Has it been confirmed that they pulled the cert as they felt it needed to be reviewed again? I'm sure you must have called them by now. Keep us posted, we're rooting for ya here.
I don't see the point in spending more $$$ on a crossover.
I simply do not know enough about the Proof $10 Indians to offer any thoughts... well... except one. Is there a chance that any proof dies were used in the production of business strikes?
Based solely on the images, there is something about the look of the Eagle on your coin that would create uncertainty in my mind.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I truly appreciate everyone’s support! @DeplorableDan
I had to work my regular job today and also prep for the WCC show tomorrow in Portland Oregon…which i will be attending…a 5 to 6 hour drive…
I will email NGC tomorrow (For clarity) i know it is Veterans day and imagine i won’t get a response until Monday…
I will update y’all as soon as i hear something from them..
And to all the Veterans out there…Thank you for your service!
David Hall:
The mintage for this issue is listed as 204, but like the mintage figures for all 1910 gold issues, this figure is suspect. Based on graded populations and auction appearances, the 1910 is certainly rarer than the 1908, and seems to be rarer than several other issues with much lower mintages. Either half of the mintage was melted at the Mint or the reported figure was simply incorrect. Somewhere between 50 and 75 examples are known today and the original number released by the Mint was probably half the 204 reported figure.https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1910-10/8892
I had the opportunity to look at this coin over the weekend at the Portland Coin Show. To me it looks absolutely like a proof. If it's not, it's the sharpest looking Business Strike I have ever seen. The strike is far superior than any of the 1910 Business Strike shown on PCGS coin facts.
I'm very interested in what NGC has to say about it as well.
I saw the coin in question in person over the weekend as well. Side by side to another $10 Indian business strike and there was no question. The strike is incredible and the rims are super sharp. What a great find in the wild.
Some die polish lines near *1 would suggest proof, if that be diagnostic (checking CF images for business strikes & proofs). Someone could look it up in Dannreuther.
@Aegis3 said:
Some die polish lines near *1 would suggest proof, if that be diagnostic (checking CF images for business strikes & proofs). Someone could look it up in Dannreuther.
. @2windy2fish
i haven't seen anyone post this, that i saw but unfortunately business strike and proof coinage can share diagnostics and therefore dies so those aren't always definitive for differentiation between them.
so anyone reading, tread lightly and don't rely on just a few diagnostic marks shared with known proof coinage dictating whether or not you spend money on a coin that falls into that category. the mint used and reused and repolished and repaired and rehubbed etc., so this area in numismatics can get a bit hairy. (this thread being a case-in-point)
Hate to disagree with the TPG- and certainly no offense to OP-but this coin still looks like a business strike to me. Perhaps done with recycled proof dies. It just doesn't have the look of any proof $10 Indian we've owned imo. Perhaps it's the photos...?
@291fifth said:
I have a feeling that this isn't going to end well.
As long as it ends properly.
If it’s not a Proof, it shouldn’t be in a first world TPG holder labeled as such. If it is, then good for the coin, and great for the OP.
It’s also good to know that apparently NGC is doing their due diligence. Of course, I’m sure they don’t want to be buying it back for big $, somewhere down the road, if they’re wrong….
@dollarfan said:
Wouldn't they already be at the "buy it back" stage
No, not when the submitter still has the coin and there’s not another party who’s suffered a loss as a result of the error. In other words, I don’t think a submitter is entitled to profit unjustly, due to a mistake on a coin he submits.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@telephoto1 said:
Hate to disagree with the TPG- and certainly no offense to OP-but this coin still looks like a business strike to me. Perhaps done with recycled proof dies. It just doesn't have the look of any proof $10 Indian we've owned imo. Perhaps it's the photos...?
@dollarfan said:
Wouldn't they already be at the "buy it back" stage
No, not when the submitter still has the coin and there’s not another party who’s suffered a loss as a result of the error. In other words, I don’t think a submitter is entitled to profit unjustly, due to a mistake on a coin he submits.
