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

[dakra]

Dennis,

I have to admit, I know nothing about the coin but when I saw the coin, it looked familiar to me, perhaps familiar in one of the coin mags I have read. I am basically going on what I have read on both boards. (Conjecture?)

 

I see a good deal of politics going on and everytime something like this comes up, it just confirms my feelings. Does PCGS do favors for their most respected dealers? I honestly cannot answer that with fact but from what I have seen, I think they do.

 

I hoped you would get some sort of compensation from PCGS and upon hearing what David Hall called you, that stuff does not surprise me anymore.

 

-DAve

[JadeRareCoin]

......... 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.

 

TDN, go back and read my posts. Please note that at no point did I even attempt to assign a grade. If you actually let go of your prejudice and read what I write you will see that my point is that this "thing" should not have a grade. The closest that I got to assigning a grade is when I stated that it looked worn and damaged and was probably a pocket piece.

 

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!

 

Regarding this comment, I am now not only annoyed with your psycho-babble, but I am profoundly offended. Actually, I am sure that you offended a lot of people with that reckless comment. Speaking for myself, I do not have any alliance towards any grading company. A coin is a coin is a coin.....regardless of the holder.....it's the same coin. Sure, I know that you get all gushy inside when you get a coin crossed from an MS-66 to an MS-67. I am sure that you feel like you have really accomplished something, but to me it's the same coin. That's because my opinion is not easily swayed by the opinion of someone else who took 10 seconds to grade a coin for a $50 fee.

 

Directly stated, I would have said the exact same thing about the "Schlag uniface die trial piece" if it were in an NGC, ACG or ANACS holder. Doesn't matter......it should not be graded but more importantly it should not have been certified as being a Schlag piece if there was no supporting documentation.

 

You are going to have a challenging time trying to bail your buddy out of this predicament.

 

[TonerGuy]

You are going to have a challenging time trying to bail your buddy out of this predicament.

 

 

Michael

[JadeRareCoin]

Dennis,

 

.......I see a good deal of politics going on and everytime something like this comes up, it just confirms my feelings. Does PCGS do favors for their most respected dealers? I honestly cannot answer that with fact but from what I have seen, I think they do. .................

 

-DAve

 

Dave, if you only knew how bad things have become. Hall actually told me that he would have corrected our Norweb problem if Jade Coin was a "member of the PCGS community". My response to that was "......I can't believe that you just said that". He stated that I was "not high on his list". He then went into a rant about how he does favors for friends and does not do favors for enemies. He asked if I share the same mindset. I replied that I do, but not when it involves hurting others down the road by overgrading or misattributing a coin. I said that my idea of a "favor" is giving a friend a ride to the garage to pick-up his car. You would not believe how arrogant he was towards me on the phone. I would tell you more, but I don't want to upset some of HRH's friends that lurk on the NGC forum. Besides, this thread is not about HRH. You can read all about the phone conversation and a whole lot more on our web site next week. Some of the info is already on the site, but more is coming.

 

One of the fundamental requirements of 3rd party grading is that all grading must be completely unbiased. As soon as "favors" are done, the credibility behind the slab is damaged. Too many egregious errors and then you have an ACG. We had an experience with ANACS recently whereby they offered to "fix" a low ball grade on a slab for us. It was a coin that we sold and a client had slabbed. It came back way too low. We showed them the coin together with a grotesquely over-graded coin in an ANACS slab (both bust halves) and said "what's up dude?". They offered to bump the grade for us free of charge. We refused their offer and just cracked the coin out of the plastic.

[dakra]

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!

 

 

It doesn't matter what holder it's in, I would still question the grade it was given. Why would you want to post an NGC die trial? It sounds as if you believe that I am disagreeing with the grade because it was graded by PCGS. It's unfortunate that you have to be arrogant, must be the Kool-aid.

 

-Dave

[dakra]

Dennis,

I don't think you were part of the message board when I had my issue with PCGS, one day I will tell you my story. I know when I had my issue with them, I got angry, tried to talk to them, tried to get a resolution and when all was said and done, I felt the resolution was not satisfactory.

 

I don't hate PCGS but know enough that I will never deal with them again. I've been reluctant to give NGC a try due to my PCGS experience but do have coins set aside for when I am ready. I've learned a great deal from my experience, I have grown so much since then and I collect what I enjoy. Although I don't hate PCGS, after hearing what others have gone through, I wouldn't be upset if someone actually gave them a swift kick in the rear.

