Please Post Your TPG Goofs

[coinman_23885]

Please post your TPG errors or coins that you are aware of. By "error," I am not referring to a mechanical error or simple typo on the label; I'm referring to coins that are overgraded, have questionable and/or artificially toning, or other problems, etc. Since I am unclear whether the third world companies are using the traditional 70 point scale or a 200 point scale, let's keep this to PCGS, NGC, old ANACS, and maybe a tiny bit of ICG.

 

Although I realize that this thread may be a tiny bit controversial, my goal is to create an educational and entertaining thread.

 

Disclaimer: Unfortunately, there is always a risk associated with some topics. I think the potential benefits or knowledge that could be gleaned by honest posts to threads like this far outweighs any negative consequences. Also, neither of my threads is meant to target any of the companies; regardless of how great a company is (and everyone is entitled to their opinions), EVERYONE makes mistakes.

[coinman_23885]

[mtnstyne]

Every coin I have in a slab is undergraded.

[cpm9ball]

Every coin I have in a slab is undergraded.

 

I think every coin he has in a slab is overgraded!

 

Chris

[BROADSTRUCK]

I had pointed this out to a fellow collector whom I sold a OGH PCGS "MS58" 1877-S 25C to as this would have been a great mate. He fell asleep before the auction ended and never bid... Shame as I would have picked it up as it looked like a really nice coin for a Standing Liberty Half Dollar

 

 

[lehigh96]

Not sure why we can't include mechanical errors which can be very costly if you buy a coin sight unseen. The most egregious error I have ever seen is when PCGS graded an ASE that PCI called AT.

 

[dimefreak]

[BROADSTRUCK]

Not sure why we can't include mechanical errors which can be very costly if you buy a coin sight unseen. The most egregious error I have ever seen is when PCGS graded an ASE that PCI called AT.

 

 

Lehigh96, Thanks my retinas burnt out after seeing that ASE!

 

[dimefreak]

Its also worth noting that Mr. Mark Feld hit it on the head in your other thread. This is all based upon the knowledge, opinion and expertise of the poster. I have really lost interest in dimes simply because my taste and the TPG taste do not align. I send them super clean surfaces with great luster and get sucky grades. They are lax with hits and want super crazy luster.If you have owned a MS68 before you know what I am talking about. Just about every MS68 has the same "look" to it. On a side note any other type of coin I send in almost always exceeds my expectations! My last submission had zero dimes and I guessed low on every coin by at least one half of a point!

[coinman_23885]

Not sure why we can't include mechanical errors which can be very costly if you buy a coin sight unseen. The most egregious error I have ever seen is when PCGS graded an ASE that PCI called AT.

 

 

Lehigh96, Thanks my retinas burnt out after seeing that ASE!

 

 

Nice. The ASE is exactly what I am looking for.

[coinman_23885]

 

I forgot about this coin. I still haven't gotten around to sending it to CAC. It is gorgeous in hand.

[Conder101]

 

Slabbed as a real 1790's token,, the coin is a well known fake from the 1950's

[BillJones]

Its also worth noting that Mr. Mark Feld hit it on the head in your other thread. This is all based upon the knowledge, opinion and expertise of the poster. I have really lost interest in dimes simply because my taste and the TPG taste do not align. I send them super clean surfaces with great luster and get sucky grades. They are lax with hits and want super crazy luster.If you have owned a MS68 before you know what I am talking about. Just about every MS68 has the same "look" to it. On a side note any other type of coin I send in almost always exceeds my expectations! My last submission had zero dimes and I guessed low on every coin by at least one half of a point!

 

If your coin has been dipped or looks like it might have been dipped, it's hard to get a grade higher than MS-64 and impossible to get anything beyond MS-65. What they are looking for in the "super grades" is originality, a sharp strike and a lot of luster that has not been enhanced by dipping. And yes, I'll agree with you that they tend to ignore hits more than they should on some coins graded MS-66 and above. To me hits do matter, and when I'm paying a high price for a very high grade, a hit should be anything but obvious.

