I will follow ms70's disappointment with my own. One person in the world seems to decide what is an error and what is not with no clear hypothesis on how it was created outside the mint. Wow!
@davids5104 said:
OFFICIAL FINAL UPDATE!!!!
The coin was taken to Long Beach, Steven and Fred met. Fred was adamant, according to Steve that it needed revision, I.e. placement in a "damaged, genuine holder"
What we are not hearing is the "WHY?"
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@spacehayduke said:
I will follow ms70's disappointment with my own. One person in the world seems to decide what is an error and what is not with no clear hypothesis on how it was created outside the mint. Wow!
The literal definition of some weak sauce. Especially when that person is a dealer with an inherently slippery slope of conflict of interest.
Do they let other graders be dealers. I don’t see a difference with an attributor.
It is also sad that Mr. Weinberg has lost respect with many on this forum for his unsubstantiated opinion, without any stated basis. Some of us believe that this a restruck brockade that could only have happened at the Mint,an explanation that has not been properly discounted. And the amount of force to create the incuse letters on a stamp hardened coin has not even been estimated by a stamping expert, which Weinberg is not.
@davids5104 Keep the coin........maybe take it ATS for their opinion. The grade of the coin is somewhat irrelevant without the proper attribution.
I respect Fred Weinberg's reputation and assessment enough that, even if I think there's room for disagreement, it will do no good to demean him or his opinion here. His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened. He just doesn't think it happened at the mint and that's that. It was truly a pleasure to discuss this coin with him in person at Long Beach.
It seems overly harsh to me that the coin has wandered from a straight-graded PCGS CAC holder to a problem holder. That's like going from full bird colonel to corporal in a single demotion. I wonder if JA would put a sticker on it now....
The coin remains a bit of a mystery, but you can't refute that it does in fact exist, that the incuse rim lettering is sharp and deep, that there is a difficult-to-reconcile defect to the opposite obverse rim, and that exactly how it came to be hasn't been irrefutably explained by anyone.
I'd love a chance to study it carefully and it's possible that a careful microscopic examination might yield a few new clues.
Fascinating hobby, where we can argue about minutia to our heart's content!
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
Well said, at least in my opinion. A top error expert apparently can’t conceive of how the coin could have been struck that way. The fact that he might not be able to determine precisely what occurred after it was struck, doesn’t make his view any less valid.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
If you conclude the coin is counterfeit, presumably you can explain how you came to that conclusion, right? "Because I said so" is not a very convincing argument, IMO.
@jmlanzaf said:
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
People aren't asking Mr. Weinberg how the coin was altered, they're asking how he concluded that it was.
Weinberg said it’s 100% not a mint error. Either he’s being dishonest about his confidence level, or he’s holding back the technical explanation for why he’s so confident.
@OriginalDan said:
Weinberg said it’s 100% not a mint error. Either he’s being dishonest about his confidence level, or he’s holding back the technical explanation for why he’s so confident.
He didn't say the mule was a mint error either, even though it happened there.
@jmlanzaf said:
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
If you conclude the coin is counterfeit, presumably you can explain how you came to that conclusion, right? "Because I said so" is not a very convincing argument, IMO.
@jmlanzaf said:
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
People aren't asking Mr. Weinberg how the coin was altered, they're asking how he concluded that it was.
Yes, some people are asking him to explain how it was altered and claiming he cannot conclude that it is not a mint error unless he can explain it. And it is those people I'm addressing.
For a counterfeit, the answer could be as simple as it "doesn't look like a genuine coin". For an error, the answer could be as simple as "that can't happen in the minting process".
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes, some people are asking him to explain how it was altered and claiming he cannot conclude that it is not a mint error unless he can explain it. And it is those people I'm addressing.
Fair enough.
@jmlanzaf said:
For a counterfeit, the answer could be as simple as it "doesn't look like a genuine coin". For an error, the answer could be as simple as "that can't happen in the minting process".
And the response could be as simple as "Why not?" If it can't happen, surely there's a reason.
Mr. Weinberg's ability to know what could, or could not, have happened in the Mint's process over 100 years ago requires anyone accepting his opinion to take a giant leap of faith in him. Reminds me of going to church on Sunday. But for some collectors, numismatics is just another form of religion.
