You want controversy!! You can't handle the controversy!!!!!!!!!!

[truthteller]

Ok. Another controversial topic and coin. Found this on the PCGS forum. Why would PCGS attribute this coin with no documentation? Jadecoin comes to mind one again, this time it's $100,000.

 

 

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=231772

 

coin:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2198602186&category=524

 

 

TRUTH

[BOILER78]

I would say because the asking price /value is totally arbitrary and the provenance is virtually impossible to prove or disprove. 100k seems a bit spendy to me!

[JadeRareCoin]

Ok. Another controversial topic and coin. Found this on the PCGS forum. Why would PCGS attribute this coin with no documentation? Jadecoin comes to mind one again, this time it's $100,000.

 

Hey TRUTH, interesting thread. I can answer your question ( Why would PCGS attribute this coin with no documentation?) by pointing out that this numismatic item was certified BEFORE we called PCGS to the carpet for their unbelievably lax verification criteria regarding attributions. This die trial piece was probably submitted by a well known and respected member of the PCGS "community" and, therefore, likely slabbed in an instant without a fleeting thought of verification or due diligence.

 

Based on what HRH told me during a recent phone conversation, PCGS is taking steps to prevent any future errors regarding attributions. I know the specifics, but I won't reveal the details here for purposes of professional courtesy. Yes, that's right....professional courtesy.......even though HRH called me an "arsehole" during our phone conversation, made a threat and still has not done one thing to make our infamous Norweb problem closer to resolution. Not even an apology. But that's not relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

The supposed "Felix Schlag Reverse Die Trial" was found in a box of other coins. There's no supporting documentation, no records indicating when or where the die trial took place and no substantial proof that Schlag had anything to do with the design. It's simply speculation, yet PCGS had no problem sticking their neck out by slabbing this as a Felix Schlag reverse die trial. Why? Because of arrogance. Because of fear and intimidation. People are afraid of PCGS, which is viewed as the most powerful entity in our hobby today. At least the masses view them as powerful. To me, they are a symbol of a good idea gone bad (slabbing had an important purpose at one time). PCGS spews forth grades and attributions with reckless disregard these days.........and people sop it up like bread in a bowl of French dip soup. Eventually their reckless behavior will undermine the reputation and credibility that took years for PCGS to earn. I hope that PCGS realizes that credibility is not automatically constant; it must be upheld by consistent positive action.

 

Do I think the reverse die trial piece is interesting? Absolutely. It has some allure and mystery attached to it. Is it worth $100,000? Not to me. Even if someone came forth with a pile of documentation proving that this is a Schlag die trail. I suppose that the piece would have the most value to a die-hard Jefferson Nickel collector/enthusiast. Neat item!

 

 

[dakra]

I'm just curious how this coin graded an MS62. Seems there are an awful lot of scratches and dents on the coin.

 

If it is truly a trial die strike, it's an awesome find. Unfortunately from what I have read, there is no proof it is and on the same token, there is no proof it isn't.

 

-Dave

[gmarguli]

If the token turns out to be pedigreed wrong, we know that isn't covered under the PCGS "We ain't got no stinking" Guarantee. They'll just remove it.

 

PCGS also blew the grade. They forgot to designate the coin as RD, RB, or BN. I guess they were too busy writing up the press release instead of examining the token.

[James_OldeTowne]

I have to say it: the stupidity of that auction is alarming!

 

James

[goose3]

James, are you an arsehole?

 

you have every right to be one.

 

 

interesting thread!

[JadeRareCoin]

I'm just curious how this coin graded an MS62. Seems there are an awful lot of scratches and dents on the coin. -Dave

 

Dave, great point. After reviewing the auction a couple of times and reading through the thread on the PCGS forum, I never caught that they actually graded the item. Maybe that's because I know that the Sheldon grading scale and conventional numismatic grading standards do NOT apply to things such as uniface die trials. What's next? Grading a hubs or galvanos? Why would they even grade that thing? So that someone can look it up on the Greysheet? I can see certifying the piece for authentication purposes......but not to obtain a grading opinion.

[Tradedollarnut]

What's next? Grading a hubs or galvanos?

 

For the Share collection, NGC graded two uniface Gobrecht die trials. One an obverse impression and the other a reverse impression.

 

et tu, NGC? Or maybe it's just standard industry practice that is no big deal.

 

With regards to the grade, the carbon spot is the limiting factor - I see no nicks or cuts of any significance on the side of the coin that is graded.

[gmarguli]

I believe all services will grade uniface coins. PCGS will even grade blank planchets, but NGC will not give a numeric grade for these.

