PCGS slabbed coin misguided/mislabeled as MS instead of Proof : what to do?

NorthIdahoFree

Please bear with me. I have a gold coin that is clearly proof. It is a low level proof, PR60 for PR61. However, it is graded as MS.

Due to the small population of proofs, I have images of all auctions in the past fifteen years. The reverse in quite perfect, PR62 or PR63, but the obverse has some discoloration, not pristine fields, and incomplete remaining cameo. I have also scrolled through hundreds of MS60-66 and never seen anything close. This is from a coin before PL (they were either MS or PL of circulated).

The numismatic research is that these proofs were released and therefore many are lower grade proofs.

Is there an appeal, where PCGS takes my concern or informal grade under consideration? Or would the coin be submitted with a demand to get a new slab and grading is done with out that concern?

Thanks.

Greenstang

Perhaps if you were to show a photo of both sides, someone may be able to help you.
Right now we don’t even know what coin you are referring to.

IkesT

I agree with @Greenstang - better to post photos so that we can confirm the coin is a proof before you send it back to PCGS.

NorthIdahoFree

ok. here goes

NorthIdahoFree

I apologize for the photos. Also ehe holder is badly scratched. The reverse photos should be sufficient. really beautiful in the hand and through a 10x loupe.

The obverse top edge "peeling"/discoloration is not uncommon for this coinage, none of which warranted a Details grade. The headdress is nicely cameo, but the face is just is just lightly frosted. The fields are similar to the 1854 AU58 proof in the PCGS Coin Facts Images and the PCGS Pr-61 proofs one can find on past Heritage sales. Just of spidery-scruffy.

the details on the obverse on the hair and face are better than the AU58, so call it PR-60. And the reverse is on par with the PR-62 images I can find for the 1854. Hence the PR-60/61estimate.

There is nothing matte or lustrous about the coin. It is frost and mirrors, but of a coin that was not put away.

I am more confident about the coin being a proof than what steps to take. Thanks.

NorthIdahoFree

screen shots from a PSCGS slabbed PR-62

IkesT

Here's the problem - after the 1854 $3 proofs were struck, the same die pair was reused to strike a large number of 1854 business strike coins. When proof dies are reused in this manner, there is an expectation that a certain number of business strikes (particularly the earliest ones) will come out prooflike. It's already a difficult call to distinguish proof and prooflike coins struck from the same die pair, but it becomes even more difficult on low-grade examples.

In other words, my opinion is that it's not a sure thing that this coin will be attributed as a proof upon re-submission. Not saying it won't, but even if the coin warrants a proof designation, it might be an uphill battle requiring several submissions to get the desired result.

I'll defer to others as to what the best submission method would be in this case. Perhaps those who are $3 specialists can also weigh in and opine on your particular coin.

Rexford

I’m not convinced and am also not convinced of the PR-58 shown in CoinFacts or the PR-62 above. I am by no means an expert in this area, but I find a lot of the Proof designations on pre-1858 coinage extremely questionable.

MrEureka

FWIW, the rounding of the letters on the OP coin are not as squared as at least on some other known proofs. It’s not encouraging, but I’d reserve judgment until seeing it in hand. I’ll only add that PL 1854’s are not tremendously rare.

Here’s a small bit of the Bass coin:

NorthIdahoFree

I think I have seen every image of a proof 1854 from Stacks, Heritage since 2005. Clearly when I look at the Proof 63+, this coin does not compare to those beauts. But when I line up the images for PR-62, Pr-61, Pr-60 and PR-58, the coin starts to fit in. I'll try to upload better images. Then when I compare to MS-64+, there is simply no comparison, Especially on the details on the wreath (leaf veinage) or the details of the feathers.

Later issuance in the series, we see more PL, but I just have yet to come across any in the first-year 1854 mintage. And the contrast between all the top MS coins, there is such a gap in the fine details.

Will keep at it. I am building a folder of all Proof 1854s I can find. And I really do have to get someone to help me take better photos..

To make this less of an opinion exercise and more technical, what would be the convincing signs that I can look for? An

IKE--very interesting, hence my dilemma, especially reading the notes that suggest more than half of the 10-25 became lower grade and semi-circulated. Eureka -- I will look at the letters more carefully.

I will try also to look at this element by element on the raised features and try to look very closely at the fie. Clearly I am in the first inning.

An education, no doubt. No urgency. A project!

Thanks for all comments.

MFeld

My guess is the coin is a PL business strike. But in answer to your question “what to do.?” - resubmit the coin under “designation review”.

MrEureka

It would be interesting to compare the sharpness of the reeding of proofs and business strikes. It could be definitive, or not. Obviously not easily done outside the grading room, although you might be able to arrange it at the ANS and the Smithsonian.

MrEureka

I would also encourage you to study the other gold proofs of 1854. In all likelihood , real proof $3’s should be of a very similar fabric.

MrEureka

Based on JD and QDB’s comments, the lettering is less squared on what are now considered (by JD) to
be late die state proofs.

IkesT

With regard to the resubmission service question, I see that @MrEureka asked the same question in another thread back in 2018:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/994221/when-did-pcgs-stop-providing-the-designation-review-service

Apparently, "designation review" is no longer offered, and at that time, he was asked to submit his coin as a "mechanical error". If it were my coin, and after all due consideration, I decided to resubmit, I would contact PCGS directly and ask if this is still the preferred way to submit the coin.

I'd also want to include a note with the coin asking for it to be treated as if it were a "regrade", where PCGS cracks the coin out of its original holder prior to grading. It's important to be able to examine the rims and edge of a coin when evaluating whether it's a proof, and in this case, those features are fully obscured by the gasket of the holder.