Even numismatics could use a miracle (aka mint error) now and then........
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@MFeld said:
Well said, at least in my opinion. A top error expert apparently can’t conceive of how the coin could have been struck that way. The fact that he might not be able to determine precisely what occurred after it was struck, doesn’t make his view any less valid.
Honestly speaking that's quite contradictory. He can't support his conclusion and nothing has been put forth as evidence that it occurred after it was struck. How did he come to any conclusion?
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I'm jumping in late here, but you're asking PCGS to certify that it's a real official error, and they're simply saying based on available information including Fred's opinion, that they can't. You are perfectly welcome to go ATS and ask them, but PCGS is saying they can't/won't period. End of story. That is within their rights and business practices. C'est la vie.
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
I understand your point, but it comes full circle to how does this expert conclude it is what it is? He just can't say "It is THIS!" and not back it up, especially as one of the most respected experts rendering an opinion on a coin that now has a huge public following. Everyone, including YOU and ME, want a definitive explanation of this coin's existence and I think it comes down to needing much more research. I honestly don't think this is unfair.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@MFeld said:
Well said, at least in my opinion. A top error expert apparently can’t conceive of how the coin could have been struck that way. The fact that he might not be able to determine precisely what occurred after it was struck, doesn’t make his view any less valid.
Honestly speaking that's quite contradictory. He can't support his conclusion and nothing has been put forth as evidence that it occurred after it was struck. How did he come to any conclusion?
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
I don’t know how he came to his conclusion, what he said or to whom. However, if he can’t fathom how the coin could have been struck as an error, I don’t see why he needs to explain, how the damage, occurred.
That said, sure, I’d like to hear his thinking and explanation. But I choose not to ask him for it or criticize him for not providing it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
So if so, then why doesn't Mr. Weinberg, the world's leader in this field, come up with an explanation? Just wondering....... It would help if he provided a thorough analysis of every feature that he thinks is PMD and how he arrived at his conclusions, in detail and showed unequivocally that that there is zero chance that this is a mint made feature. If Mr. Weinberg can't do that, then the issue is still wide open.
PS, I would rather have a team of experts in this case, provide thorough analyses. Why did JA at CAC for example bean it if he felt it was PMD? Why did PCGS grade it? This is potentially an important type of new feature on a coin that could change what we know about what happens at the mint, or this is some completely unknown PMD that could result in these features. But not a single person has come up with a PMD explanation, yet. It is only, 'I know it is not mint made', hardly hard evidence. If I put that in a scientific manuscript, the reviewers would destroy me. So this issue is far from resolved, let's see a true mechanism for PMD or? Qualitative 'I knows' don't cut it for whatever explanation is viable.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
I understand your point, but it comes full circle to how does this expert conclude it is what it is? He just can't say "It is THIS!" and not back it up, especially as one of the most respected experts rendering an opinion on a coin that now has a huge public following. Everyone, including YOU and ME, want a definitive explanation of this coin's existence and I think it comes down to needing much more research. I honestly don't think this is unfair.
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
@spacehayduke said:
PS, I would rather have a team of experts in this case, provide thorough analyses. Why did JA at CAC for example bean it if he felt it was PMD? Why did PCGS grade it? This is potentially an important type of new feature on a coin that could change what we know about what happens at the mint, or this is some completely unknown PMD that could result in these features. But not a single person has come up with a PMD explanation, yet. It is only, 'I know it is not mint made', hardly hard evidence. If I put that in a scientific manuscript, the reviewers would destroy me. So this issue is far from resolved, let's see a true mechanism for PMD or? Qualitative 'I knows' don't cut it for whatever explanation is viable.
Best, SH
There has not been one logical theory to explain why it is a Mint error either. Several have proposed this or that, but none of them explain the exact anomalies seen on this coin. Most theories here for how this was made during the striking process don’t make sense at all.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
I understand your point, but it comes full circle to how does this expert conclude it is what it is? He just can't say "It is THIS!" and not back it up, especially as one of the most respected experts rendering an opinion on a coin that now has a huge public following. Everyone, including YOU and ME, want a definitive explanation of this coin's existence and I think it comes down to needing much more research. I honestly don't think this is unfair.
