PCGS misidentified Aussie coin, can of worms?

nealeffendi · April 12, 2014 3:25PM

There is currently up for auction a PCGS EF40 No Dot 1920 penny (Australian) in IAG Auction 79 (lot 447). This same lot sold for $1,500 just over a year ago at Pacific Rim (lot 83).
The coin has been wrongly slabbed as a No Dot when it is a Dot Below (the most common variety) and worth under $20 raw. I'm certain it is a Dot Below as I can identify the dies that were used and I have a large reference collection with the same reverse die showing a dot.
The can of worms is that the seller is probably taking a loss with a current bid of just $650. So if the seller can later show that he has lost money between buying last year and selling this year will PCGS compensate him? The seller is also in a legal minefield because if he tells PCGS that he sold the coin knowing it was a dud then he may be guilty of fraud by omitting that fact from the new buyer. And if he say she didn't know that it was a dud when he put it up for sale then can PCGS turn around and deny him compensation as he no longer owns the coin and was a willing seller. If he doesn't realise it was a dud he was selling for a few years will some time limitation on compensation apply? Could he argue that the new hammer price was low because potential buyers (such as myself) didn't bid on a mislabled coin?
Also the upcoming buyer, what amount of compensation will he be entitled to? Will it be $650 (or whatever the final hammer is) or can he argue that he thought he was getting a bargain that was valued at $1,500 so he is entitled to $1,500?
So how has problems like this coin been handled by PCGS in the past?

Nap · April 13, 2014 5:12AM

It's probably a mechanical error, in which case PCGS is not responsible for guaranteeing anything.

JCMhouston · April 13, 2014 6:10AM

I agree, PCGS would probably call it a mechanical error if that is the case.

nealeffendi · April 16, 2014 10:38PM

Most certainly not a mechanical error. The 1920 No Dot penny is misidentified by most collectors and dealers. So it is an error of knowledge rather than a simple clerical typo.

ajaan · April 16, 2014 11:15PM

PCGS may call it a mechanical error though. That gets them off the hook.

Walter · April 17, 2014 10:29AM

Is the die which struck the 1920 penny from an earlier die state to your reference dot belows from the same die? Is it possible that the dot was added some time during the dies life?

MrEureka · April 17, 2014 12:16PM

Most certainly not a mechanical error. The 1920 No Dot penny is misidentified by most collectors and dealers. So it is an error of knowledge rather than a simple clerical typo.

Impossible for any of us to know that, one way or another.

dbcoin · April 22, 2014 5:06AM

once the seller sells it, the PCGS warranty is void for them
The new buyer would get AT MOST what they just paid

nealeffendi · April 23, 2014 11:41PM

<< <i>Is the die which struck the 1920 penny from an earlier die state to your reference dot belows from the same die? Is it possible that the dot was added some time during the dies life? >>

It is theoretically possible to take a working die, anneal it, add a dot, harden the die and then reuse it.
But to what purpose? Adding a dot would be counterproductive to the probable intent/s of the dots (markers for experimental work/mint identification mark) and what are the chances that the same die pair was reformed?
Also the die pair exists in both early die state and late die state in my reference collection with the dot. It is a weak dot (common in dot unders) so not that hard to miss if the grader was inexperienced with observing the dot (need to rotate the coin to catch the right angle).

nealeffendi · April 24, 2014 12:06AM

<< <i>Most certainly not a mechanical error. The 1920 No Dot penny is misidentified by most collectors and dealers. So it is an error of knowledge rather than a simple clerical typo.

Impossible for any of us to know that, one way or another. >>

I can know one way or the other. I have the largest reference collection of Australian 1920 pennies ever assembled. For the particular die pair involved I have hundreds of coins and can identify the progression of die wear. The slabbed coin is a near mid stage obverse (as evidenced by the die crack through SVD) and a semi late stage reverse. This particular die pair is part of a short progression of dies (this CBL reverse had previously been paired with another obverse) and then the reverse was replaced with a new CBL die. Both reverse dies also suffered from die clashs.
The fact that the slabbed coin is a CBL die (curved based lettering) should have been enough to alert the slabber that the coin was a Dot Below. There has never been a CBL die that has not been identified as anything other than a Dot Below

PCGS misidentified Aussie coin, can of worms?

Comments