I think maybe I’ve been selling my raw coins too cheaply..,

MrEureka

scubafuel

I disagree. Could I order a few please?

Crepidodera

Looks more like MS64.

cheezhed

67 is a stretch.

DoubleEagle59

There's no way that's a 67.

Summer student at NGC??

Could be a typo.

Coinscratch

@Crepidodera said:
Looks more like MS64.

On a good day.

DoubleEagle59

NGC ms67 on Heritage..............(big difference)

FlyingAl

Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Coinscratch

@DoubleEagle59 said:
NGC ms67 on Heritage..............(big difference)

Still an N coin and not 67.
Here is a bigger difference taken from PCGS Photograde 67.

DoubleEagle59

Yes, quite the difference between NGC and PCGS.

Still begs the question how did yours get a 67, even at NGC?

FlyingAl

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Yes, quite the difference between NGC and PCGS.

Still begs the question how did yours get a 67, even at NGC?

Anyone can pick and choose a poor or fantastic example. One coin is hardly an indicator of NGC being looser than PCGS.

Edit: I'm referring to the other two coins in this thread, not the OP one.

MrEureka

@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.

Crypto

@MrEureka said:

@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.

Even if one sells it for strong 65 money that would still be a win vs the actual quality. I don’t see anybody paying 67 money.

PROMETHIUS88

@MrEureka said:

@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.

I would disagree. It's just a 64 in a 67 holder.

FrankH

It's a numbers game now.

MrEureka

@PROMETHIUS88 said:

@MrEureka said:

@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.

I would disagree. It's just a 64 in a 67 holder.

While I agree, that’s just our opinion. On the other hand, the grade on the holder is the grade on the holder, and the market values grades on holders more than it values our opinions.

stealer

@MrEureka said:

@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.

NGC did the right thing on this coin:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1074252/how-new-top-pop-1874-t#latest

johnny9434

@scubafuel said:
I disagree. Could I order a few please?

ill take the rest

Typekat

I too saw that coin offered in my inbox this morning,
and just about launched my Lucky Charms

Coinscratch

@FlyingAl said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Yes, quite the difference between NGC and PCGS.

Still begs the question how did yours get a 67, even at NGC?

Anyone can pick and choose a poor or fantastic example. One coin is hardly an indicator of NGC being looser than PCGS.

Edit: I'm referring to the other two coins in this thread, not the OP one.

That was a random pic from PCGS's Photograde the MS67 Example. And it is hardly just one coin, in fact it's thousands of coins and yes a major undeniable indicator of lucy loose.

ms71

It's definitely indicative. Of something.

Coinscratch

@ms71 said:
It's definitely indicative. Of something.

I would tend to agree.

hfjacinto

@stealer said:

@MrEureka said:

@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.

NGC did the right thing on this coin:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1074252/how-new-top-pop-1874-t#latest

Looks like it was a mechanical error as its now a 64+ and not 67+

https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6266691-004/64/

david3142

In my view, the fact that the label says MS67 doesn’t make this any more of a 67 than that MS65 label makes the proof cent in the other thread mint state. Nor does it indicate anything about how loose a particular service is. It does suggest that neither TPG is perfect and errors slip through sometimes.

Old_Collector

So, buy the coin, not the holder still, right?

Coinscratch

So I suppose a cac sticker would be out of the question?
I just saw some beautiful gold coins in N holders at GC so it couldn’t possibly represent 100% but maybe just enough to be indicative. 😂

PeakRarities

“Mechanical error”…yea sure lol

@FlyingAl said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Yes, quite the difference between NGC and PCGS.

Still begs the question how did yours get a 67, even at NGC?

Anyone can pick and choose a poor or fantastic example. One coin is hardly an indicator of NGC being looser than PCGS.

Edit: I'm referring to the other two coins in this thread, not the OP one.

Sorry Alex, I know you’re fond of NGC but I would encourage you to concede here. NGC is absolutely looser when it comes to high grade gold, and it can be factually demonstrated with thousands of examples. That’s not to say that they’re “wrong”, but the line is definitely loose in comparison to pcgs.

