1818 Proof Quarter Mechanical Error
MikeD
Posts: 25 ✭✭✭
I sent this coin in for a reholdering. It was a Fair-2 but is coming back as a Proof-2. Before I send it back in to be fixed, can someone smarter than me please confirm this is a mechanical error and was right before? Thanks!
3
Comments
I make no representation that I’m smarter than you, but believe that was a mechanical error.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
without looking up the diagnostics for the BS vs PF, i personally cannot say 100% either way. like feld says, most likely a mechanical error but it isn't impossible that people have sent coins with one designation into pcgs in older holders only to have them come back (accurately or inaccurately) in a different one.
start with IF there are 1818 proof quarters and go from there.
you have a good enough title that any expert or semi can stop by and offer up some info about it is really one or the other.
do you have the coin back in-hand, and if so, can you post a pic of the cert?
<--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -
I don't know that it's possible to prove that the coin wasn't struck as a proof.
Here's one that was.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I believe the one Andy posted is the only one known. Definitely the only one graded by PCGS for that year that I see.
My understanding is there are no clear cut diagnostics between BS and proof besides sharper features and mirrored fields based on this article. It's too worn to make those distinctions. The dentils stand out, but its probably just the wear pattern.
Not yet, but should be back in a day or two.
I'd keep it in the Proof-2 holder, unless you have to have it correctly noted, simply for the novelty of the piece.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Maybe you have a transitional mechanical error where they meant to downgrade the coin to Poor but got the letter and number wrong in the grade.
That was my first reaction, as well.
That was my original thought when I saw it, but the PCGS number also changed to the proof version. Guess I’ll have a better idea when the coin arrives and I can see the cert.
I would certainly be a buyer if offered as is now!
Interesting situation.... Proper resolution would be by an expert, with coin in hand. Which, of course, is what was supposed to happen at the TPG. Cheers, RickO
Even if it's incorrectly labeled, keep it as such. Who are we/you to say differently?
I might for my personal amusement since I know the history of it, but if it’s incorrect, I wouldn’t want it getting into the wrong hands. Only takes one scammer to assert its real and fleecing someone.
I’ll bring it to Baltimore and show it around and get some opinions. I assumed when I first posted everyone would agree right away it was mechanical, but I guess it’s impossible to say from photos.
I think the photos are more than adequate and can't imagine that the coin was intentionally designated as a Proof. As even if it is a Proof, it's doesn't appear to be identifiable as such, which should preclude PCGS from awarding that designation.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not a "poor 1", mistakes happen.
For what reason did you insert that grade into the thread?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MikeD
In the OP you said you sent the coin in for reholdering. Did you specifically mean that it was sent in as a re-holder order and not any grading (regrade, reconsider...). If so, then the coin would not be downgraded or regraded but just put in a new holder. If there was to be any change on a re-holder order, I would think pigs would contact owner before doing anything. Mechanical error.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_KWVk0XeB9o - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Piece Of My Heart
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Reholder and variety (and image). No regrade or reconsideration. I could see the change in variety resulting in the proof designation (say if it were a proof only variety), but I don’t see how it would be possible to discern here as people have said. It wasn’t regraded as it remains a 2. Whoever entered the variety into the system probably took the proof PCGS number instead of the MS code for the variety, which automated the grade change from FR-02 to Proof 2. But that’s all a guess.
To your point about calling me, another reason I’m pretty sure it’s a mechanical error is I only insured it for some small amount. If it truly was correct, I would expect a call to change that at the least. But again, I don’t know the process on their end.
! Hi Mike
Yes there are no proof diagnostics for the B-8. So no way to make that stretch; however, i think the mechanical error is neat. I've kept a few others. One i have is a very rare bust half attribution that was not correct, an 1823 O-113 XF40 which would be a 30k coin, but it's not and only worth about $75. But i think it's cool nonetheless. The 1818 proof quarter Andy showed is actually in my set. Could you bring the coin by Eye Apealing Coins table at the Baltimore show? It would be fun to see it!
That's a pretty cool mechanical error. Someone would probably pay a premium for the novelty of it.
I bet someone mistook a handwritten F as a P, FR2 looks a lot like PR2 at a glance.
Collector, occasional seller
Is it possible that it only says PR on the certification page, but says FR on the holder?
Young Numismatist
I'll see tomorrow I think, but it shows up in the CoinFacts page for the proof. https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1818-25c-b-8/691584 It's a funny juxtaposition of the two coins.
Just got it. The full slab is below. Looks like its not a typo in the grade but the error is in labeling it as a proof.
As a recipient of numerous mechanical errors over the years, I’ve never had that one occur. It’s neat and I’d probably keep it as is like @GoBust also mentioned.
1Twobits
Back when I was starting the ANACS grading service I chose PF as the abbreviation for Proof to distinguish it from Poor, but there will always be typos.