Sure looks like a proof to me, but some of these are tricky, as everyone has noted.
I’m wondering if the OP agrees with the 62 part of the grade. Are there strong reasons it shouldn’t be in a higher numerical grade holder?
Not speaking for the OP here, but if you look at the excellent video posted it appears there is a non-trivial amount of hairlines, probably from a wipe or two. This would explain the previous Unc details cleaned grade. 62 seems right from where I am sitting.
Here is a capture from the video.
The coin is definitely wiped as well. The UNC Details and PR62 grades are not inconsistent with one another. Proofs are graded differently from business strikes, the majority of their grade comes down to hairlines as they do not generally suffer from the planchet issues and the contact marks from handling and circulation that business strikes frequently feature. It takes more significant cleaning for a Proof to be given a details grade than a business strike, and a PR61 or PR62 generally implies fairly heavy hairlines.
The UNC details and PR62 grades most certainly are inconsistent, unless you think the UNC and Proof designations are interchangeable.
I was referring to the condition of details vs straight grade, not the Proof/MS designation. The designation is inconsistent, but within the scope of those designations the assigned conditions are not, given the difference in standards under which those designations are graded.
Sure looks like a proof to me, but some of these are tricky, as everyone has noted.
I’m wondering if the OP agrees with the 62 part of the grade. Are there strong reasons it shouldn’t be in a higher numerical grade holder?
Not speaking for the OP here, but if you look at the excellent video posted it appears there is a non-trivial amount of hairlines, probably from a wipe or two. This would explain the previous Unc details cleaned grade. 62 seems right from where I am sitting.
Here is a capture from the video.
The coin is definitely wiped as well. The UNC Details and PR62 grades are not inconsistent with one another. Proofs are graded differently from business strikes, the majority of their grade comes down to hairlines as they do not generally suffer from the planchet issues and the contact marks from handling and circulation that business strikes frequently feature. It takes more significant cleaning for a Proof to be given a details grade than a business strike, and a PR61 or PR62 generally implies fairly heavy hairlines.
The UNC details and PR62 grades most certainly are inconsistent, unless you think the UNC and Proof designations are interchangeable.
I was referring to the condition of details vs straight grade, not the Proof/MS designation. The designation is inconsistent, but within the scope of those designations the assigned conditions are not, given the difference in standards under which those designations are graded.
Thank you and I apologize for my confusion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You are correct - those are hairlines. Given, that is the only patch of hairlines on the coin and I'd attest the reverse is a solid 67.
I personally grade the coin PR64, as I've seen 64s that look pretty dang beat up, and there is only that one patch of hairlines that isn't super visible in hand. It was probably wiped long ago. I'll have a chance to compare it to a PF65 Satin at FUN, so I'll be able to get an opinion of it compared to a coin at that grade level.
I've seen comparison pictures of this coin right next to the PR65, and they are dead ringers for each other strike wise. Anyone who looks at that 65 who says it isn't a Proof is crazy.
Edited;: Based on the hairlines, (presumably from a wipe) 62 looks like the maximum grade to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Makes me wonder about the "who submits a coin" tag line. Regular Joe submits a coin...details result. Someone of known status submits the same coin...straight grade.
There are definitely what I like to call "grading politics." I know for a fact that graders are influenced by outside sources, even to include the submitter. This goes for all companies.
Of course, a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter. I doubt that the coin saw the correct graders the first time around.
Makes me wonder about the "who submits a coin" tag line. Regular Joe submits a coin...details result. Someone of known status submits the same coin...straight grade.
There are definitely what I like to call "grading politics." I know for a fact that graders are influenced by outside sources, even to include the submitter. This goes for all companies.
Of course, a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter. I doubt that the coin saw the correct graders the first time around.
Really foolish comment
I would have thought so too - until I heard some of the stories out there.
Makes me wonder about the "who submits a coin" tag line. Regular Joe submits a coin...details result. Someone of known status submits the same coin...straight grade.
There are definitely what I like to call "grading politics." I know for a fact that graders are influenced by outside sources, even to include the submitter. This goes for all companies.
Of course, a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter. I doubt that the coin saw the correct graders the first time around.
Really foolish comment
I would have thought so too - until I heard some of the stories out there.
Friend of mine told me he had a pcgs slabbed item that he felt should have been in higher grade holder. Pcgs agreed during an in person chat at a show. He was then charged an additional $500ish due to higher grade's value increase.
These are the real life stories that help to motivate us all. We are all always looking for that diamond in the rough. Only thru tenacity and diligence and knowledge and that never giving up attitude does one get to the finish line. And we have all experienced it including the walls that have to be bashed thru as well as the moguls we have to jump over all attempting to prevent us from reaching our main and ultimate objective. It truly is the thrill of the hunt and every once in awhile it actually happens where we land on the moon and it was worthy.
You just had the best journey and the ultimate outcome, thanks for sharing the journey
Was the coin originally in one of the NGC details holders that provided images so you had greater confidence than the lower quality images the seller used in his auction listing? It looks like when you wasted all that money with NGC initially that they gave better pictures: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6528967-001/NGCDetails/ There is unfortunately no recourse when they "get it wrong". However they let submitters set the value, so you could conceivably value the coin at a thousand bucks and not their high value tier and if it does get the high grade they would charge you more that point. They have highly experienced numismatists of the highest caliber, you have to wonder what they were thinking the first go around. I'd wonder whether the truly high end and rare coins like this require a submitter who sends them a lot of rariities.
@logger7 said:
Was the coin originally in one of the NGC details holders that provided images so you had greater confidence than the lower quality images the seller used in his auction listing? It looks like when you wasted all that money with NGC initially that they gave better pictures: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6528967-001/NGCDetails/ There is unfortunately no recourse when they "get it wrong". However they let submitters set the value, so you could conceivably value the coin at a thousand bucks and not their high value tier and if it does get the high grade they would charge you more that point. They have highly experienced numismatists of the highest caliber, you have to wonder what they were thinking the first go around. I'd wonder whether the truly high end and rare coins like this require a submitter who sends them a lot of rariities.
