@TurtleCat said: @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.
I bet that we, as forum members, care a LOT more about the coin than PCGS does. And that it’s significance is far removed from the top coins (in terms of value) sold at public auction.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TurtleCat said: @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.
I bet that we, as forum members, care a LOT more about the coin than PCGS does. And that it’s significance is far removed from the top coins (in terms of value) sold at public auction.
Perhaps but we wouldn’t be on this odyssey if PCGS wasn’t interested based on what CAC said. I’m sure they aren’t awake at night worrying about the coin but right or wrong this coin is gaining in prominence.
I think this thread shines light on a weakness of the whole TPG process which is you pay money, you get something back but there’s no explanation. Making it worse, grades and decisions can change on multiple tries. This leads one to question why, but there’s almost never an explanation.
I don’t have an answer for how to solve this, but when the error guy enters the discussion here on this forum with 100% confidence (his choice to do so) but then offers nothing to back it up, it’s understandable that folks get frustrated and trust is eroded. Also doesn’t help that he’s a dealer in error coins which does seem like a conflict of interest.
@OriginalDan said:
I think this thread shines light on a weakness of the whole TPG process which is you pay money, you get something back but there’s no explanation. Making it worse, grades and decisions can change on multiple tries. This leads one to question why, but there’s almost never an explanation.
I don’t have an answer for how to solve this, but when the error guy enters the discussion here on this forum with 100% confidence (his choice to do so) but then offers nothing to back it up, it’s understandable that folks get frustrated. Also doesn’t help that he’s a dealer in error coins which does seem like a conflict of interest.
As usual, you make very reasonable points.
I think I probably already said something along these lines dozens of posts ago, but... In the absence of an iron-clad explanation from Fred, stating precisely how the damage could have occurred, I think a number of posters would still be dissatisfied. He was essentially in a no win situation when he posted to this thread. I’ve seen numerous threads here, where an issue should have been firmly resolved, but went on and on and on.
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.
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."
This is EXACTLY the point.
You all say he doesnt have to know how it happened. He CLAIMED IT WAS 100% DAMAGE. He cant say how, nor can he say why its not a mint error. He rendered a belief, not an evidenced-based analysis.
He could have said "I dont know" - he could have said "I cant determine how this could be a genuine mint error" - none of that. He said it was 100% damage. 100% leaves no room for anything else. Yet he cant/wont justify anything.
Further, when he DID provide an "explanation" for his "expert testimony" - by which PCGS fully trusts as a 1 man show - he botched it up with reversing obverse and reverse and location on coin. Perhaps, respectfully, he should retire.
If someone should retire for the type of transgressions you mentioned, very few people, if anyone, would still be in business.
Like it or not, rendering an opinion on a coin is not the same as providing an expert opinion in a court of law.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I just thought of a possible explanation...albeit far fetched...which this error/alteration is apparently. What if somehow the collar was loose and it was struck by the die. Then a coin was struck by the damaged collar. Odds are it would be a one off as the collar would probably detach quickly. I can't think any thing farther out of the box than that!
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.
I’ve been called worse, but not for a few hours.
There is a difference between agreeing with his conclusion and respecting his opinion. I just didn’t think Fred was being treated fairly here. He doesn’t owe any of us anything.
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.
I’ve been called worse, but not for a few hours.
There is a difference between agreeing with his conclusion and respecting his opinion. I just didn’t think Fred was being treated fairly here. He doesn’t owe any of us anything.
That’s it for me here.
I apologize for making it personal. I could have made my point without doing so.
I would note that your post took a swipe at forum members en masse. While there are surely folks with the traits you cited posting here, I wouldn't say that "most" fall into those categories.
@OriginalDan said:
I think this thread shines light on a weakness of the whole TPG process which is you pay money, you get something back but there’s no explanation. Making it worse, grades and decisions can change on multiple tries. This leads one to question why, but there’s almost never an explanation.
To the credit of PCGS, I will say that I've received a bunch of useful feedback over the years at various "Ask the Expert" sessions which they hold at the major coin shows. I really appreciate the company for holding those.
..... one parting thought that's probably worth saying.
I don't hold any hard feelings to anyone who has posted in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, we're all part of a really cool hobby and everyone loves a good mystery. Internet forums sometimes don't bring out the best in folks, and regrettably this has been true of myself once or twice in this case. The hobby is more fun in person and the emotion and meaning behind words is always easier to interpret that way.
@BryceM said:
..... one parting thought that's probably worth saying.
I don't hold any hard feelings to anyone who has posted in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, we're all part of a really cool hobby and everyone loves a good mystery. Internet forums sometimes don't bring out the best in folks, and regrettably this has been true of myself once or twice in this case. The hobby is more fun in person and the emotion and meaning behind words is always easier to interpret that way.
