1893 Sixpence JUBILEE Have NGC made an error? 2 2

[Tobias J Reily]

Hello! Received this grade and nearly collapsed because a Jubilee head in this grade can command over £10,000. I strongly believe this is a technical error on NGC's part but can we confirm this just to make sure? A jubilee head sits ontop of her head whereas I believe this is a veiled head. It's gone down in the system as top pop so it's been labelled wrong I think.

https://www.ngccoin.uk/certlookup/6944352-001/62/

 

 

[Sandon]

   This is clearly an "Old" or "Veiled" head of Queen Victoria of the type used from 1893 to 1901 (KM# 779) and not the much lower mintage final "Jubilee" head issue of 1893 (KM# 760). NGC should classify this as a "Mechanical Error" that can be returned at any time for correction at no charge, although you may have to pay the cost of getting it to them.  NGC’s Mechanical Errors / Returns Policy | NGC (ngccoin.com).  

   As it would be embarrassing to NGC and possibly lead to a Guarantee claim (which would likely be denied) if this coin were offered and purchased by someone as a Veiled Head at a high price, I would contact NGC before returning it and see if they would cover the cost of return shipping.  A dealer I know told me that some years ago he submitted an ordinary 1839 Capped Bust, reeded edge half dollar to PCGS that PCGS mistakenly labeled as the very rare and valuable Small Letters reverse variety. He told me that PCGS rewarded him with several hundred dollars in grading credits for his honesty in returning it.

   This is a good example of why collectors need to learn about the coins they collect and not rely on what is printed on grading service labels.  

[Henri Charriere]

The OP and Sandon both acknowledge this as errors of one type or another.

If what they say is true -- my own lying eyes see both a veil and a Rubic's cube atop the member of royalty's head -- if not unique, should it not be worth even more together?

If this was not brought to the attention of NGC's top graders freely and voluntarily upon submission, then let the chips fall where they may.  As prominent member z might observe, "I am not obligated to bring any possible irregularities plainly observable to the naked eye to anyone's attention, much less experienced graders."  My position remains firm unless and until I am overruled by RWB, VKurtB, and others representative of the gaggle of scrupulously honest, opionated and outspoken members of this Forum.

[zadok]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:45 PM, Henri Charriere said:

The OP and Sandon both acknowledge this as errors of one type or another.

If what they say is true -- my own lying eyes see both a veil and a Rubic's cube atop the member of royalty's head -- if not unique, should it not be worth even more together?

If this was not brought to the attention of NGC's top graders freely and voluntarily upon submission, then let the chips fall where they may.  As prominent member z might observe, "I am not obligated to bring any possible irregularities plainly observable to the naked eye to anyone's attention, much less experienced graders."  My position remains firm unless and until I am overruled by RWB, VKurtB, and others representative of the gaggle of scrupulously honest, opionated and outspoken members of this Forum.

...Z would never talk or write or babble on in kamalaese as u incessantly do...the coins speak for themselves....

[J P M]

Today I had a coin approved for my registry set when I loaded into the site I noticed  the value of the coin was $1925.00 higher than I expected after some investigating I found they had it listed as a DDR  FS- 801 .I have informed NGC that it s just a nice coin with no DDR 

Edited September 25, 2023 by J P M

[Tobias J Reily]

I have emailed them asking them to correct it before they send it out to me.