The strike doesn’t have me convinced for what that’s worth. The outer edges of the coin such as the date and “starts of” show a lack of pressure in the same corresponding spot which
1- wouldn’t have been there for hand made/ higher pressure proofs
2- exact phenomenon is common on that die pair for business strikes
3- not found on more excepted 21 proofs with history behind them
4- surface textures for that die pair are often satiny and post cleaning shouldn’t be trusted as an absolute diagnostic.
5- would sure like to hear from RWB
That coin in a NGC holder with no sticker will have a time getting absolute market acceptance as there are reasons why PCGS would never holder it. That said getting it in a holder is 1/2 the battle and will be a windfall never the less even if it never brings unequivocal proof money. Here are two coins that appear clearly better to these eyes
Coin facts PF64
Well played, Sir!
.
Now find me a Proof 1922-D Cent!!!
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.
@logger7 said:
Was the coin originally in one of the NGC details holders that provided images so you had greater confidence than the lower quality images the seller used in his auction listing? It looks like when you wasted all that money with NGC initially that they gave better pictures: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6528967-001/NGCDetails/ There is unfortunately no recourse when they "get it wrong". However they let submitters set the value, so you could conceivably value the coin at a thousand bucks and not their high value tier and if it does get the high grade they would charge you more that point. They have highly experienced numismatists of the highest caliber, you have to wonder what they were thinking the first go around. I'd wonder whether the truly high end and rare coins like this require a submitter who sends them a lot of rariities.
@Crypto said:
The strike doesn’t have me convinced for what that’s worth. The outer edges of the coin such as the date and “starts of” show a lack of pressure in the same corresponding spot which
1- wouldn’t have been there for hand made/ higher pressure proofs
2- exact phenomenon is common on that die pair for business strikes
3- not found on more excepted 21 proofs with history behind them
4- surface textures for that die pair are often satiny and post cleaning shouldn’t be trusted as an absolute diagnostic.
5- would sure like to hear from RWB
That coin in a NGC holder with no sticker will have a time getting absolute market acceptance as there are reasons why PCGS would never holder it. That said getting it in a holder is 1/2 the battle and will be a windfall never the less even if it never brings unequivocal proof money. Here are two coins that appear clearly better to these eyes
Coin facts PF64
Jack Lee NGC66
NGC62 (also a full date and details)
I agree with you completely. Something seems to be missing in the strike to fully convince me it’s a true proof. I have seen 21 and 22 proof dollars pictures with stronger detail than this coin. Perhaps submitter politics with NGC. I personally would never buy this coin for proof money. The only true proof s I know of have provenance from the JR Sinnock estate
The Jack Lee coin is interesting. It's the only non VAM-1H Proof I've seen, and is the only Proof to show significant contact marks and scrapes.
There are a minimum of three Proof examples that show the same date weakness as my coin. Based on an in hand look, it strongly appears to be caused by grease on the die, and this is consistent with several coins showing the same feature and it disappearing on other Proofs as the grease worked it way out of the die.
As far as strike on this coin goes - I have yet to see a business strike 1921 that has the same detail in the central hair. @Walkerlover, I'd love to see these 1921 dollars with better details, as there are people who would pay huge money for such a coin. Lighting plays a huge role in how these coins look as well. Here are pictures of it under the same light as a Proof without the date weakness:
.
.
And one more picture showing the detail of the coin at an angle:
@FlyingAl said:
The Jack Lee coin is interesting. It's the only non VAM-1H Proof, and is the only Proof to show significant contact marks and scrapes.
There are a minimum of three Proof examples that show the same date weakness as my coin. Based on an in hand look, it strongly appears to be caused by grease on the die, and this is consistent with several coins showing the same feature and it disappearing on other Proofs as the grease worked it way out of the die.
As far as strike on this coin goes - I have yet to see a business strike 1921 that has the same detail in the central hair. @Walkerlover, I'd love to see these 1921 dollars with better details, as there are people who would pay huge money for such a coin. Lighting plays a huge role in how these coins look as well. Here are pictures of it under the same light as a Proof without the date weakness:
.
.
And one more picture showing the detail of the coin at an angle:
Respectfully Flying Al how do you know this coin isn’t a super first strike from the dies masquerading as a proof
Also how come there is no attribution for this coin. Do you know who the owner is, any connection with the Sinnock estate? and why would it suddenly be on EBay out in the wild. Something doesn’t add up it seems. Playing Devil 👿 Advocate here
I have not seen a Satin Proof with ties to the Sinnock estate. Can you provide a link to the particular coin? His time at the mint started in 1925, so it would be a bit surprising to see some of these coins pop up in his estate but not entirely out of the question. Nearly all 1922 Peace Proofs came from Director Baker's estate.
Like most 1921 Peace Proofs, this coin has no supporting documentation. Such documentation is a rarity in the world of numismatics. The Jack Lee PR66 above and the PR62 above have no such documentation and the Jack Lee coin showed up at the 1975 ANA out of the blue.
Looking at Heritage's sales of 1921 Satin Proofs, I was unable to find any coin with documentation to any mint official from any time period.
As far as this coin being MS, the coin itself points far more to PR than MS. I have yet to see a MS coin that looks like it, and would love to see one if such a coin exists.
@Walkerlover said:
Respectfully Flying Al how do you know this coin isn’t a super first strike from the dies masquerading as a proof
Also how come there is no attribution for this coin. Do you know who the owner is, any connection with the Sinnock estate? and why would it suddenly be on EBay out in the wild. Something doesn’t add up it seems. Playing Devil 👿 Advocate here
@Walkerlover - With respect, how is it you feel that you can go directly from your normal bumblings (e.g., not knowing how to use the Forum search function, or begging for help on your agonizing decision of whether to buy a $50 Lincoln cent) to giving advice on a proof Peace dollar...and to someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of you, no less. Would love to hear your explanation.