While this is true, and I agree with Mr. Feld, the submitter has no legal obligation to return the coin. It is similar to how the grading service has no legal obligation to pay for the coin. The NGC contract states:
"Customer agrees to return to a Company, at the Company’s expense, any collectible bearing a clerical error made by the Company. A Company will, at its expense, correct the clerical error and return the corrected collectible to Customer. Customer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Releasees harmless from and against all claims, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) relating to or arising directly or indirectly from Customer’s failure to comply with this Section 18."
The section clearly states "clerical error." NGC defines a clerical error as "A clerical or mechanical error occurs when a Coin is encapsulated with a label that bears a grade and/or description that clearly does not correspond with the Coin." Furthermore, NGC states "NGC certification labels with incorrect dates, mintmarks, denominations or Coin types (all of which should be obvious to someone who performs an inspection of the Coin and label) are considered clerical or mechanical errors."
This coin therefore is not a clerical error (many experts can't even tell whether or not the coin is a proof, and I doubt it is "obvious to someone who performs an inspection." By this logic, the submitter has no obligation to return the coin, as it is not a clerical error and he/she didn't agree to return the coin unless it was such an error.
However, a moral obligation is a different story. Morally, if the TPG decides to overrule the label, they should pay. Will they? I don't know and I don't think there's any evidence to support they will. The reason I posted this is to show that the submitter can make the same choice NGC will have to make - will I take the moral factor into account?
@dollarfan said:
Wouldn't they already be at the "buy it back" stage
No, not when the submitter still has the coin and there’s not another party who’s suffered a loss as a result of the error. In other words, I don’t think a submitter is entitled to profit unjustly, due to a mistake on a coin he submits.
While this is true, and I agree with Mr. Feld, the submitter has no legal obligation to return the coin. It is similar to how the grading service has no legal obligation to pay for the coin. The NGC contract states:
"Customer agrees to return to a Company, at the Company’s expense, any collectible bearing a clerical error made by the Company. A Company will, at its expense, correct the clerical error and return the corrected collectible to Customer. Customer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Releasees harmless from and against all claims, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) relating to or arising directly or indirectly from Customer’s failure to comply with this Section 18."
The section clearly states "clerical error." NGC defines a clerical error as "A clerical or mechanical error occurs when a Coin is encapsulated with a label that bears a grade and/or description that clearly does not correspond with the Coin." Furthermore, NGC states "NGC certification labels with incorrect dates, mintmarks, denominations or Coin types (all of which should be obvious to someone who performs an inspection of the Coin and label) are considered clerical or mechanical errors."
This coin therefore is not a clerical error (many experts can't even tell whether or not the coin is a proof, and I doubt it is "obvious to someone who performs an inspection." By this logic, the submitter has no obligation to return the coin, as it is not a clerical error and he/she didn't agree to return the coin unless it was such an error.
However, a moral obligation is a different story. Morally, if the TPG decides to overrule the label, they should pay. Will they? I don't know and I don't think there's any evidence to support they will. The reason I posted this is to show that the submitter can make the same choice NGC will have to make - will I take the moral factor into account?
Based on how the coin looks in the images, I wouldn’t rule out a “clerical error”. That said, what appears to be a clerical to one person, might not to another. What is the standard of knowledge being applied with respect to “obvious to someone who performs an inspection”?
Why and what amount do you think a TPG should pay if they determine they have made an error in accidentally assigning an incorrect designation, such as PF instead MS?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
However a grading service cannot hide underneath the "mechanical error" legal argument in all cases where it makes mistakes, especially when they are not "mechanical" mistakes. If they call a counterfeit, good or genuine or grade a coin a lot higher than it actually is, or do their due diligence in quality control then they should be liable.
@logger7 said:
However a grading service cannot hide underneath the "mechanical error" legal argument in all cases where it makes mistakes, especially when they are not "mechanical" mistakes. If they call good or genuine a counterfeit, or grade a coin a lot higher than it actually is, do their due diligence in quality control and send it back then they should be liable.
There shouldn't be any liability in the absence of harm. And catching an error which prevents a submitter from profiting from that error, shouldn't constitute harm.