[braddick]

I believe all surfaces will grade uniface coins. PCGS will even grade blank planchets, but NGC will not give a numeric grade for these.

Greg, you're new avatar is going to take some getting used to.

[James_OldeTowne]

Despite being business partners, Dennis and I do disagree on a lot of topics. But I have to agree 100% with him here. HOW do you GRADE something that is NOT EVEN A COIN?

 

Sorry for "YELLING", but this does not make sense. Without even going into the argument of whether or not this "coin" is even real. If something is unique or nearly so, what comparison does PCGS have for "grading" this thing?

 

OK, it's all about "market" grading, right? So what's the market value of this same "coin" in VG-8? XF-40? Where's the "market" that PCGS is using to determine value for this thing?

 

This bothers me. And yes, Tradedollarnut, if NGC or ANACS slabbed that thing, I'd feel the same way. It isn't a knock against just PCGS, it's just plain wacky. I don't have a clue what sort of marketing possibilities PCGS saw in encapsulating that thing, but in this one instance, they look ridiculous. Somebody's laughing all the way to the bank.

 

James

[Tradedollarnut]

HOW do you GRADE something that is NOT EVEN A COIN?

 

Not sure I understand. Don't companies these days grade stamps, sports cards, political buttons, etc? How difficult can it be to grade a coin like item? Doesn't PCGS grade tokens, fractional gold, pioneer gold, colonials, etc? Are those truly coins?

 

I can understand the concern regarding substantiation of what it actually is, but I don't understand the hoopla over grading it...

 

[James_OldeTowne]

(((HOW do you GRADE something that is NOT EVEN A COIN?

 

Not sure I understand. Don't companies these days grade stamps, sports cards, political buttons, etc? How difficult can it be to grade a coin like item? Doesn't PCGS grade tokens, fractional gold, pioneer gold, colonials, etc? Are those truly coins?)))

 

Yes, those are coins, because they serve as mediums of exchange. At the time they were struck, they were actually USED as legal tender. I challenge you to time-travel back to 1935, or whenever that thing was "struck", and try to buy a soda with the trinket PCGS just certified.

 

When will PCGS start certifying car-wash tokens? Would there be a Full Wax (FW) grading designator as well? Why don't they start certifying grocery-store coupons as well? Shoot, they might as well start certifying food stamps for that matter.

 

James

[Tradedollarnut]

Yes, those are coins, because they serve as mediums of exchange. At the time they were struck, they were actually USED as legal tender. I challenge you to time-travel back to 1935, or whenever that thing was "struck", and try to buy a soda with the trinket PCGS just certified.

 

Ummm - by that logic, patterns should not be certified. Sorry, I just don't buy it.

[JadeRareCoin]

.......the point is that it is not logical to use the Sheldon grading scale to grade things that are not coins. Whether or not they legally circulated is not relevant. Coins from proof sets don't circulate (with a few exceptions), but they can be graded. I would almost buy someone grading the die trial piece if it were struck on both sides.

 

Another key factor here is that the grade for a supposedly unique reverse die trial piece is IRRELEVANT. Who cares what the "grade" is? Isn't it worth the same regardless of grade? It's the authenticity that matters in this case. That's why I didn't even see that PCGS actually graded this thing until someone pointed it out. I was too appalled by the fact that they went as far as to say that this thing is directly linked to Felix Schlag. I have seen Schlag's reverse designs and this was not one of them (check Taxay's book).

 

Why did PCGS grade this thing? I don't know. I guess they would grade anything if you pay them of if you are part of "the PCGS community". Maybe I should see if I can cross my scab collection from ACG to PCGS.

 

PS - no slam on PCGS here. I would say the same regardless of the service. BTW, we just joined the NGC club and I submitted my first coins for grading in my career.

[Tradedollarnut]

the point is that it is not logical to use the Sheldon grading scale to grade things that are not coins. Whether or not they legally circulated is not relevant. Coins from proof sets don't circulate (with a few exceptions), but they can be graded. I would almost buy someone grading the die trial piece if it were struck on both sides.

 

Actually, it's not logical to use the Sheldon grading system for much of anything! It's already been baastaardized from the original intent.

