Options
Question about "Mechanical Errors"
MWallace
Posts: 4,319 ✭✭✭✭✭
Why are they called "Mechanical Errors"? Aren't they really "Human Errors"? 
2
Comments
Agree. All errors are human errors if a human was involved anywhere along the way.
A coin’s error or PMD is a human error. A human was involved somewhere.
2c
Yes indeed... however, the term 'mechanical error' is necessary to divert blame from the human involved....After all, we would not want to shame individuals over a typo....would we??
Cheers, RickO
Exactly what I was thinking.
Some "mechanical errors” are obvious. For example, I once had a 1913 Buffalo Nickel that was labeled “Type II” when it was a actually a “Type I.” Others might be more of problem.
I have an 1835 half cent that NCG graded MS-63, Brown. The coin is an easy MS-64, Brown, and could have claims to more than that. Did the graders really give it that grade, or was it a “mechanical error?” There is no way to know.
I have a half cent graded MS 63FBL...probably a mechanical error, or "very rare as such"
For you guys who are so keen to show/collect obvious mistakes on labels, send me a few coins at $50 per, and we'll make you a bunch!
They want you to think the mistake was made by our robot overlords...
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
There is no way that CAC should have stickered a coin like that even though the grade is accurate. If you pull the certification serial number on the CAC website, it has actually been entered into the CAC database as an 1825 instead of an 1822. I understand how this issue could happen at the grading services where someone else makes the label and there is a separate encapsulation process apart from the graders, but there is zero excuse for CAC not to catch the error. If they miss something as obvious as a digit in the date, it makes you wonder what else they miss.
P.S. I'm not knocking the coin itself; I actually like the coin a lot.
I don't really consider that to be a mechanical error. A mechanical error would be a large grade spread or a wrong date, mint mark, etc. The example and CAC gaffe Lance posted is a great example.
Yeah, my dealer friend and I had a few good laughs over it. Pretty crazy.
I sent it to PCGS and asked for a regrade while they were fixing the label. It came back MS62 (cert# 85187707). Apology bump? Kidding.
Lance.
My point is, if the grade on the holder was supposed to be something else, how will you know? If it's possible to miss the date and mint mark, why not the assigned grade?
I've seen much worse Bust coins graded MS-62 and higher.
That may be what the "review tier" is for - to correct grading errors.
You don't. Homerunhall posted years ago that any difference amounting to three grading intervals or more would be a mechanical error. This is interesting given that PCGS was color bumping extreme monster toned Morgans 2-3 points at one time (the gradient label stage through the middle of 2016 or so), and I have seen large grading swings with toned coins. In any event, I'm not sure how much weight this carries since Hall is gone.
As to your larger point, I think you illustrate why the mechanical error clause is (IMHO) a bit dangerous. If non-experts are expected to be such astute graders and smaller differences in grade could qualify as a mechanical error as your original post postulated, then what value is the grading guarantee? It would be the exception that swallows the rule, which would leave their function primarily for authentication. If the role of TPGS is really authentication then all of the fuss and money wasted on regrades, etc., is not warranted, and it is time to stop complicating the rare coin market.
Looking at the guarantee, it looks like they have actually now codified Hall's language:
What the PCGS Guarantee Does Not Cover
The following is further explanation of what the PCGS Guarantee does not cover.
Clerical or "mechanical" errors. PCGS occasionally makes clerical errors in inputting data which is shown on the insert in the PCGS holder; consequently the PCGS Guarantee does not cover obvious clerical errors, what we call "mechanical errors." The key concept is how obvious the error is to the naked eye. If you can easily tell just by looking at the coin that the description on the holder is wrong, then the coin/holder combination is not covered by the PCGS Guarantee. Examples would include the following:
A date listed on the holder that does not match the date of the coin. For example, if you had a 1928 $20 St. Gaudens, but the PCGS holder showed the date as 1929 (a much more valuable coin), this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date on the coin itself is obviously 1928.
A designation that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a 1945 Philadelphia Mercury dime and the bands on the reverse were as flat as a pancake and obviously not fully struck, but the PCGS holder showed the designation as "FB" for fully struck crossbands, this coin would not be covered the PCGS Guarantee as the crossbands are obviously not fully struck.
Proofs shown as regular strikes and regular strikes shown as proofs. For example, if you had an obvious regular strike 1907 $2.5 gold piece, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a proof, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the difference between a regular strike and proof 1907 $2.5 is obvious.
An obviously misidentified coin. For example, if you have a Hudson silver commemorative, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a Hawaiian silver commemorative, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as a Hudson is obviously not a Hawaiian.
A variety attribution that is obviously incorrect. For example, if you had a normal date 1942 Mercury dime, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a much rarer 1942/1 overdate, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the date is obviously normal. Another example would be if you had a 1945 Mercury dime with an obviously normal size mint mark, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a "Micro S." This coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee since the mint mark is obviously normal size.
A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale.
https://www.pcgs.com/guarantee
The PCGS guarantee has so many "mechanical" exceptions it is losing credibility. PCGS is trying hard to say "if the error is blatant we don't count it".
An obvious date error, or a mint error, probably should be excused. But when it comes to mint mark types, overdates, FS/FB/FH or other subtleties I think PCGS is stretching. And liable. I wouldn't be at all surprised if an "obvious grading error" is some day rejected by jurists.
Lance.
Just to keep this discussion going, these are the only two points that IMO may need "work" to update the guarantee to what it should be:
Proofs shown as regular strikes and regular strikes shown as proofs. For example, if you had an obvious regular strike 1907 $2.5 gold piece, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a proof, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the difference between a regular strike and proof 1907 $2.5 is obvious.
This is one reason folks send certain types of coins (esp made of nickel) to the TPGS! Big money is involved. The TPGS are the professionals and after decades of experience, it SHOULD come down to ONLY THREE CHOICES that the TPGS needs to stand behind 100%:
NOTE: Two TPGS's I worked at made good on this type of error. We made the error!
A blatantly OBVIOUS clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale.
This is hard to swallow. I see clerical errors every day. As the first grader, I correct them. Then I grade the coin. If I miss something 99% of the time it will be corrected down the line BUT some slip past everyone. The grade assigned on a coin IS NOT A CLERICAL ERROR! If a coin is under-graded it will be corrected sometime. If it is over-graded, by a small amount - no big deal! The TPGS have wiggle room and you will not win this one. However, if it is over-graded by two points, the TPGS should side with the customer. You will rarely encounter a coin over -graded by two points
Look, we are all lucky to have the TPGS's and the "Sticker" companies. No one should wish to trouble them for small errors. I know for a fact that written guarantees can and are enforced by the TPGS's. In most cases it is/probably is done behind the scenes that we don't hear about.
The one "non-guarantee" I don't understand is one presently applied to ancient coins! What a joke! If you cannot authenticate a coin, get out of the business!
One day, companies might use robots to intentionally introduce errors so that management has a ready excuse for their failures....?
PS; If you french fries are undercooked and there's a timer on the fryer, is that a mechanical error?
Because someone pushed a wrong button on a mechanism.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
It appears to me that both PCGS (graders, included, during both the grading process and assuming there is one, the post-grading verification/quality control process) and CAC missed the incorrect date.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.