Such a fascinating, strange thread.
Time for some ice cream.
I'll sign on to this too. If we were face to face and could read each other's facial expressions and hear each other's voice inflections, we could have discussed the same things and it would've been taken differently on a better level.
We're all good.
Bare chested hug time.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@BryceM said:
..... one parting thought that's probably worth saying.
I don't hold any hard feelings to anyone who has posted in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, we're all part of a really cool hobby and everyone loves a good mystery. Internet forums sometimes don't bring out the best in folks, and regrettably this has been true of myself once or twice in this case. The hobby is more fun in person and the emotion and meaning behind words is always easier to interpret that way.
Such a fascinating, strange thread.
Time for some ice cream.
I'll sign on to this too. If we were face to face and could read each other's facial expressions and hear each other's voice inflections, we could have discussed the same things and it would've been taken differently on a better level.
@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!
Fortunately, I have been in several situations indicating that while your comment is personal and valid, it is also uninformed. There was an old movie called "Twelve Angry Men" that illustrates my experiences concerning coin authentication. Very often, it is the one out of a dozen respected and knowledgeable peers who is finally proven to be correct in the end. That person may not know the why/how/when, yet they still know it.
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!
I like your comments. However, I have used a stereomicroscope to examine coins for almost fifty years. I can say will 100% certainty that a microscopic exam of this coin will add absolutely nothing to this discussion.
@MasonG said: "If you conclude the coin is counterfeit, presumably you can explain how you came to that conclusion, right? Yes, yes, and sometimes.
"Because I said so" is not a very convincing argument, IMO."
News Flash: Some opinions are better than others.
Just in case you were unaware of what goes on in REAL LIFE outside of coin forums, I'll remind you that the job of a coin authenticator has nothing to do with convincing anyone but himself of anything! In fact, the "personal opinion" of the submitter is not considered AT ALL! The reason no info is shared about the best "new" counterfeits is JUST BECAUSE.
You pays yo money and you get an opinion. It is a lot like dropping a coin in the Foretelling machine at Coney Island. You don't get to look inside the workings of the machine to see the wheels turning. Good authenticators often use the "no decision" option even when they are 100% certain a coin is a counterfeit. At other times, the best coin experts in the world have lined up in total disagreement with each other.
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.
The answer is simple. HE DID. As I wrote above: Coins are made a certain way. Mny things can go wrong or not up to standard producing a coin that is abnormal in some way. The minting process has been studied, discussed, dissected, taught, filmed, bla, bla, bla, for decades. This coin has a characteristic that most of you have never seen before. I HAVE. This one just covers more degrees of the rim. If an authority on the coin making process CANNOT come up with a precise chain of events to make the coin look the way it does, it is NOT a mint error. Therefore, it is a coin that was "altered" by some other means AFTER it was struck. AFAIK, that is simple enough English to understand.
@spacehayduke said: "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.
Actually, a former ANA President visited a "mint" in Lebanon in the 1960's and wrote that they were using the exact same coining press that was used by the US Mint at the time.
@TurtleCat said: @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.
The counterfeit "Micro O dollars that at one time were slabbed as genuine are now very collectible. The ones that were not turned it are still in TPGS holders. Does that seem "logical?"
@TurtleCat said: "Perhaps but we wouldn’t be on this odyssey if PCGS wasn’t interested based on what CAC said. I’m sure they aren’t awake at night worrying about the coin but right or wrong this coin is gaining in prominence."
@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."
This is EXACTLY the point.
You all say he doesnt have to know how it happened. He CLAIMED IT WAS 100% DAMAGE. He cant say how, nor can he say why its not a mint error. He rendered a belief, not an evidenced-based analysis.
He could have said "I dont know" - he could have said "I cant determine how this could be a genuine mint error" - none of that. He said it was 100% damage. 100% leaves no room for anything else. Yet he cant/wont justify anything.
Further, when he DID provide an "explanation" for his "expert testimony" - by which PCGS fully trusts as a 1 man show - he botched it up with reversing obverse and reverse and location on coin. Perhaps, respectfully, he should retire.
What exactly?
The only one who is going to retire SOON is me. It is way past my bedtime. I knew I should not have opened this discussion two hours ago.
Nevertheless, bringing up a court trial or blotching up the obverse & reverse is all you little stone-throwers have to post?"
I've disagreed with Fred once or twice but the fact is when this coin reached the courtroom, any expert witness would simply walk the jury through the minting process from ingot to bank and then simply say, That coin was not made at any time HERE!"