@Walkerlover said:
Respectfully Flying Al how do you know this coin isn’t a super first strike from the dies masquerading as a proof
Also how come there is no attribution for this coin. Do you know who the owner is, any connection with the Sinnock estate? and why would it suddenly be on EBay out in the wild. Something doesn’t add up it seems. Playing Devil 👿 Advocate here
@Walkerlover - With respect, how is it you feel that you can go directly from your normal bumblings (e.g., not knowing how to use the Forum search function, or begging for help on your agonizing decision of whether to buy a $50 Lincoln cent) to giving advice on a proof Peace dollar...and to someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of you, no less. Would love to hear your explanation.
Please be respectful I don’t claim to be an expert it just my opinion
. I wouldn’t insult you. This is a forum to exchange ideas not tear down people. I can have an opinion like anyone else without being an expert. I think it’s strange that the coin got a detail grade and than all of a sudden it’s a satin proof because someone he knows pulled some weight at NGC
@Walkerlover said:
Respectfully Flying Al how do you know this coin isn’t a super first strike from the dies masquerading as a proof
Also how come there is no attribution for this coin. Do you know who the owner is, any connection with the Sinnock estate? and why would it suddenly be on EBay out in the wild. Something doesn’t add up it seems. Playing Devil 👿 Advocate here
@Walkerlover - With respect, how is it you feel that you can go directly from your normal bumblings (e.g., not knowing how to use the Forum search function, or begging for help on your agonizing decision of whether to buy a $50 Lincoln cent) to giving advice on a proof Peace dollar...and to someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of you, no less. Would love to hear your explanation.
Please be respectful I don’t claim to be an expert it just my opinion
. I wouldn’t insult you. This is a forum to exchange ideas no tear down people
@Walkerlover said:
Respectfully Flying Al how do you know this coin isn’t a super first strike from the dies masquerading as a proof
Also how come there is no attribution for this coin. Do you know who the owner is, any connection with the Sinnock estate? and why would it suddenly be on EBay out in the wild. Something doesn’t add up it seems. Playing Devil 👿 Advocate here
@Walkerlover - With respect, how is it you feel that you can go directly from your normal bumblings (e.g., not knowing how to use the Forum search function, or begging for help on your agonizing decision of whether to buy a $50 Lincoln cent) to giving advice on a proof Peace dollar...and to someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of you, no less. Would love to hear your explanation.
Please be respectful I don’t claim to be an expert it just my opinion
. I wouldn’t insult you. This is a forum to exchange ideas not tear down people. I can have an opinion like anyone else without being an expert. I think it’s strange that the coin got a detail grade and than all of a sudden it’s a satin proof because someone he knows pulled some weight at NGC
Let's play devil's advocate again, shall we? Let's say that someone who had no knowledge on a particular coin suggested that the only way someone else could get said coin certified as "X" was by getting a special favor (not through his knowledge, experience, research, etc.). That would be rather insulting, would it not? Or perhaps just very rude? What kind of response do you think that person should expect to receive after such a statement?
@Walkerlover said:
Respectfully Flying Al how do you know this coin isn’t a super first strike from the dies masquerading as a proof
Also how come there is no attribution for this coin. Do you know who the owner is, any connection with the Sinnock estate? and why would it suddenly be on EBay out in the wild. Something doesn’t add up it seems. Playing Devil 👿 Advocate here
@Walkerlover - With respect, how is it you feel that you can go directly from your normal bumblings (e.g., not knowing how to use the Forum search function, or begging for help on your agonizing decision of whether to buy a $50 Lincoln cent) to giving advice on a proof Peace dollar...and to someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of you, no less. Would love to hear your explanation.
Please be respectful I don’t claim to be an expert it just my opinion
. I wouldn’t insult you. This is a forum to exchange ideas not tear down people. I can have an opinion like anyone else without being an expert. I think it’s strange that the coin got a detail grade and than all of a sudden it’s a satin proof because someone he knows pulled some weight at NGC
Let's play devil's advocate again, shall we? Let's say that someone who had no knowledge on a particular coin suggested that the only way someone else could get said coin certified as "X" was by getting a special favor (not through his knowledge, experience, research, etc.). That would be rather insulting, would it not? Or perhaps just very rude? What kind of response do you think that person should expect to receive after such a statement?
I don’t really know how to respond to your statement. Let’s just say the coin may or may not be a Satin Proof. It is surely controversial and I am not the only one saying it. Just because I buy inexpensive coins as I “bumble around “ doesn’t mean I can’t opine on more expensive coins as I do read up a lot on coins and look at PCGS CoinFacts photos. I never claimed to be an expert. There must be a reason PCGS doesn’t recognize these coins as proofs
It’s also condescending to say I agonize over $50 coins as my budget is not as much as yours or other rich collectors. Every inexpensive purchase to me is as important as your decision over a $20 gold coin
Everybody take a deep breath and go to bed. Sleep on whatever you were going to say next.
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.
Makes me wonder about the "who submits a coin" tag line. Regular Joe submits a coin...details result. Someone of known status submits the same coin...straight grade.
There are definitely what I like to call "grading politics." I know for a fact that graders are influenced by outside sources, even to include the submitter. This goes for all companies.
Of course, a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter. I doubt that the coin saw the correct graders the first time around.
Really foolish comment
Not so foolish. One time the 1855-S specimen quarter and half dollar were submitted to NGC for encapsulation. They rejected them as specimens out of hand - ‘no way’ was the comment. Pcgs encapsulated them as specimens and they were sold into a major (mostly raw) collection that was submitted en masse to NGC when it was sold. Lo and behold the 1855-S’s were then magically specimens in ngc’s eyes. Heh
To assign a $20K plus grade to a coin such as that was based on a high degree of certitude by numismatists such as Rick Montogomery and Ken Krah. https://www.ngccoin.com/about/ngc-graders/
Makes me wonder about the "who submits a coin" tag line. Regular Joe submits a coin...details result. Someone of known status submits the same coin...straight grade.
