overlap will be 100% and undetectable using extremely high magnification?  

2 minutes ago, t-arc said:

1)  I presently own the 1935 specimen buffalo nickel mentioned here by conman_23885.

2)  In 1978 I had on approval from New England Rare Coin Galleries a unique specimen of a 1935 satin finish proof buffalo nickel.  It was in my opinion a no question satin finish proof.  Not to be confused with #1 above.

3)  About 15 years ago I saw a SEGS 1917 type one standing liberty quarter at a show.  It had been cleaned but to my eye was a no questions matte proof.  Details was beyond fantastic and  completely blew away any

     other 1917 type one quarter I had ever seen.   Beautiful fine grained matte surfaces.  

(The 1935 satin finish proof buffalo carried an asking price of $3000 back in the day (1978) and I have always wondered what happened to it.)

4)  There will never be any 1917 proof coinage slabbed by pcgs and/or ngc as this would completley upset the registry set applecart.  Think about that!  One proud registry set owner wakes up one morning to find out that

his record setting number one registry set is now incomplete as the first 1917 matte proof cent, nickel quarter, or half dollar,  has been slabbed!!  never gonna happen!

I would love to see your 1935 specimen nickel.   I think the coin should speak for itself (no slight or offense meant).

As for SEGS, I don't trust it or Briggs anymore than I trust Breen.  My views changed after SEGS advertised a guarantee on all SEGS coins (without qualification) and then refused to honor its guarantee for people on other forums.

11 hours ago, disme said:

 Please name some of these controversial attributions. A half dozen would be nice.

Breen's Liberty Cap "specimen" cent
1935 Specimen Buffalo Nickel
1917 Matte Proof Wheat Cent
1917 Matte Proof Buffalo Nickel
1917 Matte Proof or Specimen Walking Liberty Half Dollar
1906-D Proof Barber Head Dime

None of these have been legitimated or recognized by either PCGS or NGC, and coins of this rarity and caliber certainly would if there was any evidence to support the existence of the piece.  Breen made these attributions several decades ago and still nothing. The putative 1917 matte proof Lincoln had a good strike going for it, but not much else.  It didn't have any of the diagnostics you would expect to see on matte proof coins.  Business strike coins of the era often come with exceptional strike and detail and somewhere during that period the dies were reworked to strengthen the details.  The 1906-D dime was putatively double struck which Breen stated was characteristic of Philadelphia proofs.  Proof coins of the era were struck only once on a medal press with high pressure, not twice as with modern coins.
 

2 hours ago, Afterword said:

As he is dead, I do not see anything constructive about bringing up his personal transgressions. It certainly contributes nothing of relative interest concerning his ability to research and write about coins.

It is very much relevant to his numismatic legacy.  A propensity for lying affects his credibility.  If he would lie about something important, he would have no reservation about fudging on something related to coins, especially given some of his more controversial attributions which so far have not been substantiated outside of Wally Breen's mind.

"It's hard to know who was telling the truth."

I don't think so.  Multiple children came forward, there were multiple convictions - all beyond a reasonable doubt - over at least four decades including in some of the most pro-defendant venues in the country, he was a NAMBLA member and keynote speaker, and even the children with the wildest imaginations couldn't make up what he did to Moira.   A leopard doesn't change his spots.  Sociopaths are also very good at convincing others that they are telling truth because they have no conscience and do not show any of the normal physiological signs of lying.  It is like the people in prison that plead their innocence to the point that you almost believe them - until you see the crime scene video footage and DNA evidence linking them to the crime.

After reading an essay written by Breen's daughter recounting the extreme abuse she and other children were subjected to by Breen and his wife, there is little doubt in my mind that he was a sociopath.  Sociopaths are notorious for lying compulsively about pretty much everything even in the absence of a reason and for trivial things. It does not surprise me that he would be flippant or outright make things up for his books like some of his "specimen" coins that have never garnered mainstream acceptance.  I would be hesitant to rely on anything he has written unless it could be independently corroborated by works from more reputable researchers.  If I had encyclopedic knowledge of all of the minutiae of U.S. coins needed to fact check his works, then I wouldn't really need his books at all.

Nice! Congratulations.

2 hours ago, TonerGuy said:

Why do you doubt that PCGS would honor the guaranty ?

Given that PCGS retroactively voided its copper color guarantee, I am not surprised.  If it would refuse to honor its warranty when there is clear liability or attempt to retroactively amend it into oblivion, it wouldn't make any sense for it to pay out when PCGS has no liability under its guarantee for a putative "mechanical error". 

55 minutes ago, TonerGuy said:

Oh I think the subsequent purchaser could possibly file suit under a negligence claim though. The warranty wouldnt necessary need to apply. I dont think has happened yet simply because PCGS has rectified the situation or there wasnt enough damages to warrant a suit.  I dont think PCGS would let it go that far though.

 

 

7

Does PCGS owe a duty to the would-be plaintiff above and beyond its guarantee/warranty?  I don't think it does, but if someone could devise a plausible theoretical basis for imputing liability outside of the guarantee, it would be a watershed case for the collectibles industry and perhaps warranties generally.   The numismatic community would be very wise to follow the case.