@Insider2 said:
The answer is simple. HE DID. As I wrote above: Coins are made a certain way. Mny things can go wrong or not up to standard producing a coin that is abnormal in some way. The minting process has been studied, discussed, dissected, taught, filmed, bla, bla, bla, for decades. This coin has a characteristic that most of you have never seen before. I HAVE. This one just covers more degrees of the rim. If an authority on the coin making process CANNOT come up with a precise chain of events to make the coin look the way it does, it is NOT a mint error. Therefore, it is a coin that was "altered" by some other means AFTER it was struck. AFAIK, that is simple enough English to understand.
Italicized area is a leap of logic. This sort of assumption is irrational. "I have no idea how it was made, therefore not a mint error." ---> Ill fix it for you. "I have no idea how this was made. It is my professional opinion that it is PMD." --- NOT "This is 100% PMD."
Or it could be this statement: "If an authority on the coin making process CANNOT come up with a precise chain of events to make the coin look the way it does, then he must make a judgement call on the evidence he does have." Clearly, lack of evidence doesn't cement a conclusion. It casts doubt on it. In what world does the LACK of information PROVE ANYTHING?
This thread is confirming the notion of a small pool of experts that @OriginalDan suggested.
I've said the same thing now multiple times, and I'm getting the same rhetorical response. This is so black and white. If one cant understand this simple logic, God help us all.
It is simple flawed logic. If I accuse you of committing a crime, there is no burden on you to prove that you did not commit the crime. The assumption is you are innocent unless the State proves otherwise
Similarly, the burden lies in proving it is a Mint error, not in proving that it isn't PMD.
@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."
This is EXACTLY the point.
You all say he doesnt have to know how it happened. He CLAIMED IT WAS 100% DAMAGE. He cant say how, nor can he say why its not a mint error. He rendered a belief, not an evidenced-based analysis.
He could have said "I dont know" - he could have said "I cant determine how this could be a genuine mint error" - none of that. He said it was 100% damage. 100% leaves no room for anything else. Yet he cant/wont justify anything.
Further, when he DID provide an "explanation" for his "expert testimony" - by which PCGS fully trusts as a 1 man show - he botched it up with reversing obverse and reverse and location on coin. Perhaps, respectfully, he should retire.
What exactly?
The only one who is going to retire SOON is me. It is way past my bedtime. I knew I should not have opened this discussion two hours ago.
Nevertheless, bringing up a court trial or blotching up the obverse & reverse is all you little stone-throwers have to post?"
I've disagreed with Fred once or twice but the fact is when this coin reached the courtroom, any expert witness would simply walk the jury through the minting process from ingot to bank and then simply say, That coin was not made at any time HERE!"
He claimed 100% knowledge, and then in his explanation, he clearly mispoke in more than one way.
You don't find this at all troubling, at all? Like, not even a little bit?
Well, for all of the people NOT initiated into the "I get paid lots of money for doing nothing" club -- it IS A LOT troubling.
Edit: To be clear, Im not saying we deserve the info. I understand the whole "we pay for opinion" bull shit. The point is simply that we would have been better off without his opining in such a detrimental way on this forum. Period.
@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!
Fortunately, I have been in several situations indicating that while your comment is personal and valid, it is also uninformed. There was an old movie called "Twelve Angry Men" that illustrates my experiences concerning coin authentication. Very often, it is the one out of a dozen respected and knowledgeable peers who is finally proven to be correct in the end. That person may not know the why/how/when, yet they still know it.
Your comment above does not directly address what I said: There is no hypothesis on how this feature on the coin was created outside of the mint.
My argument is that the right equipment exists at the mint to do this, PMD - maybe, maybe not.
That makes the PMD hypothesis one step behind the mint hypothesis. So the onus is on those advocating the PMD hypothesis to unequivocally prove how it was done. Otherwise Occam's would be that it is mint made.
This is why I would like to see a panel of advanced numismatic/mint scholars involved on what could be a newly found and important type of mint error, or alternatively an extremely interesting type of PMD. Which is it? We still don't know as no valid hypothesis has been proposed.
In Person, you should be able to look at the coin and tell whether the incuse lettering was on the planchet before or after the dentils were struck in.
Before equals mint error. After equals PMD.
It doesn’t really matter whether it was done at the mint. Just the order of operations.
@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!
Fortunately, I have been in several situations indicating that while your comment is personal and valid, it is also uninformed. There was an old movie called "Twelve Angry Men" that illustrates my experiences concerning coin authentication. Very often, it is the one out of a dozen respected and knowledgeable peers who is finally proven to be correct in the end. That person may not know the why/how/when, yet they still know it.
Your comment above does not directly address what I said: There is no hypothesis on how this feature on the coin was created outside of the mint.
My argument is that the right equipment exists at the mint to do this, PMD - maybe, maybe not.
That makes the PMD hypothesis one step behind the mint hypothesis. So the onus is on those advocating the PMD hypothesis to unequivocally prove how it was done. Otherwise Occam's would be that it is mint made.
