A Major Mistake - 1911 $20 In the Wrong Holder - Don't Always Trust the Label
FlyingAl
Posts: 3,677 ✭✭✭✭✭
The reason for this post is twofold - one, to thank @ianrussell and GC for doing the right thing, and 2) to show how sometimes the TPGS get major calls wrong. It seems NGC partially acquiesced on this one, which is a small win for the coin world.
A while back, I noticed this 1911 $20 in a NGC PR65 Satin holder. Wonky, because no Satin Proofs were struck in 1911. 
.
.
At first glance, it does appear to be slightly better struck than average, but there's weakness in areas there shouldn't be weakness for a Proof. The rims show rounding, and the high areas of the design show slight stacking friction. That begs the question - is it really a Proof? Time to break out die markers.
The coin shows one major marker, a die gouge between the feathers of the reverse eagle:
.
.
This same marker was found on MS examples, and MS examples only:
PCGS MS67+
.
.
PCGS MS66+
.
.
PCGS MS66
.
.
The single Proof die pair shows strong obverse doubling, and a lack of any die gouge. Any use of a different die pair to strike even a single Proof would have been noted, which means EVERY Proof must have come from this die pair.
PCGS PR67+
Die markers:
Strong obverse doubling:
Lack of reverse die gouge (different PCGS PR66+ chosen for image clarity):
.
.
I wrote a brief summary of this earlier when I reported the coin to Ian:
"Die records published in Roger Budette's book on Saint Gaudens Double Eagles show that one die pair struck 200 Proof coins (150 on Jan 16th, 50 on May 20). Good sandblasted coins were delivered on March 28th, May 20th, and December 9th, with 34, 28, and 38 coins being delivered on those dates respectively. No other usage of the dies is recorded, and no other Proofs were documented as made via any other die pair. Of these coins, all of them would have either been sandblasted to be accepted as good coins, or melted when they did not meet the standard for good coinage. John Dannreuther's book on gold Proofs reports the same figures. If a Satin Proof were to somehow exist, it would have had to escape the sandblasting process, but would still come from this single die pair, as it would have had to be struck on the Mint's hydraulic presses. Both sources report no noticeable die markers on either the obverse or reverse of the Proof die pair.
Therefore, according to Mint documents, it is impossible for a Satin Proof to exist unless some gold went unaccounted for. This leaves three possibilities - either the documents are incomplete, the coin is an altered Matte Proof, or it is a Mint State coin. If a search for die markers shows a die marker, it can possibly be matched to other coins. In this case, a die marker was found. A small die gouge appears running through feather number four on the third set of eagle feathers on the reverse. I have included images below. This marker does not appear on any known Proof, but does appear on several known MS coins. It does not appear on every MS coin, which confirms it is not from a single hub. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that this coin is a Mint State example."
Based on this evidence, GC pulled the coin from auction and sent to NGC on guarantee review. NGC agreed the coin could not be a Proof, and cracked it out. They reholdered it as a SP coin, which while I do not agree with I cannot effectively disprove. There are several issues with this designation, mostly due to the ambiguity of which coins from this die pair get the designation and the lack of any reason for the Mint to strike a SP coin. The coin sold yesterday in the SP holder for $115,000, significantly over the price of a MS65.
A genuine one off 1911 $20 in Satin Proof, a major mint oversight, could be a very high value coin. A 1911 $20 in MS65 is a $30k coin, with a SP coin being worth more. Thankfully, the owner of this coin was covered by the NGC guarantee, who made him whole as I understand it (I must still give credit and thanks to NGC for correcting this original oversight, and doing the right thing by honoring the guarantee). Blind trust can be dangerous - be careful out there!
Coin Photographer.
Comments
Excellent work. Caveat emptor.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Very nice work! Hopefully the consignor offered you a chunk of NGC's Guarantee that they should have paid out.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Great detective work! I think it's also impressive that, thanks to top notch photographs by Phil and GC, this determination can be made without needing to examine the coin in hand.
People significantly overestimate what kind of images are needed to make determinations like this. It's usually not the images that are the limiting factor IMO - it's the knowledge of the person making the determination. The GC slab shots would have been sufficient, but the GreatPhotos are the nail in the coffin.
Coin Photographer.
Great work @FlyingAl
Great work @FlyingAI
Great job, @FlyingAl.
While I don't see a picture of the coin in the "SP" holder, the coin pictured in the "PF" holder doesn't make me think Proof. And I agree with you regarding not seeing any reason why a Specimen example would be struck in that year,-
On another note, regarding the part of your post I have copied below - I wouldn't have used the Proof 1921 Saint for any type of potential value comparison to a 1911 Specimen coin as even a circulation strike 1921 graded 64 or higher should be worth at least $400,000 on its own.
