Great Collections Listing error - Judd -456 Indian Cent Pattern

redraider

I believe this coin to be an 1860 with a damaged date, not the J-456 Pattern (1866 Copper-Nickel). This coin clearly has a rounded bust, which was used in 1860. By 1866, all Indian Head Cents and Indian Head Cent patterns had a Pointed Bust. Do you agree with this assessment? Probably need to let Ian know so he can remove/revise this listing. If my assessment is right, this coin needs to be cracked out too as to not deceive any future buyer.

Here is the listing

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1676498/Pattern-1866-1c-J-456-NGC-VF-Details-from-photo

Here is my example. Note the pointed bust.

redraider

I guess this is technically an NGC error, not GC. GC is just the selling party.

jonathanb

Horses, zebras

burfle23

Cool post @redraider ! I see PCGS shows both proof and MS versions; are there notable differences between the two?

NGC shows this image for the proof:

I added an image of the NGC coin from their site:

Date position is off as well...

CaptHenway

OP: Yep

IkesT

Good idea to let Ian know. I don't see an "L" on the ribbon, either.

redraider

@IkesT said:
Good idea to let Ian know. I don't see an "L" on the ribbon, either.

Yep….you beat me to that point. Definitely not an 1866

Copperindian

Nice catch Jonathan - 100% correct!
Ken

Jacques_Loungecoque

I discovered an error with a PCGS slab a few months back. Let customer service at GC know via email. They reviewed my notes, double checked, agreed, and made the appropriate notes to the listing in short order. They were very receptive. I guess every so often something’s gonna slip through….

burfle23

Cool catch on the "L" as well...

PerryHall

@ianrussell FYI and your action.

davewesen

@redraider said:
I guess this is technically an NGC error, not GC. GC is just the selling party.

.... and GC writes what is on the TPG label for listing title with no individual descriptions

PerryHall

@davewesen said:

@redraider said:
I guess this is technically an NGC error, not GC. GC is just the selling party.

.... and GC writes what is on the TPG label for listing title with no individual descriptions

I'm sure they look at what they are selling. Several years ago, they sold a few of my US gold coins and they discovered that a quarter eagle was mislabeled as being MS when it was actually a proof.

ianrussell

Thanks - we're reviewing this when the sun rises here in California.

• Ian

redraider

It appears this auction was rightfully removed. Thank you @ianrussell! Your integrity, speed, and actions are why I buy more from Greatcollections than any other auction site!

Walkerguy21D

Makes me wonder why someone would submit a cull $2 coin with none of the right attributes, and then NGC fails to perform due diligence and gives it the pattern designation…..

Crypto

@Walkerguy21D said:
Makes me wonder why someone would submit a cull $2 coin with none of the right attributes, and then NGC fails to perform due diligence and gives it the pattern designation…..

I bet the collector submitted it as a 66 and NGC just processed it. You can make some odd ball rarities esp varieties if you just pick the right Cert #.

They put their rigor on the grade and composition verification which both check out mind you. The date was close enough that they didn’t go full on hub analysis. Should they have, sure but PCGS has similar slips.

pcgs69

Maybe a dumb question but wouldn’t the 1860 be a “fatty” and the 1866 be the reduced size one? The thickness of it should have been an instant giveaway no? Not my series so maybe a dumb question.

oih82w8

@pcgs69 i believe that the generation of the holder is based upon time frame and not series. If I am reading your question correctly.

Walkerguy21D

@oih82w8 said:
@pcgs69 i believe that the generation of the holder is based upon time frame and not series. If I am reading your question correctly.

I think he means the coin itself, a thick copper nickel planchet for 1860, and a thin bronze planchet for 1866. But I have no idea what planchet was used for the real patterns struck in 1860. Since thinner bronze planchets weren’t used until mid-1864, I suspect the patterns in 1860 were on thick planchets.

oih82w8

johnny9434

No, not for me

pcgs69

@Walkerguy21D said:

@oih82w8 said:
@pcgs69 i believe that the generation of the holder is based upon time frame and not series. If I am reading your question correctly.

I think he means the coin itself, a thick copper nickel planchet for 1860, and a thin bronze planchet for 1866. But I have no idea what planchet was used for the real patterns struck in 1860. Since thinner bronze planchets weren’t used until mid-1864, I suspect the patterns in 1860 were on thick planchets.

That's what I was thinking... but since this was supposed to be an 1866 pattern (based on the label), then it should be the thin planchet? Unless, NGC is saying the 1866 pattern was on the original, thick planchet, as 1860?

Goldminers

@ianrussell said:
Thanks - we're reviewing this when the sun rises here in California.

• Ian

I always suspected the sun rose in California, and not the East.

MFeld

@pcgs69 said:

@Walkerguy21D said:

@oih82w8 said:
@pcgs69 i believe that the generation of the holder is based upon time frame and not series. If I am reading your question correctly.

I think he means the coin itself, a thick copper nickel planchet for 1860, and a thin bronze planchet for 1866. But I have no idea what planchet was used for the real patterns struck in 1860. Since thinner bronze planchets weren’t used until mid-1864, I suspect the patterns in 1860 were on thick planchets.

That's what I was thinking... but since this was supposed to be an 1866 pattern (based on the label), then it should be the thin planchet? Unless, NGC is saying the 1866 pattern was on the original, thick planchet, as 1860?

Here’s a description for a Judd-456 that Heritage auctioned - note the comments about the planchet:

“1866 1C One Cent, Judd-456, Pollock-530, Low R.7, PR65 PCGS. Ex: Benson. Eagle Eye Photo Seal. Regular Indian cent die trials issue. Struck in copper-nickel with a plain edge. This is apparently a thin planchet variant. This pattern issue is not without controversy. USPatterns.com believes they were struck on leftover copper-nickel planchets from regular coinage from 1857-1864. The problem with this, however, is the thin planchet seen on this coin. Regular issue copper-nickel cents were struck on thick planchets. Mottled olive-gold patina has a muting effect on the proof finish and the high points of the design are softly defined on the obverse.
Ex: Long Beach Signature (Heritage, 6/2005), lot 7384; Denver Signature (Heritage, 8/2006), lot 1439.”

Link to listing:

https://coins.ha.com/itm/patterns/1866-1c-one-cent-judd-456-pollock-530-low-r7-pr65-pcgs-pcgs-60651-/a/1258-5400.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

redraider

Mine is a thick planchet, looks just like the CN other dates, just dated 1866.

Walkerguy21D

So it sounds like both thin and thick planchets were used to strike pattern cents in 1866….

redraider

@Walkerguy21D said:
So it sounds like both thin and thick planchets were used to strike pattern cents in 1866….

I believe this is correct. There are a few other patterns in the CN series that used thin CN planchets. I have a few from 1864 and not certain, but I believe there were some from 1865 as well.

Bikergeek

@ianrussell said:
Thanks - we're reviewing this when the sun rises here in California.

• Ian

Ian, I recommend buying some electric lights. It will make a ton of difference, especially on really overcast days! heehee

IkesT

@ianrussell said:
Thanks - we're reviewing this when the sun rises here in California.

• Ian

Item has been relisted:

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1676498/Pattern-1866-1c-J-456-NGC-VF-Details

Was that intentional or a mistake due to automation?

MrEureka

The Simpson J-456 is on a thick planchet and designated as MS. Because it has satiny PL-ish surfaces unlike regular business strikes, and a giant lint mark on the reverse, I'm confident that it's not an error struck on a leftover planchet. It could be an intentional "error" struck from specially prepared dies, or it could have served some more legitimate purpose. And in the context of similar types of things of various denominations struck between 1864 and 1867, it's not surprising that it exists.

redraider

I would really want to see that Simpson example in person. The reverse looks like it has solid proof strike properties to a certain extent. In Rick Snows guide, he only has one example of an MS example being traced (other than the Simpson example). There is a chance that all of these were struck as PF, some better than others.

Also of note in the description in the attribution guide is most of these examples are on a thin planchet.

MrEureka

@redraider said:
I would really want to see that Simpson example in person. The reverse looks like it has solid proof strike properties to a certain extent. In Rick Snows guide, he only has one example of an MS example being traced (other than the Simpson example). There is a chance that all of these were struck as PF, some better than others.

Could be. Then again, at least most of the other off-metal 1866 regular dies trial pieces are in unquestionable MS format, from business strike dies. And the same is true of other 1863-66 off metal pieces. And at least most of the original (not restrike) experimental small cents of 1850 to 1864 are probably best described as MS, not PR, even if that has traditionally not been the way we describe them.

burfle23

@IkesT said:

@ianrussell said:
Thanks - we're reviewing this when the sun rises here in California.

• Ian

Item has been relisted:

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1676498/Pattern-1866-1c-J-456-NGC-VF-Details

Was that intentional or a mistake due to automation?

Interesting; my contact told me NGC had requested it back to them.

IkesT

@burfle23 said:

@IkesT said:

@ianrussell said:
Thanks - we're reviewing this when the sun rises here in California.

• Ian

Item has been relisted:

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1676498/Pattern-1866-1c-J-456-NGC-VF-Details

Was that intentional or a mistake due to automation?

Interesting; my contact told me NGC had requested it back to them.

That seems like the logical move, which is why I wondered if the relisting was a mistake. Some platforms automatically relist unsold items, so perhaps the automation took over in this case.

MFeld

@IkesT said:

@ianrussell said:
Thanks - we're reviewing this when the sun rises here in California.

• Ian

Item has been relisted:

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1676498/Pattern-1866-1c-J-456-NGC-VF-Details

Was that intentional or a mistake due to automation?

