Gobrecht Dollar: Is this the same coin?

[relicsncoins]

Hmmm? Now that you mention it, it looks very familiar to a toilet paper toning experiment I did on a dipped 21 morgan. I will post the results when I get home.

 

JJ

[BOILER78]

Great detective work on this one! Who should get the credit if not you Mike?

[Tradedollarnut]

Green on silver always makes me suspicious!

[SkyMan]

Scary stuff!!!

[lkenefic]

wow...I'm glad I'm "poor" and can't possibly afford such high end stuff!!!

[IGWT]

So we're clear, I cannot take credit for the decetive work on this one...Mike

 

Nice Freudian typo. Kudos to whomever for the detective work, but I'd really like to know who gets credit for the deceptive work.

[Conder101]

Interesting. In the large pictures posted in the thread the toned dollar looked very nice. But in the picture of it in the PCGS holder it LOOKS AT.

[MarkFeld]

Seeing things like this saddens and sickens me, but I am glad that such discoveries are brought to light. I hope that people don't become numb to and/or accepting of the many despicable acts that are committed in the name of greed within this industry.

[MikeInFL]

Great detective work on this one! Who should get the credit if not you Mike?

 

I'll let them identify themselves....Mike

 

p.s. IGWT, I'm a much better speller in MS Word, really! ....but I am neither the deceptive nor the detective in this case -- just a messenger hoping to help educate on the topic.

[gmarguli]

Seeing things like this saddens and sickens me, but I am glad that such discoveries are brought to light. I hope that people don't become numb to and/or accepting of the many despicable acts that are committed in the name of greed within this industry.

 

Why? I'm sincere in that question.

 

Personally, I think:

 

1) The coin clearly looks better now than before. The white look was awful.

 

2) While the toning on this coin looks highly likely AT (without knowing its history), it's a very rare coin and even if PCGS thought it was AT, they'll make an exception and slab it. It is well known that the grading services give much more leeway to rare coins with problems than common coins. And it is their decision what is OK to slab.

 

If you agree with the above, then what was done to this coin would appear to be OK in the eyes of the market.

 

I know of 2 other high grade Gobrechts in PCGS slabs that are highly likely AT. I've heard some chatter as to who commissioned one of them and they are very well known. There is a small set of people with massive balls that are willing to risk big dollar coins to make them bigger dollar coins.

[MarkFeld]

Seeing things like this saddens and sickens me, but I am glad that such discoveries are brought to light. I hope that people don't become numb to and/or accepting of the many despicable acts that are committed in the name of greed within this industry.

 

Why? I'm sincere in that question.

 

Personally, I think:

 

1) The coin clearly looks better now than before. The white look was awful.

 

2) While the toning on this coin looks highly likely AT (without knowing its history), it's a very rare coin and even if PCGS thought it was AT, they'll make an exception and slab it. It is well known that the grading services give much more leeway to rare coins with problems than common coins. And it is their decision what is OK to slab.

 

If you agree with the above, then what was done to this coin would appear to be OK in the eyes of the market.

 

I know of 2 other high grade Gobrechts in PCGS slabs that are highly likely AT. I've heard some chatter as to who commissioned one of them and they are very well known. There is a small set of people with massive balls that are willing to risk big dollar coins to make them bigger dollar coins.

Greg, I agree with you that the grading companies often give more leeway to rare coins with problems than they do to more common ones. Yet, despite that, the coin apparently looked badly enough cleaned so that NGC still no-graded it.

 

Now the cleaning has been covered up/masked and there is no disclosure on the current grading label, so many potential buyers are unaware of it. I realize that some people will think/say "if a buyer can't detect the cleaning and/or toning job it doesn't or shouldn't matter", but that's not how I feel about it.

[Zoins]

I'd be happier if there was a details grade on the slab.

[leeg]

This stinks

[Hoot]

Now the cleaning has been covered up/masked and there is no disclosure on the current grading label, so many potential buyers are unaware of it. I realize that some people will think/say "if a buyer can't detect the cleaning and/or toning job it doesn't or shouldn't matter", but that's not how I feel about it.

 

Hi Mark - I think what is truly important in your statement is that you have your opinion, it's how you feel, and that's that. No argument.

 

I side with Greg on this one in terms of how the coin was handled. And I feel that way even though I agree with you that the lack of disclosure about its recent history is bothersome. Yet, this coin is not an exception in that regard. Not only is there the known factor of leniency in rare coins, but also in early U.S. Mint pieces in general. The fickle way that early coins are handled is the most bothersome aspect of all matter of this to me.

 

In terms of this coin, pretty should likely not draw a $26K premium over what the coin sold for when it was bare and ugly, but there are other factors at play, not the least of which is that the new owner may have been fully aware of the provenance of the coin and also its recent history. We can only speculate in that regard.

