Did PCGS make a mistake attributing this coin?

bidask

According to the PCGS Certification Database, the requested certification number is defined as the following:

PCGS # 508579
Date, mintmark 1894
Denomination (Peso)
Variety KM-224 C/S on 1893 Sol
Region Guatemala
Grade MS65
Pedigree C/M-UNC Detail
Security Protected by NFC anti-counterfeiting technology
Holder Type PCGS Gold Shield
Population 1
Pop Higher

MasonG

What mistake do you think you see?

silverpop

the year on the coin is 1893, not 1894

TwoKopeiki

It's an 1894 Peso struck on an 1893 Sol. That's a beautiful example of this issue!

jgenn

The 1894 date is clearly visible on the counterstamp. Generally the TPG's make the primary distinction on the coin based on the most recently declared official status -- thus this is a peso of Guatemala and no longer a sol of Peru and the date of the counterstamp has precedence over the date on the host.

coinkat

No... see explanation above

Terrific coin and another well done Trueview image

bidask

@jgenn said:
The 1894 date is clearly visible on the counterstamp. Generally the TPG's make the primary distinction on the coin based on the most recently declared official status -- thus this is a peso of Guatemala and no longer a sol of Peru and the date of the counterstamp has precedence over the date on the host.

"Grade MS65
Pedigree C/M-UNC Detail"

JGenn. Coinkat or TwoKopeiki ....I see from the above that PCGS graded the coin 65 ...but what does
C/M-UNC Detail" ...mean?

JesseKraft

@TwoKopeiki said:
It's an 1894 Peso struck on an 1893 Sol. That's a beautiful example of this issue!

It's actually an 1894 1/2 real struck on an 1893 sol, so yes, there is an error.
The Guatemalan peso is the same size as the sol, so would have completely covered the host coin.

coinkat

The 1894 1/2 real was used and overstruck on several crown size coins from the region. The Sol host coin is available with this over strike on several different dates that extend back into the 1860s. I do not see the use of the 1/2 real as an error but a way of accepting coinage from other countries within the region for use within Guatemala.

As for c/m unc details, I really doubt that matters as that likely applies solely to the host coin and not the Guatemalan 1894 over strike which received the MS65 grade. I hope this short explanation makes sense.

MasonG

@JesseKraft said:
It's actually an 1894 1/2 real struck on an 1893 sol, so yes, there is an error.

A half real die was used, but not to mint a half real coin. It's unlikely a half real denominated coin would be created which contains the amount of silver of an eight real (or peso) coin.

TwoKopeiki

@MasonG said:

@JesseKraft said:
It's actually an 1894 1/2 real struck on an 1893 sol, so yes, there is an error.

A half real die was used, but not to mint a half real coin. It's unlikely a half real denominated coin would be created which contains the amount of silver of an eight real (or peso) coin.

As Mason said, while it was a 1/2R die, the denomination was a Peso.

JesseKraft

Clearly I failed to whip out my Krause.

LochNESS

@JesseKraft said:
Clearly I failed to whip out my Krause.

Oooh, you left the door wide open on that one buddy.

Rexford

@bidask said:

@jgenn said:
The 1894 date is clearly visible on the counterstamp. Generally the TPG's make the primary distinction on the coin based on the most recently declared official status -- thus this is a peso of Guatemala and no longer a sol of Peru and the date of the counterstamp has precedence over the date on the host.

"Grade MS65
Pedigree C/M-UNC Detail"

JGenn. Coinkat or TwoKopeiki ....I see from the above that PCGS graded the coin 65 ...but what does
C/M-UNC Detail" ...mean?

This means that the host coin is graded MS65 and the countermark is graded Uncirculated. Since the countermarks can differ from the host coins in condition, it is helpful to have separate grades for the two. A more general “Uncirculated” grade is given to the countermark rather than a precise numerical grade, which would be difficult to apply to many countermarks; the “Details” does not imply that there is an issue such as cleaning or damage, but simply that it is a general grade.

jgenn

@bidask said:

@jgenn said:
The 1894 date is clearly visible on the counterstamp. Generally the TPG's make the primary distinction on the coin based on the most recently declared official status -- thus this is a peso of Guatemala and no longer a sol of Peru and the date of the counterstamp has precedence over the date on the host.

"Grade MS65
Pedigree C/M-UNC Detail"

JGenn. Coinkat or TwoKopeiki ....I see from the above that PCGS graded the coin 65 ...but what does
C/M-UNC Detail" ...mean?

All I can surmise it that there might be hairlines on the C/M area but not the rest of the host? That's hard to reconcile with the overall grade of 65. It's probably the best example of this C/M on this host so I wouldn't worry about it.

MasonG

The quality of countermarks is all over the map. Trying to grade them the way you grade struck coins would seem to be an exercise in futility.

TwoKopeiki

@jgenn said:

@bidask said:

@jgenn said:
The 1894 date is clearly visible on the counterstamp. Generally the TPG's make the primary distinction on the coin based on the most recently declared official status -- thus this is a peso of Guatemala and no longer a sol of Peru and the date of the counterstamp has precedence over the date on the host.

"Grade MS65
Pedigree C/M-UNC Detail"

JGenn. Coinkat or TwoKopeiki ....I see from the above that PCGS graded the coin 65 ...but what does
C/M-UNC Detail" ...mean?

All I can surmise it that there might be hairlines on the C/M area but not the rest of the host? That's hard to reconcile with the overall grade of 65. It's probably the best example of this C/M on this host so I wouldn't worry about it.

PCGS doesn't assign a specific grade to counterstamps, just a details description. Doesnt mean there's something wrong with the counterstamp.

Bob13

Very nice coin and thank you for the info.

trueblood

I have never heard of grading in this manner, very interesting. Nice coin and c/m for sure.

Namvet69

Makes sense to me and very interesting to boot! Peace Roy