@ianrussell

CaptHenway

Let’s see….in 1866 the Mint had thin 75/25 copper-nickel stock for the three cents pieces and thick 75/25 copper-nickel stock for the five cents pieces. I doubt it had any 88/12 copper-nickel stock left over from the white cents, but I would not rule it out.

burfle23

IkesT

redraider

Geez....2 bidders must really want this 1 dollar coin! Im really surprised to see this still up at this point.

burfle23

@redraider said:
Geez....2 bidders must really want this 1 dollar coin! Im really surprised to see this still up at this point.

Just hit $775.00...

IkesT

Now at $875

IkesT

Looks like a perfect opportunity to continue our discussion of this coin so that all may be further educated. There is still additional information to be mined from the coin, and I think folks will find it interesting, as well.

When a hub is redesigned, we tend to latch on to one or two of the more obvious changes (such as the rounded bust vs. pointed bust and "No L" vs. "L", as previously discussed); however, a careful examination will often reveal other differences that are useful in cases of mistaken ID, such as this one.

An 1866 Indian cent (whether a pattern, proof, or business strike) has crenulated (wavy) margins on the feathers of the headdress, particularly on the 1st and 2nd feathers. This is readily apparent even on VF examples:

1866 1c PCGS MS65

1866 1c PCGS VF25

.
.
In contrast, the "No L" cents from 1859 to 1864 do not have the same crenulations on the feathers; the feather margins are smooth:

1860 1c PCGS MS66 (Rounded Bust)

OP Coin NGC VF Details

Once again, the OP coin clearly cannot be dated 1866, as its obverse design predates that year. From what we can see of the date (as previously discussed), a damaged 1860 is the most reasonable choice. People have been polite and courteous in their assessments, but politeness should not be mistaken for uncertainty.

jmlanzaf

@IkesT said:
Looks like a perfect opportunity to continue our discussion of this coin so that all may be further educated. There is still additional information to be mined from the coin, and I think folks will find it interesting, as well.

When a hub is redesigned, we tend to latch on to one or two of the more obvious changes (such as the rounded bust vs. pointed bust and "No L" vs. "L", as previously discussed); however, a careful examination will often reveal other differences that are useful in cases of mistaken ID, such as this one.

An 1866 Indian cent (whether a pattern, proof, or business strike) has crenulated (wavy) margins on the feathers of the headdress, particularly on the 1st and 2nd feathers. This is readily apparent even on VF examples:

1866 1c PCGS MS65

1866 1c PCGS VF25

.
.
In contrast, the "No L" cents from 1859 to 1864 do not have the same crenulations on the feathers; the feather margins are smooth:

1860 1c PCGS MS66 (Rounded Bust)

OP Coin NGC VF Details

Once again, the OP coin clearly cannot be dated 1866, as its obverse design predates that year. From what we can see of the date (as previously discussed), a damaged 1860 is the most reasonable choice. People have been polite and courteous in their assessments, but politeness should not be mistaken for uncertainty.

The pattern does appear to have fairly smooth feather edges.

IkesT

@jmlanzaf said:
The pattern does appear to have fairly smooth feather edges.

Absolutely not. The crenulations are perfectly clear, even on that photo.

jmlanzaf

@IkesT said:

@jmlanzaf said:
The pattern does appear to have fairly smooth feather edges.

Absolutely not. The crenulations are perfectly clear, even on that photo.

But they are not as pronounced as on the circulation strike you show.

IkesT

@jmlanzaf said:

@IkesT said:

@jmlanzaf said:
The pattern does appear to have fairly smooth feather edges.

Absolutely not. The crenulations are perfectly clear, even on that photo.

But they are not as pronounced as on the circulation strike you show.

You chose a blurry, low-resolution photo, Professor.

IkesT

While on the subject of the headdress, let's take a look at the band. On an 1866 cent, the borders of the band project out farther into the field than the rest of the band (in other words, the middle of the band is recessed). In contrast, on the "No L" cents from 1859 to 1864, the borders do not project out, and the middle of the band is slightly convex (bulges slightly outward) and sticks out farthest. Once again, the OP coin is not a match for the 1866, but does match the older design.

1866 1c PCGS MS65 - note the projecting borders:

1866 1c PCGS VF25 - Wear or a well-placed hit may remove the upper (weaker) border, but that still leaves the lower one:

1860 1c PCGS MS66 (Rounded Bust) - note the bulging middle of the band:

OP Coin NGC VF Details - note the bulging middle of the band:

jmlanzaf

@IkesT said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@IkesT said:

@jmlanzaf said:
The pattern does appear to have fairly smooth feather edges.

Absolutely not. The crenulations are perfectly clear, even on that photo.

But they are not as pronounced as on the circulation strike you show.

You chose a blurry, low-resolution photo, Professor.

I chose the only photo I had. I'm just not sure what to think given the even worse condition/photo of the GC coin.

I simply can't be definitive. You can LOL all you want. It's your core competency.

I'm surprised Ian hasn't followed up. Although i do notethat the listing is gone again. .

IkesT

@jmlanzaf said:
Although i do notethat the listing is gone again. .

Thanks, I appreciate that information.

burfle23

It went "hot" just before removed...