 

I think that each of us who have been involved heavily in one aspect of this hobby or another are concerned about the well-being of both coins and the future collectors thereof. But we can only do so much. No doubt, if this coin comes up for sale in the future and you know it, you'll spread the warnings of its alterations. Your voice will be in opposition of many powers, not the least of which will be the grading services who have considered the piece and the prospective buyers who simply like it. Thus, the tale will have no end...

 

Best, Mark.

[IGWT]

The fickle way that early coins are handled is the most bothersome aspect of all matter of this to me.

 

We like to say that grading is subjective; and, in truth, there's a degree of arbitrariness in what the TPGs do when it comes to grading (and no-grading) a coin. It's hard to swallow huge price differentials that are supported by nothing more than an opinion that can change from day to day. As much as this situation troubles me, I don't see it as the "most bothersome" part of the problem here.

 

Your voice will be in opposition of many powers, not the least of which will be the grading services who have considered the piece and the prospective buyers who simply like it. Thus, the tale will have no end...

 

The practice of profitting by deception is no more acceptable in numismatics than in any other business. That should be the beginning, middle, and end of the tale. To say that Coinguy's voice "will be in opposition of many powers" means that powerful people in numismatics condone -- and likely profit by -- deceptive practices. That's a major indictment, Hoot, and one that calls for something more than a shrug of the shoulders.

 

Coinguy wrote this post earlier in the thread:

 

I hope that people don't become numb to and/or accepting of the many despicable acts that are committed in the name of greed within this industry.

 

I guess we've already become desensitized, and it's hard to hear the voice calling in the wilderness.

[MarkFeld]

Good post, Mark. It sounds like you and I are essentially in agreement on these issues - it's just that it appears you're more practical and accepting of them than I am.

 

One of my major concerns is that the many problems in our hobby are so widespread that, as Lou put it:

I guess we've already become desensitized, and it's hard to hear the voice calling in the wilderness.

I'm not ready to stop calling, though, even though it often entails simultaneously beating my head against the wall.

[MarkFeld]

My sincere thanks to JRocco and TDN for speaking up in the thread(s) on the PCGS forum, when many others chose not to, out of fear or otherwise.

 

This situation appears to offer PCGS an excellent opportunity to find out the identity of the coin doctor AND to take strong/appropriate action in a public (not private) manner.

 

Keeping this stuff quiet, in order to avoid embarrassment, etc. only serves to perpetuate the problem. The grading companies are the ones with the power to make a major difference - they just need to have the guts and the integrity to exercise it. Edited to add: Any short term pain that results will be more than compensated for by long term gains for the hobby.

[carson city]

Artificial toning hides a lot of flaws = Same Coin !

[gmarguli]

My sincere thanks to JRocco and TDN for speaking up in the thread(s) on the PCGS forum, when many others chose not to, out of fear or otherwise.

 

I assume you're referring to TDN's thread titled: "Proven AT coin in a PCGS holder - can PCGS trace the coin doctor?". If so, I disagree with TDN. This coin is not proven AT as there is no concrete definition of AT. AT is subjective. Perhaps this coin was cracked and put in a Taco Bell napkin for several months?

 

 

This situation appears to offer PCGS an excellent opportunity to find out the identity of the coin doctor AND to take strong/appropriate action in a public (not private) manner.

 

 

Why perpetuate the myth that these coin doctors are hidden? The industry knows who they are and who uses them. They provide a valuable service to the coin community. The entire industry is turning into a bunch of wussies who can't make decisions for themselves. They need a slab and if it's not in a slab it's junk.

 

If the buyers were educated then they wouldn't have purchased this ATed coin. Yet, someone with $46K either didn't do his homework or didn't care and bought this coin. I bet they are happy with it. Of course, I'm the devil for suggesting personal responsibility.

 

As for PCGS publicly outing the person behind this, come on you don't really think this is an excellent opportunity. You must want PCGS to get sued (and lose) and have their submissions drop by half. That's what would happen if they started outing people with only circumstantial proof.

 

There is no way to know who purchased the coin in the NCS slab. There is no way to know who or how many owned it in between its two appearances at auction. The only thing that PCGS will know is who submitted it. Have you not submitted coins for customers? Would you like to be outed as the submitter if you had nothing to do with the AT job?

[Tradedollarnut]

I assume you're referring to TDN's thread titled: "Proven AT coin in a PCGS holder - can PCGS trace the coin doctor?". If so, I disagree with TDN. This coin is not proven AT as there is no concrete definition of AT. AT is subjective. Perhaps this coin was cracked and put in a Taco Bell napkin for several months?

 

[DC Dawg]

This has been a very interesting and educational discussion. You folks are good and that helps some of us learn. THANKS!

 

As for PCGS publicly outing the person behind this, come on you don't really think this is an excellent opportunity. You must want PCGS to get sued (and lose) and have their submissions drop by half. That's what would happen if they started outing people with only circumstantial proof.

As I was reading the thread, this was my initial reaction to Mark's posting. Sorry, Mark, but PCGS is a business and must protect themselves, regardless of what they are "supposed to do." I am sure the lawyers at Collectors' Universe have told them so.