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
Ah, good old reductio ad absurdum! Maybe eventually, we'll get to enjoy ALL the logical fallacies in this thread 😉
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
I understand your point, but it comes full circle to how does this expert conclude it is what it is? He just can't say "It is THIS!" and not back it up, especially as one of the most respected experts rendering an opinion on a coin that now has a huge public following. Everyone, including YOU and ME, want a definitive explanation of this coin's existence and I think it comes down to needing much more research. I honestly don't think this is unfair.
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
But the drastic example you give is not what we have here is it? In fact it's not even close.
If I ever presented a case in court and I testified, "Well it's because I know this is what it is" and that was my only evidence, I'd be excoriated by the judge and laughed at by my peers, not to mention lose.
Edit: It's completely fine for an expert to say, "I don't know."
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I can certainly understand PCGS not wanting to go out on a limb declaring that the coin is something they're not certain it is but I can't understand allowing PCGS to re-holder the coin as genuine, damaged. WTF is that? If anything it should have been re-holdered as was suggested above, MS 66 with unknown anomaly. I think that details/damaged is a huge downgrade for a coin that still defies explanation.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
@jmlanzaf said:
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
As far as I can see, the coin in question was struck on a planchet that appears to be proper for the denomination and the design elements are appropriate for the type. So there's that.
This thread contains some of the greatest difficulty in communicating and understanding that I’ve ever seen.
Perhaps it’s a subtle point...... I’m not sure I actually agree with Fred, but at the same time I respect his informed opinion. During our discussion at Long Beach he explained his thought process clearly. I don’t blame him for not doing it here. Who decided it was required of him to defend his opinion here? We don’t get that from the graders. This is just a bunch of (mostly anonymous) folks on an Internet forum, most of whom aren’t truly open minded and are usually just in the mood to argue.
All of that aside, PCGS views him as an expert and accepts his opinion. This certainly won’t be the last time that something slightly controversial gets put on a slab label. In the world of decisions the folks at our host routinely have to make, this is small potatoes.
@BryceM said:
This thread contains some of the greatest difficulty in communicating and understanding that I’ve ever seen.
Perhaps it’s a subtle point...... I’m not sure I actually agree with Fred, but at the same time I respect his informed opinion. During our discussion at Long Beach he explained his thought process clearly. I don’t blame him for not doing it here. Who decided it was required of him to defend his opinion here? We don’t get that from the graders. This is just a bunch of (mostly anonymous) folks on an Internet forum, most of whom aren’t truly open minded and are usually just in the mood to argue.
Facts that formed the opinion that resulted in the final outcome of such a popular and closely watched matter would certainly be preferred for a number of reasons. You act as if that's unreasonable and it is not. Keep in mind this IS a discussion forum and the matter was posted here....... So we are all.... simply discussing.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Perhaps grading assigned should be qualified with opinion if requested and paid for. While most coins do not require further opinion to grade, some such as the OP's coin deserve more substantiating evidence as to grade. Perhaps if the OP had submitted the coin for variety designation instead of straight grading his result might have been better.
When PCGS cannot make this determination inhouse I find it inappropriate that they submit for fourth party gradation. Consulting a dealer in error coins just does not seem appropriate.
@BryceM said:
This thread contains some of the greatest difficulty in communicating and understanding that I’ve ever seen.
Perhaps it’s a subtle point...... I’m not sure I actually agree with Fred, but at the same time I respect his informed opinion. During our discussion at Long Beach he explained his thought process clearly. I don’t blame him for not doing it here. Who decided it was required of him to defend his opinion here? We don’t get that from the graders. This is just a bunch of (mostly anonymous) folks on an Internet forum, most of whom aren’t truly open minded and are usually just in the mood to argue.
All of that aside, PCGS views him as an expert and accepts his opinion. This certainly won’t be the last time that something slightly controversial gets put on a slab label. In the world of decisions the folks at our host routinely have to make, this is small potatoes.