 

-Dave

[SilverEagleCoins]

Is there a different set of standards when grading a die? I mean a Jefferson coin with that much wear on one side, and the other side completely missing wouldn't rate an MS62, would it? I think that is the point that Dennis and James are making. If they were to use the same grading scale to grade the die it would be in too terrible a condition to rate. If compared next to an MS62 Jefferson, that MS62 die looks like [!@#%^&^].

[BushMan]

He stated that I was "not high on his list". He then went into a rant about how he does favors for friends and does not do favors for enemies. He asked if I share the same mindset.

To know that the President of PCGS, the CEO of the parent corp. CLCT, would choose to do "favors" as a third party grading service, is revolting. JadeCoin and others can provide a great service for this hobby by continuing to tell the story. Thank you!!

[Tradedollarnut]

Dennis: I'm not trying to bail anyone out of anything. You have legitimate issues with PCGS regarding your Norweb pedigree. And I repeat for the third time that I have no idea if this thing is real or not. My only issue, I say once again, is with your vehemence in characterizing it as a miscarriage of professional ethics to assign a grade to this item. I guess we just disagree to what the grading services can appropriately assign a grade. If the item is a real die trial, regardless of who designed it, then it's no worse than all the other die trials graded by all services - or brockages graded by all services.

 

I also disagree with others insistence that the numerical grade is incorrect. A few of the comments were along the lines of "look at all the dings". I have looked at the dings and I see nothing that would preclude a grade of 62. I see a big ol carbon spot that in my mind would limit the grade to 61 or so, but I also know that scans can bring out the worst of a feature, so I [refreshingly] bite my tongue on that point.

 

I fail to see how arguing those two points is offensive to you. And yes, I do believe that a graded die trial in an NGC holder on this board would receive compliments, not attacks.

 

I can say that I'm just sick and tired of this board becoming the 'let's find something else to bash PCGS about' forum. And I can tell you that so are others here. It has nothing to do with liking David Hall - I happen to know and like Mark Salzberg as well. It has everything to do with what I perceive to be fair and proper.

[IrishMike]

Dennis and James I enjoy your posts here, but please note this is not a David Hall Fan Club. In fact if we meet in person some day at a show I will be happy to relate to you my opinions. I started the koolaid thing across the street because I got tired of the constant bashing of other grading companies. The same thing is starting to happen here, albiet not nearly as much. My wish is this board doesn't become like CU's, a place to bash Hall.

 

Please name names of those here you consider Hall lovers.

[JadeRareCoin]

TDN and IrishMike, good points. I will keep my responses to this thread related to the authenticity of the Schlag die trial and not about PCGS or David Hall. I know that it's hard to believe, but we really don't criticize or praise one grading company more or less than another. In fact we now have more PCGS coins in our inventory than any other slab brand, just by coincidence since we buy the coin and not the holder. I also just sent in my first ever submission to any company: 5 coins to NGC. We buy and sell coins in all different holders, including stapled 2X2's. Sorry if my posts sounded like a rant against PCGS.

 

 

 

If the item is a real die trial, regardless of who designed it, then it's no worse than all the other die trials graded by all services - or brockages graded by all services.

 

YES! We finally agree on something!!!

 

[James_OldeTowne]

(((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.)))

 

Oh yes it does! The issue according to you is what should / should not be assigned a numerical grade. YOU say that a one-sided trinket deserves a numismatic numerical grade, and my barely-dipped 1905 IHC does not. So obviously you would have to believe the trinket is more of a coin than my Indian Cent. You can't deny that's your claim! Tradedollarnut, I recognize that as a personal friend of David Hall, it's your obligation to be publicly supportive of him and his company, but I really think you're way out there when you claim that the $100,000 trinket is more of a coin than my 1905 Indian Cent, and more deserving of a grade.

 

(((My only issue, I say once again, is with your vehemence in characterizing it as a miscarriage of professional ethics to assign a grade to this item)))

 

Where did Dennis say it was an ethical issue? Did I miss something? For the record, I DO NOT see it as an ethical issue. I see it as a common-sense issue.

 

(((I do believe that a graded die trial in an NGC holder on this board would receive compliments, not attacks.)))