[dimefreak]

Its also worth noting that Mr. Mark Feld hit it on the head in your other thread. This is all based upon the knowledge, opinion and expertise of the poster. I have really lost interest in dimes simply because my taste and the TPG taste do not align. I send them super clean surfaces with great luster and get sucky grades. They are lax with hits and want super crazy luster.If you have owned a MS68 before you know what I am talking about. Just about every MS68 has the same "look" to it. On a side note any other type of coin I send in almost always exceeds my expectations! My last submission had zero dimes and I guessed low on every coin by at least one half of a point!

 

If your coin has been dipped or looks like it might have been dipped, it's hard to get a grade higher than MS-64 and impossible to get anything beyond MS-65. What they are looking for in the "super grades" is originality, a sharp strike and a lot of luster that has not been enhanced by dipping. And yes, I'll agree with you that they tend to ignore hits more than they should on some coins graded MS-66 and above. To me hits do matter, and when I'm paying a high price for a very high grade, a hit should be anything but obvious.

 

Bill,

 

Im talking about receiving MS67's and how it seems impossible for a peon such as myself to crack that MS68 barrier.... I would never send in a dipped "dead" coin. My submissions are typically high quality coins!

[brg5658]

 

Can you enlighten us a little on this coin -- what's the back-story? I don't understand why it's a "Goof" if you only post a picture of the coin with no label or holder information.

[coinman_23885]

 

Can you enlighten us a little on this coin -- what's the back-story? I don't understand why it's a "Goof" if you only post a picture of the coin with no label or holder information.

 

Let's try this (I'll explain more in depth later): What would you grade the coin? The images accurately portray the surfaces, luster, and strike.

[brg5658]

Let's try this (I'll explain more in depth later): What would you grade the coin? The images accurately portray the surfaces, luster, and strike.

 

Looks like a typical MS66 to me.

[dimefreak]

Let's try this (I'll explain more in depth later): What would you grade the coin? The images accurately portray the surfaces, luster, and strike.

 

Looks like a typical MS66 to me.

 

This could be a great learning experience for me.... Whats makes this coin look like a 66 to you? I busted this out of a MS67FB Rattler in hopes of a MS67+FB or MS68FB. I dont see anything really wrong with this coin.

 

PS PCGS didnt agree with your MS66 guess...

[coinman_23885]

Let's try this (I'll explain more in depth later): What would you grade the coin? The images accurately portray the surfaces, luster, and strike.

 

Looks like a typical MS66 to me.

 

This could be a great learning experience for me.... Whats makes this coin look like a 66 to you? I busted this out of a MS67FB Rattler in hopes of a MS67+FB or MS68FB. I dont see anything really wrong with this coin.

 

PS PCGS didnt agree with your MS66 guess...

 

I think it was penalized for the die polish. The coin is in a 65FB holder, I believe. I think the coin is undergraded.

[brg5658]

Let's try this (I'll explain more in depth later): What would you grade the coin? The images accurately portray the surfaces, luster, and strike.

 

Looks like a typical MS66 to me.

 

This could be a great learning experience for me.... Whats makes this coin look like a 66 to you? I busted this out of a MS67FB Rattler in hopes of a MS67+FB or MS68FB. I dont see anything really wrong with this coin.

 

PS PCGS didnt agree with your MS66 guess...

 

I don't like the flat "B" of LIBERTY on the obverse and the flat "E" of ONE on the reverse. Those two anomalies put it closer to 66 in my book. I also think the speckling on the obverse has negative eye appeal. These of course are just my preferences and opinions (and the best I can do from pictures). Doesn't matter how good the images are, you can't tell certain things unless you have the coin in hand (which I don't).

 

Also, while it may have gone "FB" at PCGS, I don't think it would meet the NGC requirements for that designation -- the NGC designation requires both "split" and rounded bands. The middle set looks pretty darn flat to my eye, with hair line division.

