I can't believe that PCGS certified this coin

[BillJones]

I just got a catalog from Heritage for their Summer FUN sale. Now I'm always checking out the lots to see if any of the three remaining type coins that I need are offered. One of them, the 1796-7 Draped Bust, Small Eagle half dollar is offered, but when I looked at the coin I couldn't believe it.

 

The coin, which is lot # 566 is a 1796, 16 star half dollar in PCGS Fine-15. When I looked at the picture, I could tell that the stars looked funny. Sure enough in the description, Heritage states that all 16 stars have been re-engraved.

 

This is an item that could easily sell for a mid 5-figure number, yet a coin with this kind of problem belongs in a body bag or "genuine" holder. So what's with PCGS? If they are the #1 service as so many people believe, how did they miss this one?

[James_OldeTowne]

Bill, it's funny you should mention that. I was just looking at it last night and shaking my head in stunned disbelief. The funny thing is, this coin has a certain "history" behind it, and I can't quite remember what the story was. Perhaps someone else will know? I believe I remember reading about it ten years ago or so.

 

And just for the record, I don't necessarily believe the coin shouldn't be certified, but the problem deserves mention on the slab.

[WinstonWare]

I’d be interested to hear what the story that James is referring to is all about.

[BillJones]

And just for the record, I don't necessarily believe the coin shouldn't be certified, but the problem deserves mention on the slab.

 

There was a time in the 19th century when re-engraving worn devices on a coin was acceptable, but when I was a young collector coming up, it certainly was not. The comment I heard from old copper collectors back in the 1970s was that a re-engraved coin was condition BS-1 (Sheldon grading scale Basal State-1 which is less than Fair-2 and AG-3).

 

The grading on this piece is the kind of thing that I would expect from one of the rip-off grading services that are out to put something over on someone. PCGS should buy this coin off the market. It is an insult their integrity. That goes double given the rarity and value of this piece.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

Link to the coin in question.

[coinman1794]

It looks like they penalized it quite a bit by calling it F15. That's a start, but something of that nature should not be slabbed problem free. If its a famous coin with a specific story behind it, it should be pedigreed.

[BillJones]

Going by the hair detail, the coin would normally grade VF-30 or 35, but the reverse is very weak around the eagle's legs which suggests that there might be other problems.

 

This is not the first time I've seen PCGS ignore a major problem on an early coin. Years ago I bought an 1807 quarter in a PCGS VF holder. The holder was scratched so that it was hard to see the coin inside, but I could see toning and enough hair detail, so I mistakenly thought that since it was in a PCGS holder it had to be okay.

 

I had bought the coin to sell raw, and I had a dealer friend who was great a breaking slabs crack it out for me. When he opened the slab, he went "Ohhhhh.... " The coin had been polished was AT. The dealer who had sold it to me a scratched up the slab to hide the problem, but the first question was,

 

WHY DID PCGS CERTIFY THIS???

 

It taught me a valuable lesson. Don't trust PCGS. You have to LOOK AT THE COIN!!!!

[Coindude]

Great coin, but it should be described as what it is, it is post mint damage.

[SlumLord98-migration]

This coin was discussed ATS a while back when it first appeared. Either it didn't sell or was withdrawn, then reappeared. The folks at PCGS are aware of it and have chosen to do nothing. It would make a nice companion coin for the 1805 O.103 with similar damage.

 

Edited to remove traces of my 6th grade education

[coinman1794]

Going by the hair detail, the coin would normally grade VF-30 or 35, but the reverse is very weak around the eagle's legs which suggests that there might be other problems.

 

This is not the first time I've seen PCGS ignore a major problem on an early coin. Years ago I bought an 1807 quarter in a PCGS VF holder. The holder was scratched so that it was hard to see the coin inside, but I could see toning and enough hair detail, so I mistakenly thought that since it was in a PCGS holder it had to be okay.

 

I had bought the coin to sell raw, and I had a dealer friend who was great a breaking slabs crack it out for me. When he opened the slab, he went "Ohhhhh.... " The coin had been polished was AT. The dealer who had sold it to me a scratched up the slab to hide the problem, but the first question was,

 

WHY DID PCGS CERTIFY THIS???

