Mike's Currency

Thank you for the info. This is more about honor and principal than money. NGC offered a service for a price. They took the money but failed to do the job. Where I come from, when your hired to do a job, you do it or you get out of the business, or go to jail for fraud. They set a precedent when the slabbed the 2.9gram cent Cert 012386-006 . As for the non standard metal coin, they can avoid the error part if they want, but they have to do as their wording says. According to the the Mint and every place I looked 95% and 5% is standard so anything out of that range, (especially when 3 vs 2 metals come up on a report) is the opposite of standard. Unless someone can show me that 93% 5% 2% is common, I have no choice but to think otherwise. A judge would agree. 93% 5% 2% may not be something you would pay for but I know someone who will. I challenge anyone to find another coin like mine and I will gladly pay them $1,000 for it. It is a high grade example and looks like a gold coin with nice flow pattern to the metal. It's one in a million for sure. If I were collecting Lincolns, I would want to know if I am buying a normal composition or non standard as it does affect the look. If NGC is lying about the weight on the 1953, how can I trust them with the percentage on the 1941. Another test will be performed. You seem to know your stuff but I don't see how you can know where people will put their money. The collectible market has been more volatile than the stock market at times. NGC can hold their ground with grading opinions but this is different, this is about facts! And the fact that someone lied about the facts says a lot about who we are dealing with.

They Did Not rendered an opinion based on the conventions of the hobby. They left out important information that was or is normally included in the hobby. Why, I don't know. For some reason the Test results were left out of the second mailing and later found in the file when I asked for them. Maybe the graders never saw the test results and that is the problem.

Maybe there is a lack of demand because there is a lack of supply to sell or Market. People don't know what they want until they see it. I spend well over $100,000 a year at auctions so I know this to be true. I sent these coins in based on NGC advertising and past graded examples I have seen. I found several a NGC slabbed coins with weight on them including a1940-S Lincoln that says 2.9g, cert 012386-006. My 2.7 gram coin is an error and should be treated as such regardless of market demand. NGC certainly should not lie to their customer and say it was normal weight. They can pull number grades out of thin air as that is an opinion but the weight is a scientific fact that can't be made up. If a customer pays over a $100 for a coin I would think asking for or including the weight would not be too much to ask for, especially when there is a line for it in the process or report. If that line was not in the report, I would not have bothered with some of the coins. I feel like I took my car in for new breaks and they only did half of it while telling me it was a complete job.

NGC advertises" If the analysis indicates that the coin has a non-standard metal composition, the three most abundant non-trace metals present on the coin's surface and the weight of the tested coin will appear on the NGC certification label. " Since 95% Copper and 5% Zinc is standard, common sense tells me 93% 5% 2% is not and NGC should have done as advertised. There is a huge disconnect between what they advertise, what they have done, and what they are doing. If NGC does not fix these then PCGS or ANACS will be asked to. I am also getting a second Metallurgic Test done because I have absolutely No trust in NGC after this experience and after being told by an expert (who shall remain nameless) that " If you're expecting accuracy from the grading services, you will end up bitterly disappointed. "

Sorry if it hit you personally, Not my intention. But if you voice your opinion publicly, you should expect some criticism, not that there is any in my question followed by an experience.

I wonder how many pennies one has to search thru before finding one 3 times under the Mint Tolerance? If it's one in a 500,000, which is probably true in today's change. Then it's special. A WWII vet had this penny in a 2x2 labeled "Thin Planchet" which is why I weighed it and had it graded. He spent much time searching Lincoln cents in his lifetime and acquired many of them but only one at 2.7 Grams. He even had two 1909-S V.D.B.. From what I have seen these do sell for decent amount when labeled properly. For there to be a market for something there has to be a supply. When TPGs refuse to label these, they hurt the market and steal from the customer. Not only did I pay the Tier price, I paid the error fee, and since the Metallurgic Analysis has a Weight section, I paid for that too. After all those costs, NGS failed to supply me with the weight other than saying " The reason the weight of the coin was not placed on the label is because they weighed it and it weighed within the range of a normal planchet. ". THIS IS A COMPLETE LIE! I added a picture of this coin on one of the three scales I tested it on. I even contacted several people about this and one well respected expert said " A weight of 2.7 grams is well below tolerances. The coin should have been labeled as "struck on rolled-thin planchet" My uncle works for FOX news and wants me to do an interview so he can possibly put this on the evening news. This coin was sent to NGC twice! It just dawned on me, these graders know coins that don't make the grade are dumped on places like ebay or etsy. So, I would not be surprised if they deny and under grade coins on purpose only to scoop them up later for cheap. Now that's a shot.