This is why I would like to see a panel of advanced numismatic/mint scholars involved on what could be a newly found and important type of mint error, or alternatively an extremely interesting type of PMD. Which is it? We still don't know as no valid hypothesis has been proposed.
Best, SH
Disagree. You've assumed a lot of facts not in evidence.
You can imprint characters using something as simple as a vice at home. You don't need the power of Mint equipment to do it.
The Mint equipment itself, because of its sheer power, would be hard-pressed (pun intended) to create that localized imprint without damage somewhere else.
Occam's razor probably cuts the other way.
Personally, I'm not convinced of either with 100% certainty, but I do feel the burden of proof lies with the Mint error people to prove it is a Mint error. Proving the negative is far harder.
@scubafuel said:
In Person, you should be able to look at the coin and tell whether the incuse lettering was on the planchet before or after the dentils were struck in.
Before equals mint error. After equals PMD.
It doesn’t really matter whether it was done at the mint. Just the order of operations.
How? You can tell IF IF IF there is damage to the denticles. But it is a null test. If the rim lies above the denticles, how would you know whether the letters were there before or after?
Frankly, I don't see any way they could be there before. How would they have been preserved, undamaged, during the striking that created the rim?
Conflict of interest in numismatics ?
Maybe the originator of the thread was hyping up this item for the market. ( as an aside to Original Dan's assertions ).
I call spam.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Conflict of interest in numismatics ?
Maybe the originator of the thread was hyping up this item for the market. ( as an aside to Original Dan's assertions ).
I call spam.
Based on the OP's posts and the intriguing particulars of the coin, itself, I think your accusation is extremely unfair.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Conflict of interest in numismatics ?
Maybe the originator of the thread was hyping up this item for the market. ( as an aside to Original Dan's assertions ).
I call spam.
Based on the OP's posts and the intriguing particulars of the coin, itself, I think your accusation is extremely unfair.
Mark if you haven't figured my sarcasm and humor out in all these years, I'd guess you likely never will. Kinda like the coin in question.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Conflict of interest in numismatics ?
Maybe the originator of the thread was hyping up this item for the market. ( as an aside to Original Dan's assertions ).
I call spam.
Based on the OP's posts and the intriguing particulars of the coin, itself, I think your accusation is extremely unfair.
Mark if you haven't figured my sarcasm and humor out in all these years, I'd guess you likely never will. Kinda like the coin in question.
I guess not, but am glad you weren't serious.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Reading this thread, I'm reminded of the frequent argument about how JA has too much power/influence on the coin market in determining whether a coin is truly special. It seems Fred also possesses the same for errors!
@TradesWithChops said: "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....He claimed 100% knowledge, and then in his explanation, he clearly mispoke in more than one way. You don't find this at all troubling, at all? Like, not even a little bit?"
Nope, not even a little bit.
"Well, for all of the people NOT initiated into the "I get paid lots of money for doing nothing" club -- it IS A LOT troubling."
Doing nothing? Perhaps you should post about something you are informed about.
"Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying we deserve the info. I understand the whole "we pay for opinion" bull shit. The point is simply that we would have been better off without his opining in such a detrimental way on this forum. Period.
You truly get it! This entire thread underlines the reason why the first coin authentication service DID NOT reveal the identity of any of our outside consultants who devoted their time and talent to keep the market free of fakes. BTW, I saw nothing detrimental coming FROM ANYONE sharing opinions in this thread.
No information: Business as usual.
Some information: Only if you are lucky and the "expert" decides to share something.
Clearly wrong information: Stuff happens. Usually it is corrected over time. The final opinion on this coin is it is not a mint error. I happen to agree. Can I explain why? Unfortunately I cannot as the "back door" to the guys making our money (the final authority) has been closed to me for decades. I can see no way this could happen to the planchet or at the time the coin was struck.
I hope we don't all become as accommodating as some posters here the next time a "parking lot" coin is presented as a "mint error". By some of the logic, we apparently have to accept them!
A lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be made during a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process. Fact of the matter is that we failed. (At least, I didn't see a plausible explanation to cling to....and I really WANTED to).
I don't think that leads us down the path of, "Well, let's just assume it's a mint error".
(Let's just assume that the next scraped parking lot coin is an error? I hope not...)
@TommyType said:
I hope we don't all become as accommodating as some posters here the next time a "parking lot" coin is presented as a "mint error". By some of the logic, we apparently have to accept them!
A lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be made during a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process. Fact of the matter is that we failed. (At least, I didn't see a plausible explanation to cling to....and I really WANTED to).
I don't think that leads us down the path of, "Well, let's just assume it's a mint error".
(Let's just assume that the next scraped parking lot coin is an error? I hope not...)
And likewise, a lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be post-strike damage, that occurred after a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process.