With that said, the OP coin is not a superb gem by any standard…

ElmerFusterpuck

Wondering if another lesser coin was swapped into that holder? I'm leaning mechanical error.

coinkat

Not sure where to start so there arguably could be no end. Take a moment to be thankful.

JimTyler

I should have bought that nice 1925 $ you had in the case.

CRHer700

Can we discuss this and not bash TPGs? The older thread was closed because of that.

MrEureka

.

@JimTyler said:
I should have bought that nice 1925 $ you had in the case.

Nobody bought it. I’m going to have to send it in now and post the results to this thread in a few months! 😂

FlyingAl

@PeakRarities said:
“Mechanical error”…yea sure lol

@FlyingAl said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Yes, quite the difference between NGC and PCGS.

Still begs the question how did yours get a 67, even at NGC?

Anyone can pick and choose a poor or fantastic example. One coin is hardly an indicator of NGC being looser than PCGS.

Edit: I'm referring to the other two coins in this thread, not the OP one.

Sorry Alex, I know you’re fond of NGC but I would encourage you to concede here. NGC is absolutely looser when it comes to high grade gold, and it can be factually demonstrated with thousands of examples. That’s not to say that they’re “wrong”, but the line is definitely loose in comparison to pcgs.

With that said, the OP coin is not a superb gem by any standard…

I'll concede that NGC is probably looser by a point or so. With that said, throwing up a PCGS 67 that's blazing with luster and is super mark free and will probably upgrade one day is not really a fair comparison in my eyes. Granted, the NGC coin is probably better off in a 66 holder. My point was there are examples that go both ways and drawing a conclusion off of one coin pair is probably not the best idea.

I do truly believe the OP coin is a mechanical error though. The thing can't grade above 64.

oldabeintx

Mechanical error.

JimTyler

@MrEureka said:
.

@JimTyler said:
I should have bought that nice 1925 $ you had in the case.

Nobody bought it. I’m going to have to send it in now and post the results to this thread in a few months! 😂

I never looked at the reverse but if it is as nice as the obverse I’ll Zelle you the money unless you really want to send it in.

RobertScotLover

All I know is if I owned the coin and wished to sell it, every single partying inspecting the $10 would offer me something way below what is printed on the label and I mean everybody without exception

MrEureka

@JimTyler said:

@MrEureka said:
.

@JimTyler said:
I should have bought that nice 1925 $ you had in the case.

Nobody bought it. I’m going to have to send it in now and post the results to this thread in a few months! 😂

I never looked at the reverse but if it is as nice as the obverse I’ll Zelle you the money unless you really want to send it in.

I really want to send it in! Sort of like 10 LOL’s in the bush are worth more than $75 in hand, or something like that.

Martin

@MrEureka said:

@FlyingAl said:
Looks like a mechanical error to me.

Maybe. But if you can’t know how a coin ended up in a 67 holder, does it matter how it happened? It’s a 67 now.

And forever is

Martin

JimTyler

Let me know what it comes back so I know just how hard to kick myself in the ass.

braddick

@Typekat said:
I too saw that coin offered in my inbox this morning,
and just about launched my Lucky Charms

So, collectively we are no longer boycotting Kelloggs?

M4Madness

@RobertScotLover said:
All I know is if I owned the coin and wished to sell it, every single partying inspecting the $10 would offer me something way below what is printed on the label and I mean everybody without exception

Unless you found someone such as myself that can't grade a coin to save their life. I buy the holder, not the coin. Lol!

Onastone

Just like there are error coins, this is an error holder....error grade.

Luxor

The obverse pic from the NGC website:

Coinscratch

@CRHer700 said:
Can we discuss this and not bash TPGs? The older thread was closed because of that.

It isn’t really possible to discuss this absurd looking abomination without sounding critical. After all, these coins are not free and in fact their prices are based on their grades.
Grades and strict standards that are set by the industry leading and market accepting top tier TPG.

