Which coins would you recommend to someone wanting to lose as much as posssible?

[RWB]

We talk about gains -- but, which coins have generated the greatest loses over the past decade?

[coinman_23885]

Many of the people that bought condition "rarity" moderns in the early 2000s were unsurprisingly burned pretty badly. As recently as 2007, there are four auction records (3 Teletrade + 1 Heritage) of PF70 DCAM 2000-S Sacagawea Dollars selling for $3400 - $3800. The coins now sell for $30-$35, which is still more than I would pay (if I collected moderns at all). ROI: -99% or so. This is an Enron or Lehmann Brothers like return.

[johnny9434]

Many of the people that bought condition "rarity" moderns in the early 2000s were unsurprisingly burned pretty badly. As recently as 2007, there are four auction records (3 Teletrade + 1 Heritage) of PF70 DCAM 2000-S Sacagawea Dollars selling for $3400 - $3800. The coins now sell for $30-$35, which is still more than I would pay (if I collected moderns at all). ROI: -99% or so. This is an Enron or Lehmann Brothers like return.

bailouts for the rest of the creaps, nothing for our 401 k's. welcome to america

[tommy44]

Except for during the silver run-up in 2011-12 how have silver IKE dollars performed?

[cpm9ball]

What was the outcome of that 2003 Lincoln cent that PCGS originally graded MS70?

 

Chris

[BillJones]

I have heard that there have been some recorded auction sales of the new High Relief gold coin that have resulted in successful bids in excess of $12,000. These have been for "MS-70, Proof-like" coins. Given that the grading services could issue more slabbed coins in this grade, the supply is not limited. If you want to lose money pay that amount for these coins.

[brg5658]

What was the outcome of that 2003 Lincoln cent that PCGS originally graded MS70?

 

Chris

 

If I recall correctly, when it developed a spot, PCGS paid out around $15,000 in guarantee money (whatever the purchaser paid on Teletrade when it originally sold minus some negligible amount that an MS69 was worth), and it's now in an MS69RD holder.

 

Update: Here is the link to the coin at PCGS. Sold for $15,120 on Teletrade in Sept 2006, was reslabbed and downgraded to an MS69RD and is now given a PCGS priceguide value of $90.

 

[coinman1794]

Many of the people that bought condition "rarity" moderns in the early 2000s were unsurprisingly burned pretty badly. As recently as 2007, there are four auction records (3 Teletrade + 1 Heritage) of PF70 DCAM 2000-S Sacagawea Dollars selling for $3400 - $3800. The coins now sell for $30-$35, which is still more than I would pay (if I collected moderns at all). ROI: -99% or so. This is an Enron or Lehmann Brothers like return.

 

While this is true and certainly not a isolated instance, I would take issue with anyone calling Modern Proofs "condition rarities" (and I'm sure that's why you placed it in quotations), as it seems like roughly 35% of more of the submitted coins tend to grade 70. It would be interesting to see what the dates of those auctions were; if they are from 2007, they were probably the first graded, and there is always an artificial buzz around the first ones slabbed each year.

 

A true Modern condition rarity of a similar nature would be a Business Strike (not Satin Finish or Proof) Presidential dollar in MS69, for instance. Of 571, MS69, 2007-2015 Presidential dollars graded by NGC, just 28 coins are Business Strikes, and 543 are SMS, "Satin Finish" coins.

[cpm9ball]

What was the outcome of that 2003 Lincoln cent that PCGS originally graded MS70?

 

Chris

 

If I recall correctly, when it developed a spot, PCGS paid out around $15,000 in guarantee money (whatever the purchaser paid on Teletrade when it originally sold minus some negligible amount that an MS69 was worth), and it's now in an MS69RD holder.

 

Update: Here is the link to the coin at PCGS. Sold for $15,120 on Teletrade in Sept 2006, was reslabbed and downgraded to an MS69RD and is now given a PCGS priceguide value of $90.

 

Thanks, Brandon!

 

Chris

[RWB]

Interesting! So there's more than one way to loose your shirt in numismatics!

[jom]

What was the outcome of that 2003 Lincoln cent that PCGS originally graded MS70?