There are definitely what I like to call "grading politics." I know for a fact that graders are influenced by outside sources, even to include the submitter. This goes for all companies.
Of course, a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter. I doubt that the coin saw the correct graders the first time around.
Really foolish comment
Not so foolish. One time the 1855-S specimen quarter and half dollar were submitted to NGC for encapsulation. They rejected them as specimens out of hand - ‘no way’ was the comment. Pcgs encapsulated them as specimens and they were sold into a major (mostly raw) collection that was submitted en masse to NGC when it was sold. Lo and behold the 1855-S’s were then magically specimens in ngc’s eyes. Heh
It’s inaccurate to say that “a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter.” We may theorize as to the reasons behind this particular coin or that particular coin being certified differently at different points in time and possibly by different graders, but to claim that it is necessary for a submitter to be of a certain status for a high-end coin to be certified accurately is false.
I have not seen a Satin Proof with ties to the Sinnock estate. Can you provide a link to the particular coin? His time at the mint started in 1925, so it would be a bit surprising to see some of these coins pop up in his estate but not entirely out of the question. Nearly all 1922 Peace Proofs came from Director Baker's estate.
Like most 1921 Peace Proofs, this coin has no supporting documentation. Such documentation is a rarity in the world of numismatics. The Jack Lee PR66 above and the PR62 above have no such documentation and the Jack Lee coin showed up at the 1975 ANA out of the blue.
Looking at Heritage's sales of 1921 Satin Proofs, I was unable to find any coin with documentation to any mint official from any time period.
As far as this coin being MS, the coin itself points far more to PR than MS. I have yet to see a MS coin that looks like it, and would love to see one if such a coin exists.
On the subject of why a (let's go with hypothetical) legitimately rare 1921-1922 Peace dollar variant might not have any documentation, here is an excerpt from a story I wrote for Coinage Magazine in late 2014:
"Some of this additional new information has come from the sale of seven remarkable coins that can be traced back to Raymond T. Baker, Director of the Mint from March 3, 1917 until March 4, 1922. It was on his watch that the Peace dollar design was hurriedly rushed into production in late 1921, and then revised, revised and revised again in early 1922.
They exist today partly because Baker had left on an extended trip to visit family in the San Francisco Bay area and friends in Reno, NV in late 1921 and early 1922, just after supervising the approval of DeFrancisci’s original designs. Those designs had included a reverse with an eagle holding a broken sword, which to DeFrancisci had righteously symbolized the end of World War One. President Harding himself had approved the designs.
However, strongly unfavorable press reaction to the broken sword symbolism caused its swift removal, so the Acting Director quite reasonably sent Baker specimens of the finished 1921 Peace dollars on the road for his examination. Burdette records an article in the Reno Evening Gazette for Jan. 10, 1922 which states that Baker, who had arrived in town that day, had given away “a few” of the new dollars to friends in San Francisco, and three to friends in Reno.
Other shipments were sent West or to his D.C. office as additional revisions occurred, and though he may have given away some of them as well, it is obvious that he kept most of them. The seven Peace dollars known to have been passed down through various hands from Mr. Baker (who died in 1935) to the 21st Century time traveled while housed in paper envelopes with some fascinating notes on them, which the Philadelphia Mint employee(s) who sent the coins to Baker is (are) assumed to have written."
The coins distributed in Reno on Jan. 10, 1922, were presumably dated 1921, as it is highly unlikely (though I suppose not impossible) that any 1922-dated strikes could have caught up to him by that early date. Either way, it is highly likely that as Director of the Mint he would wanted to have to distribute sample of the first mintage, the 1921's.
Did he "request" some nice 1921's from the Philadelphia Mint for his trip? I don't know.
Did the Philadelphia Mint go out of their way to make something special for the boss? I don't know.
All I know is, a coin received as such a gift from a notable name had a good chance of being saved for a decade or a century, even if the recipient came from a non-numismatic family. When it finally did find its way into numismatic circles, the chances of it having any documentation would be slim.
TD
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.
I did ask RWB to comment on this thread, and he replied as follows:
"The central problem, as I identified 20 years ago, is that in the late 1950s-early 1960s
when 1921 proof Peace dollars became widely known among collectors, there was almost no
objective research on the coins. The only “expert” was Walter Breen, who in truth knew little
about the coins or how they were manufactured. His phony authentications, combined with his
admission that some fraudsters took well-struck 1921s and treated them to imitate a “matte”
surface, merely confused collectors and specialists.
Invention of independent authentication and
grading businesses did not help largely because they merely imitated past mistakes.
The result was the main corpus of “1921 proof Peace dollars” was, and still is, a mash-up
of legitimate sandblast and satin proofs, legitimate antiqued proof and circulation pieces,
ambiguous certification, and a few outright frauds. The situation has changed little since TPG
creation because these companies have not used modern research and improved analysis to cull
incorrectly identified 1921 Peace dollar “proofs” from those in certification packaging.
An obvious remedy is to reexamine all slabbed 1921 Peace dollars labeled “proof.” But it
is doubtful anyone knows where these things are today. An incremental approach, and probably
the only practical one, is for the major authentication companies to hold a conference with Peace
dollar experts and review all available information and photos. This would allow the coin
business work through the various options and produce clear definitions of what constitute
“sandblast” and “satin” 1921 proof Peace dollars."
That would make a splendid convocation.
TD
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.
Makes me wonder about the "who submits a coin" tag line. Regular Joe submits a coin...details result. Someone of known status submits the same coin...straight grade.
There are definitely what I like to call "grading politics." I know for a fact that graders are influenced by outside sources, even to include the submitter. This goes for all companies.
Of course, a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter. I doubt that the coin saw the correct graders the first time around.