 

Not from me, it wouldn't! Tradedollarnut, if you'll post a link to such an NGC coin, I'll be happy to slam it. Better idea - get the owner of this trinket to cross it over to NGC, then we'll really see some ranting!

 

So, one more time, for the record, my disgust with the encapsulated trinket has nothing to do with PCGS. In my opinion, ANY company that is numismatically oriented, PCGS, NGC, ANACS, whatever. It's just not right to assign a numeric grade, and imply to perhaps less-knowledgeable collectors that such a "non-coin" can be graded. And I don't think there's any dishonor in just "grading" the one-sided trinket as "genuine", instead of with a Sheldon grade.

 

James

[DonHeath]

[Tradedollarnut]

I recognize that as a personal friend of David Hall, it's your obligation to be publicly supportive of him and his company, but I really think you're way out there when you claim that the $100,000 trinket is more of a coin than my 1905 Indian Cent, and more deserving of a grade.

 

This single run on sentence is fraught with so many errors, I hardly know where to begin!

 

First of all, a barely dipped indian cent would be given a numerical grade in almost every situation. And if it wasn't, it would be because the coin was turning and the grading company didn't know how bad it was going to end up. That's completely different than having a numismatic litmus test to decide what's a coin and what's not. I can only imagine what's next - an independent organization that determines what can be slabbed with a grade and what can't. Well, since it's so cut and dry what the criteria are, that organization should have absolutely no problem deciding what is or isn't, shouldn't it?

 

Second, David Hall is not a personal friend of mine - at most he's an acquaintance - and that's what really rubs me the wrong way from your attitudes. Your attitude is that only someone in 'cahoots' with PCGS could possibly stand up for them because they are approaching 100% evil. Well, they aren't even close to that - they're pretty much the same as all grading companies. In every silly little bashing thread, all I've done is point out how what PCGS is getting bashed for is done by NGC as well. I do the same on the CU board in standing up for NGC. Why? Because they all have pretty much the same processes and they all make pretty much the same mistakes and do most of the same things right. And bashing a grade off a scan, which is the collector's favorite modus operandi, is simply silly in most cases.

 

And last, it's your arguement that something must be a coin [or a token, or a pattern, or a colonial, or a ?] to be assigned a numerical grade, not mine. I don't buy into your assertion one iota, so I am not saying that the item in question is "more of a coin" than your indian cent. That's simply silly....

 

 

 

[JadeRareCoin]

Because they all have pretty much the same processes and they all make pretty much the same mistakes and do most of the same things right.

 

This is a true statement. I don't think that anyone is disagreeing with you.

 

 

 

Hey DonHeath, thanks for the morning eye candy! Can we see round 4, 5 and 6 now???

[chrisfuccione]

Check out some auctions from EBAY

 

$1 1865 JUDD 435 NGC PF65RB SUPERB!!!

 

1865 3C Nickel J-411 NGC PR63 BN PATTERN

 

1865 Lib. Seated 50C J-430 NGC PR65BN PATTERN ]

 

CHRIS

[James_OldeTowne]

(((First of all, a barely dipped indian cent would be given a numerical grade in almost every situation.)))

 

You MUST be kidding! The coin was dipped about 20 YEARS ago, and I doubt it's going to suddenly change tomorrow. And how about the one with the light scratch in the left field? Or a rare-date plugged trade dollar? Those are coins less deserving of grades than a trinket? What about a lightly corroded large-cent? PCGS and NGC will not slab those. Why not? They can't be assigned a numeric grade, while a one-side trinket can be? You're trying to change issues. The issue is, what can be assigned a numeric grade, right? Why can't real coins like the ones I mentioned be assigned grades? It's not a question of what's a coin or not, we can agree on that, but what deserves a numeric grade, and if a real coin like a rare-date trade dollar can't be just because it's been plugged. Boy, what's grading coming to!

 

(((Second, David Hall is not a personal friend of mine - at most he's an acquaintance - and that's what really rubs me the wrong way from your attitudes. Your attitude is that only someone in 'cahoots' with PCGS could possibly stand up for them because they are approaching 100% evil. Well, they aren't even close to that - they're pretty much the same as all grading companies. In every silly little bashing thread, all I've done is point out how what PCGS is getting bashed for is done by NGC as well. I do the same on the CU board in standing up for NGC. Why? Because they all have pretty much the same processes and they all make pretty much the same mistakes and do most of the same things right. And bashing a grade off a scan, which is the collector's favorite modus operandi, is simply silly in most cases.)))