 

But I fail to see how you can be so vehement in this case that the item in question should not be assigned a point grade. You say it's ok with coins because they are legal tender, yet you make exceptions for items like colonials, fractional gold, etc because they circulated. I assume then that you are in favor of tokens and perhaps even postage encased items. You also seem to make an exception for patterns because they were minted with the same processes as coins, even tho they weren't legal tender and didn't circulate. What I fail to see is the power of your conviction. How can you stretch the gray area from legal tender to circulating non legal tender to non circulating non legal tender but draw such a black and white line at a one sided die trial piece? Is it because it's one sided? Well, how about the brockage errors that both services grade? Or is it simply that PCGS was the one that did it...

 

Please enlighten me - how can you stretch your acceptable line so far and then be so adamantly opposed to what has been done?

 

[MAULEMALL]

I believe all surfaces will grade uniface coins. PCGS will even grade blank planchets, but NGC will not give a numeric grade for these.

Greg, you're new avatar is going to take some getting used to.

It's Kinda Freakin me out......

 

Are you no longer the Ambassador???

[Hoot]

Just thought I'd try to get this thread back to the central point. I also find that the attribution of the Schlag die trial is without proper research and is highly questionable at this time. So, I wrote Mike Byers and Henrietta Holsman Fore. Here is the heart of my inquiry to each of them:

 

"I find the die trial pattern unusual and problematic from a variety of standpoints. First, it does not include the name of Jefferson's home, Monticello. This is particularly odd since the Mint insisted on adding the name to the reverse of the nickel when Schlag's original design was changed from his oblique view of the home (of his award-winning design) to the western portico view. Second, the addition of the rays above the home appears out of context of Schlag's original design and also the design of Marcello Rotundo, the contestant design that most favors that which was adopted in 1938 as the Jefferson nickel reverse. Third, the devices of Monticello and the proportions of the structure depicted show a lesser artistic talent and quality than that of Schlag. Specifically, the level of detail found throughout the building is not in keeping with the final design, nor is it consistent with Schlag's attendance to his art.

 

These facts make me wonder if the die trial is truly that of Felix Schlag, and rather one of John Sinnock. While I realize that there is no direct evidence that Sinnock ever designed his own rendition of the nickel, let alone made a trial strike, it seems likely that his work was seminal in the ultimate choice of a west portico of Monticello reverse, as this was dictated to Schlag after winning the artistic contest. This notion alone is compelling enough for me to question the die trial's authenticity as that of Schlag."

 

This will obviously take some time, but I hope that an answer will emerge in the process.

 

Hoot

[SilverEagleCoins]

Actually I think it's kinda neat. Since I like the consistent presentation, placing hte trial in a PCGS slab is perfect if you collect a lot of coins in PCGS slabs.

 

Not sure about the grade thing.

[James_OldeTowne]

(((Yes, those are coins, because they serve as mediums of exchange. At the time they were struck, they were actually USED as legal tender. I challenge you to time-travel back to 1935, or whenever that thing was "struck", and try to buy a soda with the trinket PCGS just certified.

 

Ummm - by that logic, patterns should not be certified. Sorry, I just don't buy it)))

 

I don't agree with you, since patterns were often used as tender - whether they should have been or not - and are common-sense part of the numismatic field. That PCGS trinket that looks like a nilla wafer is NOT a coin, nor recognizable as a coin. Patterns had the possiblity of becoming coins. A one-sided slice of pepperoni does not. It shouldn't be slabbed.

 

(((But I fail to see how you can be so vehement in this case that the item in question should not be assigned a point grade.)))

 

Again I agree with Dennis, the coin should not be assigned a point grade. Cannot be. Let's follow your logic. You claim patterns and one-sided trinkets should be certified by PCGS, even though obviously controversial. SO, why can't my lightly dipped 1905 Indian cent be certified by PCGS then? It's clearly a coin, but they body-bag it. Because they made an arbitrary call it's not worthy of certification. Isn't certification of a one-sided trinket an awful lot more arbitrary?

 

(((How can you stretch the gray area from legal tender to circulating non legal tender to non circulating non legal tender but draw such a black and white line at a one sided die trial piece?)))

 

Because it's not a coin, and never would be mistaken as a coin, and if they certify it, they should certify my dipped 1905 IHC. And yes, brockage errors should not be graded, since strike quality is part of a grade, and a brockage clearly exhibits the worst imaginable strike quality.

 

Why didn't PCGS simply certify the coin as "authentic" without a grade? Are you saying that would make it worth less?

[gmarguli]

PCGS does not just grade/slab coins. They also do this to gold nuggets, silver/gold bars, tokens, and a bunch of other stuff that are not coins. We can debate whether or not they should slab/grade this other stuff, but the fact is that they do and it is their right to do. Personally, I think some of the stuff like gold nuggets and bars cheapens the image, but that's another story. And again, if they want to slab and grade this fantasy piece, so be it. If it's proven a fake or misattributed, PCGS will be the one to suffer the public humiliation.