One time, many years ago at a show, I saw a group of several common date PCGS Walking Liberty Half Dollars that had been graded MS65 and submitted for re-holdering (not re-grading). Yet somehow, each one ended up being re-graded MS68.
PCGS subsequently re-holdered them as MS65 - no doubt to the dismay of the submitter. Do you think there should have been any liability for that error?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@logger7 said:
However a grading service cannot hide underneath the "mechanical error" legal argument in all cases where it makes mistakes, especially when they are not "mechanical" mistakes. If they call good or genuine a counterfeit, or grade a coin a lot higher than it actually is, do their due diligence in quality control and send it back then they should be liable.
There shouldn't be any liability in the absence of harm. And catching an error which prevents a submitter from profiting from that error, shouldn't constitute harm.
One time, many years ago at a show, I saw a group of several common date PCGS Walking Liberty Half Dollars that had been graded MS65 and submitted for re-holdering (not re-grading). Yet somehow, each one ended up being re-graded MS68.
PCGS subsequently re-holdered them as MS65 - no doubt to the dismay of the submitter. DO you think there should have been any liability for that error?
@logger7 said:
However a grading service cannot hide underneath the "mechanical error" legal argument in all cases where it makes mistakes, especially when they are not "mechanical" mistakes. If they call good or genuine a counterfeit, or grade a coin a lot higher than it actually is, do their due diligence in quality control and send it back then they should be liable.
There shouldn't be any liability in the absence of harm. And catching an error which prevents a submitter from profiting from that error, shouldn't constitute harm.
One time, many years ago at a show, I saw a group of several common date PCGS Walking Liberty Half Dollars that had been graded MS65 and submitted for re-holdering (not re-grading). Yet somehow, each one ended up being re-graded MS68.
PCGS subsequently re-holdered them as MS65 - no doubt to the dismay of the submitter. DO you think there should have been any liability for that error?
I'd regard that example as an exception, grading services cannot be liable for all such mistakes that are clearly due to someone failing to do their job. If a meat grader calls a common Chuck cut Filet Mignon is that due to common human error? It should be clear that huge errors should have some consequences. In my state failures for products to ring up accurately results in the scan error making the sale free. There is allowance for mistakes in high production jobs.
For all we know, NGC only flagged this coin because of the discussion in this thread (it wouldn’t be surprising that NGC staff would frequent this forum, nor would I be surprised if someone here brought it to their attention). That creates an uncomfortable situation—or at minimum, the appearance of one—where a coin that was graded properly (but not necessarily accurately) is only coming under further review because of the doubts and discussion on this thread. I’m very curious to hear from OP about what specifically NGC has communicated about the situation.
I contacted NGC after the Portland show about the certification status. They requested i send the coin back for review, i sent the coin Monday…
I could not in good conscience sell the coin with the certification in question.
@2windy2fish said:
I contacted NGC after the Portland show about the certification status. They requested i send the coin back for review, i sent the coin Monday…
I could not in good conscience sell the coin with the certification in question.
Seems to me like this is not a “clerical or mechanical error” situation, given they are asking to review it in-hand again.
I do think this thread turned in to an exercise in psychology. I know we're all "friends" here and everyone likes a cherry pick, but there were two TPG opinions rendered and everyone just assumed that the NGC opinion, which favored a friend, must have been the correct one.
It still doesn't look like a proof to me from the photos. I always reserve a certain amount of doubt on making definitive determinations based on photos. However, even without the photos, we have PCGS (our FAVORITE and the "gold standard" of grading - no pun intended) saying MS and NGC saying Proof (maybe). So, at best, I think we could be saying that the truth is uncertain.
Even the illustrious @MFeld admitted error in his initial assessment based on the 2nd opinion.
If I had to live my life over, I think I'd go into psychology. It's far more interesting than chemistry.
If I had to live my life over, I think I'd go into psychology. It's far more interesting than chemistry.
Interesting, but ultimately, only perplexing.
Strange set of circumstances with this coin. I get that TPGs make mistakes (all of them), but the rate of coins going out the door with "mechanical errors" on the labels is pretty alarming IMO.
