Mike – I was saying the same thing maybe I didn’t make it clear -
Retired Collector & Dealer in Major Mint Error Coins & Currency since the 1960's.Co-Author of Whitman's "100 Greatest U.S. Mint Error Coins", and the Error Coin Encyclopedia, Vols., III & IV. Retired Authenticator for Major Mint Errors for PCGS. A 50+ Year PNG Member.A full-time numismatist since 1972, retired in 2022.
I couldn’t locate a blow- up image of the test cut. I will ask Dave Camire from NGC, who also took images of it raw prior to encapsulation.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
First off congratulations @lunagately for getting your holy grail of errors to go with your accomplished Buffalo Nickel Sets.
Second, congrats to @Byers for recognizing the potential of this piece, forking up some BIG bucks, and Passing it to the right person for a handsome profit.
I fully recognize that there are rarities in straight graded holders like the $3 w/ Graffiti, the 1804 Dollar with letter stamping and so on...
Since this piece is One of a kind and made it in Straight graded holder (with denotation) what would be the harm to Professionally Repair the coin by adding gold to the cut and smoothing? I would think it could find its way back into the PCGS holder but with a denotation of "test cut repaired" with a (in my eye) a better appearance.
...
Since this piece is One of a kind and made it in Straight graded holder (with denotation) what would be the harm to Professionally Repair the coin by adding gold to the cut and smoothing? I would think it could find its way back into the PCGS holder but with a denotation of "test cut repaired" with a (in my eye) a better appearance.
It would compromise the historical integrity of the coin and not really change anything about it. Whether repaired or not, the whole world knows there was a test cut there. Likewise if the $3 graffiti was smoothed or the D on the 1804 dollar patched.
I love this coin. It needed to be slabbed, if nothing more than for authenticity.
But I do not agree with getting a straight grade when it is very clearly damaged. There is an intentional test cut on the coin. It cannot be straight graded for this reason, and rarity should not play into this. In my opinion, 'details' coins SHOULD be included in the pops and registries. This coin BELONGS in the set, as the OP stated. But that does not change its condition, sadly.
We cannot and should not simply apply a different set of grading principles to coins we deem "important."
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Since you were a professional grader at one time, I can imagine what you must be thinking and I would probably agree with you.
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
Since you were a professional grader at one time, I can imagine what you must be thinking and I would probably agree with you.
Agree or not..........it's just my personal opinion. I'm no more than a soldier in this army. Those with a higher rank will see this conundrum through.
It's just a matter of how you look at it.
No matter what, I STILL believe what I have suggested.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
There are obviously less intrusive ways to determine metal content, even back then. A test cut on an important coin is very foolish, and was probably done by a jeweler who suspected it to be counterfeit. I know of no numismatist that would do such a thing. As far as it being a part of the history of the coin, this is undeniable. But some history is regrettable, and the person who hacked off a piece of the edge probably regretted it the instant they determined it was solid gold.
For what it's worth, it should really matter very little what the label reads. This unique piece is what it is. But it sure did increase in value when it straight graded, didn't it?
Just something to think about.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I see your reasoning DCW. I agree with you, but still think in this case that it's a special deal.
....................and it really doesn't matter to me what grade it is, as it is (so far) unique and ranks with the "other" 1913 Nickels in numismatic lore, IMHOP.
It's way beyond my means so whatever I believe has no bearing on what it's valued at.
Pete
"I tell them there's no problems.....only solutions" - John Lennon
When a very expensive and/or unique coin changes from detail to straight grade, or mint state to specimen, or just simply upgrades, it’s value increases in many cases hundreds of thousands of dollars. It happens often and is part of the game/process…
In this specific case regarding the unique gold Buffalo Nickel, the submitter to PCGS is a world class recognized authenticator and grader who decided to consignor it to Heritage and move on. He has had his share of scores in the past.
Fortunately (for me) it only sold for $78k and the rest in numismatic history.
Jim Gately has acquired an amazing and unique rarity that also fits into his PCGS Registry Set.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
Hi All,
I have to say, as the owner of this rare coin, It is very happy in Its' current condition, test cut and all; It is happy that it is encapsulated in a PCGS holder to preserve it and protected from damage and anyone else that wants to test cut it; It is happy that it is straight graded as anything else would be rather demeaning for a coin of this stature and It is happy that it is part of a World Class Buffalo Nickel Set. It told me so and alcohol was not involved!