But if it is by all means an acceptable 67 to you then so be it. And when it comes time to sell you may find a little criticism as well.

PeakRarities

@FlyingAl said:

@PeakRarities said:
“Mechanical error”…yea sure lol

@FlyingAl said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Yes, quite the difference between NGC and PCGS.

Still begs the question how did yours get a 67, even at NGC?

Anyone can pick and choose a poor or fantastic example. One coin is hardly an indicator of NGC being looser than PCGS.

Edit: I'm referring to the other two coins in this thread, not the OP one.

Sorry Alex, I know you’re fond of NGC but I would encourage you to concede here. NGC is absolutely looser when it comes to high grade gold, and it can be factually demonstrated with thousands of examples. That’s not to say that they’re “wrong”, but the line is definitely loose in comparison to pcgs.

With that said, the OP coin is not a superb gem by any standard…

I'll concede that NGC is probably looser by a point or so. With that said, throwing up a PCGS 67 that's blazing with luster and is super mark free and will probably upgrade one day is not really a fair comparison in my eyes. Granted, the NGC coin is probably better off in a 66 holder. My point was there are examples that go both ways and drawing a conclusion off of one coin pair is probably not the best idea.

I do truly believe the OP coin is a mechanical error though. The thing can't grade above 64.

I can only hope it's a mechanical error, the coin is not even close to 67 by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree the one coin posted is a blazer, however, id be curious to know how many 67s there are across all dates at PCGS vs NGC. PCGS doesn't make many $10 libs in 67.

FlyingAl

@PeakRarities said:

@FlyingAl said:

@PeakRarities said:
“Mechanical error”…yea sure lol

@FlyingAl said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
Yes, quite the difference between NGC and PCGS.

Still begs the question how did yours get a 67, even at NGC?

Anyone can pick and choose a poor or fantastic example. One coin is hardly an indicator of NGC being looser than PCGS.

Edit: I'm referring to the other two coins in this thread, not the OP one.

Sorry Alex, I know you’re fond of NGC but I would encourage you to concede here. NGC is absolutely looser when it comes to high grade gold, and it can be factually demonstrated with thousands of examples. That’s not to say that they’re “wrong”, but the line is definitely loose in comparison to pcgs.

With that said, the OP coin is not a superb gem by any standard…

I'll concede that NGC is probably looser by a point or so. With that said, throwing up a PCGS 67 that's blazing with luster and is super mark free and will probably upgrade one day is not really a fair comparison in my eyes. Granted, the NGC coin is probably better off in a 66 holder. My point was there are examples that go both ways and drawing a conclusion off of one coin pair is probably not the best idea.

I do truly believe the OP coin is a mechanical error though. The thing can't grade above 64.

I can only hope it's a mechanical error, the coin is not even close to 67 by any stretch of the imagination.

I agree the one coin posted is a blazer, however, id be curious to know how many 67s there are across all dates at PCGS vs NGC. PCGS doesn't make many $10 libs in 67.

NGC grades 0.04% of $10 Libs as 67, and PCGS grades 0.01% as 67s. That's a 4 to 1 ratio in favor of NGC, which is reflected in the coins IMO looking at a random sample on Heritage.

Coinscratch

I could see that, one out of four being graded correctly.

CRHer700

@Coinscratch said:

@CRHer700 said:
Can we discuss this and not bash TPGs? The older thread was closed because of that.

It isn’t really possible to discuss this absurd looking abomination without sounding critical. After all, these coins are not free and in fact their prices are based on their grades.
Grades and strict standards that are set by the industry leading and market accepting top tier TPG.

But if it is by all means an acceptable 67 to you then so be it. And when it comes time to sell you may find a little criticism as well.

I understand, but I was only referring to a couple specific posts above, you know, I just want the thread to stay up, since it is an interesting topic to me.

JJM

Hmmmm 🤷

Luxor

Does anyone remember when NGC holdered this gem as an MS67? LOLOL

TomB

@Luxor said:
Does anyone remember when NGC holdered this gem as an MS67? LOLOL

I remember that coin!