Chemistry is a science.
Psychology and coin grading (much to the chagrin of passionate “friends”) are not.
And that is what makes these threads interesting and simply entertaining.
The absolute subjective (often humorous and insightful) experience of these two non-sciences..
@dollarfan said:
Wouldn't they already be at the "buy it back" stage
No, not when the submitter still has the coin and there’s not another party who’s suffered a loss as a result of the error. In other words, I don’t think a submitter is entitled to profit unjustly, due to a mistake on a coin he submits.
While this is true, and I agree with Mr. Feld, the submitter has no legal obligation to return the coin. It is similar to how the grading service has no legal obligation to pay for the coin. The NGC contract states:
"Customer agrees to return to a Company, at the Company’s expense, any collectible bearing a clerical error made by the Company. A Company will, at its expense, correct the clerical error and return the corrected collectible to Customer. Customer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Releasees harmless from and against all claims, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) relating to or arising directly or indirectly from Customer’s failure to comply with this Section 18."
The section clearly states "clerical error." NGC defines a clerical error as "A clerical or mechanical error occurs when a Coin is encapsulated with a label that bears a grade and/or description that clearly does not correspond with the Coin." Furthermore, NGC states "NGC certification labels with incorrect dates, mintmarks, denominations or Coin types (all of which should be obvious to someone who performs an inspection of the Coin and label) are considered clerical or mechanical errors."
This coin therefore is not a clerical error (many experts can't even tell whether or not the coin is a proof, and I doubt it is "obvious to someone who performs an inspection." By this logic, the submitter has no obligation to return the coin, as it is not a clerical error and he/she didn't agree to return the coin unless it was such an error.
However, a moral obligation is a different story. Morally, if the TPG decides to overrule the label, they should pay. Will they? I don't know and I don't think there's any evidence to support they will. The reason I posted this is to show that the submitter can make the same choice NGC will have to make - will I take the moral factor into account?
Based on how the coin looks in the images, I wouldn’t rule out a “clerical error”. That said, what appears to be a clerical to one person, might not to another. What is the standard of knowledge being applied with respect to “obvious to someone who performs an inspection”?
Why and what amount do you think a TPG should pay if they determine they have made an error in accidentally assigning an incorrect designation, such as PF instead MS?
I think this is a good example of a coin that should really almost never qualify for the "clerical error." Many members here viewed the coin in hand and stated they thought it was a proof, no doubt. I think that standard of knowledge is high enough to rule out the clerical error. The difference between a satin proof and a business strike is very difficult to notice, so coins like these should really never be called "clerical errors" in my opinion. It becomes too much of a shield for the TPG to hide behind and not honor their guarantee. I also believe the TPG should pay the full amount of their incorrect grade. Here's why:
Let's pose a hypothetical. Let's say @2windy2fish wasn't a moral person (props to you for sending it back ) and decides to not send it back. He/she sells the coin. Everything would be done legally here. Does NGC have the right to claim clerical error even if the buyer saw no reason to believe the coin was a business strike like a few members here who saw the coin in hand? I don't think so, and I think they would pay the full amount.
@MilesWaits said:
Chemistry is a science.
Psychology and coin grading (much to the chagrin of passionate “friends”) are not.
And that is what makes these threads interesting and simply entertaining.
The absolute subjective (often humorous and insightful) experience of these two non-sciences..
I agree with that. However, don't rule out the subjectivity of science.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
For all we know, NGC only flagged this coin because of the discussion in this thread (it wouldn’t be surprising that NGC staff would frequent this forum, nor would I be surprised if someone here brought it to their attention). That creates an uncomfortable situation—or at minimum, the appearance of one—where a coin that was graded properly (but not necessarily accurately) is only coming under further review because of the doubts and discussion on this thread. I’m very curious to hear from OP about what specifically NGC has communicated about the situation.
Someone here reported it. They don't go on all the coin forums and de-certify coins quickly after they are posted unless some "trusted" expert contacts them. If the result turns out to be the same with NGC's flagging of the coin then they should pay for the costs of that.