 

Note that I've bashed both companies equally in this post! AGAIN, There's NO differentiation between PCGS and NGC and ANACS on this issue. Either of those companies certifying trinkets is ridiculous. And btw I think Mr. Hall is far from "evil", nor is PCGS. I do think Mr. Hall is a jerk, but don't see where you got "evil" from me.

 

(((And last, it's your arguement that something must be a coin [or a token, or a pattern, or a colonial, or a ?] to be assigned a numerical grade, not mine. I don't buy into your assertion one iota, so I am not saying that the item in question is "more of a coin" than your indian cent. That's simply silly.... )))

 

Yet you still can't explain why PCGS and NGC will certify a controversial trinket, but won't certify a plugged trade dollar (see, I slammed on NGC). "Silly" is right. We can agree on that.

 

James

[EVillageProwler]

Yet you still can't explain why PCGS and NGC will certify a controversial trinket, but won't certify a plugged trade dollar

 

Folks,

 

It's all about the money. The Jade boys and TDN can have their competing opinions, but ultimately the services will do what they do if they feel it is reasonable from a business perspective.

 

As far as I can tell, some of you are talking very high brow and idealistically. Throw that away and start thinking like a businessman. Whatever makes $$ is the bottom line. I hate to quote a fictional character, but "greed is good." It is what drives America.

 

EVP

 

[James_OldeTowne]

EVP, you're exactly right.

 

With apologies to Tradedollarnut, even though this issue seems so controversial, it's really only a very minor thing in the big scheme. I'll just close out my arguments by saying that we, the coin-collecting community, just don't need trinkets certified by anyone, including NGC or PCGS. It's difficult enough to get good old American coins fairly graded. No need to muddy things up even more.

 

James

[JadeRareCoin]

As far as I can tell, some of you are talking very high brow and idealistically. Throw that away and start thinking like a businessman. Whatever makes $$ is the bottom line.

 

EVP, whenever you hear James and I preach about the problems with today's 3rd party grading, we are really talking about exactly what you stated in your post; GREED. The TPG's were born to protect, in theory, the less knowledgeable consumer. Somewhere along the line, the influence of money began to blur the vision of some graders at some companies and now there's a sea of overgraded, undergraded and misattributed coins on the market.

 

 

Check out some auctions from EBAY. CHRIS

 

Hey Chris,

 

I don't think that it's unreasonable to assign a grade to a pattern, since patterns by definition are coins, although not necessarily legal tender. They are struck in the same manner as circulating coins and many did in fact circulate. I will add, however, that the grade of a pattern is not quite as important as the grade on a regular mint issue, imho. Rarity should be the top criteria for a pattern, with the grade being secondary. Just an opinion......flame away everyone!

[JadeRareCoin]

.....I still like the post that Greg made about the slabbing of gold nuggets. That's funny. Please tell me that the nuggets were only authenticated and NOT graded. Puuuleeease tell me it ain't so.....

[James_OldeTowne]

Dennis, we should start a new encapsulation service for certifying Chicken McNuggets!

 

James

[JadeRareCoin]

Dennis, we should start a new encapsulation service for certifying Chicken McNuggets!

 

James

 

Funny you should mention that. I just got back from McDonalds and one of my McNuggets was totally AT. I asked for a refund, but the manager told me that I would have to get a 3rd party grading opinion before he would refund my money. I think that you have perfect timing on your idea about a new encapsulation company!

[MAULEMALL]

 

Pr 69 DEEEEEEP Cameo

[James_OldeTowne]

Wait a minute. Round 3? Who won rounds one and two?

 

Actually, I wouldn't mind going a few rounds with her.....

 

James

[MAULEMALL]

 

 

DENA YOU GET SOME CLOTHES ON.......................RIGHT NOW.....

[gmarguli]

.....I still like the post that Greg made about the slabbing of gold nuggets. That's funny. Please tell me that the nuggets were only authenticated and NOT graded. Puuuleeease tell me it ain't so.....

 

I don't believe they were graded, but it was a little hard to see the insert as I had tears coming out of my eyes I was laughing so hard.

[spy88]

This same coin is featured on the front opening page of varietynickels.com

 

David

[Leothelion]

 

Pr 69 DEEEEEEP Cameo

 

I think a few here should be ashaved.......I mean, ashamed of themselves for letting this go as far as it has! What was I thinking?