Additionally, I saw nothing in the posts that stated anyone needed to accept the coin as a mint error, or for that matter, a damaged coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TommyType said:
I hope we don't all become as accommodating as some posters here the next time a "parking lot" coin is presented as a "mint error". By some of the logic, we apparently have to accept them!
A lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be made during a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process. Fact of the matter is that we failed. (At least, I didn't see a plausible explanation to cling to....and I really WANTED to).
I don't think that leads us down the path of, "Well, let's just assume it's a mint error".
(Let's just assume that the next scraped parking lot coin is an error? I hope not...)
@TommyType said:
I hope we don't all become as accommodating as some posters here the next time a "parking lot" coin is presented as a "mint error". By some of the logic, we apparently have to accept them!
A lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be made during a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process. Fact of the matter is that we failed. (At least, I didn't see a plausible explanation to cling to....and I really WANTED to).
I don't think that leads us down the path of, "Well, let's just assume it's a mint error".
(Let's just assume that the next scraped parking lot coin is an error? I hope not...)
Another red herring in a sea of them. Please compare the quality of the appearance of the average "parking lot find" to that of the OP's Morgan. I find it hard to believe that a machine is not responsible for the lettering on the OP's coin. Beyond that, I don't know enough to have a theory on how or when it happened.
@TommyType said:
I hope we don't all become as accommodating as some posters here the next time a "parking lot" coin is presented as a "mint error". By some of the logic, we apparently have to accept them!
A lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be made during a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process. Fact of the matter is that we failed. (At least, I didn't see a plausible explanation to cling to....and I really WANTED to).
I don't think that leads us down the path of, "Well, let's just assume it's a mint error".
(Let's just assume that the next scraped parking lot coin is an error? I hope not...)
Another red herring in a sea of them. Please compare the quality of the appearance of the average "parking lot find" to that of the OP's Morgan. I find it hard to believe that a machine is not responsible for the lettering on the OP's coin. Beyond that, I don't know enough to have a theory on how or when it happened.
A machine does not necessarily imply a U.S. Mint press. You can transfer letters in a vice. I'm not saying that necessarily happened here. But it is not a red herring in the sense that we've had numerous "fake errors" posted here including sandwich coins and man-made clips.
People throw out the "vice job" a lot here. Let's see some legit sandwich coins that you think would fool all of us. I don't doubt they are possible, and they probably look pretty good, but I've seen zero examples that would convince me. On the other hand I've seen examples that are obviously vice jobs because details around the imprint were impacted.
@TommyType said:
I hope we don't all become as accommodating as some posters here the next time a "parking lot" coin is presented as a "mint error". By some of the logic, we apparently have to accept them!
A lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be made during a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process. Fact of the matter is that we failed. (At least, I didn't see a plausible explanation to cling to....and I really WANTED to).
I don't think that leads us down the path of, "Well, let's just assume it's a mint error".
(Let's just assume that the next scraped parking lot coin is an error? I hope not...)
Another red herring in a sea of them. Please compare the quality of the appearance of the average "parking lot find" to that of the OP's Morgan. I find it hard to believe that a machine is not responsible for the lettering on the OP's coin. Beyond that, I don't know enough to have a theory on how or when it happened.
A machine does not necessarily imply a U.S. Mint press. You can transfer letters in a vice [sic]. I'm not saying that necessarily happened here. But it is not a red herring in the sense that we've had numerous "fake errors" posted here including sandwich coins and man-made clips.
Nowhere did I state that the machine was a US Mint press. Sure, you can transfer letters in a vise, or with a punch, or by other means. But I don't believe the result would look as clean as this. I also don't see sufficient motivation for someone to alter the coin as it has been after it left the mint. The amount of care required to produce that quality of result probably wouldn't justify any increased value as an "error" coin. IMHO, of course.
@ms70 said:
An offset brockage on a blank planchet that got thrown back in for a regular strike?
That's the most likely cause, in my opinion.
What happened to the REST OF the offset brocage on the planchet? Are you thinking that every bit of it was struck out except for these few letters on the rim?
Even if the coin that caused the brocage was tilted as some think - something should show on the coin to indicate that is the case.
@ms70 said:
An offset brockage on a blank planchet that got thrown back in for a regular strike?
That's the most likely cause, in my opinion.
What happened to the REST OF the offset brocage on the planchet? Are you thinking that every bit of it was struck out except for these few letters on the rim?
Even if the coin that caused the brocage was tilted as some think - something should show on the coin to indicate that is the case.
Dunno, just think this is most likely, considering everything we know. There may very well be traces of other evidence if actual coin is examined by an ex-pert using stereo microscopy 😉
It seems very Un-likely that someone made the effort to create this effect intentionally and then just sold it without mention.
@Baley said:
It seems very Un-likely that someone made the effort to create this effect intentionally and then just sold it without mention.