So Mr. Weinberg explained his thought process clearly to you in person, but you're not sure you agree with his conclusion. But other people to whom he hasn't explained his thought process clearly should agree with his conclusion because he's an expert? If they don't, they're being close-minded and argumentative for its own sake? Pardon me if I think you're being slightly arrogant here.
@jmlanzaf said:
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
As far as I can see, the coin in question was struck on a planchet that appears to be proper for the denomination and the design elements are appropriate for the type. So there's that.
It was hypothetical.
Everyone on this thread has had a hard time explaining how such an error could arise at the Mint. One step further is surety that it could not arise at the MInt, which is Fred's position. He doesn't really need any further explanation - whether you agree with him or not.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
I understand your point, but it comes full circle to how does this expert conclude it is what it is? He just can't say "It is THIS!" and not back it up, especially as one of the most respected experts rendering an opinion on a coin that now has a huge public following. Everyone, including YOU and ME, want a definitive explanation of this coin's existence and I think it comes down to needing much more research. I honestly don't think this is unfair.
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
Ah, good old reductio ad absurdum! Maybe eventually, we'll get to enjoy ALL the logical fallacies in this thread 😉
Since you have trouble understanding the point, you would probably not enjoy any such discussions. The point is that the only explanation needed for an error is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to arise in the Minting process. So Fred need not explain, as SOME (not all) have requested, how the coin was made. He need only be sure that it could not have happened in the Minting process.
@BryceM said:
His professional verdict has been rendered, and he's right to state that he doesn't need to offer a precise explanation about how it happened.
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
I understand your point, but it comes full circle to how does this expert conclude it is what it is? He just can't say "It is THIS!" and not back it up, especially as one of the most respected experts rendering an opinion on a coin that now has a huge public following. Everyone, including YOU and ME, want a definitive explanation of this coin's existence and I think it comes down to needing much more research. I honestly don't think this is unfair.
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
But the drastic example you give is not what we have here is it? In fact it's not even close.
If I ever presented a case in court and I testified, "Well it's because I know this is what it is" and that was my only evidence, I'd be excoriated by the judge and laughed at by my peers, not to mention lose.
Edit: It's completely fine for an expert to say, "I don't know."
The argument is not that "I know this is what it is". The argument would be that it is impossible to have occurred in the normal minting process. Whether Fred knows "beyond any reasonable doubt" might be in question. His testimony would be sillier if he asserted that he has no mechanism by which such a coin can exist yet it MUST be an error.
The "preponderance" of the evidence does suggest PMD given the rim anomaly opposite the imprinted letters. Which Fred did mention in one of his initial posts.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes, some people are asking him to explain how it was altered and claiming he cannot conclude that it is not a mint error unless he can explain it. And it is those people I'm addressing.
Fair enough.
@jmlanzaf said:
For a counterfeit, the answer could be as simple as it "doesn't look like a genuine coin". For an error, the answer could be as simple as "that can't happen in the minting process".
And the response could be as simple as "Why not?" If it can't happen, surely there's a reason.
There probably is a reason. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind further discussion. But people are all but insulting Fred which I think is unfair. And no one except the OP on this thread has any right to even expect an explanation.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes, some people are asking him to explain how it was altered and claiming he cannot conclude that it is not a mint error unless he can explain it. And it is those people I'm addressing.
Fair enough.
@jmlanzaf said:
For a counterfeit, the answer could be as simple as it "doesn't look like a genuine coin". For an error, the answer could be as simple as "that can't happen in the minting process".
And the response could be as simple as "Why not?" If it can't happen, surely there's a reason.
There probably is a reason. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind further discussion. But people are all but insulting Fred which I think is unfair. And no one except the OP on this thread has any right to even expect an explanation.
Nobody is insulting Fred. The comments and conversation are responses to you and a few others posting comments with the attitude of "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION FRED'S ANSWER!" It actually has less to do with Fred.
No, nobody has a "right" to an explanation. But you keep forgetting this is a discussion forum.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@jmlanzaf said:
Yes, some people are asking him to explain how it was altered and claiming he cannot conclude that it is not a mint error unless he can explain it. And it is those people I'm addressing.
Fair enough.