Jim
This gold coin is one of the greatest mint error coin to have in your collection. I think if you are serious collector you should have some mint error coins in your collection. It is part of great collection experience. I have some mint error coins in my collection and will continue to buy mint error when I see what I like.
Handling this unique gold Buffalo Nickel, and getting it into a straight graded holder was exciting and rewarding.
It certainly is one of the highlights of my 45 years as a rare coin dealer specializing in mint errors.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
I guess if this is the only one, what does the test cut matter? Regardless of the damage, it is still the only known such coin to exist and that is RARE. That will most likely be a million dollar coin in the near future.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
@BuffaloIronTail said:
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
For better or worse, grading is subjective and some coins need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade. Martin mentioned some coins have been submitted 20+ times on these forums and in the past the facts have shown this to be the case with numerous coins. The original submitter could certainly have sent it in again or to a different TPG, but may also have been very happy just to have it slabbed and authenticated as genuine!
This is one of the most amazing coins in existence period. I'm maintaining a "Top 20 Error Coins" list and in my personal view, this has strong contention for being the #1 coin in my opinion. Other top contenders include the 1943 bronze cents and gold Indian head cents, but this is unique, gold, a larger denomination, and a classic design. It's fitting that this ended up in Jim's collection given his love of and accomplishment with buffalo nickels.
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
I wouldn't be surprised for this coin to surpass the $1 million mark and expect it to happen as the coin gets more widely recognized through the recognition by PCGS, NGC, Mint Error News, and leading experts such as Mike and Fred.
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
Problem free? Are you serious?
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
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
Problem free? Are you serious?
Yes, when compared to famous coins like the 1804 Dexter Dollar and the 1814 Brand platinum CBH. By "problem-free" here, I'm referring to being graded with a numerical grade. As we know, coins are essentially net graded from 70 on down, so any non-70 coin has some issues. The test cut is noted on the holder by both TPGs, so nothing is being hidden. At some point in the future, when the coin is well-known enough, even the "test cut" notation may go away such as the case with the 1804 Dexter Dollar which doesn't mention, or need to mention, the counterstamp on the holder.
Here's another example of what problem-free can look like
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
Problem free? Are you serious?
By "problem-free" here, I'm referring to being graded with a numerical grade. As we know, all coins are essentially net graded from 70 on down. The test cut is noted on the holder by both TPGs, so nothing is being hidden. At some point in the future, when the coin is well-known enough, even the "test cut" notation may go away such as the case with the 1804 Dexter Dollar which doesn't mention, or need to mention, the counterstamp on the holder.
There's no comparison with the 1804 Dexter silver dollar. The "D" is microscopic in size and is well hidden on one of the clouds and it's not even noticeable by the casual viewer. Also, no metal was removed from the coin.
As far as the gold nickel, say it's "straight graded" but do not call it "problem free" because it's far from being a problem free coin.
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
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
Problem free? Are you serious?
By "problem-free" here, I'm referring to being graded with a numerical grade. As we know, all coins are essentially net graded from 70 on down. The test cut is noted on the holder by both TPGs, so nothing is being hidden. At some point in the future, when the coin is well-known enough, even the "test cut" notation may go away such as the case with the 1804 Dexter Dollar which doesn't mention, or need to mention, the counterstamp on the holder.
There's no comparison with the 1804 Dexter silver dollar. The "D" is microscopic in size and is well hidden on one of the clouds and it's not even noticeable by the casual viewer. Also, no metal was removed from the coin.
Then try that on a 2023 ASE
And what are your thoughts on the straight graded engraved 1814 platinum CBH with metal removed and an abundance of large counterstamped letters, that was mentioned with the Dexter Dollar?
As far as the gold nickel, say it's "straight graded" but do not call it "problem free" because it's far from being a problem free coin.
Fair enough. 99% of the time "problem free" is interchangeable with "straight graded". Though if we're going to get picky, as mentioned, any grade under 70 is essentially a net graded problem coin.
@Zoins said:
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
The coin is not in a problem-free holder, as problem-free would be not noting "test cut," which is arguably a problem. The test cut does not interfere with describing the state of preservation of the coin as "otherwise AU53", much as is the case with the 70-S $3 and Dexter's $1. Were this coin polished and without test cut, a numeric grade wouldn't mean much, as it confers more information than just how much wear is on it. Saying "AU Polished" would be the best one could do.
The coin never changed as it went from holder to holder. It was an still is a fantastic error coin. All the texts on all its labels, past and present, are distinctions without a difference. The latest ones just don't have the D-word on them.