 

Chris

 

If I recall correctly, when it developed a spot, PCGS paid out around $15,000 in guarantee money (whatever the purchaser paid on Teletrade when it originally sold minus some negligible amount that an MS69 was worth), and it's now in an MS69RD holder.

 

Update: Here is the link to the coin at PCGS. Sold for $15,120 on Teletrade in Sept 2006, was reslabbed and downgraded to an MS69RD and is now given a PCGS priceguide value of $90.

 

OK, I'm confused. I could SWEAR the Lincoln PCGS graded MS70 was from the early 60s. They eventually had to buy the coin back....it also seems this happened way before 2006 as well....maybe the late 90s (?). I must be having a "senior" moment.

 

jom

[leeg]

OK, I'm confused. I could SWEAR the Lincoln PCGS graded MS70 was from the early 60s. They eventually had to buy the coin back....it also seems this happened way before 2006 as well....maybe the late 90s (?). I must be having a "senior" moment.

 

jom

 

From a PCGS website:

 

Here are the twelve most expensive PCGS Guarantee "buy-backs";

 

1794 Silver dollar AU55 $575,000, January, 2008. This was a beautiful looking coin, but on close examination, the hair had been reworked and the toning was actually not original. It was obviously a very skillful doctoring job and it fooled a lot of people.

 

1849 Mass & Cal $5 AU55 $150,000, June, 2006. This is a very rare territorial gold coin that turned out to be counterfeit.

 

1792 Half Disme XF45 $150,000, January, 2008. This coin had actually been flattened, probably around 1800, and did not look right at all. We shouldn't have missed this one.

 

1969-S double die Lincoln cent MS65RD $80,000, November, 2003. This coin "turned" color in the holder and now only graded MS64RB.

 

1861/57-S Clark Gruber $20 MS63 $75,000, November, 2007. This coin had been known to the coin community for decades. In fact David Hall had it at coin shows for sale in the mid-1970s. But research eventually showed that this coin, and several other Clark Gruber rarities, were actually counterfeits that were probably made in the 1950s or 1960s.

 

1861 Clark Gruber $20 (three) MS62s $55,000 each, January, 2008. Same type of circa 1950s counterfeits as coin above.

 

1899 Indian cent PR69 $50,000, February, 1988. This gorgeous proof Indian cent later developed a huge copper spot covering the face of the Indian. We bought the coin back and hung it on the grading room wall with a sign that said "The $50,000 Spot" and we told the graders to be really careful when handling copper coins.

 

1908 $20 St. Gaudens PR63 $45,000, July, 2008. This matte proof Saint had been improperly cleaned or conserved or doctored or whatever you want to call it. We missed the subtle surfaces problems which later became not so subtle as the chemicals used by the "doctor" reacted on the coin.

 

1963 Lincoln cent PR70DCAM $40,768, April, 2004. This perfect Lincoln proof later developed a few minor spots. Not really our fault, but it was covered by our grading guarantee.

 

1849-D gold dollar MS64 $40,000, July, 2008. This was a beautiful, very high grade Dahlonega Mint specimen that unfortunately had a planchet lamination on the rim that broke loose and negatively effected the coin. This was not really a grading mistake, but an unforeseen problem covered by our grading guarantee nonetheless.

 

Bottom line...we're the experts, but even experts make mistakes. That's why we have the PCGS Grading Guarantee, so you don't have to pay for our mistakes.

 

Here's is a link to PCGS Grading Guarantee...

 

www.pcgs.com/guarantee.html

 

which gives the details of the guarantee and how it works, plus some very specific details and examples of what the guarantee does and doesn't do.

 

 

[TonerGuy]

Interesting that PCGS hasnt made a "major" mistake and buyback in 7 years...

 

I wonder why that is.

[coinman_23885]

Interesting that PCGS hasnt made a "major" mistake and buyback in 7 years...

 

I wonder why that is.

 

It isn't hard if you water down the guarantee to retroactively kill the copper color guarantee, have a provision for spotting, and my "favorite" - anything more than 3 points/intervals overgraded is a "mechanical error" now... hmm. The latter is true. PCGS publicly refused to honor its guarantee on a MS70 Ike that was at least 5 points overgraded. And since a point or two can be subjective (especially with toned coins with their built in market grading concept), then I can see how they can avoid many claims.

