Same coin is shown with two different grades in PCGS Coinfacts
dcarr
Posts: 8,672 ✭✭✭✭✭
The D.W. Klein Lesher Dollar is shown in XF45 and AU50. The pictures are different, but the coin is the same. I assume it was sent in for "reconsideration" or re-grading at some point, and upgraded one level.
https://pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1901-lesher-hk-794-d-w-klein-co/19009
The Population Report likely includes the coin as graded in both grades.
There is also a different Lesher Dollar that I know of where the owner removed it from the PCGS holder and sent the label back to PCGS a year ago. But it is still shown in Coinfacts and listed in the population report.
1
Comments
There are likely many of these situations that exist - in most cases, only a minor effect on the population reports specifically. Cheers, RickO
Such effect on the population report is usually going to be a tiny fraction of a percent, if that.
In this case, however, the report shows 1 in AG3, 3 in XF45, and 1 in AU50. If corrected, the population for all grades combined would drop from 5 to 4 (20% lower total population).
@dcarr
If you have not already done it, I would be happy to forward this issue directly to CS.
Let me know if it is necessary.
Even for coins with higher pops it can be skewed quite a lot depending on how many crackouts and/or regrades. Coins that jump in price especially. I know of 1 coin that submitted at least 10 times at the same service and it has been to multiple services. There's a coin that I'm trying to convince the current owner to sell to me. Its been to 2 services and both graded it the same, but the owner wants to try for a bump in grade from a plus ➕ to the next grade up.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Agree. This is especially true for those coins that show a huge price jump at the next higher grade.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I've seen it a few times. Most recently this 77 Kennedy WAS listed as both 67 and 67+ same coin different TV obviously upgraded. Going back now I see they removed the old grade of 67.
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1977-50c/6731
Thanks Dan. Very enlightening subject. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
On a side note, it does look more accurately graded as an XF45 rather than an AU50:
peacockcoins
Perhaps the next level of grading authenticity would involve the TPG to reveal the grading history of the coin. And then it could be revealed the current as well as the average grading score of the coin. TPG's are way too influenced by coin dealers who understandably wish to upgrade their inventory. While I do not blame them for this process, a TPG graded coin should also have a grading history attached to it's certification.
TPG's should represent the collector interests above the dealer interests........ALWAYS.
OINK
.
That is not the one I was writing about (but I do agree with XF on it, and I presume that is where it is still at).
Here is the one in question:
XF45:
AU50:
The serial number on the coin is a clue
.
I do not know how make such a report. So, yes, your help would be appreciated, thanks.
PS: Note that I do not own a D.W.Klein Lesher Dollar, so I do not really have any stake in this, other than wanting to see accurate records for Lesher Dollars in general.
Interesting that there is a serial number on the coin........
But my previous post still stands, that the grading history of a coin is relevant and yet never disclosed. Perhaps more relevant than CAC stickers?
E-mail sent to PCGS CS at info@PCGS.com.
Your idea might be welcomed by potential buyers, but in most cases, not by submitters/sellers or the grading companies. Sellers wouldn’t want upgrades known to buyers and grading companies wouldn’t want inconsistent grading results so widely publicized.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, I would offer to you that the TPGS have a fiduciary duty for the coins that they grade to be accurate and not to be an non invalidated opinion. Considering that their grading opinion has significant financial importance, a historical grading record is significant. And withholding this known grading information is not excusable. TPG grading records need to be public knowledge.
OINK
I agree that an historical grading record could be significant. But I don’t claim to know what type of fiduciary duty grading companies have with respect to grading accuracy and disclosure of past grading information.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Easy answer Mark. No fiduciary duty. And to even hint otherwise is to completely misunderstand what a fiduciary is. So no need for you to worry that you're missing anything😉
Link to the PCGS submission form. It includes the 'PCGS Grading Terms & Conditions'.
I am NOT a lawyer. That said, it appears to me that:
~ section #3 covers their responsibility with respect to the grade;
~ and, section #11 covers the ownership of the grade "data".
Fiduciary relationships are often of the financial variety, but the word fiduciary does not, in and of itself, suggest pecuniary ("money-related") matters. Rather,_ fiduciary applies to any situation in which one person justifiably places confidence and trust in someone else, _and seeks that person's help or advice in some matter. The words are all faithful to their origin: Latin fīdere, which means "to trust."
We have every right to view PCGS as a fiduciary as we trust them to fairly evaluate an asset that we wish to buy. If they have changed their opinion then it should be described as such on their current grade evaluation. A TPG should never act as an agent for a seller, but rather as a guarantor for a buyer.
OINK
1901 D.W. Klein Lesher Dollar Serial Number 1070 - Imprint Type - Z-8, HK-794 - PCGS XF45 & AU50 CAC - Ex. Lester Merkin, Robert Rhue
Here are the D.W. Klein cert numbers for serial number 1070 for tracking purposes.
I love seeing multiple TrueViews of the same piece. It would be great for all the TrueViews to be available, rather than for some to "disappear" once the cert is no longer valid.
This got a nice bump on the PCGS Price Guide in addition to the grade bump.
I disagree. A fiduciary must place their clients' (customers/etc) interests before their own. A fiduciary must seek to avoid but certainly disclose any conflicts of interest. PCGS is under no obligation or expectation to do those things. They are obligated by law to not defraud us but that is a far cry from a fiduciary obligation. The upper management and board members of PCGS have a fiduciary obligation to the owners/shareholders of the company NOT its customers.