@Zoins said:
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
The coin is not in a problem-free holder, as problem-free would be not noting "test cut," which is arguably a problem. The test cut does not interfere with describing the state of preservation of the coin as "otherwise AU53", much as is the case with the 70-S $3 and Dexter's $1. Were this coin polished and without test cut, a numeric grade wouldn't mean much, as it confers more information than just how much wear is on it. Saying "AU Polished" would be the best one could do.
The coin never changed as it went from holder to holder. It was an still is a fantastic error coin. All the texts on all its labels, past and present, are distinctions without a difference. The latest ones just don't have the D-word on them.
I agree with your interpretation on problem free. It would have been better to use "numerical grade" instead of essentially "problem-free with test cut notation" but @PerryHall already latched on to discussing that language before I could update it.
The Bass 1870-S $3 coin you menitoned is in the same situation as this where PCGS mentions "893 Engraved" on the holder. Chop marked US Trade Dollars have the same issue where they are graded with a numerical grade with the Chop Mark notation.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
For better or worse, grading is subjective and some coins need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade. Martin mentioned some coins have been submitted 20+ times on these forums and in the past the facts have shown this to be the case with numerous coins. The original submitter could certainly have sent it in again or to a different TPG, but may also have been very happy just to have it slabbed and authenticated as genuine!
Seeing as how this coin is unique, easily identifiable and very valuable, subjectivity shouldn’t come into play, when grading/re-grading it. And it shouldn’t “need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade”.
The fact that the original submitter chose to accept the initial grade doesn’t change any of that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
For better or worse, grading is subjective and some coins need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade. Martin mentioned some coins have been submitted 20+ times on these forums and in the past the facts have shown this to be the case with numerous coins. The original submitter could certainly have sent it in again or to a different TPG, but may also have been very happy just to have it slabbed and authenticated as genuine!
Seeing as how this coin is unique, easily identifiable and very valuable, subjectivity shouldn’t come into play, when grading/re-grading it. And it shouldn’t “need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade”.
The fact that the original submitter chose to accept the initial grade doesn’t change any of that.
My perspective is that subjectivity always comes into play with human decisions like this.
Regarding your statement on being "easily identifiable and very valuable", I don't believe this was necessarily the case as it was only very recently discovered in 2019. I think it took Mike having it viewed by many experts and publishing it In Mint Error News to both make it more well known and more valuable, and I think it's still on its journey to increasing fame, especially now that it's in Jim's collection.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
For better or worse, grading is subjective and some coins need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade. Martin mentioned some coins have been submitted 20+ times on these forums and in the past the facts have shown this to be the case with numerous coins. The original submitter could certainly have sent it in again or to a different TPG, but may also have been very happy just to have it slabbed and authenticated as genuine!
Seeing as how this coin is unique, easily identifiable and very valuable, subjectivity shouldn’t come into play, when grading/re-grading it. And it shouldn’t “need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade”.
The fact that the original submitter chose to accept the initial grade doesn’t change any of that.
My perspective is that subjectivity always comes into play with human decisions like this.
Regarding your statement on being "easily identifiable and very valuable", I don't believe this was the case as it was only discovered very recently in 2019. I think it took Mike having it viewed by many experts and publishing it In Mint Error News to both make it more well known and more valuable.
You don’t think the coin was easily identifiable and of obvious very high value back in 2019? Then how about when it was re-graded? How many coins of that type do you suppose the graders had seen?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
For better or worse, grading is subjective and some coins need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade. Martin mentioned some coins have been submitted 20+ times on these forums and in the past the facts have shown this to be the case with numerous coins. The original submitter could certainly have sent it in again or to a different TPG, but may also have been very happy just to have it slabbed and authenticated as genuine!
Seeing as how this coin is unique, easily identifiable and very valuable, subjectivity shouldn’t come into play, when grading/re-grading it. And it shouldn’t “need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade”.
The fact that the original submitter chose to accept the initial grade doesn’t change any of that.
My perspective is that subjectivity always comes into play with human decisions like this.
Regarding your statement on being "easily identifiable and very valuable", I don't believe this was the case as it was only discovered very recently in 2019. I think it took Mike having it viewed by many experts and publishing it In Mint Error News to both make it more well known and more valuable.
You don’t think the coin was easily identifiable and of obvious very high value back in 2019? Then how about when it was re-graded? How many coins of that type do you suppose the graders had seen?😉
It's a new coin with a still mysterious background. I think it was handled appropriately with the TPG policies I'm aware of but since it seems you feel strongly it should have been graded differently the first time at our hosts, why not ask them about it by at mentioning them here?