 

It taught me a valuable lesson. Don't trust PCGS. You have to LOOK AT THE COIN!!!!

 

PCGS does this often with damaged coins, but when the coin is altered, its even worse.

[TomB]

I believe the currently offered DBSE half had previously been in an NCS holder because of the obverse damage. However, obviously someone purchased the coin and sent it to PCGS where it ended up in their problem-free premier brand holder. Perhaps it was an internal mixup on the part of PCGS where the coin was destined for a genuine slab, but became diverted. Otherwise we must assume either PCGS did not notice the damage or simply did not care.

[gmarguli]

Here are the slabs.

 

 

I guess this really proves one thing, PCGS (F15) does grade stricter than NGC (VF20). That's why I'll only buy premium PCGS slabs for my Registry Set. (thumbs u

[IGWT]

This coin was discussed ATS a while back when it first appeared. Either it didn't sell or was withdrawn, then reappeared. The folks at PCGS are aware of it and have chosen to do nothing. It would make a nice companion coin for the 1805 O.103 with similar damage.

 

[MarkFeld]

I believe the currently offered DBSE half had previously been in an NCS holder because of the obverse damage. However, obviously someone purchased the coin and sent it to PCGS where it ended up in their problem-free premier brand holder. Perhaps it was an internal mixup on the part of PCGS where the coin was destined for a genuine slab, but became diverted. Otherwise we must assume either PCGS did not notice the damage or simply did not care.

Well, before they were made aware of it, we can assume that either they did not notice the damage or simply did not care. Once they were made aware of it, (after the fact) however, we can assume that they didn't care. At least not enough to do anything about it, considering what it would cost them to care.

[physics-fan3.14]

What a shame, for both those coins.

 

So is this the next Norweb/not-Norweb Wood Hibernia?

[SlumLord98-migration]

Thanks, Lou! That's the one! Perhaps PCGS is hoping for a similarly favorable result on the '96 as they got on the '05, but leaving it in the holder cheapens the brand so much that it is surprising they would just let it ride.

 

If another grader misses the re-engraving again, I bet that grader will get nailed to the wall alongside this coin.

[coinman1794]

 

I guess this really proves one thing, PCGS (F15) does grade stricter than NGC (VF20). That's why I'll only buy premium PCGS slabs for my Registry Set. (thumbs u

 

I hope thats a joke!

 

Actualy, PCGS is grading much looser than NGC on Early US, and I would fully expect that coin to grade VF20-25 at PCGS today, were it not damaged. I'd bet they net graded it at F-15. It is a very expensive coin, after all.

[James_OldeTowne]

I actually believe they really did miss the problem. The coin has other minor problems as well that could have been responsible for a "net grade", but I don't think the details are realistically above VF-20.

 

I should think that re-engraving of the stars should be at least a 15 point downgrade. Maybe VG-something?

 

But in the grand scheme of things, the "GRADE" really isn't going to matter much. Seems like just about everyone needs a genuine example of this type.

[MarkFeld]

 

I guess this really proves one thing, PCGS (F15) does grade stricter than NGC (VF20). That's why I'll only buy premium PCGS slabs for my Registry Set. (thumbs u

 

I hope thats a joke!

 

Actualy, PCGS is grading much looser than NGC on Early US, and I would fully expect that coin to grade VF20-25 at PCGS today, were it not damaged. I'd bet they net graded it at F-15. It is a very expensive coin, after all.

Yes, that was a joke (and I liked it).

 

If the coin was intentionally net-graded, rather than body-bagged, due to an awareness of the tooling, I think that's a shame. And if it wasn't intentionally net-graded, but PCGS wont do anything about it after being made aware of the tooling, to me, that's even worse.

[MikeKing]

this isn't the first coin that ngc bbd and pcgs holder. i had a bust half once, bbd by ngc for environmental damage. pcgs holdered it, and the brown coloration actually came off into the surrounding plastic during the holdering process.