Really foolish comment
Not so foolish. One time the 1855-S specimen quarter and half dollar were submitted to NGC for encapsulation. They rejected them as specimens out of hand - ‘no way’ was the comment. Pcgs encapsulated them as specimens and they were sold into a major (mostly raw) collection that was submitted en masse to NGC when it was sold. Lo and behold the 1855-S’s were then magically specimens in ngc’s eyes. Heh
It’s inaccurate to say that “a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter.” We may theorize as to the reasons behind this particular coin or that particular coin being certified differently at different points in time and possibly by different graders, but to claim that it is necessary for a submitter to be of a certain status for a high-end coin to be certified accurately is false.
A controversial coin stands a much better chance of receiving the designation if it’s submitted by a Contursi or a Danreuther than a nobody. They know what to point out and when/where/how to submit. A nobody sends it in with no support, no set up coins and no conversation with the powers that be. Like it or not - it’s true.
Do you think that Joe Schmoe would have gotten the proof designation on the $1M+ 1921 double eagle? Heck no - in fact it didn’t get it the first time at all. It takes stature and knowledge to convince a TPG to go that route.
LOL, you should see the issues with foreign (ie British coins), but will leave that alone as even with superb documentation, submissions go "astray" in the designations and even by well respected dealers & collectors.
But this is a lovely coin, no doubt and thanks for sharing, Sir!
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Not so foolish. One time the 1855-S specimen quarter and half dollar were submitted to NGC for encapsulation. They rejected them as specimens out of hand - ‘no way’ was the comment. Pcgs encapsulated them as specimens and they were sold into a major (mostly raw) collection that was submitted en masse to NGC when it was sold. Lo and behold the 1855-S’s were then magically specimens in ngc’s eyes. Heh
I don’t see the equivalency you’re trying to draw. There are many things that could explain why NGC chose to certify those coins as SP the 2nd time - Occam’s razor would suggest that the market accepted the coins as SP in PCGS holders when originally NGC took the opinion that the market wouldn’t. And then they adjusted the line or evolved in their thinking because of that market acceptance.
Makes me wonder about the "who submits a coin" tag line. Regular Joe submits a coin...details result. Someone of known status submits the same coin...straight grade.
There are definitely what I like to call "grading politics." I know for a fact that graders are influenced by outside sources, even to include the submitter. This goes for all companies.
Of course, a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter. I doubt that the coin saw the correct graders the first time around.
Really foolish comment
Not so foolish. One time the 1855-S specimen quarter and half dollar were submitted to NGC for encapsulation. They rejected them as specimens out of hand - ‘no way’ was the comment. Pcgs encapsulated them as specimens and they were sold into a major (mostly raw) collection that was submitted en masse to NGC when it was sold. Lo and behold the 1855-S’s were then magically specimens in ngc’s eyes. Heh
It’s inaccurate to say that “a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter.” We may theorize as to the reasons behind this particular coin or that particular coin being certified differently at different points in time and possibly by different graders, but to claim that it is necessary for a submitter to be of a certain status for a high-end coin to be certified accurately is false.
A controversial coin stands a much better chance of receiving the designation if it’s submitted by a Contursi or a Danreuther than a nobody. They know what to point out and when/where/how to submit. A nobody sends it in with no support, no set up coins and no conversation with the powers that be. Like it or not - it’s true.
So if that argument is followed logically, supporting evidence can be an important factor in the designation of a controversial coin, not so much the name of the person submitting - though an experienced person has an advantage in that they may provide better evidence than an inexperienced person.
But even while that may be true in certain circumstances, it is certainly not true in all circumstances, which is what the original comment was stating. The comment was that NGC would not call such a coin PF without a “trusted submitter” (whatever that means). I have gotten controversial coins in holders without being a “somebody” (like the coin linked in my signature). The circulated pattern peace dollar I linked earlier in the thread was placed in a holder without the submitter being a “somebody.” There have been many instances in which submitters did not know that they had something special at all, and their coin is given a special designation - you just don’t really hear about those.
Graders must use their own discretion and expertise - if they were to simply obey the whims of “known” submitters, they would open the company up to massive future liabilities, because even “known” submitters constantly claim or believe that coins are special when they are not. Graders are also not receiving proof peace dollars, saying “hey, look, a proof peace dollar,” then looking at the submitter’s name and going “well, this person isn’t important, so I’ll just call it a business strike.”
There is also the elephant in the room that the down side of making an unprovable/subjective coin is minimal for the TPGs. I’m not sure the argument when it was stated in the OP that the coin required extra push to get it the designation. I for one would have kept the back story private, the history story didn’t do its value any favors.
@Crypto said:
There is also the elephant in the room that the down side of making an unprovable/subjective coin is minimal for the TPGs. I’m not sure the argument when it was stated in the OP that the coin required extra push to get it the designation. I for one would have kept the back story private, the history story didn’t do its value any favors.
I just read through this thread and it reminded me of my earlier collecting days and the excitement followed sometimes by celebration but more often not. I see a lot of congratulations in this thread, possibly warranted, but it also reminded me of the numerous huge scores, many from eBay, some my own, that I only know about because of close friends. I guess they won't get "you suck of the century" awards, but those discoveries were probably helped by the lack of story, and added mystique surrounding the coins if/when the collector sold. The majority never saw the light of day though, as they remain prized treasures of the collectors who found them.
If you're going to keep this coin, I think you made the right call with this reveal. Enjoy the glow around this coin, sounds like you had fun with the journey which should be the point of this all.
Very enjoyable read! Big congrats to you @FlyingAl
As you begin your adult life, you will be tempted to sell this coin to finance other things. Downpayments on vehicles, house, wedding, college expenses, etc.
If at all possible, resist selling this one at all costs. It has all the hallmarks of being a future family heirloom, replete with storytelling and grandkids huddled in a circle in front of a crackling fireplace.