 

But seriously, just how many designs were the contestants allowed to enter, back in that 1937contest? As many as they want? There were 390 other contestants and if each entered 2-3 designs..................that's...

 

Perhaps I should get this slabbed and make a 100 grand! See attachment!

 

Also, I know a dealer who has close ties to the Schlag relatives, if anyone would know about his works, they should.

 

Leo

 

[Newmismatist]

Why would PCGS attribute this coin with no documentation? Jadecoin comes to mind one again, this time it's $100,000.

 

TRUTH has raised an interesting issue which seemed to get lost in some of the other posts which have questioned the "grade" of this "Pattern".

 

1st, if this is a real pattern, & it's unique, it hardly matters what grade it's called - why is this even an issue? There's no other coin to even compare it with - & if it's real, it's a uniface die trial strike - & it was being struck to test the die & the resultant impression - it's certainly wasn't intended to be a "Proof" or speciman striking. - 2nd, I think TDN is quite correct when he says that you can't accurately grade coins (or patterns or die trial stikes) from a scanned photo posted on an ebay listing - You might be able to make a "guesstimate" of the grade - but to argue whether it is or isn't a 62 is kind of ridiculous. Whether it should or shouldn't be assigned a grade is likewise a somewhat specious argument - when any of the TPGS (as in "grading services") grade coins they "assign" their "opinion" as to what they consider the grade to be - are they 100% right 100% of the time??? 'nuff said.

 

The real issue is the exact issue reaised by Truth: How can this coin be attributed as a "Felix Schlag" designed die trial pattern? Where's the documentation? Did Schlag have drawings of this exact reverse as part of his submission? Or has PCGS simply "concluded" that because it has Monticello, it must have been designed by Schlag? Finally, is there any proof, documentation, etc that this is really a US Mint product, struck by the US Mint or authorized to be struck for the US Mint? Is there any information regardign where it came from, who had it, how it got form the US Mint to whereever it ended up at - If it came from Felix Schlags estate, this would certainly be a strong indication that he had something to do with this "pattern". If it was found in a junkbox acquired from a tool & die apprentice, it might raise serious questions as to its authenticity.

 

On this point the following is illustrative: At the 2002 FUN, Heritage auctioned a "speciman" or "Proof" 1856-O $20 Liberty for $310K. here's what they had to say about this unique coin:

1856-O $20 MS63 Specimen NGC. Many specialists believe that this is the single most important New Orleans Double Eagle in existence. It is also one of the most important coins from this mint regardless of denomination. This 1856-O Double Eagle is the finest example known by a wide margin. It is also a specimen striking and certified as such by NGC. As an issue, the 1856-O needs little introduction. It remains one of the few transcendent rarities among 19th century U.S. gold, recognized as such even by non-gold collectors.

 

BUT the background as to how this coin came onto the numimatic market is even more interesting:

Concerning the purchase of this major rarity, Marc Emory recalled: "New England Rare Coin Galleries was contacted by a family, then living in Vermont. They inquired if we would be interested in purchasing a proof 1856-O Double Eagle. New England staff explained that no proofs were known of this issue. The party on the other end of the line patiently explained that, well, they had one, nonetheless. The New England staffer asked, rhetorically, or so he thought, if the prospective seller was a descendent of Bienvenu, the superintendent of the New Orleans Mint in the year 1856. All sarcasm was quickly forgotten when the seller on the phone responded, 'Yes.' "

 

So WHERE this coin came from may be quite important as to its "authenticity" (or lack thereof).

 

I have not seen the article in CW (I don't subscribe to CW), but the mere fact that PCGS "attributes" this to be a Felix Schlag designed die trial "pattern", is not (IMHO) proof of anything other than their opinion.

 

This "attribution" reminds me of the joke about the snakeoil salesman who is questioned by a customer as to how he knows the "snakeoil" cures everything he claims - The snakeoil salesman holds up the bottle and replies - "You know it's GOT to be true - it's WRITTEN right here on the bottle"!

 

I suppose if someone comes up with documentation that this is not a Felix Schlag design, PCGS will simply print a new insert & replace the old one with the "new" insert. But how do we know this is even a US Mint product? Does anybody have any information regarding the background of this coin?

 

Just some thoughts on what I think should be discussed in this thread.