[gmarguli]

this isn't the first coin that ngc bbd and pcgs holder. i had a bust half once, bbd by ngc for environmental damage. pcgs holdered it, and the brown coloration actually came off into the surrounding plastic during the holdering process.

 

I probably shouldn't say this, but I just got back a submission from PCGS which included 2 coins I believe are harshly polished. They're rare coins and I wanted them in genuine slabs. They slabbed problem free. I was very surprised. And of course one of the problem free ones "bagged".

[physics-fan3.14]

Greg, mind posting pics of those two coins?

[gmarguli]

Greg, mind posting pics of those two coins?

 

I'll have to think about that one.

[BillJones]

No matter you look at it, putting this coin in a “no problem” slab stinks.

 

Using “Coin Values” numbers, the quote for a 1796, 16 star half dollar is $ 70,000. If you net grade this thing to where it belongs, it should be a Good-Very Good because the problem with it was done intentionally and therefore is a MAJOR problem. The VG price is $50,000. So that means that this coin is “over slabbed” by $20,000 in value.

 

I think this would bring $35 to $40 thousand in a “genuine” holder. No matter how you look at it, putting this coin in a PCGS Fine-15 is a travesty. The Kool-Aid drinkers who think PCGS is infallible should make note of this. And the executives at PCGS should be concerned about having something like this so prominently in numismatic circulation. When you have a major coin like this in a major Heritage auction with a one page write-up, it does not reflect well upon your company.

 

[WinstonWare]

So what do people think? PCGS graders missed it or net graded it? Personally, I find it hard to imagine that they missed it.

[James_OldeTowne]

I actually DO think that they blew it. You see, I agree with Bill Jones' assessment as to the coin's true value, and I kind of alluded to the same approximate grade in my previous post. If PCGS did not blow it and did silently net-graded the coin, then they did not net it down far enough, in my and Bill's opinions. The coin might have VF-20 details at best, though I tend to think F-15 is about right just for details. And if you then net down from there, you should be in the VG range.

 

[coinman1794]

I actually DO think that they blew it. You see, I agree with Bill Jones' assessment as to the coin's true value, and I kind of alluded to the same approximate grade in my previous post. If PCGS did not blow it and did silently net-graded the coin, then they did not net it down far enough, in my and Bill's opinions. The coin might have VF-20 details at best, though I tend to think F-15 is about right just for details. And if you then net down from there, you should be in the VG range.

 

I saw an R.7 Draped Bust half graded VF35 by NGC, with bold graffiti carved into the field, sell on Heritage a few years ago. The grading services are willing to holder problem coins if they are rare enough. How many 1913 Liberty nickles and 1804 dollars are cleaned? Yet, they would NEVER be placed in a genuine slab or body-bagged. Those are extreme examples, but the same forces are at work in holdering lesser, though still quite valuable rarities like the R.7 half or this 1796. Its still a tragedy though!

[Zoins]

This coin was discussed ATS a while back when it first appeared. Either it didn't sell or was withdrawn, then reappeared. The folks at PCGS are aware of it and have chosen to do nothing.

Certainly their net grading policy is explicit in their allowance for these sorts of grades. It may be a shame, but they seem to be covered.

 

As it is, it's another good reason to grade the coin yourself.

[physics-fan3.14]

I certainly think PCGS grading this like they did is a shame and makes them look foolish, but the flipside is: anyone who would buy this should be an advanced enough collector to be able to see the problem for themselves, right? I mean, its not like this coin is the sort of thing Joe Modern is going to buy. It seems like there would be very few people who can afford a coin like this, and the person who buys it would be a very advanded collector of early material.

[Barndog]

help me understand something, since I don't know how TPGs buy back coins...

 

I assume a private party owns the coin. If the owner of the coin puts it up for auction, it is his/hers to do with as he/she pleases, right? If PCGS wants to buy it back and pesters the owner to do so, the owner can still say no and keep it in the auction. The auction house can properly describe the coin and "let it ride"

 

So if that's what is going on here, other than the major screwup of grading the coin in the first place, can the TPGs be faulted? I do not believe that TPGs retain the right to buy back coins they have graded just because they want to do so...I do believe the coin's owner must be willing to sell it back to the TPGs.