P.S.  Choice of law principles would seem to dictate that California law would apply.  California has unusually rich consumer protection statutes (compared to many other states).  Would any of those apply?

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

I have no problem with the result in this case. As, when all was said and done, the original submitter was denied being unjustly enriched, due to a mistake. But if he had already sold the coin to someone else and later refused to unwind the transaction, the buyer would be stuck, big time. In that scenario, I feel that the grading company should step up to the plate, but seriously doubt that they would.  

 

 

 

 

Why don't the services have one professional grader who verifies the slab once it is encapsulated to avoid this type of mistake?  It would take 30 seconds for each slab, and it would eliminate many potential problems in the future.  For bullion coins/ the newest moderns, the process would probably require an even less time (and this accounts for a good portion of TPG submissions).

On 2/19/2017 at 1:20 PM, TonerGuy said:

Thats why I asked Mark the question that I did. Your mechanical error above is easily understandable since the number of moderns that pass through PCGS and NGC on a daily basis must be remarkable.

A grand total of 130 proof 1909 VDBs have passed through PCGS's hands according to the Pop Report. Not a majority rarity but still a special coin. I dont know if TPGs treat coins like this differently than a 1999 Silver JFK. I would hope so though.

Still though, wouldnt PCGS charge $250 + 1% of the coin's value of the grading fee on a Matte Proof cent ? Based on their pricing guide thats a $650 grading fee. For that amount of money I think it would be reasonable to expect not to be on the wrong end of a mechanical error or a grading error.

 

 

I agree that it is absurd that PCGS would have missed something like this, but the language of the guarantee is extremely broad and regardless of the source (whether in the grading room or in inputting the data on the label), for purposes of the guarantee it is a "mechanical error:"

Clerical or "mechanical" errors. PCGS occasionally makes clerical errors in inputting data which is shown on the insert in the PCGS holder; consequently the PCGS Guarantee does not cover obvious clerical errors, what we call "mechanical errors." The key concept is how obvious the error is to the naked eye. If you can easily tell just by looking at the coin that the description on the holder is wrong, then the coin/holder combination is not covered by the PCGS Guarantee. Examples would include the following:

• A date listed on the holder that does not match the date of the coin. For example, if you had a 1928 $20 St. Gaudens, but the PCGS holder showed the date as 1929 (a much more valuable coin), this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date on the coin itself is obviously 1928.
• A designation that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a 1945 Philadelphia Mercury dime and the bands on the reverse were as flat as a pancake and obviously not fully struck, but the PCGS holder showed the designation as "FB" for fully struck crossbands, this coin would not be covered the PCGS Guarantee as the crossbands are obviously not fully struck.
• Proofs shown as regular strikes and regular strikes shown as proofs. For example, if you had an obvious regular strike 1907 $2.5 gold piece, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a proof, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the difference between a regular strike and proof 1907 $2.5 is obvious.
• An obviously misidentified coin. For example, if you have a Hudson silver commemorative, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a Hawaiian silver commemorative, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as a Hudson is obviously not a Hawaiian.
• A variety attribution that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a normal date 1942 Mercury dime, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a much rarer 1942/1 overdate, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date is obviously normal. Another example would be if you had a 1945 Mercury dime with an obviously normal size mint mark, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a "Micro S." This coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee since the mint mark is obviously normal size.
• A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale.

Of course PCGS will argue that is was "obviously" not a matte proof (and I say that facetiously since few average collectors could tell you the diagnostics or make the distinction) as it was a business strike and not a proof.

I suspect NGC would handle it the same way that PCGS did.  PCGS was well within its right to do what it did.

17 minutes ago, TonerGuy said:

Is there a dollar value where a CAC review begins to make sense ? $100 coin, a $500 coin an $1000+ coin ?

Also, what is CAC's position when it comes to toning ? Is their sticker also an endorsement of natural toning ? Or is that not even looked at ?

Sorry for perhaps rudimentary questions when it comes to CAC but Im just starting to look into them...

7

For all coins above $1000, CAC makes sense to me.  CAC does review the toning and a sticker is an endorsement that the coin is unmolested/natural.  CAC will not pay more for toned coins, however.

If one learns to grade coins fairly accurately for themselves . CAC is meaningless !

I disagree. CAC adds liquidity and basically acts as insurance. For auctions, it is also analogous to having someone lot view for you (and one who will buy it if you hate it). Also, no matter how proficient a grader you are, you can always learn from others.

With this said, I do not take the sycophantic approach that some do (CAC-only or it will not be bought). For me it comes down to (1) whether I like it and (2) whether it is priced reasonably for the respective quality and eye appeal that the piece has. In arriving at that determination, I evaluate all of the tools and data at my disposal: TPG opinion, CAC opinion when available, and my personal knowledge and taste. Reasonable minds may differ.

CAC is often heavily criticized. I do not deny that there are market effects, both positive and negative, resulting from its inception. I will say that I think that many (but not all) of the criticisms are really not CAC's fault but are due to the larger collecting community (e.g. not being knowledgeable or proficient and using stickers/labels as crutches, greed of sellers in the market, CAC only mentality, etc.). The same could be said of the third party grading services.