 

[coinman_23885]

Also, while it may have gone "FB" at PCGS, I don't think it would meet the NGC requirements for that designation -- the NGC designation requires both "split" and rounded bands. The middle set looks pretty darn flat to my eye, with hair line division.

 

PCGS uses the same standards as NGC (I believe) for Mercury Dimes. It is the Roosevelt Dimes, where NGC uses the FT designation and PCGS the FB designation that the standards diverge.

 

With regards to the designation, I am interpreting the photos a little differently. In hand, I have no problem with the FB designation.

[BillJones]

Bill,

 

Im talking about receiving MS67's and how it seems impossible for a peon such as myself to crack that MS68 barrier.... I would never send in a dipped "dead" coin. My submissions are typically high quality coins!

 

"Dipped dead" is truly "dead" if you are looking for high grades, but even if the coin is dipped bright with lots of luster, I've seen none of those get anything over MS-65 and most of them get no more than MS-64. I guess it's that idea that a 70 year old coin should look a bit old with some toning and not like it just came off the dies.

 

As for the MS-68 grade, that is very hard to get. Everything has to "click" including originality, luster under the original toning (which never can be "thick"), a full strike, no funky die polish and yes, a bit of luck. Looking at the PCGS "Coin Facts" page, less than 0.5% of the Mercury dimes submitted made MS-68 or 69. Most of those coins seem to come from the late 1930s with the biggest spike on the 1939-D. (105 coins out of 6,531 graded) That comes out to a percentage for that date of 1.6%. And you can bet that many of the 6,531 were screened before the consignors sent them in to weed out "the dogs."

 

[brg5658]

PCGS uses the same standards as NGC (I believe) for Mercury Dimes. It is the Roosevelt Dimes, where NGC uses the FT designation and PCGS the FB designation that the standards diverge.

 

With regards to the designation, I am interpreting the photos a little differently. In hand, I have no problem with the FB designation.

 

Kenny, unless they have recently changed standards, you are incorrect about Mercury dime "FB" designations.

 

NGC and PCGS do not assign the "FB" designation in the same way. NGC only assigns the "FB" designation to Mercury dimes which exhibit both fully split, and raised/rounded uninterrupted bands. PCGS, alternatively, will assign the FB designation for any dime that exhibits fully split uninterrupted bands, even if the bands are not raised/rounded.

 

For illustration, I borrow a graphic from the February 2000 issue of the Numismatist:

 

PCGS would designate the two bottom illustrations "FB".

 

NGC would designate only the bottom illustration as "FB".

 

[dimefreak]

Its fully split no worries there

[coinman_23885]

For illustration, I borrow a graphic from the February 2000 issue of the Numismatist:

 

PCGS would designate the two bottom illustrations "FB".

 

NGC would designate only the bottom illustration as "FB".

 

 

Brandon, I appreciate you posting that, and it appears that I was incorrect. I knew that the FBL designations (for Franklin Half Dollars), the FS (for Jefferson Nickels), and FT/FB (for Roosevelt Dimes) were different, but I didn't realize that the standards for Mercury Dimes were also different.

[brg5658]

For illustration, I borrow a graphic from the February 2000 issue of the Numismatist:

 

PCGS would designate the two bottom illustrations "FB".

 

NGC would designate only the bottom illustration as "FB".

 

 

Brandon, I appreciate you posting that, and it appears that I was incorrect. I knew that the FBL designations (for Franklin Half Dollars), the FS (for Jefferson Nickels), and FT/FB (for Roosevelt Dimes) were different, but I didn't realize that the standards for Mercury Dimes were also different.

 

While the differences between NGC and PCGS are subtle, they do exist. The picture below is a coin I have in an MS67 NGC holder that did not receive the FB designation. By the PCGS standards, I believe it would.

 

[lehigh96]

PCGS uses the same standards as NGC (I believe) for Mercury Dimes. It is the Roosevelt Dimes, where NGC uses the FT designation and PCGS the FB designation that the standards diverge.

 

With regards to the designation, I am interpreting the photos a little differently. In hand, I have no problem with the FB designation.