I agree with that. Not sure someone would make an MS-66 quality coin the target for this type of alteration, either.
I think we have 3 possibilities for how PCGS could handle the coin:
1) Mint Error
2) Unexplained, possibly unexplainable, anomaly, but able to straight grade it.
3) Damaged coin, no straight grade.
I like #2, if for the simple reason that #1 and #3 almost require that you have high confidence concerning how it occurred. I don't think that confidence exists...in either case.
@Baley said:
It seems very Un-likely that someone made the effort to create this effect intentionally and then just sold it without mention.
I agree with that. Not sure someone would make an MS-66 quality coin the target for this type of alteration, either.
I think we have 3 possibilities for how PCGS could handle the coin:
1) Mint Error
2) Unexplained, possibly unexplainable, anomaly, but able to straight grade it.
3) Damaged coin, no straight grade.
I like #2, if for the simple reason that #1 and #3 almost require that you have high confidence concerning how it occurred. I don't think that confidence exists...in either case.
IMO, the coin was not made on purpose. Additionally, I have posted before that this type of anomaly was always ignored in the past (except when made by an encasement). However, times have changed and this particular characteristic is possibly too pronounced to be ignored. The only "problem" I see with this coin is the sheared off rim/edge opposite the letters. I have NEVER seen this on any of the coins I've examined in the past with incuse letters on the rim.
Comments
I bet that we, as forum members, care a LOT more about the coin than PCGS does. And that it’s significance is far removed from the top coins (in terms of value) sold at public auction.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Perhaps but we wouldn’t be on this odyssey if PCGS wasn’t interested based on what CAC said. I’m sure they aren’t awake at night worrying about the coin but right or wrong this coin is gaining in prominence.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
I think this thread shines light on a weakness of the whole TPG process which is you pay money, you get something back but there’s no explanation. Making it worse, grades and decisions can change on multiple tries. This leads one to question why, but there’s almost never an explanation.
I don’t have an answer for how to solve this, but when the error guy enters the discussion here on this forum with 100% confidence (his choice to do so) but then offers nothing to back it up, it’s understandable that folks get frustrated and trust is eroded. Also doesn’t help that he’s a dealer in error coins which does seem like a conflict of interest.
As usual, you make very reasonable points.
I think I probably already said something along these lines dozens of posts ago, but... In the absence of an iron-clad explanation from Fred, stating precisely how the damage could have occurred, I think a number of posters would still be dissatisfied. He was essentially in a no win situation when he posted to this thread. I’ve seen numerous threads here, where an issue should have been firmly resolved, but went on and on and on.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
If someone should retire for the type of transgressions you mentioned, very few people, if anyone, would still be in business.
Like it or not, rendering an opinion on a coin is not the same as providing an expert opinion in a court of law.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I just thought of a possible explanation...albeit far fetched...which this error/alteration is apparently. What if somehow the collar was loose and it was struck by the die. Then a coin was struck by the damaged collar. Odds are it would be a one off as the collar would probably detach quickly. I can't think any thing farther out of the box than that!
I’ve been called worse, but not for a few hours.
There is a difference between agreeing with his conclusion and respecting his opinion. I just didn’t think Fred was being treated fairly here. He doesn’t owe any of us anything.
That’s it for me here.
I apologize for making it personal. I could have made my point without doing so.
I would note that your post took a swipe at forum members en masse. While there are surely folks with the traits you cited posting here, I wouldn't say that "most" fall into those categories.
To the credit of PCGS, I will say that I've received a bunch of useful feedback over the years at various "Ask the Expert" sessions which they hold at the major coin shows. I really appreciate the company for holding those.
..... one parting thought that's probably worth saying.
I don't hold any hard feelings to anyone who has posted in this thread. As far as I'm concerned, we're all part of a really cool hobby and everyone loves a good mystery. Internet forums sometimes don't bring out the best in folks, and regrettably this has been true of myself once or twice in this case. The hobby is more fun in person and the emotion and meaning behind words is always easier to interpret that way.
Such a fascinating, strange thread.
Time for some ice cream.
I'll sign on to this too. If we were face to face and could read each other's facial expressions and hear each other's voice inflections, we could have discussed the same things and it would've been taken differently on a better level.
We're all good.
Bare chested hug time.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Um...put a shirt on
Fortunately, I have been in several situations indicating that while your comment is personal and valid, it is also uninformed. There was an old movie called "Twelve Angry Men" that illustrates my experiences concerning coin authentication. Very often, it is the one out of a dozen respected and knowledgeable peers who is finally proven to be correct in the end. That person may not know the why/how/when, yet they still know it.
I like your comments. However, I have used a stereomicroscope to examine coins for almost fifty years. I can say will 100% certainty that a microscopic exam of this coin will add absolutely nothing to this discussion.