It's irreplaceable, and it is YOUR discovery!
So happy for you. 😊
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Very enjoyable read! Big congrats to you @FlyingAl
As you begin your adult life, you will be tempted to sell this coin to finance other things. Downpayments on vehicles, house, wedding, college expenses, etc.
If at all possible, resist selling this one at all costs. It has all the hallmarks of being a future family heirloom, replete with storytelling and grandkids huddled in a circle in front of a crackling fireplace.
It's irreplaceable, and it is YOUR discovery!
So happy for you. 😊
It’s a great story and an interesting coin. But the story will remain long after the coin’s gone. And things such as a car, home, wedding and education are far more important than the coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Very enjoyable read! Big congrats to you @FlyingAl
As you begin your adult life, you will be tempted to sell this coin to finance other things. Downpayments on vehicles, house, wedding, college expenses, etc.
If at all possible, resist selling this one at all costs. It has all the hallmarks of being a future family heirloom, replete with storytelling and grandkids huddled in a circle in front of a crackling fireplace.
It's irreplaceable, and it is YOUR discovery!
So happy for you. 😊
It’s a great story and an interesting coin. But the story will remain long after the coin’s gone. And things such as a car, home, wedding and education are far more important than the coin.
Yes, obviously. But assuming he didnt spend a whole lot on this piece, it would be great to hold onto something of which he turned silver into gold. The money will come in time, so try and hold onto this special piece!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Mark is right - there are a lot of things that are far more important than the coin. However, I’ve done a lot of work early in life to get good scholarships so money for college is not necessarily an issue, and if things go to plan I’ll have a fairly decent job right after graduation. So for now, there’s no need to sell and hopefully there won’t ever be.
Comments
I was referring to the condition of details vs straight grade, not the Proof/MS designation. The designation is inconsistent, but within the scope of those designations the assigned conditions are not, given the difference in standards under which those designations are graded.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Thank you and I apologize for my confusion.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Edited;: Based on the hairlines, (presumably from a wipe) 62 looks like the maximum grade to me.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Really foolish comment
I would have thought so too - until I heard some of the stories out there.
Coin Photographer.
I too have heard the same re tpg's in general
Friend of mine told me he had a pcgs slabbed item that he felt should have been in higher grade holder. Pcgs agreed during an in person chat at a show. He was then charged an additional $500ish due to higher grade's value increase.
Best thread I have ever read on this forum - this is one for the “best of” series - happy holidays to all
These are the real life stories that help to motivate us all. We are all always looking for that diamond in the rough. Only thru tenacity and diligence and knowledge and that never giving up attitude does one get to the finish line. And we have all experienced it including the walls that have to be bashed thru as well as the moguls we have to jump over all attempting to prevent us from reaching our main and ultimate objective. It truly is the thrill of the hunt and every once in awhile it actually happens where we land on the moon and it was worthy.
You just had the best journey and the ultimate outcome, thanks for sharing the journey
Was the coin originally in one of the NGC details holders that provided images so you had greater confidence than the lower quality images the seller used in his auction listing? It looks like when you wasted all that money with NGC initially that they gave better pictures: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6528967-001/NGCDetails/ There is unfortunately no recourse when they "get it wrong". However they let submitters set the value, so you could conceivably value the coin at a thousand bucks and not their high value tier and if it does get the high grade they would charge you more that point. They have highly experienced numismatists of the highest caliber, you have to wonder what they were thinking the first go around. I'd wonder whether the truly high end and rare coins like this require a submitter who sends them a lot of rariities.
It's almost like they give more appealing photos when their coins straight grade: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6702539-001/62/
Nice coin and story. This just shows how unreliable grading coins can be sometimes.
The coin was bought raw, so the first grading event was that NGC UNC Cleaned holder.
Whatever some people say, you can't submit a 1921 Peace as a Proof with a $1000 value. That will raise some eyebrows over at NGC.
Coin Photographer.
The strike doesn’t have me convinced for what that’s worth. The outer edges of the coin such as the date and “starts of” show a lack of pressure in the same corresponding spot which
1- wouldn’t have been there for hand made/ higher pressure proofs
2- exact phenomenon is common on that die pair for business strikes
3- not found on more excepted 21 proofs with history behind them
4- surface textures for that die pair are often satiny and post cleaning shouldn’t be trusted as an absolute diagnostic.
5- would sure like to hear from RWB
That coin in a NGC holder with no sticker will have a time getting absolute market acceptance as there are reasons why PCGS would never holder it. That said getting it in a holder is 1/2 the battle and will be a windfall never the less even if it never brings unequivocal proof money. Here are two coins that appear clearly better to these eyes
Coin facts PF64
Jack Lee NGC66
NGC62 (also a full date and details)
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Well played, Sir!
.
Now find me a Proof 1922-D Cent!!!
Would you have been content if the coin came back the first time PF details cleaned? Or would you have continued to resubmit?
I agree with you completely. Something seems to be missing in the strike to fully convince me it’s a true proof. I have seen 21 and 22 proof dollars pictures with stronger detail than this coin. Perhaps submitter politics with NGC. I personally would never buy this coin for proof money. The only true proof s I know of have provenance from the JR Sinnock estate
The Jack Lee coin is interesting. It's the only non VAM-1H Proof I've seen, and is the only Proof to show significant contact marks and scrapes.
There are a minimum of three Proof examples that show the same date weakness as my coin. Based on an in hand look, it strongly appears to be caused by grease on the die, and this is consistent with several coins showing the same feature and it disappearing on other Proofs as the grease worked it way out of the die.
As far as strike on this coin goes - I have yet to see a business strike 1921 that has the same detail in the central hair. @Walkerlover, I'd love to see these 1921 dollars with better details, as there are people who would pay huge money for such a coin. Lighting plays a huge role in how these coins look as well. Here are pictures of it under the same light as a Proof without the date weakness:
.
.
And one more picture showing the detail of the coin at an angle:
Coin Photographer.