If you want to say they SHOULD have a fiduciary obligation that is a very different conversation and an interesting conversation that I haven't considered as of yet.
EDIT: Yes you do have every right to view PCGS as a fiduciary but they haven't entered into that agreement with you. As a customer of a business, you can't compel the business to operate under a fiduciary level of care without their agreement.
Here's the only auction record I could find for this piece.
The pedigree is along the lines of:
Here's the Harry Laibstain listing:
Perhaps, they do not have an implicit fiduciary responsibility. But their terms do not exempt them from their grade opinion from a bidder that has no legal relationship with them. This is much like they are the guarantor of a surety bond but represent they are only the agent of the seller of those bonds. They advertise their role as a guarantor of those "bonds". Thus, their books need to be open to all that would bid on the guaranteed property.
OINK
Be careful, if we point out too many inconsistencies in the photos our hosts will reset the Coinfacts photos again like they did a few years ago. That was very disappointing.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
Here's some good information on David W. Klein from Don Kagin:
Ref: https://auctions.kagins.com/Colorado-Pueblo-1901-Imprint-Type-D-W-Klein-Co-Jos-Lesher-s-Referendum-Silver-Souvenir-Medal_i35946617
I am not really familiar with 'surety bonds'. However, it sounds like you are talking about PCGS 'obligations/duties' to interested parties that were not directly involved in the original grading transaction (i.e., subsequent owners). And your point is that because they were not a principle in the grading transaction, they are not bound by the grading T&C.
I am NOT a lawyer. So, for discussion purposes, let's assume that you are correct (i.e., the PCGS Grading T&C do not apply to subsequent owners in any fashion). So, what are the PCGS 'obligations/duties' to subsequent owners in their role as guarantor?
Again, I am NOT a lawyer. That said, wouldn't the relationship between PCGS and subsequent owners be defined in, and limited by, their written guarantee? With respect to their "grade opinion", they offer a specific remedy should a subsequent owner suspect that a coin is overgraded, misattributed, or non-authentic (i.e., the guarantee resubmission process). Nothing more.
I understand that you think that PCGS should do more (e.g., open their books). However, as far as I can tell, they are not obligated to do more.
This is a good example why I don't pay attention to pop reports.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I wonder if AI or some scan technology at the TPGs is coming to flag coins they have seen before. This would seem to solve the issue.
Maybe not as resubmissions generate a lot of revenue.
Re: PCGS #19009
PCGS responded to the inquiry about the same exact coin, #1070, appearing twice in the Coinfacts images (i.e., once at AU50, and again at XF45).
It appears that the XF45 was removed from its PCGS holder by a customer, and resubmitted. The coin upgraded to AU50. Unfortunately, the customer failed to surrender the XF45 certification label. So, PCGS will not remove the XF45 data from their records.
In this case, it means that:
~ the two Coinfacts images of the same coin, at different grades, are going to remain in place;
~ and, the same coin is counted twice in the 'pop report' (i.e., once at XF45, and again at AU50).
Harry Laibstain appears to have the piece now as it’s listed on his site. Perhaps he has, or knows who has, the XF45 insert as well and could return it to PCGS?
Looked better in it's original skin as XF 45 , in my view.
Always good to see multiple photos of the same piece. Glad both TrueViews are available.
I'm not sure how religiously HLRC updates its site. I was going to buy a coin that I had had my eye on for a while and emailed them to discuss. No response for several days. I called them; they requested I use a different email address than is on the site and they would get back to me in a day or two while they look for the coin. Call back a couple of days later...coin can't be found, it was sold, sorry.
Long way of saying, very pleasant people but I wouldn't trust the inventory or any information on their website.
That's good to know, but this thread isn't really for buying it. While the piece might have sold, if he was the one that got it upgraded as shown on his website, it's possible he might still have the XF45 insert to resolve the CoinFacts duplicate.
I suspect this happens less than members here think. I agree Coin Facts likely has some duplicates in their condition census listing, but on the other hand, Heritage recently had (and may still have) FIVE 1798 MS dimes in their Marketplace. Collectors Corner recently listed FIVE 1830 QE, all MS to my recollection but maybe not. Last I checked NGC and PCGS recorded 17 1802 half dimes with all three NGC AU-50 and probably the same coin. I've never seen PCGS "details" data, but the estimate is 35-40 to my recollection from a Heritage listing where someone specifically itemized the surviving population. It's very unlikely the others are all gone. So, either it's in the PCGS "details" grade or not graded at all.
I purchased an 1868-S half in MS66CAC. At the time it said it was a Pop11/1. I had done my research and found only two coins. I went through the auction records, found two photos of the same coin in coinfacts and PCGS changed the POP to 1/1. The POP had counted 10 coins that did not exist.
I’m sure the coins existed when the coins were graded!
I wonder why so many people keep the inserts? Perhaps nostalgia is more important than accurate pops?
Minor : There are some (few) small typos in the coin listings from time to time.
e.g. The 2021 Morgan/Peace $'s are listed as a 1 Oz (31.1 gm) coin (on pcgs)
while the Mint spec is "0.858 troy oz. of .999 fine silver with an uncirculated finish."
I think the coin is exactly the same - only the lighting is different.
Good catch.
I have taken the liberty of reporting this issue to customer service for correction.
We all make mistakes. The first released edition of "The Fantastic 1804 Dollar" has one of the 15 known 1804 dollars illustrated by a picture of a different specimen.