Everyone that has offered their thoughts have based those thoughts on the images provided. Not to be more difficult than usual, I will go full circle back to what I previously wrote in that we could have proof dies used to strike business coins intended for commerce.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I got the impression the cert was deactivated at some point in this thread, no? If so, then the fact that it's active again would indicate that they have reviewed and recertified the coin most likely?
I got the impression the cert was deactivated at some point in this thread, no? If so, then the fact that it's active again would indicate that they have reviewed and recertified the coin most likely?
I had thought the same. So I’m hopeful that the current view I posted from the cert verification page indicates a positive outcome.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
@2windy2fish
Has it been confirmed that they pulled the cert as they felt it needed to be reviewed again? I'm sure you must have called them by now. Keep us posted, we're rooting for ya here.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Fingers crossed
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
I don't see the point in spending more $$$ on a crossover.
I simply do not know enough about the Proof $10 Indians to offer any thoughts... well... except one. Is there a chance that any proof dies were used in the production of business strikes?
Based solely on the images, there is something about the look of the Eagle on your coin that would create uncertainty in my mind.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Interesting thread, I would want further verification if I was paying proof money on this one. Especially given the circumstances here...
My YouTube Channel
I truly appreciate everyone’s support! @DeplorableDan
I had to work my regular job today and also prep for the WCC show tomorrow in Portland Oregon…which i will be attending…a 5 to 6 hour drive…
I will email NGC tomorrow (For clarity) i know it is Veterans day and imagine i won’t get a response until Monday…
I will update y’all as soon as i hear something from them..
And to all the Veterans out there…Thank you for your service!
Good luck in getting to the bottom of this. I looked over many of the dates of proof $10 Indians and most were very high grade. There were some non-matte proofs that were as low as Pr62, and the 1910 was the most populous date for proofs (204). NGC only has 28 certified on record with two at 62: https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/united-states/gold-eagles/indian-head-10-1907-1933/18892/1910-10-pf/
PCGS' article and commentary:
David Hall:
The mintage for this issue is listed as 204, but like the mintage figures for all 1910 gold issues, this figure is suspect. Based on graded populations and auction appearances, the 1910 is certainly rarer than the 1908, and seems to be rarer than several other issues with much lower mintages. Either half of the mintage was melted at the Mint or the reported figure was simply incorrect. Somewhere between 50 and 75 examples are known today and the original number released by the Mint was probably half the 204 reported figure.https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1910-10/8892
Has there been any update to the story? This is unusual for NGC to do.
I had the opportunity to look at this coin over the weekend at the Portland Coin Show. To me it looks absolutely like a proof. If it's not, it's the sharpest looking Business Strike I have ever seen. The strike is far superior than any of the 1910 Business Strike shown on PCGS coin facts.
I'm very interested in what NGC has to say about it as well.
I saw the coin in question in person over the weekend as well. Side by side to another $10 Indian business strike and there was no question. The strike is incredible and the rims are super sharp. What a great find in the wild.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
No update yet, emailed NGC over the weekend, Stay tuned!
Some die polish lines near *1 would suggest proof, if that be diagnostic (checking CF images for business strikes & proofs). Someone could look it up in Dannreuther.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
This is stressing me out. Though I am pleased to learn that a couple of people got a look at it this weekend and believe it’s a proof.
.
@2windy2fish
i haven't seen anyone post this, that i saw but unfortunately business strike and proof coinage can share diagnostics and therefore dies so those aren't always definitive for differentiation between them.
so anyone reading, tread lightly and don't rely on just a few diagnostic marks shared with known proof coinage dictating whether or not you spend money on a coin that falls into that category. the mint used and reused and repolished and repaired and rehubbed etc., so this area in numismatics can get a bit hairy. (this thread being a case-in-point)
@2windy2fish
Nothing yet?
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
Hate to disagree with the TPG- and certainly no offense to OP-but this coin still looks like a business strike to me. Perhaps done with recycled proof dies. It just doesn't have the look of any proof $10 Indian we've owned imo. Perhaps it's the photos...?