[Tradedollarnut]

I repeat that I make absolutely no assertion as to the authenticity of the piece - not my cup of tea. But I still question the logic that only 'coins' [whatever definition you use] can be given a numerical grade by the services.

 

The fact that they won't grade a grossly cleaned coin has nothing to do with this arguement. Submit it to NCS and they'll happily grade it for you.

 

BTW - the Gobrecht obverse die trial was graded PF64 and the reverse die trial PF66BN by NGC.

[dakra]

With regards to the grade, the carbon spot is the limiting factor - I see no nicks or cuts of any significance on the side of the coin that is graded.

 

Do you honestly think it deserves an MS62?

 

I see the rim is dented up, the lettering appears to be worn near the rim, the dome is scratched up, I see scratches on the rays... I'm not even sure I would give it an AU grade.

 

I'm guessing that since there are no other coins to judge it by, MS62 must have been an acceptable grade?

 

Other than that, I like it and would like to hear more news on it. Does anyone know how PCGS figured this to be a FSchlag?

 

Thanks,

Dave

[Tradedollarnut]

Do you honestly think it deserves an MS62?

 

I don't know - I can't grade a coin off a scan.

 

[JadeRareCoin]

TDN,

 

I really don't know how to respond to you. I suppose that I should not be so judgmental. If the owner of a uniface die trial piece wanted to obtain a 3rd party grading opinion, then that's his/her prerogative. It's his/her money.

 

That being stated, I am also entitled to my opinion, and my opinion is that things like a brockage should not be graded. Obviously a brockage is not going to circulate, so what's the point in assigning a grade? What criteria do you use to grade a brockage? Strike? Clean fields? Gimme a break!

 

Now that you mention it, I think that the professional grading of a brockage is more ridiculous than grading a uniface die trial piece.

[JadeRareCoin]

Hoot, great job! Glad to see that you are taking the initiative to investigate this matter. Good luck in your effort.

 

Dakra, you raise some good points. I know that some will always fall back on the easy-out by saying "can't grade from a scan", but in this case it is quite clear that the thing saw same action somewhere. It actually looks quite worn to me. Pocket piece?? Maybe. MS-62?? Sure.....if you are a grading giant and think that you can do and say whatever you want and everyone has to bow down to your actions.

 

I just read the November 3 edition of Coin World and there is some alarming information in the article. It is clearly stated that nobody knows if the uniface thing has anything to do with Felix Schlag and that PCGS made the attribution call WITHOUT ANY documentation. Hmmmmm.. I wonder if the Norwebs owned this Schlag uniface die trial.

 

Final thought: I know of a guy (he's a coin dealer) who owns minting equipment and he actually makes dies and strikes coins. He doesn't do anything illegal that I am aware of and he is a good guy. Point is that someone with any type of press (tens of thousands of die shops in America) could stike uniface die trials. Simply machine a die of a design that looks kinda like a coin (i.e. a Mercury dime), then strike a few samples in the metal of your choice, drop it on the floor, rub it in the ground with your foot, put it in your pocket for a couple of years, send it to PCGS and put "unique Adolph Weinman obverse die trial", suggest a grade of MS-66 and........VIOLA........you have a $100,000 "coin".

 

 

[RobertB]

100K, and free shipping too! Wow that's generous of them!

[truthteller]

Is this uniface item even a US mint product? PCGS better have some vast knowledge of who and how this item was struck. For that matter, it could have been struck in Mexico or Canada.

 

 

TRUTH

[Tradedollarnut]

I know that some will always fall back on the easy-out by saying "can't grade from a scan", but in this case it is quite clear that the thing saw same action somewhere. It actually looks quite worn to me. Pocket piece?? Maybe. MS-62?? Sure.....if you are a grading giant and think that you can do and say whatever you want and everyone has to bow down to your actions.

 

 

Looks like a matte surface to me. I still say the spot is the grade limiting factor, but from a scan I, and most experts, say it's not possible to narrow the grade down from a range of, say, AU55-MS63. But I guess you guys are God's gift to graders and have no problem pinpointing the exact grade in that range. Why, you must ace all those 'guess the grade' quizzes every time. What's that? Missed a few? Well, didn't stop you from pinpointing this one, now did it!

 

Funny thing is that if I'd have put up a scan of one of those NGC die trials, I doubt if there would have been a peep out of anyone.... except for maybe a cool! or wow!

 

Ahhh, the power of the holder!