Respectfully Flying Al how do you know this coin isn’t a super first strike from the dies masquerading as a proof
Also how come there is no attribution for this coin. Do you know who the owner is, any connection with the Sinnock estate? and why would it suddenly be on EBay out in the wild. Something doesn’t add up it seems. Playing Devil 👿 Advocate here
@Walkerlover
I have not seen a Satin Proof with ties to the Sinnock estate. Can you provide a link to the particular coin? His time at the mint started in 1925, so it would be a bit surprising to see some of these coins pop up in his estate but not entirely out of the question. Nearly all 1922 Peace Proofs came from Director Baker's estate.
Like most 1921 Peace Proofs, this coin has no supporting documentation. Such documentation is a rarity in the world of numismatics. The Jack Lee PR66 above and the PR62 above have no such documentation and the Jack Lee coin showed up at the 1975 ANA out of the blue.
Looking at Heritage's sales of 1921 Satin Proofs, I was unable to find any coin with documentation to any mint official from any time period.
As far as this coin being MS, the coin itself points far more to PR than MS. I have yet to see a MS coin that looks like it, and would love to see one if such a coin exists.
Coin Photographer.
@Walkerlover - With respect, how is it you feel that you can go directly from your normal bumblings (e.g., not knowing how to use the Forum search function, or begging for help on your agonizing decision of whether to buy a $50 Lincoln cent) to giving advice on a proof Peace dollar...and to someone who is leaps and bounds ahead of you, no less. Would love to hear your explanation.
Please be respectful I don’t claim to be an expert it just my opinion
. I wouldn’t insult you. This is a forum to exchange ideas not tear down people. I can have an opinion like anyone else without being an expert. I think it’s strange that the coin got a detail grade and than all of a sudden it’s a satin proof because someone he knows pulled some weight at NGC
That's why I said, "with respect".
Let's play devil's advocate again, shall we? Let's say that someone who had no knowledge on a particular coin suggested that the only way someone else could get said coin certified as "X" was by getting a special favor (not through his knowledge, experience, research, etc.). That would be rather insulting, would it not? Or perhaps just very rude? What kind of response do you think that person should expect to receive after such a statement?
I don’t really know how to respond to your statement. Let’s just say the coin may or may not be a Satin Proof. It is surely controversial and I am not the only one saying it. Just because I buy inexpensive coins as I “bumble around “ doesn’t mean I can’t opine on more expensive coins as I do read up a lot on coins and look at PCGS CoinFacts photos. I never claimed to be an expert. There must be a reason PCGS doesn’t recognize these coins as proofs
It’s also condescending to say I agonize over $50 coins as my budget is not as much as yours or other rich collectors. Every inexpensive purchase to me is as important as your decision over a $20 gold coin
Everybody take a deep breath and go to bed. Sleep on whatever you were going to say next.
Not so foolish. One time the 1855-S specimen quarter and half dollar were submitted to NGC for encapsulation. They rejected them as specimens out of hand - ‘no way’ was the comment. Pcgs encapsulated them as specimens and they were sold into a major (mostly raw) collection that was submitted en masse to NGC when it was sold. Lo and behold the 1855-S’s were then magically specimens in ngc’s eyes. Heh
So much trust is automatically given to the tpg's
To assign a $20K plus grade to a coin such as that was based on a high degree of certitude by numismatists such as Rick Montogomery and Ken Krah. https://www.ngccoin.com/about/ngc-graders/
It’s inaccurate to say that “a coin like this is not something NGC will be willing to call PF without a trusted submitter.” We may theorize as to the reasons behind this particular coin or that particular coin being certified differently at different points in time and possibly by different graders, but to claim that it is necessary for a submitter to be of a certain status for a high-end coin to be certified accurately is false.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
On the subject of why a (let's go with hypothetical) legitimately rare 1921-1922 Peace dollar variant might not have any documentation, here is an excerpt from a story I wrote for Coinage Magazine in late 2014:
"Some of this additional new information has come from the sale of seven remarkable coins that can be traced back to Raymond T. Baker, Director of the Mint from March 3, 1917 until March 4, 1922. It was on his watch that the Peace dollar design was hurriedly rushed into production in late 1921, and then revised, revised and revised again in early 1922.
They exist today partly because Baker had left on an extended trip to visit family in the San Francisco Bay area and friends in Reno, NV in late 1921 and early 1922, just after supervising the approval of DeFrancisci’s original designs. Those designs had included a reverse with an eagle holding a broken sword, which to DeFrancisci had righteously symbolized the end of World War One. President Harding himself had approved the designs.
However, strongly unfavorable press reaction to the broken sword symbolism caused its swift removal, so the Acting Director quite reasonably sent Baker specimens of the finished 1921 Peace dollars on the road for his examination. Burdette records an article in the Reno Evening Gazette for Jan. 10, 1922 which states that Baker, who had arrived in town that day, had given away “a few” of the new dollars to friends in San Francisco, and three to friends in Reno.
Other shipments were sent West or to his D.C. office as additional revisions occurred, and though he may have given away some of them as well, it is obvious that he kept most of them. The seven Peace dollars known to have been passed down through various hands from Mr. Baker (who died in 1935) to the 21st Century time traveled while housed in paper envelopes with some fascinating notes on them, which the Philadelphia Mint employee(s) who sent the coins to Baker is (are) assumed to have written."
The coins distributed in Reno on Jan. 10, 1922, were presumably dated 1921, as it is highly unlikely (though I suppose not impossible) that any 1922-dated strikes could have caught up to him by that early date. Either way, it is highly likely that as Director of the Mint he would wanted to have to distribute sample of the first mintage, the 1921's.
Did he "request" some nice 1921's from the Philadelphia Mint for his trip? I don't know.
Did the Philadelphia Mint go out of their way to make something special for the boss? I don't know.
