I agree with @MFeld, but it could suggest that PCGS is actually doing something with the coin rather than returning it as it is. This is just speculation though.
@FlyingAl said:
I agree with @MFeld, but it could suggest that PCGS is actually doing something with the coin rather than returning it as it is. This is just speculation though.
How long do you suppose it should take to do something with the coin?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@FlyingAl said:
I agree with @MFeld, but it could suggest that PCGS is actually doing something with the coin rather than returning it as it is. This is just speculation though.
How long do you suppose it should take to do something with the coin?😉
Personally, I can understand why PCGS could put some appearance reviews aside for some time to give priority to grading if the submitter was known for sending in coins for review constantly.
However, I think appearance review submissions from a reputable source like DLRC should be vetted by the receiving department and given priority. Many auction companies might need the coin back for an auction (the current coin being case in point), so I think the coin should be in and out in no more than two weeks.
Five months is in my opinion inexcusable, hurting both the auction company and the consigner of the coin. PCGS should be able to quickly determine if there was an error made, and then either buy the coin or send it back.
@FlyingAl said:
I agree with @MFeld, but it could suggest that PCGS is actually doing something with the coin rather than returning it as it is. This is just speculation though.
How long do you suppose it should take to do something with the coin?😉
I suspect that DLRC is no hurry to re-market this controversial coin as it is relatively low value even with an authenticated CAM designation. I would not be surprised if DLH was not the consignor? The delay is the time for finger pointing........
We are all cheering for you and you diagnosis which I think will eventually be to your credit. Your thesis that the Mint was not even considering proof coinage with CAM/DCAM finish is compelling. From 1936 to 1942 any coin that has CAM finish is the invention of coin dealers looking to max the value of the coin while there was no intention on the part of the Mint to make such a coin.
@FlyingAl gets credit for bringing this coin to light again, but the coin has been the subject of debate since at least 2005. It was being questioned way back then. See page one of this thread for a link to a 2005 thread about it.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
@davewesen said:
nice ... I have never seen the coin in hand, but was not 100% certain it was altered
In my reading this thread for the first time from the beginning, my sense is you were VERY FAR from thinking it was altered, despite the super high quality research done by @FlyingAl
FlyingAl, you’re absolutely brilliant! Were you the mentor of Roger Burdette? Obviously, you’ve been studying this niche of 1936-1942 U.S. Proof coins for at least three or four decades or more! Oh, I now see you claim to be a YN. I didn’t know collectors in their 60’s or 70’s could still use “YN”?
Your body of knowledge is remarkable. You’re quite a Positive asset to our wonderful hobby.
Thanks.
Steve
A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!
Great work and props also to DLRC for sending it back for review and PCGS for invalidating the previous designation.
So I wonder where this coin is now? It would still be a really nice example once the "extra frosting" is removed.
Comments
Under the circumstances, that seems way too long.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree with @MFeld, but it could suggest that PCGS is actually doing something with the coin rather than returning it as it is. This is just speculation though.
Coin Photographer.
How long do you suppose it should take to do something with the coin?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Personally, I can understand why PCGS could put some appearance reviews aside for some time to give priority to grading if the submitter was known for sending in coins for review constantly.
However, I think appearance review submissions from a reputable source like DLRC should be vetted by the receiving department and given priority. Many auction companies might need the coin back for an auction (the current coin being case in point), so I think the coin should be in and out in no more than two weeks.
Five months is in my opinion inexcusable, hurting both the auction company and the consigner of the coin. PCGS should be able to quickly determine if there was an error made, and then either buy the coin or send it back.
Coin Photographer.
I suspect that DLRC is no hurry to re-market this controversial coin as it is relatively low value even with an authenticated CAM designation. I would not be surprised if DLH was not the consignor? The delay is the time for finger pointing........
We are all cheering for you and you diagnosis which I think will eventually be to your credit. Your thesis that the Mint was not even considering proof coinage with CAM/DCAM finish is compelling. From 1936 to 1942 any coin that has CAM finish is the invention of coin dealers looking to max the value of the coin while there was no intention on the part of the Mint to make such a coin.
OINK
cert still active
https://pcgs.com/cert/40047031
Certification info now shows:
Coin Photographer.
Finally. Wonder how much PCGS had to shell out for that oopsie?
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Holy Cow!
Nice job of identifying the altered coin and having it adjusted by PCGS.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Great sleuthing, Flying Al and great persistence. Well done!
Calling @davewesen
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Cheers Alex, great job!
Mike
My Indians
Danco Set
@FlyingAl gets credit for bringing this coin to light again, but the coin has been the subject of debate since at least 2005. It was being questioned way back then. See page one of this thread for a link to a 2005 thread about it.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
nice ... I have never seen the coin in hand, but was not 100% certain it was altered
In my reading this thread for the first time from the beginning, my sense is you were VERY FAR from thinking it was altered, despite the super high quality research done by @FlyingAl
FlyingAl, you’re absolutely brilliant! Were you the mentor of Roger Burdette? Obviously, you’ve been studying this niche of 1936-1942 U.S. Proof coins for at least three or four decades or more! Oh, I now see you claim to be a YN. I didn’t know collectors in their 60’s or 70’s could still use “YN”?
Your body of knowledge is remarkable. You’re quite a Positive asset to our wonderful hobby.
Thanks.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Great work and props also to DLRC for sending it back for review and PCGS for invalidating the previous designation.
So I wonder where this coin is now? It would still be a really nice example once the "extra frosting" is removed.
Collector, occasional seller
@FlyingAl Excellent job seeing what the PCGS Graders and Finalizers did not. You are establishing your credentials!