[RWB]

Long ago, far away, in a huge computer company, an extensive class of software defects were reclassified as "security enhancements" and the acceptance testing problems went away.

[BillJones]

Interesting that PCGS hasnt made a "major" mistake and buyback in 7 years...

 

I wonder why that is.

 

I know for a fact that they only made good on the 1963 cent in Proof-70 DCam after some very embarrassing postings over there that "outed" the problem. Pictures of the coin were published on-line and in COINage magazine, which showed the spotting. The value of the coin went from whatever the insane registry driven amount was (over $40,000 at auction) to about $10 in my opinion.

 

The amazing thing was the coin kept bringing sky-high bids at auction even after it went bad with the spotting. Some fools didn't seem to care what the coin looked like. They were only interested in buying the registry points as the finest possible piece graded. When bids reached more than $40,000 in a Winter FUN auction (At the second time it had been sold there.), PCGS pulled it off the market.

 

In fairness though I have to say they made good on a $5 gold piece I had that had been toned with iodine. It took about two months, but they offered to buy it back or send to it to me with a lower grade plus compensation. The value of the coin was about $3,200 if one ignored the problem.

[TonerGuy]

Interesting that PCGS hasnt made a "major" mistake and buyback in 7 years...

 

I wonder why that is.

 

It isn't hard if you water down the guarantee to retroactively kill the copper color guarantee, have a provision for spotting, and my "favorite" - anything more than 3 points/intervals overgraded is a "mechanical error" now... hmm. The latter is true. PCGS publicly refused to honor its guarantee on a MS70 Ike that was at least 5 points overgraded. And since a point or two can be subjective (especially with toned coins with their built in market grading concept), then I can see how they can avoid many claims.

 

Mechanical error ? As in we meant to grade it MS65 but someone mislabeled it an MS70 ?

 

So what they are saying is that the buyer should beware since anything more than 3pts over graded is easy to spot even to the untrained eye and thus the mistake is on the buyer for overpaying for the coin in the holder ? In other words PCGS is saying buy the coin not their holder...

 

 

Do you know if they got sued for that one ?

[Conder101]

Interesting that PCGS hasnt made a "major" mistake and buyback in 7 years...

Or they haven't published a list of their major mistakes in over 7 years. When was that PCGS posting published?

[jom]

OK, I'm confused. I could SWEAR the Lincoln PCGS graded MS70 was from the early 60s. They eventually had to buy the coin back....it also seems this happened way before 2006 as well....maybe the late 90s (?). I must be having a "senior" moment.

 

jom

 

From a PCGS website:

 

Here are the twelve most expensive PCGS Guarantee "buy-backs";

 

.....

 

1963 Lincoln cent PR70DCAM $40,768, April, 2004. This perfect Lincoln proof later developed a few minor spots. Not really our fault, but it was covered by our grading guarantee.

 

 

Thanks Lee...I thought there was one...a proof though. At least no senior moment for me...not yet anyway.

 

jom

[Nutmeg Coin]

I would like to hear some of the discussions at the grading services with disgruntled customers or dealers sending in problem coins for the guarantee, I have done a few, I had luck with NGC, got a credit, while PCGS saw the few I sent them as OK even though major dealers had pointed out the problems; subsequently I got a call from one of their lawyers about the issue wanting to resolve it, but I did not press for the refund as the issue was old at that point and the call unclear. Confidentiality rules are no doubt very strict at all the services.

 

There are 1001 ways to lose big money in numismatics as in any investment. How about rare large and small cents purchased raw from a show dealer? I can think of a number of dealers at shows where I have been who have overpriced problem material where the downsides would be substantial and the right of return questionable at best. Pressing the "buy it now" button on ebay on raw coins over $2K especially those in unapproved holders.

[World Colonial]

The all-time worst one has got to be whoever bought a 2008 South Africa Nelson Mandela NGC MS-69 90th BD5 rand (yes, it's a mouthfull to even say it) for R2.3MM or the equivalent of about $338,000 sometime in the last five years. It was purchased from the South African Coin Company. I don't know the count then but last I checked, it was 13 with 223 in 68 and over 20,000 in 67. It was easily the most overpriced coin in history and even at the "bargain" price of $3400 or a 99% "discount", would remain one of if not the most overpriced coin in the world.

