WoodenJefferson

4 hours ago, t-arc said:

NUMISPORT RWB said ....

"1935 “specimen” nickel. Bologna. Only thing that might make a “specimen” 1935 nickel is if it were dropped in the little cup during a visit to the Doctor’s office"

just shows his ignorance, what does this contribute to the thread?

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
 

In some cases, arrogance over rides any degree on paper.

Super fast now, no issues, y'all done good T-boy!

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/608346/1909-vdb-the-first-matte-proof-lincoln-die-diagnostics-informational-thread

Informational thread from ATS, since you own the coin, you can loupe it for these diagnostics. 

As a child, my Mother always told me, "If you have nothing good to say about anyone, then don't say anything."

She was wise in her ways.

I'm with Roger on this one as the  numbers written in permanent marker on the outside of the box are more or less a 'internal' tracking system used by the Mint. It was later learned that these numbers could be used to identify where these bullion coins originated from but not refutable evidence. The straps, the bar code and the packing slip where the key identifiers of origin. Put all that together and it gives credence to the number sequence used for tracking.

Enjoy your SAE's knowing they came from the Philadelphia Mint.

Seems to me the 'bar code' adhesive sticker and straps would lend more credence as to where the monster box came from, that a the signed off packing slip inside the box. Course only the certifying company gets to see that first hand in this case.

courtesy of NGC

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5888/

click me

What pedigree would you want?

Since the end product will not ingested, used as a toy, rode on or in, the liability factor does not come into play with the end product so engineering for safety is not a factor which = less cost to produce and you'll never have to worry about a safety recall. With this in mind, a company can absorb a certain percentage of mistakes, take care of them with no hurt or no foul and still have a healthy profit margin. You don't need a bunch of trained professionals checking the end product because to error is human and needs to be built into your business model.

Sure, it's a dis-service to the collector who sends in 6 coins and has one labeled wrong, but to another company who sends in a Green Monster box and has one labeled wrong is acceptable, because they are also dealing in volume.

In finalization, a simple computer program identifying rare coins with high value, or an up-grade of say 2 points can be written to alert a grader to authenticate the coin matches the label. This would equate to probably 2% of the coins graded, the rest you just let go as we do not live in a perfect world. We strive to be perfect, but once you have human intervention, the percentages begin to drop.

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 4:05 PM, t-arc said:

Wonder what would happen if the owner just refused to return the coin to pcgs.  what would they do?

I had a thread going years ago about this coin which is a 1916 "matte proof" lincoln cents WHICH IS NOT a matte proof

& was certified and sold in a heritage auction.  if you check the cert number it is still in the data base.

take a good look.  probably happens more than you might think.  Most respondents to my original thread agreed

that despite the certification it is not a proof.  Wonder who owns this now.  It was in a Proof 66 rb holder.

You seem to want to 'smear' NGC on their own website chat board. This is your second attempt to interject this 1916 PR-66 stating emphatically that it is not what it claims to be. Do you think the posters who responded previously where bias towards another company and were just bashing our host here?  

9 hours ago, TonerGuy said:

Does anyone know if this is biggest mistake PCGS has ever made that they have acknowledged publicly, mechanical or otherwise ?

There has to be bigger... this is only a $40,000 mistake (technically not actually)

Was there some penny that turned or some rare ASE that was a 70 that developed spots... I cant really remember.

In a quirk of fate, the misattributed error is probably worth more than just a business strike in a slab now...to error slab collectors, this is close to the Holy Grail for mechanical errors.

"an enigma wrapped in a paradox"

All I know is, it was a major embarrassment to have collectors point out this faux pas on a public chat board, then spread to other chat boards like wild fire.

The reverse is undoubtedly PL  and the obverse is not that far behind. Amazing Franklin, thanks for presenting it in such a manor. 

Jason, is there anyway you could show us the PL qualities of say the reverse?

Jason, I'm certain the beauty of this Franklin can only be (fully) appreciated with coin in hand. Congrats on scoring this example.

Ethically no, financially, yes. Just about every business model has a small percentage of human error built into it, course the goal is 0 % but anytime you deal with humans there are going to be mistakes. You attempt to keep those mistakes down to a minimum with quality control, but some slip through and once the product leaves your control you wait until there is a legitimate complaint from the buyer before you do anything. With grading coins, you are dealing with a unique singularity here and cannot trigger a recall of sorts to correct a defect.

In the case of the PCGS being notified that there were some errors made and you are waiting for a response, perhaps they did contact the submitter and they are the one who choose to do nothing because they still have the graded coin and want to do nothing, sold the coin and have no record, etc. etc. Perhaps the parent company is still waiting to resolve the issue and left the truevues up because it hasn't been resolved yet? Jumping to conclusions is not the way to approach this problem. You did your part by notifying the parent company and now the ball is in their court. What goes on behind the scenes the collector will never know. If there is a media storm, as with what happened with the 1909 VDB proof, then yes, it would behoove the company to take quick action to resolve the error and prove that yes, they do make an occasional mistake and they will, within their powers to correct that mistake.

Sometimes it's better to be quiet than bringing attention to yourself.

And that's the way it is...

I agree with Mark on this one. The encapsulated coin could be sold 20 times and if the 20th person discovers that the coin inside does not match what's on the label and it greatly devaluates the value of the price paid, IE; value prices previously paid at auctions, posted price charts, etc., it should trigger the 'so-called guarantee to make the buyer whole again.

Note, since a numerical grade is subjective, it would be hard to prove a coin to be a point or two lower, but attribution is usually covered under some sort of diagnostics, it's either there or not and the word vague is not a grading standard.

If this case went to trial, a good atty could argue that the diagnostics are so minute, that perhaps even a advance collector would not question the grade/attribution on the label.

It's nice to hear it from the horses mouth...and old saying, but has truth.