@jmlanzaf said:
For a counterfeit, the answer could be as simple as it "doesn't look like a genuine coin". For an error, the answer could be as simple as "that can't happen in the minting process".
And the response could be as simple as "Why not?" If it can't happen, surely there's a reason.
There probably is a reason. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind further discussion. But people are all but insulting Fred which I think is unfair. And no one except the OP on this thread has any right to even expect an explanation.
Nobody is insulting Fred. The comments and conversation are responses to you and a few others posting comments with the attitude of "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION FRED'S ANSWER!" It actually has less to do with Fred.
No, nobody has a "right" to an explanation. But you keep forgetting this is a discussion forum.
I haven’t seen a single post that was the equivalent of “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION FRED'S ANSWER!“.
And just because this is a discussion forum, doesn’t mean we’re entitled to an explanation - no matter how much we might want one.That applies in this case, as well as in those in which someone might disagree with a particular grade, designation or whatever.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@spacehayduke said:
PS, I would rather have a team of experts in this case, provide thorough analyses. Why did JA at CAC for example bean it if he felt it was PMD? Why did PCGS grade it? This is potentially an important type of new feature on a coin that could change what we know about what happens at the mint, or this is some completely unknown PMD that could result in these features. But not a single person has come up with a PMD explanation, yet. It is only, 'I know it is not mint made', hardly hard evidence. If I put that in a scientific manuscript, the reviewers would destroy me. So this issue is far from resolved, let's see a true mechanism for PMD or? Qualitative 'I knows' don't cut it for whatever explanation is viable.
Best, SH
There has not been one logical theory to explain why it is a Mint error either. Several have proposed this or that, but none of them explain the exact anomalies seen on this coin. Most theories here for how this was made during the striking process don’t make sense at all.
Agree, there has not, but there is no logical hypothesis that it is PMD so far presented by anyone including Mr. Weinberg. IMO, given the force that is needed on such a limited area of the coin with no other noticeable affects, I would suggest you need something very 'mint-like' in equipment to cause this. It seems logical to me the onus is on anyone to absolutely prove it is not mint made with a valid hypothesis for its origin as there are likely not to be mint-like equipment around outside of the mint.
Mr. Weinberg appears to base his opinion that it is PMD on what he believes what could and could not happen at the mint to cause this, which is based on his knowledge of what he thinks was happening in the 19th century at the US mints. Problem is, I am sure there are very strange things that can happen at the mints to coins to produce a one-off like this one that we would have a hard time figuring out. But what you need are force and opportunity - there is one most logical place for this to happen is at the mint.............
Despite my best intentions, I keep following this post. I’ll take a different tack now. If PCGS now insists that this coin must be in a details holder, the coin will end up in a NGC holder with a bean. Does PCGS want this outcome?
Given it graded straight the first time, was given the bean, etc. It strikes me that the best course is for PCGS to leave it holdered as is without comment or holdered with a comment along the lines of ‘rim anomaly’.
@TurtleCat said:
Despite my best intentions, I keep following this post. I’ll take a different tack now. If PCGS now insists that this coin must be in a details holder, the coin will end up in a NGC holder with a bean. Does PCGS want this outcome?
Given it graded straight the first time, was given the bean, etc. It strikes me that the best course is for PCGS to leave it holdered as is without comment or holdered with a comment along the lines of ‘rim anomaly’.
The coin might or might not end up in an NGC holder, and with or without a CAC sticker. I doubt PCGS is concerned about various potential outcomes. Likewise, when they grade a coin, they likely don’t worry about whether it would grade higher or lower, elsewhere. Additionally, after reviewing the coin, consulting an error expert, then making a decision, I think it would be irresponsible to leave the coin as it was.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MarkFeld My point is more about marketing and image and less about grading. PCGS is concerned about that as we see in things like “21 of the 25 top coins sold at auction are PCGS”, etc. It apparently was already graded and beaned. So many graders already agree it’s a great coin. The question is about the rim area. If JA had not left a note to call this whole saga would never have happened and the coin would be in a beaned holder. That seems a logical place to leave it.
Comments
At the very least, PCGS should slab it with a NON DETAILS label that states MS66 "Unknown Anomaly".
