Attributing Redfield Hoard and Blanchard collection on Morgan slab? 0

[Thompson2]

Picked up a Redfield Hoard Morgan from a local shop.  They removed the coin from the (unsealed) holder in the folio and send it to PCGS for grading.  PCGS understandably didn't add the Redfield Hoard attribute.  Ideally, I'd like to get this correctly attributed to the Redfield Hoard and Blanchard with the serial number on the folio holder so that they are uniquely tied.  Less ideally, I'd like to just get the Redfield attribute added.   It also appears to be a VAM-43, but I'm guessing trying to add that with any of the rest of the attributes would be tough / impossible... 

Am I smoking something or would this be possible and how would I go about making it happen?

 

 

And the coin.  It slabbed as a 62... just short...

 

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Thompson2

[Just Bob]

The fact that it has been removed from the sealed Redfield holder will likely prevent it from being slabbed with the attribution. There is no way to prove that the coin in the PCGS holder is the same coin that was in the Redfield holder. The fact that it was sold by Blanchard & Co would not merit being put on a slab, either.

[Thompson2]

10 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

The fact that it has been removed from the sealed Redfield holder will likely prevent it from being slabbed with the attribution. There is no way to prove that the coin in the PCGS holder is the same coin that was in the Redfield holder. The fact that it was sold by Blanchard & Co would not merit being put on a slab, either.

 

The odd thing is that the holder, in this case, wasn't sealed.  The shop had 2 pass through and said neither of the sleeves was sealed.  I haven't taken an in-depth look at it to see if that story holds water or not... But I understand the difficulty of proving the provenance in this case which is why I'm inquiring well in advance of sending this in.

 

And good info on the seller name not being a worthwhile addition to the slab.  Was mostly curious since there are so few kicking around unlike the Paramounts... 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Thompson2

[Thompson2]

41 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

The fact that it has been removed from the sealed Redfield holder will likely prevent it from being slabbed with the attribution. There is no way to prove that the coin in the PCGS holder is the same coin that was in the Redfield holder. The fact that it was sold by Blanchard & Co would not merit being put on a slab, either.

So a closer look revealed that the "holder" is just a flip.  This matches with what Blanchard told me when I called them.  The card with the "serial number", description and "grade" was in one side and the coin was in the other.  I need to see if Blanchard had any sort of detailed records on these that would help tie them back together.  I highly doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

[Just Bob]

2 hours ago, Thompson2 said:

 

The odd thing is that the holder, in this case, wasn't sealed. 

I see what you are saying now. I misread your post, and though the coin dealer had "unsealed" the coin. Since the coin was not sealed with the COA, there was probably never a chance that this would get the Redfield pedigree, either from PCGS or NGC. Just no way to prove that someone back down the line did not switch out the coin.

I agree that it seems odd that Blanchard would not have the foresight to seal the coin with the COA. Looks like they would have known that buyers might want to preserve the pedigree by having them slabbed.

[Thompson2]

24 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I agree that it seems odd that Blanchard would not have the foresight to seal the coin with the COA. Looks like they would have known that buyers might want to preserve the pedigree by having them slabbed.

Right?  Seems crazy, especially since I've seen Blanchard Redfield slabs for other coins... 

There's still plenty of upside even if I can't convince them to attribute it... it's a really nice coin, I didn't pay a premium for the Blanchard stuff (which is pretty cool even as a stand-alone item), and this may be a VAM43 which should add a small amount to the value. 

I'm still gonna pursue this until I get a hard no... it's just keyboard time until then..   

 

Edited June 10, 2021 by Thompson2