@1northcoin said:
Thanks so much for reporting back. Could you share any more relating to its provenance given that it came from Europe? The “repaired” suggestion seems less likely if this was a coin sequestered in some foreign bank. As you noted the graders completely missed the mark on the red herring relating to die attribution so that adds uncertainty as to the rest,
(Of course some here had made the same erroneous assumptions until yosclimber’s post referencing the work of John Dannreuther as to how proofs were made prior to 1858.
Roger Burdette’s research described in my postings added confirmation with regard to the 1850 Double Eagle as a case in point. As chronicled , the 1850 Double Eagle Proof in a Paris Museum was made some six months after the 1850 Double Eagle First Strikes,)
It has been very informative to read some of the various other responses.
It would be of at least passing interest to learn whether the graders had access to this thread and if so at what point in the postings they made their determination,
I will say that although I didn't comment on the thread here, I enjoyed the saga and the story. Takes stones to admit you were wrong and not disappear, so props to you for that.
It has been very informative to read some of the various other responses.
It would be of at least passing interest to learn whether the graders had access to this thread and if so at what point in the postings they made their determination,
Id gladly forego quarterly specials to hear a detailed breakdown of their analysis by the grading team.
Seriously, thank you for sharing the story, the coin as well as the images. Unfortunately, the outcome is disappointing at different levels. I hope you will continue to share your numismatic adventures.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I will add however, that unlike some member responses to the resolution of this grading event, I do not believe PCGS dodged, punted or otherwise ducked the question of whether or not the coin is a proof or a business strike. They came out and definitively stated "Genuine-AU Details (Repaired)". Since AU is a grade given to business strike coinage, it seems to me that PCGS is calling this a business strike.
The secondary answer you received was sloppy, in my opinion, when you pressed PCGS for more details and received "Per grading experts, it is not a “Proof” coin. Variety O-107a Small 0 not recognized on Proofs." While that may be true (at this time) it would not preclude PCGS from calling your coin a proof if said grading experts were convinced there was a proof example (your coin) in their hands. It also seems to me that you received this response outside of the normal grading channel that other folks would have access to, which makes it easier to believe that poor communication on the part of PCGS could be expected or received. This might be viewed as "protocol drift" and this idea is quite common in science. It states that when protocols are followed as per usual (in this case coin received, coin evaluated, coin graded, coin encapsulated, coin returned) that the data is much more hearty and robust and the communication more reliable. However, when protocol drift occurs (secondary communication by submitting party, new explanation given) that the subsequent data or ideas are far more likely to be faulty.
In other words, for this coin I would take the PCGS certification data as the primary descriptor of the coin and ignore the secondary fluff.
Lastly, PCGS typically (always?) lists only one problem on a coin insert and they may go with what they might consider the most severe problem. With this coin they might view any possible historical repair as more invasive than PVC damage, polishing or whatnot.
A great thread and I enjoyed every bit of it. Notes have been taken .
Thank you to the OP for sharing up along with all the great input from the forum 👍🇺🇸
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
A very interesting thread. Thanks to the OP for posting it.
The debate in this thread over whether the OP's coin is or is not a Proof (and the concept that the "Opinion" of our Host is, or should be, the "Final Word" on this matter) is very interesting.
So interesting that I think it would be a good place for a psychologist to use as a starting point in evaluating participants (collectors, dealers, investors, researchers, etc.) in the Hobby Of Kings.
Comments
It has been very informative to read some of the various other responses.
It would be of at least passing interest to learn whether the graders had access to this thread and if so at what point in the postings they made their determination,
I will say that although I didn't comment on the thread here, I enjoyed the saga and the story. Takes stones to admit you were wrong and not disappear, so props to you for that.
Successful transactions with: wondercoin, Tetromibi, PerryHall, PlatinumDuck, JohnMaben/Pegasus Coin & Jewelry, CoinFlip, and coinlieutenant.
Thanks for your commentary and professionalism throughout this thread. There will be many more whales to hunt!
Bummer, I was rooting for you. it doesn’t seem like definitive reasoning to me either.
Thanks for following up and for keeping it classy when others couldn’t
Latin American Collection
@1northcoin said:
Id gladly forego quarterly specials to hear a detailed breakdown of their analysis by the grading team.
Seems that there was a punt on first down here...
Seriously, thank you for sharing the story, the coin as well as the images. Unfortunately, the outcome is disappointing at different levels. I hope you will continue to share your numismatic adventures.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Thank you for the update.
I will add however, that unlike some member responses to the resolution of this grading event, I do not believe PCGS dodged, punted or otherwise ducked the question of whether or not the coin is a proof or a business strike. They came out and definitively stated "Genuine-AU Details (Repaired)". Since AU is a grade given to business strike coinage, it seems to me that PCGS is calling this a business strike.
The secondary answer you received was sloppy, in my opinion, when you pressed PCGS for more details and received "Per grading experts, it is not a “Proof” coin. Variety O-107a Small 0 not recognized on Proofs." While that may be true (at this time) it would not preclude PCGS from calling your coin a proof if said grading experts were convinced there was a proof example (your coin) in their hands. It also seems to me that you received this response outside of the normal grading channel that other folks would have access to, which makes it easier to believe that poor communication on the part of PCGS could be expected or received. This might be viewed as "protocol drift" and this idea is quite common in science. It states that when protocols are followed as per usual (in this case coin received, coin evaluated, coin graded, coin encapsulated, coin returned) that the data is much more hearty and robust and the communication more reliable. However, when protocol drift occurs (secondary communication by submitting party, new explanation given) that the subsequent data or ideas are far more likely to be faulty.
In other words, for this coin I would take the PCGS certification data as the primary descriptor of the coin and ignore the secondary fluff.
Lastly, PCGS typically (always?) lists only one problem on a coin insert and they may go with what they might consider the most severe problem. With this coin they might view any possible historical repair as more invasive than PVC damage, polishing or whatnot.
Thank you again for the update.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
A great thread and I enjoyed every bit of it. Notes have been taken .
Thank you to the OP for sharing up along with all the great input from the forum 👍🇺🇸
Usually the worst problem is noted, in the event there are more than one issue.
In this case, perhaps clash marks were smoothed, and all the fields polished, then coin was toned, then later it was conserved and submitted.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
An interesting thread, very informative. Thanks for posting and the followup, even though results were not what you had hoped for.
A very interesting thread. Thanks to the OP for posting it.
The debate in this thread over whether the OP's coin is or is not a Proof (and the concept that the "Opinion" of our Host is, or should be, the "Final Word" on this matter) is very interesting.
So interesting that I think it would be a good place for a psychologist to use as a starting point in evaluating participants (collectors, dealers, investors, researchers, etc.) in the Hobby Of Kings.
@Rexford
Just curious... How was the submission presented to our host?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
a ttt just in case he has/wants to share any more info.