1818 PR02 Quarter?
lsica
Posts: 1,629 ✭✭✭✭
OK I'd love to hear the story about this one if anyone has any info!
Someone bought for $55 five years ago as a FR02 Type Coin and it winds up being 1 of 2 Proof Coins from the FIRST year of US 25c Piece Proof Coinage! Would love to know if the buyer knew it was a Proof, and even how they knew!
Philately will get you nowhere....
0
Comments
Feels like a labeling error to me.
Make that two of us.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
So someone got a coin for $55 and it turns out it is one of only 10 minted and the second one ever graded by PCGS! Wow!
As far as I know, there’s no official mintage record for the number of Proof 1818 quarters produced. The number 10 would merely be an estimate.
And whatever the actual number, it’s extremely doubtful that the subject coin is one of them. Even if it were struck as a Proof, due to its condition, I don’t think there would be any way to determine that. So, what would be a great story, almost certainly isn’t.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If it is just a labelling error then PCGS is really doubling down on it, by including the piece in their Price Guides, Coinfacts, and a Registry set
Edited - perhaps those additional steps were automatically generated?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There was a previous thread about this coin a few years ago. It's a labeling error, but I would like to buy it as is if the owner wants to sell it.
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There's no possible way to determine the subject coin is a Proof, let alone on this series where the status of some fairy convincing Proofs is already in debate.
I guess that someone thought they were putting in ‘Poor’’/‘PR’
And by accident input ‘PF’
You’re probably correct Mark. I just ran the cert number and the PCGS verification chart showed a mintage of 10. 😉
Except that the grade for Poor is 1 and for Fair, it’s 2. And that makes the mistake/input error even more puzzling.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There was an, "MS50" coin featured here on the forums a few years ago.
I think it is a labeling error that once generated does auto populate into the other catagories.
On a side note, there was also an, "MS68" Franklin half (a 1963 I believe) that was proven to be a proof that was mislabeled.
PCGS did end up correcting that error and taking it out of the pop reports and the Registry, so there is documentation PCGS will (eventually) correct these types of errors.
I'd imagine the collectors who could raise a ruckus, such as those who did with the Franklin, have not done so with this esoteric quarter.
peacockcoins
Turns out it is not even a labeling error. It is just an entry error on the Cert Verification.
The coin is pictured in the Stacks auction and the label shows as FR02 instead of PR02.
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-OXGOI/1818-capped-bust-quarter-fair-2-pcgs
.
.
.
Edit to update that the owner, MikeD posted below on October 3, 2025 11:57PM that the coin was resubmitted for a variety designation and does in fact have an errant PR02 designation and the PCGS number is for the Proof not Business strike. Both of those are a change from its 2020 Stacks Bowers auction appearance noted in the cert verification linked in the OP.
MikeD also linked to a discussion here about the exact same coin from 2022. A photo of the slab appears in that thread.
The only known Proof is designated by PCGS as the same B-8 variety and that ID number was likely entered by mistake instead of the Business strike variety number.
.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Good point, Mark
That coin looks like it came straight from someones arse!
Proud follower of Christ!
The latest entry from the PCGS Cert site says it's a "gold shield" slab. Not so in the Stacks Auction. So it looks like it's been resubmitted since that auction
Is it maybe because that the only other Proof of that denomination/date is the same variety/die? But yes I know (especially back then) that they used whatever dies they had around for whatever use they could use them for, but if the crew at PCGS really did think it was a Proof I'd figure they're somehow basing it on that....but who knows.....
If the coin was resubmitted, I think it highly unlikely it was for a Proof designation.😉🫤
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ya it does have that "stomach acid" kind of look ;-)
I agree. I'll even say extremely unlikely. And it being the same variety as the only other existing PCGS Proof of that date/denomination was probably a cause of the potential "confusion" at grading time. But it looks like there were circ strikes issued (and slabbed by PCGS) of that same variety, so despite what I conjectured on further up this thread that wouldn't be enough in any way to even consider this might be a Proof. Oh well it was fun to think about.....
There are several MS coins from this die pair. Die matching is not an option.
when I click the OP's link, funny how it tells me that PCGS is not an official CU site. More "mechanical errors" by our host.
The coin is mine. I bought it as a Fair 2, business strike coin as others noted. Sent it to be reholdered for the variety on a whim with a bunch of other coins and it came back with the proof designation. It has a little shine to it in person, but I assume its an error. Its hilarious and fun, so I have kept it as is.
The mechanical error isn't just the label, but the coin number they linked it to is for the actual proof coin. So its not just a label error.
I posted about it here when I got it back just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. Consensus then is the same as in this post. https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1082551/1818-proof-quarter-mechanical-error
Guess we all have short memories. I even marked agree on a post in that thread suggesting to keep it for the novelty of the holder.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin