Options
What happens to varieties that have been "removed" (ATS) 1849/8 H10C.
oih82w8
Posts: 11,896 ✭✭✭✭✭
I received the latest Early-Bird from CRO and it has a 1849/8 H10C in (old) NGC (no line fatty) AU 53 Gold CAC. NGC does not recognize this variety anymore, just the 1849/6 in a couple of forms. My question is "what happens with varieties that the TPG does not recognize anymore? Would this qualify for a reimbursement of some sort? Would the present owner take one in the shorts?
(images from http://eb.coinraritiesonline.com/index.php?page=search_eb&task=det_item&item_id=361026.html)
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
1
Comments
Never heard of anyone successfully getting any compensation.
nah, they'll say typo.
BHNC #203
The coin does not change. If the coin is resubmitted the erroneous variety should be removed and the submitter supplied with a written explanation.
The question really is centered on authentication - with is the primary function of the major TPGs. Attributing a variety is a way of authenticating the coin as both genuine and of the stipulated variety. That becomes a problem when new or better information discredits long-held belief. (It also touches on the quality and depth of TPG research, but that's another matter.) This stretches through American numismatics back to colonial-era pieces and copies that were once "standard" and have since been "debubked."
Ideally, TPGs should maintain active research facilities and contacts so they can be ahead of potential new or revised varieties. This must include keeping in touch with principal researchers and scholars, and also adapting to new data and publications.
The biggest dollar impact is likely centered on coins that were sold at exorbitant prices based on an now-defunct variety attribution. Much of the Bree-attributed/authenticated stuff falls into this unfortunate category, and there are others based on old and confused (or outright false) publications.
I, personally, would think they should re-designate at no cost as it is an 1849/6. The debate about 1849/8 actually being 1849/6 is over as I understand it, with the variety correctly being 1849/6. If I operated a TPG I'd want everything corrected.
For those who never saw the thread on that debate here it is:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/994322/ok-half-dime-variety-experts-updated-as-of-4-18/p1
BTW, that's a beautiful example.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
What a lovely coin! Call NGC and then all the guessing will end.
Why does the holder have to be changed? Any knowledgeable collector will know that this is now recognized as an 1849/6.
Collect the coin, not the holder.
Because most of us have O/C disorder.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Embrace the OCD, but let this slab be the yin to your yang. Balance.
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
I would think that ngc would reholder it with correct variety on label.
But you'd lose the old no-line fatty and the gold sticker. They add value.
I'd leave it the way it is.
Lance.
I don't really care about the slab or the sticker...….especially since it is a ngc slab.
Do you have anything else you don't care about that you are selling by chance?
I have lots of stuff for sale. Click on link in sig line.
Collectors no longer acquire coins - they buy silly labels. Thus, if the label says something, they will believe it, and will either become confused or insist they are being cheated. Does not matter what looking at the coin might reveal....that's immaterial.
One day, hopefully sooner than later, the TPGers will get their act together on seemingly obvious varieties.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Might want to cut the grading service some slack. Think about other varieties that have been changed or debunked -- 1869/8 Indian Head cent, 1914/3 Buffalo nickel, double profile Bust half dollars being a separate variety, and so on. I agree with others, no compensation will be forthcoming, other than offering to reholder the coin.
The above coin is a V-3, which does not use one of the overdate obverses.
So this particular coin is an attribution error, rather than a variety that has been debunked.
See the more current thread for a variety whose name changed.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1032710/what-does-tpgers-do-with-certified-varieties-that-have-been-reclassified-or-debunked-1849-8-h10c
It is a rather difficult attribution, due to the lack of die cracks, and the very similar date positions of V-3, V-4 and V-5.
(The 9 on the V-3 is high, which is the key difference).
But hopefully the attribution is slightly easier with the 1849 attribution guide, than say with the Valentine description and plates.
https://sites.google.com/view/clintcummins/half-dime-attribution-guide
I recognize this rather beautiful coin as one sold at Heritage in 2011; at that time without the CAC gold sticker.
http://ha.com/1162*7739
The V-4 was at one time attributed as 9/8 in Al Blythe's 1992 book, and by grading services,
and then later it got confusing when the CPG disagreed and some grading services used the CPG 9/8 label for the V-2.
The lack of a more complete half dime reference book has also been a factor.
For example, Blythe did not discuss the V-3 in detail, but he was mostly trying to do one page per date
rather than one page per die pair.
He stretched it somewhat for major varieties, so for 1849 he had 2 pages for V-4, 1 page for V-2, and 2 pages for the remainder.
Hopefully this is pretty much solved with the availability of the (free) online attribution guide.
Boy, talk about your can of worms.
If you bought it in this holder as an overdate, and it is not one of the die varieties generally recognized as an overdate of any sort, then I would say that the TPG's guarantee should come into play.
At what level of compensation would be hard to say. At the time the thread was started, the 1849/8 was still a recognized variety. Now that all 1849/8's are (almost universally) recognized as 1849/6 coins, I personally would say that the compensation today should be based upon the value of an 1849/6.
Then there is the question of the gold bean, which I understand was not on the holder when you bought the coin. Good question. Does anybody else have any other questions?
I don't think a grading service should or would be held accountable for a once accepted variety that was debunked.