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
?
Has there been any update yet, have you called NGC?
I have been in contact with NGC, i will update the post with a complete story when we get there!
Thank you all for your patience!
I have a feeling that this isn't going to end well.
As long as it ends properly.
If it’s not a Proof, it shouldn’t be in a first world TPG holder labeled as such. If it is, then good for the coin, and great for the OP.
It’s also good to know that apparently NGC is doing their due diligence. Of course, I’m sure they don’t want to be buying it back for big $, somewhere down the road, if they’re wrong….
That is sad.
Better luck next time!
Type collector, mainly into Seated. -formerly Ownerofawheatiehorde. Good BST transactions with: mirabela, OKCC, MICHAELDIXON, Gerard
Wouldn't they already be at the "buy it back" stage
Why?
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
No, not when the submitter still has the coin and there’s not another party who’s suffered a loss as a result of the error. In other words, I don’t think a submitter is entitled to profit unjustly, due to a mistake on a coin he submits.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Going by the comparisons photos, the rims don't look squared enough. Hopefully it's just the images.
Agree. But photos are tricky sometimes.
Persistence paid off. I would send it to CAC first, before the crossover. If JA likes it, then cross it. If not, leave it alone.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
While this is true, and I agree with Mr. Feld, the submitter has no legal obligation to return the coin. It is similar to how the grading service has no legal obligation to pay for the coin. The NGC contract states:
"Customer agrees to return to a Company, at the Company’s expense, any collectible bearing a clerical error made by the Company. A Company will, at its expense, correct the clerical error and return the corrected collectible to Customer. Customer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Releasees harmless from and against all claims, liabilities and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) relating to or arising directly or indirectly from Customer’s failure to comply with this Section 18."
The section clearly states "clerical error." NGC defines a clerical error as "A clerical or mechanical error occurs when a Coin is encapsulated with a label that bears a grade and/or description that clearly does not correspond with the Coin." Furthermore, NGC states "NGC certification labels with incorrect dates, mintmarks, denominations or Coin types (all of which should be obvious to someone who performs an inspection of the Coin and label) are considered clerical or mechanical errors."
This coin therefore is not a clerical error (many experts can't even tell whether or not the coin is a proof, and I doubt it is "obvious to someone who performs an inspection." By this logic, the submitter has no obligation to return the coin, as it is not a clerical error and he/she didn't agree to return the coin unless it was such an error.
However, a moral obligation is a different story. Morally, if the TPG decides to overrule the label, they should pay. Will they? I don't know and I don't think there's any evidence to support they will. The reason I posted this is to show that the submitter can make the same choice NGC will have to make - will I take the moral factor into account?
Coin Photographer.
Based on how the coin looks in the images, I wouldn’t rule out a “clerical error”. That said, what appears to be a clerical to one person, might not to another. What is the standard of knowledge being applied with respect to “obvious to someone who performs an inspection”?
Why and what amount do you think a TPG should pay if they determine they have made an error in accidentally assigning an incorrect designation, such as PF instead MS?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
However a grading service cannot hide underneath the "mechanical error" legal argument in all cases where it makes mistakes, especially when they are not "mechanical" mistakes. If they call a counterfeit, good or genuine or grade a coin a lot higher than it actually is, or do their due diligence in quality control then they should be liable.
There shouldn't be any liability in the absence of harm. And catching an error which prevents a submitter from profiting from that error, shouldn't constitute harm.
One time, many years ago at a show, I saw a group of several common date PCGS Walking Liberty Half Dollars that had been graded MS65 and submitted for re-holdering (not re-grading). Yet somehow, each one ended up being re-graded MS68.
PCGS subsequently re-holdered them as MS65 - no doubt to the dismay of the submitter. Do you think there should have been any liability for that error?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'd regard that example as an exception, grading services cannot be liable for all such mistakes that are clearly due to someone failing to do their job. If a meat grader calls a common Chuck cut Filet Mignon is that due to common human error? It should be clear that huge errors should have some consequences. In my state failures for products to ring up accurately results in the scan error making the sale free. There is allowance for mistakes in high production jobs.