"A genuine one off 1911 $20 in Satin Proof, a major mint oversight, could be a million dollar + coin (for example, a 1921 $20 in NGC Proof sold for over $1M).'
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark, fair point. I forgot the '21 is a rather rare date.
In that case, I'm back to having no idea what a genuine Proof is worth.
Edit - the SP holder:
Coin Photographer.
Alex, if you get bored and have nothing better to do 😉 (which I expect is highly doubtful) you can check out the very small number of experimental Proof Saints with finishes that differed from the norm for the years in which they were produced. Or take it a step further and do the same for other denominations for the Proofs dated 1908-1915. Cool stuff!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nice post. I saw this coin on the GC homepage awhile back and immediately thought something was very wrong as the coin looked way, way off to me. Maybe if given a third crack at it, NGC will call it pattern, LOLOL.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Great work. The coin doesn’t look like a matte proof to me. I hope the owner didn’t buy it thinking it was a proof. I have my doubts about it being an SP. If the coin is auctioned as an SP the market will ultimately decide if they buy the story.
Incredible work @FlyingAl! Bravo -- your numismatic logic and curiosity continues to drive some astounding changes at the highest levels of grading. I also hope that you were compensated in some fashion for your efforts.
These 2 ST G 20’s that I handled, were struck with different finishes. A matte 1907 which is unique for large letters, and a Satin 1908.
HA sold the ST G $20 1910 PCGS SP 66+ CAC for $840k.
Many experiments were conducted by the U.S. Mint on the $20 ST G’s from 1907 thru 1910 as everyone knows.
I can’t rationalize why this continued in 1911, but it seems to me that the $20 ST G 1911 SP sold by GC is good value.
Though I am loathe to grade coins from pictures, in this case, and judging solely from the pictures above, I see no reason to call the 1911 a Proof OR a Specimen. Nice rims do not a Specimen make.
MOO
TD
Well, if the consignor was the original submitter of the coin, I do not believe they would have received any payout on this one. At least, with PCGS, the guarantee policy states that they only compensate if you bought the coin subsequently based on the dubious designation's value.
The SP designation likely served as a way to either soften the blow for the original submitter, or reduce the potential payout to a subsequent buyer. In this case, I have no idea how they would go about valuations... it might very well have been dependent on the sale price for all I know.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
The difference between calling this coin a Proof and a Specimen, if one accepts that it is a special striking of some sort (I am not providing an opinion), is likely largely semantic.
The term Satin Proof does not imply that the same dies were used as were used to produce Matte Proofs; it is a statement on the quality of manufacture and the type of finish. Proofs may be struck from dies that are then reused for circulation issues, so the die gouge isn’t conclusive of the coin not having been specially struck or a Proof. A lack of documentation is also inconclusive, as the US Mint has at many points in its history, including within the period this coin was struck, produced undocumented strikings. There are several Saint Gaudens issues that are regarded as having experimental finishes and do not have mint documentation.
“Specimen” is sometimes used to describe a coin that was not struck for circulation and was struck to a quality greater than a business strike, but not to the quality of a Proof. It is also sometimes used for Proof strikings that lack external evidence or documentation (though there is major inconsistency here; there is no documentation for the majority of pre-1858 Proofs, for instance, but they are generally classified as Proofs and not Specimens). I would imagine the designation switch in this instance is along the lines of the latter, given that the provided information only implies that it is not from the same dies as the Matte Proofs. For clarity’s sake, Specimen might be more apt a description, but that may be more of a technical statement regarding a lack of external evidence than indicative of any change in opinion regarding the production quality of the coin.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I haven’t looked checked in a very long time. But I’d be surprised if the major grading companies don’t (still?) have a provision in their coins submission terms and conditions that covers mechanical errors. If applicable, the provision would allow the grading company to remedy the error without having to compensate the submitter.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
They certainly do have those provisions for mech errors, and at least for PCGS, in addition there is an explicit statement that their guarantee, in all aspects does not apply to the original submitter of the coin.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
NGC's guarantee states that:
"Clerical or Mechanical Errors. A clerical or mechanical error occurs when a Coin is encapsulated with a label that bears a grade and/or description that clearly does not correspond with the Coin. It is the duty of the buyer and seller of a Coin to examine such Coin for a clerical or mechanical error to return such Coins for correction when warranted. This Guarantee does not apply when Guarantor determines, in its sole reasonable discretion, that a clerical or mechanical error has resulted in the Coin having an incorrect grade or description. If requested, any clerical or mechanical errors will be remedied free of charge by updating the encapsulation to show an appropriate label."
And gives an example of this as:
"A Coin is identified as a Proof, when it is a business strike and the types are readily distinguishable from each other."
I think NGC would be failing to honor the guarantee if they described the 1911 above as a mechanical error.
Coin Photographer.
