Not good enough to submit
rhedden
Posts: 6,525 ✭✭✭✭✭
A few years ago, I bought a rare date, 19th century coin that graded F15 or so for details. It was purchased from a website, raw.
While it had completely original surfaces, someone tooled [the rock below] Ms. Liberty's foot, intentionally scratching five tiny, parallel digs into the [rock edge]. (Sorry- small edit for accuracy.) They were tiny, but deep, and rotating it under a light showed some flash from the shiny, exposed metal. I should have returned the coin right then and there, but as usual, I was so busy with work that I decided to eat my mistake. Needless to say, I never sent it to PCGS.
I sold the coin with full disclosure two years later at a $200 loss through a dealer friend. A few weeks later, it appeared for sale in a PCGS F15 holder - with a CAC green bean. Since then, it's appeared for sale two more times, went into one of those "PCGS/CAC coins only" Registry sets, and appeared in an auction, where the photos just barely showed those five little cuts - and it didn't sell. Current asking price is roughly double what I sold it for.
What am I implying with this post? Nothing, really. I just wanted to share my experience because it's still bothering me. It didn't get into a PCGS holder or get a green bean because of politics. The submitter doesn't have any special powers that warrant gift grades or free beans. I'm sure the PCGS graders saw it - they just didn't think it warranted a Details grade. I'm sure CAC saw it too - they thought it wasn't enough to withhold the sticker. I guess it's on me for not submitting it, right?
Anyway, feel free to top this one with a story that makes me feel better.
Comments
I would love to see a photo of it!
peacockcoins
I'd love to show it, but posting a picture of a problem coin in a PCGS/CAC holder would open a can of worms that nobody would be able to close.
Anyway, the point is that a defect that was a big deal to me was not a big deal to PCGS and CAC. I need to submit more, I guess.
They probably just missed it. Any sort of intentional tooling is a no-go for CAC I’d bet.
Yeah they miss stuff. And it makes me angry as well but what can you do?
I bought an MS65 1904 Morgan with a dig where the wing meets the breast. Very unusual area to notice something like that. I missed it and so did PCGS obviously.
So I'm stuck with it...
I was following an MS 65+ CAC toned Morgan several years ago but thought the price was a little too high. It sold and I forgot about it. Later I saw it in a 67+ CAC holder and then again in a 68 holder (no CAC). Looks like the price wasn't that high when it was a 65+.
That is a heck of a jump!!
I've had a few of those missed opportunities myself. Definitely just a part of coins
Thought for sure a few nicely toned coins I had recently were AU instead of mint state so sold them as such. They ended up in 66 holders. In retrospect I should have just submitted them myself, don't really know why I didn't as the wear wasn't too significant.
If it has a chance, you might as well give it a try.
I have submitted some of my own that looked like they had a chance but most came back the same grade. I had one that was a win (65 to 66 Morgan).
While we're on the subject of "a heck of a jump!", please check out my 1866 business strike quarter. This rare issue is characterized by heavy die polish lines in the fields, and one of the worst reverse strikes in the series. NCS didn't know that back in 2004 when the first photo was taken, but PCGS and CAC understand.
PCGS MS64 CAC
Well I'm sorry that I do not have a story to cheer you up with; on the other hand you can take solace that your story makes my bad story seem good.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
@rhedden.... That is quite the story... would love to see pictures of the coin and area in question. Could you please PM some pictures to me?? Thanks, Cheers, RickO
Typical, have had it happen to me on several occasions. Wont grade for me, but for a major player, it manages to get done.