I can't believe that PCGS certified this coin

[Zoins]

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.

I don't think we can make that assumption. Just think about the knowledge of investing many people have making stock investments of that magnitude. Of course investing is very regulated....

[WoodenJefferson]

The PCGS coin forum is presently knocking a 1916-D AU-50 NGC graded Merc, the NCG coin forum is knocking a 1796 Fine-15 PCGS graded Flowing Hair 50¢

 

Two wrongs in the collectors eyes out of how many hundreds of thousands of correctly graded coins.

 

Just had to remind myself, mistakes happen in daily life. That’s why QA is a prerequisite within most industries.

[Zoins]

The PCGS coin forum is presently knocking a 1916-D AU-50 NGC graded Merc, the NCG coin forum is knocking a 1796 Fine-15 PCGS graded Flowing Hair 50¢

 

Two wrongs in the collectors eyes out of how many hundreds of thousands of correctly graded coins.

 

Just had to remind myself, mistakes happen in daily life. That’s why QA is a prerequisite within most industries.

$20,000 hobby mistakes don't often happen in daily life. Nothing wrong with being a bit careful with TPG coins.

[EZ_E]

Just had to remind myself, mistakes happen in daily life. That’s why QA is a prerequisite within most industries.

 

This is a very expensive, inexcusable wrong, IMO, Thomas.

 

The re-engraved stars look cartoonish to my eye.

 

It's like in my job in cat scan or x-ray, I've had plenty of perhaps beautiful women cross my table but, if they're drunk and smell like urine or a trauma patient with blood and gore everywhere, the sexiness just isn't there.

 

Same goes with this lady. She has herself and her beauty is dimmed by the stink!

[Coindude]

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.

I agree with you here, but I believe the discussion here is that PCGS sees no wrong in what they did and wouldn't buy the coin back if asked to anyhow.

 

Am I wrong or have I just been inferring that?

[gpnyc]

Of course they knew. One glance at those stars told me there was something wrong, and I am not a professional grader.

 

To add more fuel to the fire... the only Small Eagle Bust Half I ever owned was also a 1796. It was also in a PCGS holder. It was also worked and I was so disgusted when I found out that I sold it. So this is not an isolated incident with the so-called market leading TPG.

[BillJones]

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.

 

PCGS has shown a major reluctance to make things right in the past. I can cite two examples.

 

Years ago they slabbed a 1963 cent as PR-70, Ultra Cameo. The coin sold for something like $40 thousand at a FUN show auction. The trouble was the piece was so badly spotted that its problems were clearly visible when pictures of the piece were published in COINage magazine. This coin was clearly NOT a PR-70 graded piece.

 

It was put up for auction at the next year’s FUN show. There the registry lemmings who want to buy points, not coins, bid it way up again to over $40 thousand. The coin caused a long running string of messages on the Collectors’ Universe board. Finally it got to be so embarrassing that PCGS bought the coin off the market. My personal evaluation of the piece was that it was worth $10 outside of the PCGS holder, if the buyer was feeling generous.

 

Another time a lady paid something like $16,000 for a rare date St. Gaudens $20 gold piece. It turned out that the piece had been puttied. This is coin doctors’ trick when the scratches on a coin are filled in with something akin to auto body plastic and then covered it over with gold colored paint. After a while this breaks down to reveal the repair.

 

The lady asked for an adjustment from PCGS under their guarantee program, but they ignored her until she went public on their site. After that embarrassment PCGS made good, but my point is you have twist their arm to get them to do what they guarantee they will do for the certification fee you pay them. They don’t seem willing to do it voluntarily.

 

I might add that no one can fault the Heritage Auction house here. They have pointed out the problem, and for auction bidders that is a fair application of caveat emptor. The problem could come in private treaty sales where there is no auctioneer’s description. There a less than honest dealer can point to the PCGS slab and declare a “no problem” coin and charge the full buck for it. That’s where the real travesty can occur.

 

[SlumLord98-migration]

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.

 

This is not clearly defined. The 1805 which IGWT posted was returned by Heritage to PCGS at their request w/o prior consultation with the consignor IIRC. There is more to the story, of course...

 

I also believe the grader simply missed the engraving on both coins. I pulled the 1805 out of a dealer's case at the ANA last year and gave the coin a cursory look but didn't see the star engraving nor the initials on the chest. The coin had too many hairlines from an old wipe and these were quite noticeable.

[MikeInFL]

A silent net grade perhaps?

[physics-fan3.14]

Coin sold for $51,750 including juice if anyone was watching.

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1127&Lot_No=566

[Schatzy]

Coin sold for $51,750 including juice if anyone was watching.

 

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1127&Lot_No=566

 

~WOW~

[michael]

on the surface it looks like someone voted for the fully disclosed coin's acceptance as the high bidder with their money and this is okie

 

again on the surface it looks like this but behind the scenes there might be more than meets the eye

 

as of now we dont know for sure

[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!

 

I found the auction I was refering to. It was August 8th, 2001--a little beofre the days of NCS. Perhaps it would have been in an NCS slab today. Here it is:

 

1806 50C Pointed 6, Stem VF35 NGC. O-122, R.7. Easily identifiable as to variety by the heavy die crack (as struck) that nearly bisects the eagle's portrait on the reverse. Only 9-10 examples of this rare die marriage are believed extant, and the present specimen retains considerable striking definition for the grade. Both sides are fully original with even dove-gray patina. A small indentation in the obverse field behind Liberty's hair curls is noted for accuracy. In addition, the initials K and A have been scratched into the obverse, the former over Liberty's cheek and the latter in the field before the nose. This coin is the finest certified representative of O-122, but, according to the consignor, the initials on the obverse establish this piece as the third finest known example of this variety.

 

[BillJones]

This 1806 half dollar is an example of a piece where the body bag concept falls apart. A condition census example of a really rare variety in a popular series is a valuable coin PERIOD. The trouble is the coin can't qualify for a regualr slab given the problems. Still given the work by Chinese, it is necessary to authenticate a coin as genuine in some cases.

 

I guess the services feels duty bound to give coins like this a grade. The trouble is REAL collectors don't really need a slab. The only people who do are speculators who are looking to turn it for big bucks later.

 

This is where NCS has a all over the PCGS genuine slab. Despite the fact that net grades is a combination of art and science, it is necessary for pricing a condition census purposes. I don't approve of the fact that this coins got a clean grade here, but I understand why it was done.