So if the consignor was the original submitter and he got the "Proof" designation, he gets nothing when it was downgraded to "Specimen," correct?
However, if the buyer bought it for big bucks on the basis of the "Specimen" designation, he would be entitled to compensation if it were downgraded again to "MS," correct?
I am so glad I am retired!
If NGC called it a “mechanical error”, they wouldn’t put it in an SP holder.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Yes, but Specimen is not inherently a “downgrade” from Proof.
Presumably, yes.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I agree. In large part, because the change in designation form “Proof” to “Specimen” (rather than to “MS”) negates the argument that the “Proof “designation “clearly does not correspond with the Coin”. If the designation had been changed to “MS” NGC would have a stronger argument that the original “PF”designation didn’t correspond with the coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Heavens no, of course not!.....they would have gotten a refund of the submission cost (minus return shipping), in the form of an account credit.
LOL.
All jokes aside, it appears they did still netted 6 figures and perhaps the coin was purchased raw as an ordinary saint, and If so, I'd definitely prefer that over the alternative of being "made whole".
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I don’t know about “inherently”. But in this case, the change from a “Proof Satin” designation to that of “Specimen” with no mention of “Satin” certainly amounted to a downgrade of value.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We shall have to agree to disagree as to whether or not Proof --> Specimen is a "Downgrade" or not.
I once, back in the 80's, saw a 1799 Dollar that even today I would call a "Proof" in every sense of the word. However, I strongly suspect that if it were to resurface today the major TPG's would be afraid to call it a "Proof," for lack of precedent, but would not hesitate to call it a "Specimen." Which term is better?
TD
The change from Proof to Specimen does not necessarily imply a difference in the method of striking. It only here appears to imply a lack of documentation and external evidence of its production.
Specimen can imply a different or inferior method of manufacture to a Proof, but there is no evidence that the change here reflects that - in fact, there is only evidence to the opposite, since NGC stuck with some form of “special striking”.
Whether the market chooses to value those two designations differently is another story, and one that likely is due to the vagueness of the term Specimen than what NGC may have actually meant by changing the designation. NGC’s view of the coin as a Satin Proof in terms of its production quality may very well remain unchanged, with Specimen merely indicating the lack of external evidence surrounding its production.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Indeed, when a Mother says that her child is "Special" it can mean so many things.
There have been many recategorizations of coin types from Proof to Specimen (or vice versa) in the history of the TPGs, but I would be very surprised if there were even a single instance of a TPG paying a guarantee for a coin once described as a Proof and now as a Specimen. For one thing, those sorts of recategorizations are not covered by either TPG’s guarantee: “Information listed on a label that originates from a third party (including, without limitation, any information from the US Mint) and any attributions (including variety attributions, reference attributions and pedigree attributions) are NOT guaranteed . . . New information may cause NGC to no longer recognize an attribution that was previously assigned, which, again, is not covered by this Guarantee.”
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Thank you for your explanation of “inherently”. And having checked some auction sales of Proof 65 Saints as compared to the sale of the subject coin, it appears that I was incorrect about a downgrade in value. Much to my surprise, in this instance, the designation change didn’t seem to make any difference.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
>
There are times when Specimen implies an inferiority to a Proof, but Specimen can mean different things. There are many times when it is interchangeable with Proof in terms of the quality of production of the coin, and is only indicative of a lack of documentation regarding the production of the coin. That appears to be what is happening here.
PCGS calls all foreign patterns SP regardless of their method of manufacture. Does that mean they are inferior to Proofs? No. Many of them are of Proof production quality.
Do you think there would be any value difference on this coin if it were called a Proof? Probably not.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/saint-gaudens-double-eagles/double-eagles/1910-20-experimental-finish-sp66-pcgs-cac-jd-1-unique-pcgs-680810-/a/1341-4776.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
As a confirmed old "Technical Grader" I have always insisted that "Grade" does not determine "Value." in many series a very choice "AU-58" can be worth much more than an unattractive "MS-61," even though the AU-58 is the lower grade.
While we are on the subject, I happen to be working on an article concerning the 1875-S and CC Dimes and the 1876-S and CC Dimes for The Numismatist, and naturally I intend to mention this very interesting 1876-CC Strike:
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1876-cc-10c-type-b/4789
Now, I once bid on a Copper strike of one of these, having examined the piece in hand (this was in the days before slabs, when you could still see the all-important rims and edges when it mattered), and I was satisfied that it was a Proof struck on the medal press in Philadelphia. The reason why it was struck will be discussed in the article.
Is it a Proof or is it a Specimen? I accept that on this particular coin it should make no difference in the price, but I like to be accurate.
TD
When there’s no documentation, I much prefer the use of the “Specimen” designation to “Proof”. In my utopian grading world, if we were starting all over again, that would lead to much better consistency.