I know the NGC number is high because I sent a 1953 in that weighed 2.72 grams and they refused to label it an error stating that it is normal in weight. So either they did not weigh it, or their tolerances are indeed over three times higher than the U.S. Mint.

I bet there are more die chip graded errors by NGC than 2.7 gram Lincoln cents in existence.

Thank you for clarifying. The main issue here is at what weight does NGC consider it an error. What is their rule book? If the Mint tolerance is 0.13, what is NGCs number? If 0.4, why over three times higher that the Mint? The market is rarely rational, especially when the economy is good, so money predictions aside, after all people are paying many times face value for common items in this hobby all the time. NGC is not supposed to be in the business of market manipulation but a number over three times higher than the Mint sure sounds like manipulation to me.

I have a shinny brass Lincoln cent with a 3.24g weight and Brass metal composition by definition, but it resides in a normal slab despite the major differences from a normal cent. That is not right! Any normal collector would want to know this important information. It is so unusual that I am unable to find another to compare it to save for a Panama Planchet error. It's probably one in a million, or close to it. PMG grades paper money as error when the BEP considers it to be and even in minor situations that the BEP does not, so why are Lincoln  error tolerances so different? Are Nickels and Quarters the same, percentage wise? Does a nickel have to be over 0.6 grams before it is an error. Would anyone happen to you know the mint tolerance for metal composition as written by the Mint?

Who is this Conder101 that changed the tolerance from 0.13 to 0.4? You know this reminds me of similar situations I have seen before. Discredit something long enough while hoarding it and then one day present evidence to the contrary and cash in on it. Sometimes even a generation later. Something is not right here!

According to a " Conder101 " in this "Coin Talk" link https://www.cointalk.com/threads/one-more-time-1983-d-lmc-weighs-2-74-g.334740/

a Whopping .4 gram is the tolerance before a 3.11 gram Lincoln cent is an error. That is a HUGE difference from tolerance of .13 grams Just Bob mentioned. Where did you get that .13 from Just Bob?

I think NGC really needs to post the tolerances for errors because all they say here (https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/) is

"NGC does not recognize as mint error coins those with minor die chips, breaks and rotations, etc., that fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance. The determination of what constitutes a mint error is at the discretion of NGC.  Hopefully, this information will clarify whether your coin is a variety or mint error. "

If 0.13 is Mint tolerance, and NGC tolerance is .4, they clarified nothing! Their idea or interpretation of mint tolerance is basically meaningless.

Unless my scale was off a tiny bit. It looks just like this beauty

https://coins.ha.com/itm/errors/1941-lincoln-cent-struck-on-a-panama-1c-planchet-ms65-pcgs/a/1191-4941.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515

It also weighs in at 50 grains which is 3.2399 grams rounded up to 3.24 grams

Thanks. I am new to this forum stuff and will try " "Ask NGC". Any and all information is helpful. I see lesser weighs on NGC slabs but they are also off metal planchets which brings up another question. Would a 93% Copper, 5% Zinc, 2% Tin Lincoln cent be considered an error?

Who knows how much a normal copper Lincoln cent weighs and exactly how much off from this normal weight does it need to be for NGC to consider it an error?

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/

Strike Errors

• Multiple Strike – Coin has multiple images from being struck again off-center.

I do believe this can be viewed as strike doubling or machine doubling. Sometimes sliding of the die will cause machine or strike doubling or multiple images but it can also bounce to cause multiple images. Maybe there would be less confusion if there was full transparency and these were acknowledged for what they are. People would be less confused if they saw doubling as an Error and as a Variety instead of only as a Variety. They would quickly learn the difference when they compare them side by side. Suppressing one is obviously creating a lot of confusion. And some strike doubling or machine doubling is pretty strong and should most definitely be treated as an error.