 

Kenny, unless they have recently changed standards, you are incorrect about Mercury dime "FB" designations.

 

NGC and PCGS do not assign the "FB" designation in the same way. NGC only assigns the "FB" designation to Mercury dimes which exhibit both fully split, and raised/rounded uninterrupted bands. PCGS, alternatively, will assign the FB designation for any dime that exhibits fully split uninterrupted bands, even if the bands are not raised/rounded.

 

For illustration, I borrow a graphic from the February 2000 issue of the Numismatist:

 

PCGS would designate the two bottom illustrations "FB".

 

NGC would designate only the bottom illustration as "FB".

 

 

Brandon,

 

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. The link you posted is simply an article written by David Lange, not evidence of NGC's grading policy regarding the Full Band designation. If what you are saying is true, I would expect there the percentage of full band Mercury dimes to be far lower than that of PCGS. I don't have access to PCGS population reports but I don't think the NGC numbers are that much lower. That said, I do believe that NGC is still much stricter with the application of the full band separation and that any blending will negate the designation.

 

With regards to the 41-S Mercury Dime posted, it appears to be a high end MS66 or low end MS67 FB example. There are some minor hits on the fasces and some graders are very tough on coins with mottled/speckled chestnut toning, especially on the obverse of a coin. But to grade that coin MS65 is just ridiculous unless there is some luster problem not evident in the photos.

 

Paul

[brg5658]

PCGS uses the same standards as NGC (I believe) for Mercury Dimes. It is the Roosevelt Dimes, where NGC uses the FT designation and PCGS the FB designation that the standards diverge.

 

With regards to the designation, I am interpreting the photos a little differently. In hand, I have no problem with the FB designation.

 

Kenny, unless they have recently changed standards, you are incorrect about Mercury dime "FB" designations.

 

NGC and PCGS do not assign the "FB" designation in the same way. NGC only assigns the "FB" designation to Mercury dimes which exhibit both fully split, and raised/rounded uninterrupted bands. PCGS, alternatively, will assign the FB designation for any dime that exhibits fully split uninterrupted bands, even if the bands are not raised/rounded.

 

For illustration, I borrow a graphic from the February 2000 issue of the Numismatist:

 

PCGS would designate the two bottom illustrations "FB".

 

NGC would designate only the bottom illustration as "FB".

 

 

Brandon,

 

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one. The link you posted is simply an article written by David Lange, not evidence of NGC's grading policy regarding the Full Band designation. If what you are saying is true, I would expect there the percentage of full band Mercury dimes to be far lower than that of PCGS. I don't have access to PCGS population reports but I don't think the NGC numbers are that much lower. That said, I do believe that NGC is still much stricter with the application of the full band separation and that any blending will negate the designation.

 

With regards to the 41-S Mercury Dime posted, it appears to be a high end MS66 or low end MS67 FB example. There are some minor hits on the fasces and some graders are very tough on coins with mottled/speckled chestnut toning, especially on the obverse of a coin. But to grade that coin MS65 is just ridiculous unless there is some luster problem not evident in the photos.

 

Paul

 

Paul, the last two sentences of the article read "Grading services such as Numismatic Guaranty Corporation distinguish between Mercury dimes that have full bands and those that do not. The designation FB follows the grade for coins having fully split and raised bands."

 

You can agree or disagree all you want, but the original article was in the Numismatist back in 2000 and it stated what I have quoted. You aren't disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with that article.

 

 

[lehigh96]

 

Paul, the last two sentences of the article read "Grading services such as Numismatic Guaranty Corporation distinguish between Mercury dimes that have full bands and those that do not. The designation FB follows the grade for coins having fully split and raised bands."

 

You can agree or disagree all you want, but the original article was in the Numismatist back in 2000 and it stated what I have quoted. You aren't disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with that article.

 

 

I am not really even disagreeing with the article. I am just stating that the reality of grading FB by NGC might not mesh with what was written in that article. Perhaps David will chime in and clear up the issue.

[dimefreak]

The luster was great from memory.... here are some luster shots