 

The link to the above sale is not available but here is a more recent one for R2.5MM, now about $175,000. Neither are open market sales since this firm is a broker. If you bother to read the "article", you can take that hyperbole for what it is.

 

http://www.sacoin.co.za/coin_topic31.html

 

On the US side, the one I know is the 1974 PCGS PR-70 DCAM quarter. It once for about $10,000 and later for a fraction of this price. Both sales are on Heritage.

[RWB]

Hmmmm....this topic seems perfect for Halloween -- scary!

[#]

NLT

[Conder101]

Example the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel is no longer considered to be an overdate. There have been other varieties that with further research have been delisted. They would no longer covered under the guarantee.

[coinman_23885]

Example the 1914/3 Buffalo nickel is no longer considered to be an overdate. There have been other varieties that with further research have been delisted. They would no longer covered under the guarantee.

 

My understanding was that there were concerns and disagreements concerning whether the 1914/3 Buffalo Nickel was an overdate, but that no definitive consensus exists. Indeed, I think Tom Delorey posted ATS that it will continue to be listed in the cherrypicker's guide.

[coinman_23885]

After reading the PCGS guarantee can someone explain the statement "This guarantee shall not apply to any coin for which its status in the numismatic community has changed". Yes I realize this may be basic knowledge but I'm clueless as to the meaning. Please give an example. Thanks in advance,

David

 

When did they add this gem to the language of the guarantee?

[coinman_23885]

Interesting that PCGS hasnt made a "major" mistake and buyback in 7 years...

 

I wonder why that is.

 

It isn't hard if you water down the guarantee to retroactively kill the copper color guarantee, have a provision for spotting, and my "favorite" - anything more than 3 points/intervals overgraded is a "mechanical error" now... hmm. The latter is true. PCGS publicly refused to honor its guarantee on a MS70 Ike that was at least 5 points overgraded. And since a point or two can be subjective (especially with toned coins with their built in market grading concept), then I can see how they can avoid many claims.

 

Mechanical error ? As in we meant to grade it MS65 but someone mislabeled it an MS70 ?

 

So what they are saying is that the buyer should beware since anything more than 3pts over graded is easy to spot even to the untrained eye and thus the mistake is on the buyer for overpaying for the coin in the holder ? In other words PCGS is saying buy the coin not their holder...

 

 

Do you know if they got sued for that one ?

 

Yes, that was their logic almost word for word. David Hall made a public announcement before the coin was scheduled for auction stating that PCGS would not honor the guarantee for the coin and if I recall correctly, that people should not bid in the auction. It is unclear how much the owner of the coin lost.

 

I don't know if they were sued for it, but I think (and I think you would agree) that PCGS's actions arguably constituted tortious interference with a business relationship and breach of contract. Had they provided a remedy to the owner of the coin and only sought to prevent someone else from being taken, I would have understood. To be honest, I think it is only a matter of time before someone is burned badly. Lawsuits won't happen over very cheap coins, but you let one of the very expensive (high five figures and better) coins (especially copper) turn and PCGS renege on the guarantee and there will a lawsuit. If it happened to me, I would file a FTC complaint too for false advertising and misrepresenting its guarantee. Given PCGS's 1990 FTC fiasco, I am sure the government would take interest.

[BillJones]

Here is a link to the first sale of the 1963 cent in PR-70, DCAM. Would you have paid almost $40,000 and then over $40,000 for something that looked like this?

 

Somebody did.

 

1963 PR-70 DCam cent.

[RWB]

"When did they add this gem to the language of the guarantee?"

 

That should read: "When did they add this MS67 to the language of the guarantee?

[coinman_23885]

Here is a link to the first sale of the 1963 cent in PR-70, DCAM. Would you have paid almost $40,000 and then over $40,000 for something that looked like this?

 

Somebody did.

 

1963 PR-70 DCam cent.

 

I wouldn't have paid $40,000 if it was spot free and truly PF70 DCAM. With that said, I disagree with your $10 valuation from earlier in the thread - it should be much lower. I'm glad that PCGS honored it. I wonder what the final event that made PCGS amend its guarantee was or whether it was an accumulation of guarantee submissions.