For all we know, NGC only flagged this coin because of the discussion in this thread (it wouldn’t be surprising that NGC staff would frequent this forum, nor would I be surprised if someone here brought it to their attention). That creates an uncomfortable situation—or at minimum, the appearance of one—where a coin that was graded properly (but not necessarily accurately) is only coming under further review because of the doubts and discussion on this thread. I’m very curious to hear from OP about what specifically NGC has communicated about the situation.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I contacted NGC after the Portland show about the certification status. They requested i send the coin back for review, i sent the coin Monday…
I could not in good conscience sell the coin with the certification in question.
Seems to me like this is not a “clerical or mechanical error” situation, given they are asking to review it in-hand again.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
I do think this thread turned in to an exercise in psychology. I know we're all "friends" here and everyone likes a cherry pick, but there were two TPG opinions rendered and everyone just assumed that the NGC opinion, which favored a friend, must have been the correct one.
It still doesn't look like a proof to me from the photos. I always reserve a certain amount of doubt on making definitive determinations based on photos. However, even without the photos, we have PCGS (our FAVORITE and the "gold standard" of grading - no pun intended) saying MS and NGC saying Proof (maybe). So, at best, I think we could be saying that the truth is uncertain.
Even the illustrious @MFeld admitted error in his initial assessment based on the 2nd opinion.
If I had to live my life over, I think I'd go into psychology. It's far more interesting than chemistry.
Interesting, but ultimately, only perplexing.
Strange set of circumstances with this coin. I get that TPGs make mistakes (all of them), but the rate of coins going out the door with "mechanical errors" on the labels is pretty alarming IMO.
Chemistry is a science.
Psychology and coin grading (much to the chagrin of passionate “friends”) are not.
And that is what makes these threads interesting and simply entertaining.
The absolute subjective (often humorous and insightful) experience of these two non-sciences..
I think this is a good example of a coin that should really almost never qualify for the "clerical error." Many members here viewed the coin in hand and stated they thought it was a proof, no doubt. I think that standard of knowledge is high enough to rule out the clerical error. The difference between a satin proof and a business strike is very difficult to notice, so coins like these should really never be called "clerical errors" in my opinion. It becomes too much of a shield for the TPG to hide behind and not honor their guarantee. I also believe the TPG should pay the full amount of their incorrect grade. Here's why:
Let's pose a hypothetical. Let's say @2windy2fish wasn't a moral person (props to you for sending it back
) and decides to not send it back. He/she sells the coin. Everything would be done legally here. Does NGC have the right to claim clerical error even if the buyer saw no reason to believe the coin was a business strike like a few members here who saw the coin in hand? I don't think so, and I think they would pay the full amount.
Just my opinion
.
Coin Photographer.
I agree with that. However, don't rule out the subjectivity of science.
Someone here reported it. They don't go on all the coin forums and de-certify coins quickly after they are posted unless some "trusted" expert contacts them. If the result turns out to be the same with NGC's flagging of the coin then they should pay for the costs of that.
Well when I saw this, most people thought it was not a proof.
Type collector, mainly into Seated. -formerly Ownerofawheatiehorde. Good BST transactions with: mirabela, OKCC, MICHAELDIXON, Gerard
Of course this whole topic comes perilously close to errors that are not clerical or mechanical but instead judgmental.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Everyone that has offered their thoughts have based those thoughts on the images provided. Not to be more difficult than usual, I will go full circle back to what I previously wrote in that we could have proof dies used to strike business coins intended for commerce.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Any update here?
Looking up the cert number brings this up:
NGC Cert #
5852534-001
NGC Description
1910 $10
NGC Grade
PF 62
Label
NGC Standard Brown
https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/5852534-001/62/
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Would be nice to get an update from the OP.
I got the impression the cert was deactivated at some point in this thread, no? If so, then the fact that it's active again would indicate that they have reviewed and recertified the coin most likely?
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
I had thought the same. So I’m hopeful that the current view I posted from the cert verification page indicates a positive outcome.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
The image does not come up.