Correction "Doubled Dies" A.K.A. "Variety" but can be seen as an error

A quick google search brings up this page that says "more of a striking error". https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5688/Double-Dies-vs-Machine-Doubling/ 

I will need to search more for others I recall reading. I hope they don't change them cause if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be.... Some coins display nice "WOW" strike doubling that most anyone is happy to find but then shot down by experts telling them that "WOW" find is nothing. Appearance and Wow factor plays a big role in any collectible, some strike doubling more jaw dropping than some Double Dies. As long as it was created in the minting process common sense dictates it is a Mint Error. To say otherwise is just manipulating the truth.

Proper evidence found! I do believe this is the kind of encasement it was made for or from. Now I have made up my mind. Thanks people. You did help, a little.

I don't believe anyone is an expert at anything. Nobody is perfect. And I have sold many mislabeled TPG items in the past. Good thing we are in America and entitled to speak our opinions. I am not saying you veterans are wrong, I am just looking for a more plausible theory. The pressure needed to cause this is HUGE and the Finning on the edge still not flattened. Other Finning can be seen here (http://www.error-ref.com/finning/) I have several major issues with other coins but since NGC is in the process of correcting them, I won't say anything. Maybe you guys can explain to me why the NGC website repeatedly says that Strike Doubling is a Mint error but I can't seem to find any labeled as such? I sent a very noticeable strike double date coin in but NGC just labeled it a Die Chip Error. Now it did have die chips but I asked for strike doubling as that is what stands out more. A thorough proper job would have been to mention both errors on the label. NGC even says "NGC does not recognize as mint errors those coins with minor die chips, breaks, rotations, etc., which fall within our interpretation of mint tolerance." So why they mentioned the minor die chips and not the strike doubling is confusing. It implies that Strike Doubling is not an error.

BTW Thanks for the welcome "Just Bob"

In my opinion any encasement or bezel needed to stand up to the high pressure needed to move the thick copper like this would also have to be Heavy Duty and thick. Metals used in jewelry are usually soft and thin. Stainless steel might stand up but a Hydraulic press with Tons of pressure would likely be needed. After seeing the depression of Lincoln on the reverse, much like a graded Struck Thru Capped die I have, I am starting to think it was struck on a caped anvil die which was then ejected leaving this coin still in the chamber to be struck again. The retaining collar would have been all over the place and if any remnants of the caped die existed, could have played a role in the deformation. I see there are a lot of pulley edged coins out there being dismissed as damaged, not because people can explain them, but because they can't. Or don't want to bother due to the low value. What I do know for sure is that this coin was removed from circulation in the mid 1960s and in storage ever since. And the Finning seen mostly on the reverse top edge is a product of the minting process. And this would make a good "Mythbusters" episode.

In taking this image I also noticed a depression of Abe on the reverse, similar to that seen in a struck thru capped die. Now I am even more intrigued. I need a guy like Mike Byers to look at it.

Another good definition: Broadstrike errors are produced when the collar die malfunctions. The collar is the circular die surrounding the anvil (lower) die. It applies the edge device (reeded edge, plain edge) and prevents the metal of the coin being struck from flowing outside of the confines of the die. When the collar is prevented from working properly during striking, it may rest below the surface of the anvil die.

NGC website (https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1655/Variety-versus-Mint-Error/) says " Broadstrike – A coin struck outside of the retaining collar as a result of the collar jamming or otherwise failing to enclose the planchet. "

This leads me to believe the collar can be a two piece which would explain the notch at the top center. I will keep looking for an image of the collar used on this type.

A great resource for errors is http://www.error-ref.com/broadstrikes/

I will add images of the edge next. It Looks just like other broadstruck coins. This coin has all the telltale signs. The pressure required to do this is not used by jewelry makers. We really need more information on the collar used in minting process. That will prove or disprove a lot.

Encasement of what? Please elaborate.

If this thread is open I will let you know.  If they do then off to PCGS it will go. Or maybe PCGS first. I am working on a huge order to them right now