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I will follow ms70's disappointment with my own. One person in the world seems to decide what is an error and what is not with no clear hypothesis on how it was created outside the mint. Wow!
OY VEY. still going.
What we are not hearing is the "WHY?"
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
The literal definition of some weak sauce. Especially when that person is a dealer with an inherently slippery slope of conflict of interest.
Do they let other graders be dealers. I don’t see a difference with an attributor.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It is also sad that Mr. Weinberg has lost respect with many on this forum for his unsubstantiated opinion, without any stated basis. Some of us believe that this a restruck brockade that could only have happened at the Mint,an explanation that has not been properly discounted. And the amount of force to create the incuse letters on a stamp hardened coin has not even been estimated by a stamping expert, which Weinberg is not.
@davids5104 Keep the coin........maybe take it ATS for their opinion. The grade of the coin is somewhat irrelevant without the proper attribution.
OINK
Are we allowed to disagree with the experts?
BHNC #203
In no particular order:
Yes, he does need to offer an precise explanation for it to be a professional opinion. If he has no precise explanation then there's no justification to say it's not a true mint error and deserves a details label. This is an opinion that could swing the value of someone else's coin wildly and needs to be justified. That's only fair.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
So, if I don't know how a counterfeiter made the coin, I can't conclude it's a counterfeit?
You often don't know exactly how someone altered a coin. But you can, at the same time, know that it didn't happen in the normal minting process.
The criticism of Mr. Weinberg is unfortunate and unwarranted, especially from people who have never seen the coin in hand.
Well said, at least in my opinion. A top error expert apparently can’t conceive of how the coin could have been struck that way. The fact that he might not be able to determine precisely what occurred after it was struck, doesn’t make his view any less valid.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If you conclude the coin is counterfeit, presumably you can explain how you came to that conclusion, right? "Because I said so" is not a very convincing argument, IMO.
People aren't asking Mr. Weinberg how the coin was altered, they're asking how he concluded that it was.
Weinberg said it’s 100% not a mint error. Either he’s being dishonest about his confidence level, or he’s holding back the technical explanation for why he’s so confident.
He didn't say the mule was a mint error either, even though it happened there.
Yes, some people are asking him to explain how it was altered and claiming he cannot conclude that it is not a mint error unless he can explain it. And it is those people I'm addressing.
For a counterfeit, the answer could be as simple as it "doesn't look like a genuine coin". For an error, the answer could be as simple as "that can't happen in the minting process".
If someone said "that can't happen in the minting process" then we would all want at least an explanation, and not just “he’s the final word”.
Fair enough.
And the response could be as simple as "Why not?" If it can't happen, surely there's a reason.
Mr. Weinberg's ability to know what could, or could not, have happened in the Mint's process over 100 years ago requires anyone accepting his opinion to take a giant leap of faith in him. Reminds me of going to church on Sunday. But for some collectors, numismatics is just another form of religion.
Even numismatics could use a miracle (aka mint error) now and then........
OINK
You're putting forth that the coin was counterfeited. Who said that? And as someone who has not seen the coin in hand I'm relying on his expertise. However there is no explanation attached to his conclusion. I'm sure you can accept that as being fair.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Honestly speaking that's quite contradictory. He can't support his conclusion and nothing has been put forth as evidence that it occurred after it was struck. How did he come to any conclusion?
WHERE'S THE BEEF?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I'm jumping in late here, but you're asking PCGS to certify that it's a real official error, and they're simply saying based on available information including Fred's opinion, that they can't. You are perfectly welcome to go ATS and ask them, but PCGS is saying they can't/won't period. End of story. That is within their rights and business practices. C'est la vie.
From Logically Fallacious...
Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)
Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered.
Just sayin'.
He wasn’t stating that the coin is counterfeit. He was giving an analogy of knowing something - that a coin is counterfeit, for example - without knowing precisely how it was produced. The same reasoning could be applied to knowing that a coin was damaged (and not an error), without knowing exactly how the damage occurred.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I understand your point, but it comes full circle to how does this expert conclude it is what it is? He just can't say "It is THIS!" and not back it up, especially as one of the most respected experts rendering an opinion on a coin that now has a huge public following. Everyone, including YOU and ME, want a definitive explanation of this coin's existence and I think it comes down to needing much more research. I honestly don't think this is unfair.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I don’t know how he came to his conclusion, what he said or to whom. However, if he can’t fathom how the coin could have been struck as an error, I don’t see why he needs to explain, how the damage, occurred.