When I submitted the gold Buffalo Nickel to NGC still in the PCGS holder, I was relatively confident that either:
NGC would straight grade it
Or
PCGS would re-consider and straight grade it further down the road.
Once clue to my rationale is as follows:
Years ago I submitted RAW the famous ex Col Green and Beck 1900 Indian Head Cent struck in gold on a $2.5 Indian Head blank, to PCGS.
It looked like it was a gem, virtually fully struck and dramatically eye appealing.
But in my opinion it looked like it had been wiped. Not one hairline but more of a polished look having been rubbed with a cloth a century ago.
I owned it (3) times. The first was in 1975 when I purchased it in the auction.
Had it been a regular U.S. gold coin, like a $2.5 Liberty with raised design and plenty of fields, it would have net graded ‘cleaned’, in my opinion.
PCGS recognized it’s value, rarity and pedigree, and straight graded it MS 65. It had an amazing presense and spoke for itself.
Therefore I am not in the least bit surprised that both NGC and PCGS decided that the proper designation for the gold Buffalo Nickel was a straight grade with a notation.
In my humble opinion, a unique and/or expensive mint error speaks for itself and occasionally gets considered differently when at PCGS or NGC.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@BuffaloIronTail said:
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
For better or worse, grading is subjective and some coins need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade. Martin mentioned some coins have been submitted 20+ times on these forums and in the past the facts have shown this to be the case with numerous coins. The original submitter could certainly have sent it in again or to a different TPG, but may also have been very happy just to have it slabbed and authenticated as genuine!
Seeing as how this coin is unique, easily identifiable and very valuable, subjectivity shouldn’t come into play, when grading/re-grading it. And it shouldn’t “need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade”.
The fact that the original submitter chose to accept the initial grade doesn’t change any of that.
My perspective is that subjectivity always comes into play with human decisions like this.
Regarding your statement on being "easily identifiable and very valuable", I don't believe this was the case as it was only discovered very recently in 2019. I think it took Mike having it viewed by many experts and publishing it In Mint Error News to both make it more well known and more valuable.
You don’t think the coin was easily identifiable and of obvious very high value back in 2019? Then how about when it was re-graded? How many coins of that type do you suppose the graders had seen?😉
It's a new coin with a still mysterious background. I think it was handled appropriately with the TPG policies I'm aware of but since it seems you feel strongly it should have been graded differently the first time at our hosts, why not ask them about it by at mentioning them here?
I didn’t say I thought the coin should have been graded differently the first time. I do, however, think its grading should have been consistent. I don’t want to go around and around, so will exit this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
Mike – I was saying the same thing maybe I didn’t make it clear -
Great thread!
"alcohol may have been involved"
I couldn’t locate a blow- up image of the test cut. I will ask Dave Camire from NGC, who also took images of it raw prior to encapsulation.
Alcohol, huh? If it was made deliberately then it's not an error!
Seriously though, I wonder how circ vs pocket-piece wear could be established, in the absence of documentation.
First off congratulations @lunagately for getting your holy grail of errors to go with your accomplished Buffalo Nickel Sets.
Second, congrats to @Byers for recognizing the potential of this piece, forking up some BIG bucks, and Passing it to the right person for a handsome profit.
I fully recognize that there are rarities in straight graded holders like the $3 w/ Graffiti, the 1804 Dollar with letter stamping and so on...
Since this piece is One of a kind and made it in Straight graded holder (with denotation) what would be the harm to Professionally Repair the coin by adding gold to the cut and smoothing? I would think it could find its way back into the PCGS holder but with a denotation of "test cut repaired" with a (in my eye) a better appearance.
It's all about what the people want...
It would compromise the historical integrity of the coin and not really change anything about it. Whether repaired or not, the whole world knows there was a test cut there. Likewise if the $3 graffiti was smoothed or the D on the 1804 dollar patched.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I love this coin. It needed to be slabbed, if nothing more than for authenticity.
But I do not agree with getting a straight grade when it is very clearly damaged. There is an intentional test cut on the coin. It cannot be straight graded for this reason, and rarity should not play into this. In my opinion, 'details' coins SHOULD be included in the pops and registries. This coin BELONGS in the set, as the OP stated. But that does not change its condition, sadly.
We cannot and should not simply apply a different set of grading principles to coins we deem "important."
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
The test cut is part of the history of the coin and should not be repaired. It was not done out of purposely damaging the piece, or to alter it in any way.