@MasonG said: "If you conclude the coin is counterfeit, presumably you can explain how you came to that conclusion, right?
Yes, yes, and sometimes.
"Because I said so" is not a very convincing argument, IMO."
News Flash: Some opinions are better than others.
Just in case you were unaware of what goes on in REAL LIFE outside of coin forums, I'll remind you that the job of a coin authenticator has nothing to do with convincing anyone but himself of anything! In fact, the "personal opinion" of the submitter is not considered AT ALL! The reason no info is shared about the best "new" counterfeits is JUST BECAUSE.
You pays yo money and you get an opinion. It is a lot like dropping a coin in the Foretelling machine at Coney Island.
You don't get to look inside the workings of the machine to see the wheels turning. Good authenticators often use the "no decision" option even when they are 100% certain a coin is a counterfeit. At other times, the best coin experts in the world have lined up in total disagreement with each other.
@jmlanzaf said:
The answer is simple. HE DID. As I wrote above: Coins are made a certain way. Mny things can go wrong or not up to standard producing a coin that is abnormal in some way. The minting process has been studied, discussed, dissected, taught, filmed, bla, bla, bla, for decades. This coin has a characteristic that most of you have never seen before. I HAVE. This one just covers more degrees of the rim. If an authority on the coin making process CANNOT come up with a precise chain of events to make the coin look the way it does, it is NOT a mint error. Therefore, it is a coin that was "altered" by some other means AFTER it was struck. AFAIK, that is simple enough English to understand.
@spacehayduke said: "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.
Actually, a former ANA President visited a "mint" in Lebanon in the 1960's and wrote that they were using the exact same coining press that was used by the US Mint at the time.
The counterfeit "Micro O dollars that at one time were slabbed as genuine are now very collectible. The ones that were not turned it are still in TPGS holders. Does that seem "logical?"
@TurtleCat said: "Perhaps but we wouldn’t be on this odyssey if PCGS wasn’t interested based on what CAC said. I’m sure they aren’t awake at night worrying about the coin but right or wrong this coin is gaining in prominence."
Perhaps "notoriety" is a better word.
What exactly?
The only one who is going to retire SOON is me. It is way past my bedtime. I knew I should not have opened this discussion two hours ago.
Nevertheless, bringing up a court trial or blotching up the obverse & reverse is all you
little stone-throwers have to post?"
I've disagreed with Fred once or twice but the fact is when this coin reached the courtroom, any expert witness would simply walk the jury through the minting process from ingot to bank and then simply say, That coin was not made at any time HERE!"
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
It is simple flawed logic. If I accuse you of committing a crime, there is no burden on you to prove that you did not commit the crime. The assumption is you are innocent unless the State proves otherwise
Similarly, the burden lies in proving it is a Mint error, not in proving that it isn't PMD.
It was a simple misstatement. You are making an awful lot of his flipping reverse and obverse in his post on the board.
Your comment above does not directly address what I said: There is no hypothesis on how this feature on the coin was created outside of the mint.
My argument is that the right equipment exists at the mint to do this, PMD - maybe, maybe not.
That makes the PMD hypothesis one step behind the mint hypothesis. So the onus is on those advocating the PMD hypothesis to unequivocally prove how it was done. Otherwise Occam's would be that it is mint made.
This is why I would like to see a panel of advanced numismatic/mint scholars involved on what could be a newly found and important type of mint error, or alternatively an extremely interesting type of PMD. Which is it? We still don't know as no valid hypothesis has been proposed.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
In Person, you should be able to look at the coin and tell whether the incuse lettering was on the planchet before or after the dentils were struck in.
Before equals mint error. After equals PMD.
It doesn’t really matter whether it was done at the mint. Just the order of operations.
Disagree. You've assumed a lot of facts not in evidence.
You can imprint characters using something as simple as a vice at home. You don't need the power of Mint equipment to do it.
The Mint equipment itself, because of its sheer power, would be hard-pressed (pun intended) to create that localized imprint without damage somewhere else.
Occam's razor probably cuts the other way.
Personally, I'm not convinced of either with 100% certainty, but I do feel the burden of proof lies with the Mint error people to prove it is a Mint error. Proving the negative is far harder.
How? You can tell IF IF IF there is damage to the denticles. But it is a null test. If the rim lies above the denticles, how would you know whether the letters were there before or after?
Frankly, I don't see any way they could be there before. How would they have been preserved, undamaged, during the striking that created the rim?
Conflict of interest in numismatics ?
Maybe the originator of the thread was hyping up this item for the market. ( as an aside to Original Dan's assertions ).
I call spam.
Based on the OP's posts and the intriguing particulars of the coin, itself, I think your accusation is extremely unfair.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark if you haven't figured my sarcasm and humor out in all these years, I'd guess you likely never will. Kinda like the coin in question.