That said, sure, I’d like to hear his thinking and explanation. But I choose not to ask him for it or criticize him for not providing it.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So if so, then why doesn't Mr. Weinberg, the world's leader in this field, come up with an explanation? Just wondering....... It would help if he provided a thorough analysis of every feature that he thinks is PMD and how he arrived at his conclusions, in detail and showed unequivocally that that there is zero chance that this is a mint made feature. If Mr. Weinberg can't do that, then the issue is still wide open.
Best, SH
PS, I would rather have a team of experts in this case, provide thorough analyses. Why did JA at CAC for example bean it if he felt it was PMD? Why did PCGS grade it? This is potentially an important type of new feature on a coin that could change what we know about what happens at the mint, or this is some completely unknown PMD that could result in these features. But not a single person has come up with a PMD explanation, yet. It is only, 'I know it is not mint made', hardly hard evidence. If I put that in a scientific manuscript, the reviewers would destroy me. So this issue is far from resolved, let's see a true mechanism for PMD or? Qualitative 'I knows' don't cut it for whatever explanation is viable.
Best, SH
Suppose I showed you a coin that had a 1998 washington quarter struck in the middle of a 1972 IKE $ on the obverse with a reverse that was a Walking Liberty half with an off-center Barber dime all struck on a $50 Gold eagle planchet. Do I have to tell you how it was made or could I suffice it to say that there is NO WAY it could have happened at the Mint?
There has not been one logical theory to explain why it is a Mint error either. Several have proposed this or that, but none of them explain the exact anomalies seen on this coin. Most theories here for how this was made during the striking process don’t make sense at all.
Ah, good old reductio ad absurdum! Maybe eventually, we'll get to enjoy ALL the logical fallacies in this thread 😉
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
But the drastic example you give is not what we have here is it? In fact it's not even close.
If I ever presented a case in court and I testified, "Well it's because I know this is what it is" and that was my only evidence, I'd be excoriated by the judge and laughed at by my peers, not to mention lose.
Edit: It's completely fine for an expert to say, "I don't know."
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Put it up for auction on eBay with a link on the BST. This coin is now famous! I'll bet it will do very well.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
I can certainly understand PCGS not wanting to go out on a limb declaring that the coin is something they're not certain it is but I can't understand allowing PCGS to re-holder the coin as genuine, damaged. WTF is that? If anything it should have been re-holdered as was suggested above, MS 66 with unknown anomaly. I think that details/damaged is a huge downgrade for a coin that still defies explanation.
As far as I can see, the coin in question was struck on a planchet that appears to be proper for the denomination and the design elements are appropriate for the type. So there's that.
This thread contains some of the greatest difficulty in communicating and understanding that I’ve ever seen.
Perhaps it’s a subtle point...... I’m not sure I actually agree with Fred, but at the same time I respect his informed opinion. During our discussion at Long Beach he explained his thought process clearly. I don’t blame him for not doing it here. Who decided it was required of him to defend his opinion here? We don’t get that from the graders. This is just a bunch of (mostly anonymous) folks on an Internet forum, most of whom aren’t truly open minded and are usually just in the mood to argue.
All of that aside, PCGS views him as an expert and accepts his opinion. This certainly won’t be the last time that something slightly controversial gets put on a slab label. In the world of decisions the folks at our host routinely have to make, this is small potatoes.
Facts that formed the opinion that resulted in the final outcome of such a popular and closely watched matter would certainly be preferred for a number of reasons. You act as if that's unreasonable and it is not. Keep in mind this IS a discussion forum and the matter was posted here....... So we are all.... simply discussing.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Perhaps grading assigned should be qualified with opinion if requested and paid for. While most coins do not require further opinion to grade, some such as the OP's coin deserve more substantiating evidence as to grade. Perhaps if the OP had submitted the coin for variety designation instead of straight grading his result might have been better.