It's a "special" off metal coin, so it would be prudent to test it.
Because of the special nature of the coin, with the special circumstances as to why the cut was made, I believe it to be properly graded as is. That is not to say that it is not damaged, but the reason it was should be dismissed as a special case.
Pete
No comment.
I can see your point and am happy for the current owner of the coin. However, the same latitude wasn’t given previously when it was details-graded. To me, that inconsistency is most unfortunate and was unfair to whoever first submitted the coin for grading.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Since you were a professional grader at one time, I can imagine what you must be thinking and I would probably agree with you.
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
Agree or not..........it's just my personal opinion. I'm no more than a soldier in this army. Those with a higher rank will see this conundrum through.
It's just a matter of how you look at it.
No matter what, I STILL believe what I have suggested.
Pete
There are obviously less intrusive ways to determine metal content, even back then. A test cut on an important coin is very foolish, and was probably done by a jeweler who suspected it to be counterfeit. I know of no numismatist that would do such a thing. As far as it being a part of the history of the coin, this is undeniable. But some history is regrettable, and the person who hacked off a piece of the edge probably regretted it the instant they determined it was solid gold.
For what it's worth, it should really matter very little what the label reads. This unique piece is what it is. But it sure did increase in value when it straight graded, didn't it?
Just something to think about.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
I see your reasoning DCW. I agree with you, but still think in this case that it's a special deal.
....................and it really doesn't matter to me what grade it is, as it is (so far) unique and ranks with the "other" 1913 Nickels in numismatic lore, IMHOP.
It's way beyond my means so whatever I believe has no bearing on what it's valued at.
Pete
When a very expensive and/or unique coin changes from detail to straight grade, or mint state to specimen, or just simply upgrades, it’s value increases in many cases hundreds of thousands of dollars. It happens often and is part of the game/process…
In this specific case regarding the unique gold Buffalo Nickel, the submitter to PCGS is a world class recognized authenticator and grader who decided to consignor it to Heritage and move on. He has had his share of scores in the past.
Fortunately (for me) it only sold for $78k and the rest in numismatic history.
Jim Gately has acquired an amazing and unique rarity that also fits into his PCGS Registry Set.
Hi All,
I have to say, as the owner of this rare coin, It is very happy in Its' current condition, test cut and all; It is happy that it is encapsulated in a PCGS holder to preserve it and protected from damage and anyone else that wants to test cut it; It is happy that it is straight graded as anything else would be rather demeaning for a coin of this stature and It is happy that it is part of a World Class Buffalo Nickel Set. It told me so and alcohol was not involved!
Jim
This gold coin is one of the greatest mint error coin to have in your collection. I think if you are serious collector you should have some mint error coins in your collection. It is part of great collection experience. I have some mint error coins in my collection and will continue to buy mint error when I see what I like.
Handling this unique gold Buffalo Nickel, and getting it into a straight graded holder was exciting and rewarding.
It certainly is one of the highlights of my 45 years as a rare coin dealer specializing in mint errors.
I guess if this is the only one, what does the test cut matter? Regardless of the damage, it is still the only known such coin to exist and that is RARE. That will most likely be a million dollar coin in the near future.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
For better or worse, grading is subjective and some coins need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade. Martin mentioned some coins have been submitted 20+ times on these forums and in the past the facts have shown this to be the case with numerous coins. The original submitter could certainly have sent it in again or to a different TPG, but may also have been very happy just to have it slabbed and authenticated as genuine!
This is one of the most amazing coins in existence period. I'm maintaining a "Top 20 Error Coins" list and in my personal view, this has strong contention for being the #1 coin in my opinion. Other top contenders include the 1943 bronze cents and gold Indian head cents, but this is unique, gold, a larger denomination, and a classic design. It's fitting that this ended up in Jim's collection given his love of and accomplishment with buffalo nickels.
A coin of this caliber certainly deserves to be in a problem-free holder. I think it's fine as both of the top two TPGs have graded this problem free with the note "Test Cut".
I wouldn't be surprised for this coin to surpass the $1 million mark and expect it to happen as the coin gets more widely recognized through the recognition by PCGS, NGC, Mint Error News, and leading experts such as Mike and Fred.
Problem free? Are you serious?