All I know is, a coin received as such a gift from a notable name had a good chance of being saved for a decade or a century, even if the recipient came from a non-numismatic family. When it finally did find its way into numismatic circles, the chances of it having any documentation would be slim.
TD
I did ask RWB to comment on this thread, and he replied as follows:
"The central problem, as I identified 20 years ago, is that in the late 1950s-early 1960s
when 1921 proof Peace dollars became widely known among collectors, there was almost no
objective research on the coins. The only “expert” was Walter Breen, who in truth knew little
about the coins or how they were manufactured. His phony authentications, combined with his
admission that some fraudsters took well-struck 1921s and treated them to imitate a “matte”
surface, merely confused collectors and specialists.
Invention of independent authentication and
grading businesses did not help largely because they merely imitated past mistakes.
The result was the main corpus of “1921 proof Peace dollars” was, and still is, a mash-up
of legitimate sandblast and satin proofs, legitimate antiqued proof and circulation pieces,
ambiguous certification, and a few outright frauds. The situation has changed little since TPG
creation because these companies have not used modern research and improved analysis to cull
incorrectly identified 1921 Peace dollar “proofs” from those in certification packaging.
An obvious remedy is to reexamine all slabbed 1921 Peace dollars labeled “proof.” But it
is doubtful anyone knows where these things are today. An incremental approach, and probably
the only practical one, is for the major authentication companies to hold a conference with Peace
dollar experts and review all available information and photos. This would allow the coin
business work through the various options and produce clear definitions of what constitute
“sandblast” and “satin” 1921 proof Peace dollars."
That would make a splendid convocation.
TD
A controversial coin stands a much better chance of receiving the designation if it’s submitted by a Contursi or a Danreuther than a nobody. They know what to point out and when/where/how to submit. A nobody sends it in with no support, no set up coins and no conversation with the powers that be. Like it or not - it’s true.
Do you think that Joe Schmoe would have gotten the proof designation on the $1M+ 1921 double eagle? Heck no - in fact it didn’t get it the first time at all. It takes stature and knowledge to convince a TPG to go that route.
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/market-analysis-1921-saint-gaudens-gold-20-in-proof-brings-2-010-000-dollars
LOL, you should see the issues with foreign (ie British coins), but will leave that alone as even with superb documentation, submissions go "astray" in the designations and even by well respected dealers & collectors.
But this is a lovely coin, no doubt and thanks for sharing, Sir!
Well, just Love coins, period.
I don’t see the equivalency you’re trying to draw. There are many things that could explain why NGC chose to certify those coins as SP the 2nd time - Occam’s razor would suggest that the market accepted the coins as SP in PCGS holders when originally NGC took the opinion that the market wouldn’t. And then they adjusted the line or evolved in their thinking because of that market acceptance.
That’s a good thing, no?
So if that argument is followed logically, supporting evidence can be an important factor in the designation of a controversial coin, not so much the name of the person submitting - though an experienced person has an advantage in that they may provide better evidence than an inexperienced person.
But even while that may be true in certain circumstances, it is certainly not true in all circumstances, which is what the original comment was stating. The comment was that NGC would not call such a coin PF without a “trusted submitter” (whatever that means). I have gotten controversial coins in holders without being a “somebody” (like the coin linked in my signature). The circulated pattern peace dollar I linked earlier in the thread was placed in a holder without the submitter being a “somebody.” There have been many instances in which submitters did not know that they had something special at all, and their coin is given a special designation - you just don’t really hear about those.
Graders must use their own discretion and expertise - if they were to simply obey the whims of “known” submitters, they would open the company up to massive future liabilities, because even “known” submitters constantly claim or believe that coins are special when they are not. Graders are also not receiving proof peace dollars, saying “hey, look, a proof peace dollar,” then looking at the submitter’s name and going “well, this person isn’t important, so I’ll just call it a business strike.”
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
We will have agree to disagree. I’ve seen it too many times. A well known TPG head once said to me ‘Contursi would have that in a specimen holder’.
There is also the elephant in the room that the down side of making an unprovable/subjective coin is minimal for the TPGs. I’m not sure the argument when it was stated in the OP that the coin required extra push to get it the designation. I for one would have kept the back story private, the history story didn’t do its value any favors.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I just read through this thread and it reminded me of my earlier collecting days and the excitement followed sometimes by celebration but more often not. I see a lot of congratulations in this thread, possibly warranted, but it also reminded me of the numerous huge scores, many from eBay, some my own, that I only know about because of close friends. I guess they won't get "you suck of the century" awards, but those discoveries were probably helped by the lack of story, and added mystique surrounding the coins if/when the collector sold. The majority never saw the light of day though, as they remain prized treasures of the collectors who found them.
If you're going to keep this coin, I think you made the right call with this reveal. Enjoy the glow around this coin, sounds like you had fun with the journey which should be the point of this all.
How did I miss this thread?
Very enjoyable read! Big congrats to you @FlyingAl
As you begin your adult life, you will be tempted to sell this coin to finance other things. Downpayments on vehicles, house, wedding, college expenses, etc.
If at all possible, resist selling this one at all costs. It has all the hallmarks of being a future family heirloom, replete with storytelling and grandkids huddled in a circle in front of a crackling fireplace.
It's irreplaceable, and it is YOUR discovery!
So happy for you. 😊
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
It’s a great story and an interesting coin. But the story will remain long after the coin’s gone. And things such as a car, home, wedding and education are far more important than the coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Yes, obviously. But assuming he didnt spend a whole lot on this piece, it would be great to hold onto something of which he turned silver into gold. The money will come in time, so try and hold onto this special piece!
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
Glad you found this @DCW and enjoyed it!
Mark is right - there are a lot of things that are far more important than the coin. However, I’ve done a lot of work early in life to get good scholarships so money for college is not necessarily an issue, and if things go to plan I’ll have a fairly decent job right after graduation. So for now, there’s no need to sell and hopefully there won’t ever be.
Coin Photographer.