When PCGS cannot make this determination inhouse I find it inappropriate that they submit for fourth party gradation. Consulting a dealer in error coins just does not seem appropriate.
OINK
So Mr. Weinberg explained his thought process clearly to you in person, but you're not sure you agree with his conclusion. But other people to whom he hasn't explained his thought process clearly should agree with his conclusion because he's an expert? If they don't, they're being close-minded and argumentative for its own sake? Pardon me if I think you're being slightly arrogant here.
If he would explain his opinion I just might learn something
It was hypothetical.
Everyone on this thread has had a hard time explaining how such an error could arise at the Mint. One step further is surety that it could not arise at the MInt, which is Fred's position. He doesn't really need any further explanation - whether you agree with him or not.
Since you have trouble understanding the point, you would probably not enjoy any such discussions. The point is that the only explanation needed for an error is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to arise in the Minting process. So Fred need not explain, as SOME (not all) have requested, how the coin was made. He need only be sure that it could not have happened in the Minting process.
The argument is not that "I know this is what it is". The argument would be that it is impossible to have occurred in the normal minting process. Whether Fred knows "beyond any reasonable doubt" might be in question. His testimony would be sillier if he asserted that he has no mechanism by which such a coin can exist yet it MUST be an error.
The "preponderance" of the evidence does suggest PMD given the rim anomaly opposite the imprinted letters. Which Fred did mention in one of his initial posts.
That makes two of us....
SMH.... Moving on.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
There probably is a reason. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind further discussion. But people are all but insulting Fred which I think is unfair. And no one except the OP on this thread has any right to even expect an explanation.
Nobody is insulting Fred. The comments and conversation are responses to you and a few others posting comments with the attitude of "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION FRED'S ANSWER!" It actually has less to do with Fred.
No, nobody has a "right" to an explanation. But you keep forgetting this is a discussion forum.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I haven’t seen a single post that was the equivalent of “HOW DARE YOU QUESTION FRED'S ANSWER!“.
And just because this is a discussion forum, doesn’t mean we’re entitled to an explanation - no matter how much we might want one.That applies in this case, as well as in those in which someone might disagree with a particular grade, designation or whatever.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Agree, there has not, but there is no logical hypothesis that it is PMD so far presented by anyone including Mr. Weinberg. IMO, given the force that is needed on such a limited area of the coin with no other noticeable affects, I would suggest you need something very 'mint-like' in equipment to cause this. It seems logical to me the onus is on anyone to absolutely prove it is not mint made with a valid hypothesis for its origin as there are likely not to be mint-like equipment around outside of the mint.
Mr. Weinberg appears to base his opinion that it is PMD on what he believes what could and could not happen at the mint to cause this, which is based on his knowledge of what he thinks was happening in the 19th century at the US mints. Problem is, I am sure there are very strange things that can happen at the mints to coins to produce a one-off like this one that we would have a hard time figuring out. But what you need are force and opportunity - there is one most logical place for this to happen is at the mint.............
Best, SH
Despite my best intentions, I keep following this post. I’ll take a different tack now. If PCGS now insists that this coin must be in a details holder, the coin will end up in a NGC holder with a bean. Does PCGS want this outcome?
Given it graded straight the first time, was given the bean, etc. It strikes me that the best course is for PCGS to leave it holdered as is without comment or holdered with a comment along the lines of ‘rim anomaly’.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
The coin might or might not end up in an NGC holder, and with or without a CAC sticker. I doubt PCGS is concerned about various potential outcomes. Likewise, when they grade a coin, they likely don’t worry about whether it would grade higher or lower, elsewhere. Additionally, after reviewing the coin, consulting an error expert, then making a decision, I think it would be irresponsible to leave the coin as it was.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MarkFeld My point is more about marketing and image and less about grading. PCGS is concerned about that as we see in things like “21 of the 25 top coins sold at auction are PCGS”, etc. It apparently was already graded and beaned. So many graders already agree it’s a great coin. The question is about the rim area. If JA had not left a note to call this whole saga would never have happened and the coin would be in a beaned holder. That seems a logical place to leave it.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars