PCGS Mistake... 1812 50C NOT Double Struck

jacrispies

Saw this lady on Ebay. Bust half errors are my main interest of study. This double striking effect apparent only on the face of Liberty (highest point on obverse) is the result of a great shift between the dies causing extreme machine doubling. Notice there is no other evidence of doubling on any other devices. Although this example is dramatic and could sell for a small premium, it is not a mint error and not double struck. Seller had this coin listed two days ago for $15,000, lowered it to $14,000, then ended the listing for an unknown reason.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/297032035831?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0&ssspo=fu89edbxqjc&sssrc=4429486&ssuid=C5qh_2F3RMu&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY

Here are a few other examples to compare with. I believe 1813 is the yeardate with the highest machine doubling casualties.

sellitstore

If the doubling is caused by a die shift during striking, wouldn't this still qualify as an error? It's a miss struck coin.

jacrispies

Good thought. Technically, since it is unique (unlike a repeated variety), it could be categorized as a mint error. I would make the case that it shouldn't be in a mint error holder for consistency sake. Imagine all the lincoln cents that exhibit machine doubling in PCGS mint error holders...

scubafuel

The obverse is “double struck” technically, but it is a different mechanic and there is a big difference in value. Many similar coins in holders are not marked double struck as @jacrispies shows.