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
Yes, when compared to famous coins like the 1804 Dexter Dollar and the 1814 Brand platinum CBH. By "problem-free" here, I'm referring to being graded with a numerical grade. As we know, coins are essentially net graded from 70 on down, so any non-70 coin has some issues. The test cut is noted on the holder by both TPGs, so nothing is being hidden. At some point in the future, when the coin is well-known enough, even the "test cut" notation may go away such as the case with the 1804 Dexter Dollar which doesn't mention, or need to mention, the counterstamp on the holder.
Here's another example of what problem-free can look like
There's no comparison with the 1804 Dexter silver dollar. The "D" is microscopic in size and is well hidden on one of the clouds and it's not even noticeable by the casual viewer. Also, no metal was removed from the coin.
As far as the gold nickel, say it's "straight graded" but do not call it "problem free" because it's far from being a problem free coin.
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
Then try that on a 2023 ASE
And what are your thoughts on the straight graded engraved 1814 platinum CBH with metal removed and an abundance of large counterstamped letters, that was mentioned with the Dexter Dollar?
Fair enough. 99% of the time "problem free" is interchangeable with "straight graded". Though if we're going to get picky, as mentioned, any grade under 70 is essentially a net graded problem coin.
The coin is not in a problem-free holder, as problem-free would be not noting "test cut," which is arguably a problem. The test cut does not interfere with describing the state of preservation of the coin as "otherwise AU53", much as is the case with the 70-S $3 and Dexter's $1. Were this coin polished and without test cut, a numeric grade wouldn't mean much, as it confers more information than just how much wear is on it. Saying "AU Polished" would be the best one could do.
The coin never changed as it went from holder to holder. It was an still is a fantastic error coin. All the texts on all its labels, past and present, are distinctions without a difference. The latest ones just don't have the D-word on them.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I agree with your interpretation on problem free. It would have been better to use "numerical grade" instead of essentially "problem-free with test cut notation" but @PerryHall already latched on to discussing that language before I could update it.
The Bass 1870-S $3 coin you menitoned is in the same situation as this where PCGS mentions "893 Engraved" on the holder. Chop marked US Trade Dollars have the same issue where they are graded with a numerical grade with the Chop Mark notation.
Seeing as how this coin is unique, easily identifiable and very valuable, subjectivity shouldn’t come into play, when grading/re-grading it. And it shouldn’t “need to be submitted multiple times before they get a desired grade”.
The fact that the original submitter chose to accept the initial grade doesn’t change any of that.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My perspective is that subjectivity always comes into play with human decisions like this.
Regarding your statement on being "easily identifiable and very valuable", I don't believe this was necessarily the case as it was only very recently discovered in 2019. I think it took Mike having it viewed by many experts and publishing it In Mint Error News to both make it more well known and more valuable, and I think it's still on its journey to increasing fame, especially now that it's in Jim's collection.
You don’t think the coin was easily identifiable and of obvious very high value back in 2019? Then how about when it was re-graded? How many coins of that type do you suppose the graders had seen?😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It's a new coin with a still mysterious background. I think it was handled appropriately with the TPG policies I'm aware of but since it seems you feel strongly it should have been graded differently the first time at our hosts, why not ask them about it by at mentioning them here?
When I submitted the gold Buffalo Nickel to NGC still in the PCGS holder, I was relatively confident that either:
NGC would straight grade it
Or
PCGS would re-consider and straight grade it further down the road.
Once clue to my rationale is as follows:
Years ago I submitted RAW the famous ex Col Green and Beck 1900 Indian Head Cent struck in gold on a $2.5 Indian Head blank, to PCGS.
It looked like it was a gem, virtually fully struck and dramatically eye appealing.
But in my opinion it looked like it had been wiped. Not one hairline but more of a polished look having been rubbed with a cloth a century ago.
I owned it (3) times. The first was in 1975 when I purchased it in the auction.
Had it been a regular U.S. gold coin, like a $2.5 Liberty with raised design and plenty of fields, it would have net graded ‘cleaned’, in my opinion.
PCGS recognized it’s value, rarity and pedigree, and straight graded it MS 65. It had an amazing presense and spoke for itself.
Therefore I am not in the least bit surprised that both NGC and PCGS decided that the proper designation for the gold Buffalo Nickel was a straight grade with a notation.
In my humble opinion, a unique and/or expensive mint error speaks for itself and occasionally gets considered differently when at PCGS or NGC.
Not sure why it even matters what it says on the label. It is a unique coin with a nefarious origin.
It’s value should not be influenced by the grade/label.
I didn’t say I thought the coin should have been graded differently the first time. I do, however, think its grading should have been consistent. I don’t want to go around and around, so will exit this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.