 

There is no way to know who purchased the coin in the NCS slab. There is no way to know who or how many owned it in between its two appearances at auction. The only thing that PCGS will know is who submitted it. Have you not submitted coins for customers? Would you like to be outed as the submitter if you had nothing to do with the AT job?

You can obtain a lot of details if both Heritage and NCS cooperated. Heritage should have the record of who slabbed the coin and Heritage should have the record of the consignor and buyer. PCGS should have the record of the person who submitted the coin. The detective work would be the line between the Heritage auction and PCGS. Some how, I think the PCGS submitter may be the one who is responsible.

 

Scott

[WoodenJefferson]

[JRocco]

My sincere thanks to JRocco and TDN for speaking up in the thread(s) on the PCGS forum, when many others chose not to, out of fear or otherwise.

 

Thanks Mark, I still have no clue why I haven't been bammed yet

 

I just hope that if enough of us speak out---well you know what they say-Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

 

I fear that some "real coins" will get grouped together with these coins sometime in the future and that would be really wrong.

[Zoins]

My sincere thanks to JRocco and TDN for speaking up in the thread(s) on the PCGS forum, when many others chose not to, out of fear or otherwise.

Thanks Mark, I still have no clue why I haven't been bammed yet

 

I just hope that if enough of us speak out---well you know what they say-Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

My thanks to Mark, JRocco, TDN and everyone who says this is a travesty.

I fear that some "real coins" will get grouped together with these coins sometime in the future and that would be really wrong.

If things don't change I think that is the only logical outcome. It would be sad if it got to the point that one automatically assumed every high-priced, toned TPG net-graded coin was problem coin with problems hidden by the toning....

[gmarguli]

There is no way to know who purchased the coin in the NCS slab. There is no way to know who or how many owned it in between its two appearances at auction. The only thing that PCGS will know is who submitted it. Have you not submitted coins for customers? Would you like to be outed as the submitter if you had nothing to do with the AT job?

You can obtain a lot of details if both Heritage and NCS cooperated. Heritage should have the record of who slabbed the coin and Heritage should have the record of the consignor and buyer. PCGS should have the record of the person who submitted the coin. The detective work would be the line between the Heritage auction and PCGS. Some how, I think the PCGS submitter may be the one who is responsible.

 

Scott

 

These companies have no reason to cooperate. They can only lose by cooperating.

 

Why should Heritage disclose who purchased the coin in the NCS slab? They are an auction venue and have a duty to keep information like this confidential. Besides, just because X was the winning bidder doesn't mean X had anything to do with this. They might have been representing someone else or purchased it for resale and done just that.

 

NCS has no dog in this fight. It's highly doubtful that the submitter to NCS was also the submitter to PCGS. Why submit it to NCS if you're going to doctor it to get it slabbed by PCGS? NCS revealing any info about the submitter would likely only harm an innocent person.

 

PCGS knows who submitted it, but they know nothing about who owned it.

 

Don't misunderstand me, I think it is highly likely the person who purchased it from Heritage in the NCS slab and the submitter to PCGS and the consignor to Heritage in the PCGS slab are likely the same person. However, if you are running a business, do you want to risk millions of dollars on exposing a link that may not be what it seems on the surface?

 

And, just because you find out who the road leads to, it may turn out to be a road that no one wants to take. Some people in this industry are practically untouchable.

[MrEureka-migration]

And if you find the doctor, then what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[WinstonWare]

Interesting thread

[saen78]

And if you find the doctor, then what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

There is no way to know who purchased the coin in the NCS slab. There is no way to know who or how many owned it in between its two appearances at auction. The only thing that PCGS will know is who submitted it. Have you not submitted coins for customers? Would you like to be outed as the submitter if you had nothing to do with the AT job?

Greg, there might or might not be a way to make such determinations, depending upon the particular circumstances. There is no way to know, however, unless efforts are made.

 

If I had submitted that Gobrecht dollar to PCGS and received a call from them letting me know they'd learned the coin's appearance had changed dramatically, you can bet I'd cooperate. First, I would give whomever I had submitted the coin for an opportunity to talk directly to PCGS. But, if they wouldn't, I would. Eventually, the truth would come out, at least some of the time. Additionally, if I wouldn't cooperate with PCGS I'd deserve to be outed, and if I did cooperate, they'd have no reason to out me.

 

Sorry, Mark, but PCGS is a business and must protect themselves, regardless of what they are "supposed to do." I am sure the lawyers at Collectors' Universe have told them so.

Scott, at some point the grading companies will be better "protecting themselves" in terms of reputation, confidence and trust and profits, by taking strong action, as opposed to what currently appears to be a more passive approach.

 

And if you find the doctor, then what? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Andy, that needs to change. At the very least, I believe that the "doctor" (and any accomplices) are in violation of their PCGS dealer/membership agreement. PCGS would be within their rights to take action.

[Tradedollarnut]

One day, another company will step in to take care of this problem. Mark my words.