Spirited bidding on certified "Genuine" damaged large cent...
burfle23
Posts: 2,420 ✭✭✭✭✭
Certainly damaged, I wonder if the bidders think it is a genuine error?
Will be interesting to see how high it goes!
3
Comments
It's funny that you say that. In the early days of eBay, I did a "dateless Type 1 1913 Buffalo nickel" for $2 of $3. The customer returned it because, "it's not dateless, the date is just worn off". Lol.
One thing for certain is that it is not a Draped Bust large cent, as advertised. It’s a Coronet Style,
why do you think pcgs didn't put damaged on the label, plus i wonder why the holdered a dateless coin
And wassup with the rev. Dbl strike flip over? Maybe sorta.
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Maybe that explains the bidding (and slabbing)?
That coin might be very interesting, it is entirely an incuse/brockage/whatever you would call it when the coin itself looks like the dies that should have made it, both obverse & reverse are total mirror images in all 3 dimensions - c'mon experts, what's going on with this, along w/ PCGS calling it genuine this is a fascinating coin.
I have a very similar one that looks like a vice / squeeze job on a slick. I am not sure how you could possibly determine the underlying without any signs. Maybe Weinberg or Sullivan could tell us what is needed to determine 'genuine'.
Pictures of mine
Since both sides are incuse, it’s a “squeeze job” meaning it was squeezed between two already-struck planchets. This can’t really happen during striking, since it would require an already-struck coin to be stuck to both obverse and reverse dies.
But it’s technically possible. (Hammer die gets a die cap, then a struck coin is fed on top of the anvil die before striking a third planchet…)
It’s much more likely to have happened post-minting using a vice or something.
I think PCGS meant that they couldn’t be certain it happened at the mint either. But using that holder is not the best way to say that.
it should have been returned in the flip with 'questionable authenticity' - do not slab
Here is the only brockage I have in my collection. It's not a U.S. coin. It's not even a British coin. It's a couterfeit half penny from "back in the day.
Very interesting. I have no clue what that is. Maybe @FredWeinberg can chime in here!
Well, it doesn’t say mint error, but it still should not have been in a holder saying genuine,imo,
Without it saying damaged or something similar
This coins seems to be an anomaly in just about every way! I can understand the interest in it!
Dwayne F. Sessom
Ebay ID: V-Nickel-Coins
Seeing the central type on the reverse doubled but the vine and leaves not, makes me think the original cent was heated and left to cool, softening it, then the “impressing” cent hit with a hammer once, then it shifted a bit more and was doubled on the second. more central hammer hit. Interesting but I see only PMD, old PMD, here.
Fred, the grading label does include the no-grade number code of “98” which signifies “damage”.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/whats-a-pcgs-no-grade-coin
But, while I’ve seen a lot of other “Genuine” coins with no-grade codes in place of detail grades and their reasons, like you, I’d much prefer the latter.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And .. SOLD for $565. What an oddball, no idea if this was a steal or a boondoggle. Really interesting to see it though.
quite a bit for a squeeze job in a PCGS slab
https://ebay.com/itm/276801827595
I would think PCGS would want to do something with this one...