And it might also reduce the number of incorrect suppositions regarding the (unknown) intent of the coiners.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It could be a Proof and a Specimen at the same time, depending on what definitions are being used. Regarding the quality of physical manufacture, it could be called a Proof. Regarding the lack of documentation and unknown intent, it could be called a Specimen.
Generally the off-metal “Pattern” (not really) strikes of US coins from the mid to late 1800s are classified as Proofs. But they could very easily have been called Specimens instead if the TPGs had decided to do so.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
@CaptHenway
I believe the standard is different for each service, but generally the most stringent standard will be along the lines of the below.
Struck on a medal press at Philadelphia - Proof.
Everything else - MS or SP. SP if the coin has the characteristics to show that some form of extra care was taken in striking it. I would say you need documentation for SP or Proof, but I'd say I'm in a small minority there.
Coin Photographer.
Can't we use other proofs from that year or from nearby years to help deduce if it is a Proof, Speciman, or just unique Business Strike ?
It's almost like they are using the designation "Specimen" to designate coins they aren't sure about. I think you have a similar situation with the 1921 twin "SP" Saints which were only "discovered" in the last 10-12 years or so.
Was this coin ever sold by HA or SB with a lengthy write-up, or is RWB's description in his book the most information we have ?
In your opinion, does this pricing "kink" tend to stay or is it only temporary, CH ? I've not seen it myself last for more than 1 or 2 unique sales of a high-quality AU-58, but I am sure your depth of knowledge there dwarfs mine.
Ive always been bothered when storying telling gets interwoven with grading and worse when the definition of a term is fluid like Specimen. IMHO Proof should be for documented proof production pieces and SP should be coins with documented presentation provenance, production set-aside and special fabric qualities while specimen could be reserved for when we don't know what it is or where it came from but it sure is different. Then let the market decide how much bonifides is required for special pricing.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
.... Specimen can mean different things. There are many times when it is interchangeable with Proof in terms of the quality of production of the coin, and is only indicative of a lack of documentation regarding the production of the coin. That appears to be what is happening here.
I thought (perhaps naively) that this was the definition of Specimen. A coin, which by its physical attributes, was exceptional ( usually meaning having proof quality) but without documentation existing showing why it was made that way.
Its been applied to many different scenarios over the years and differently by didn't TPGs. I have never really bought the fabric argument as there is such a wide spectrum of strikes and finishes possible under normal manufacturing variances.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
The burden of proof regarding whether or not a coin deserves the SP designation lies with the entity asserting that it does. Sometimes the evidence is quite compelling, and then there's now.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Off topic and my regrets to the OP with his fine post. Mike, was the the Ferrari St. one that Virgil Brand once owned? I suspect it probably was.
No, not Virgil Brand. Here is the pedigree from my listing:
Pedigree: Dr. William Sturgis Bigelow (from Theodore Roosevelt?) after May 18, 1908; Bigelow to The Boston Museum of Fine Arts, June 11, 1908; 1976 ANA Sale (Stack's, 8/76), lot 3302, where it brought $10,000, and was purchased by Jim Halperin/NERCG; 1987 GNA Sale (Mid-American, 5/87), lot 2115, where it realized $69,300; Sotheby's (12/97), lot 268, where it realized $253,000; Heritage (11/05), From The Phillip H. Morse Collection of Saint-Gaudens Coinage, where it realized $276,000 as a PR64 PCGS.
https://mikebyers.com/3093600-001.html
Mike, considering that the “SP” 1911 being discussed brought what looks to be the equivalent of a full“Proof” price, why do you consider it to be a good value?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark- having dealt with proof gold and SP/ EXP strikes throughout my career, in my opinion the value of the SP 1911 far exceeds that of a proof with a mintage of 100.
Also considering the fact that the 1910 SP brought $840k in auction ( yes a 66+ PCGS CAC) there is plenty of upside potential on the 1911 IMHO, $50-100k.
Once auctioned, a potentially unique coin can be difficult to realize it’s true value in a private sale.
No disrespect to GC, they do an amazing job. The same with Heritage.
But had this coin been privately offered, and not auctioned, I guarantee that it would have brought considerably more, and my offer would have been in the $135k-$150k range.
Thanks, Mike. I could agree with your thinking if the SP were a date for which no Proofs were produced. Or maybe even if it were the same date for which there were Proofs, but in some way(s) noticeably different looking from both the Proofs (as appears to be the case with the 1910 you mentioned) and the circulation strikes of that date. Based on the pictures, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case,
To be fair, perhaps I’d feel differently if I saw the coin in person.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Mark- fair enough. I have seen the 1911 before and in my opinion it is definitely not a regular mint state strike, and has a different surface.
Thanks again, Mike and I certainly respect your knowledge of rare, unusual and esoteric coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks Mark. Obviously this specific coin will have different opinions regarding the SP designation and value range.