I guess not, but am glad you weren't serious.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Seriously, the coin is majorly intriguing. Anomalies such as these, in numismatics are captivating.
This place is liberating.
Reading this thread, I'm reminded of the frequent argument about how JA has too much power/influence on the coin market in determining whether a coin is truly special. It seems Fred also possesses the same for errors!
@TradesWithChops said: "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....He claimed 100% knowledge, and then in his explanation, he clearly mispoke in more than one way. You don't find this at all troubling, at all? Like, not even a little bit?"
Nope, not even a little bit.
"Well, for all of the people NOT initiated into the "I get paid lots of money for doing nothing" club -- it IS A LOT troubling."
Doing nothing? Perhaps you should post about something you are informed about.
"Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying we deserve the info. I understand the whole "we pay for opinion" bull shit. The point is simply that we would have been better off without his opining in such a detrimental way on this forum. Period.
You truly get it! This entire thread underlines the reason why the first coin authentication service DID NOT reveal the identity of any of our outside consultants who devoted their time and talent to keep the market free of fakes. BTW, I saw nothing detrimental coming FROM ANYONE sharing opinions in this thread.
No information: Business as usual.
Some information: Only if you are lucky and the "expert" decides to share something.
Clearly wrong information: Stuff happens.
Usually it is corrected over time. The final opinion on this coin is it is not a mint error. I happen to agree. Can I explain why? Unfortunately I cannot as the "back door" to the guys making our money (the final authority) has been closed to me for decades. I can see no way this could happen to the planchet or at the time the coin was struck.
I hope we don't all become as accommodating as some posters here the next time a "parking lot" coin is presented as a "mint error". By some of the logic, we apparently have to accept them!
A lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be made during a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process. Fact of the matter is that we failed. (At least, I didn't see a plausible explanation to cling to....and I really WANTED to).
I don't think that leads us down the path of, "Well, let's just assume it's a mint error".
(Let's just assume that the next scraped parking lot coin is an error? I hope not...)
And likewise, a lot of smart people in this thread spent a lot of time and energy trying to divine a way that this coin, reverse incuse lettering and all, could possibly be post-strike damage, that occurred after a normal, or even somewhat abnormal, minting process.
Additionally, I saw nothing in the posts that stated anyone needed to accept the coin as a mint error, or for that matter, a damaged coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This!
Another red herring in a sea of them. Please compare the quality of the appearance of the average "parking lot find" to that of the OP's Morgan. I find it hard to believe that a machine is not responsible for the lettering on the OP's coin. Beyond that, I don't know enough to have a theory on how or when it happened.
A machine does not necessarily imply a U.S. Mint press. You can transfer letters in a vice. I'm not saying that necessarily happened here. But it is not a red herring in the sense that we've had numerous "fake errors" posted here including sandwich coins and man-made clips.
People throw out the "vice job" a lot here. Let's see some legit sandwich coins that you think would fool all of us. I don't doubt they are possible, and they probably look pretty good, but I've seen zero examples that would convince me. On the other hand I've seen examples that are obviously vice jobs because details around the imprint were impacted.
Nowhere did I state that the machine was a US Mint press. Sure, you can transfer letters in a vise, or with a punch, or by other means. But I don't believe the result would look as clean as this. I also don't see sufficient motivation for someone to alter the coin as it has been after it left the mint. The amount of care required to produce that quality of result probably wouldn't justify any increased value as an "error" coin. IMHO, of course.
That's the most likely cause, in my opinion.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Agree!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
>
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
What happened to the REST OF the offset brocage on the planchet? Are you thinking that every bit of it was struck out except for these few letters on the rim?
Even if the coin that caused the brocage was tilted as some think - something should show on the coin to indicate that is the case.
Dunno, just think this is most likely, considering everything we know. There may very well be traces of other evidence if actual coin is examined by an ex-pert using stereo microscopy 😉
It seems very Un-likely that someone made the effort to create this effect intentionally and then just sold it without mention.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I agree with that. Not sure someone would make an MS-66 quality coin the target for this type of alteration, either.
I think we have 3 possibilities for how PCGS could handle the coin:
1) Mint Error
2) Unexplained, possibly unexplainable, anomaly, but able to straight grade it.
3) Damaged coin, no straight grade.
I like #2, if for the simple reason that #1 and #3 almost require that you have high confidence concerning how it occurred. I don't think that confidence exists...in either case.
IMO, the coin was not made on purpose. Additionally, I have posted before that this type of anomaly was always ignored in the past (except when made by an encasement). However, times have changed and this particular characteristic is possibly too pronounced to be ignored. The only "problem" I see with this coin is the sheared off rim/edge opposite the letters. I have NEVER seen this on any of the coins I've examined in the past with incuse letters on the rim.