If they took it to PCGS and now do not have it, how can they sell it?
Meant it was a mistake in first place to submit back to PCGS. GC Should have sold it as is. There is no glaring error that required drastic action in my opinion.
In cases where there’s a legitimate question or concern among knowledgeable numismatists regarding a designation - and there was in this instance - it’s better to err on the side of caution and thoroughness.
You apparently feel differently. But I bet you wouldn’t if you bought a coin and half of the people you showed it to opined that it’s designation was wrong and it’s value was thousands of dollars less than you’d thought.
As a collector I still am satisfied with PCGS opinion if I also agree with their assessment with my own two eyes after viewing auction photos. However I agree with your point that other collectors may feel differently after purchasing and getting 50 % negative feedback
I don’t understand why legally GC can arbitrarily send the coin back to PCGS without the consignors consent. Would it not be more reasonable for GC to offer the consignor to ship the coin back if they are not comfortable with this situation? Or proceed with PCGS if the consignor agrees to that option? I know I would be distressed if this happened to me
@Walkerlover said:
I don’t understand why legally GC can arbitrarily send the coin back to PCGS without the consignors consent.
How do you know this is what occurred?
I don’t you are right. The impression from this forum is that they just decided themselves to send it in to PCGS. Maybe they did consult the consignor first. Just seems odd that the consignor would take such a big risk
From GC's Terms and Conditions: "GreatCollections reserves the right to withdraw any lot prior to the end of the auction, regardless of bids being received, although this very rarely occurs and is usually due to an error in the listing."
I would consider listing an item as MS when it is really PR to be "an error in the listing". GC is within their rights to ensure that the listing is accurate, and if review shows that the coin in question was correctly attributed, you can be sure the listing will return.
@Walkerlover said:
I don’t understand why legally GC can arbitrarily send the coin back to PCGS without the consignors consent.
How do you know this is what occurred?
I don’t you are right. The impression from this forum is that they just decided themselves to send it in to PCGS. Maybe they did consult the consignor first. Just seems odd that the consignor would take such a big risk
Unless the consignor was the original submitter, they would be covered with PCGS guarantee.
Hi there, OP here. So it has been suggested to me that perhaps this coin has been “worked on” to the point where the coin started looking more and more like a mint state coin. Is that a thing? Can a skilled coin doctor make a proof coin look like an MS one? Can mirrored fields be made to look like mint luster?
@alaura22 said:
I wish EVERYONE would stay on topic!!
Happy 4000th post! 🥳
Thanks, I didn't even know. I wish it could have been on a better issue
Well as you keep typing they all update with the current number...so you should change your post here and say something like "my actual 4000th post was this amazing comment in another thread" and none of us will know the difference!
The buyer gets the coin; would PCGS really be on the hook if it is not as labeled; couldn't they claim "mechanical error"? Unc. struck from proof dies vs. something else?
@logger7 said:
The buyer gets the coin; would PCGS really be on the hook if it is not as labeled; couldn't they claim "mechanical error"? Unc. struck from proof dies vs. something else?
If it was a so-called “mechanical error”, I don’t think it was nearly obvious enough to void the guarantee.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MasonG said:
Read the "Terms and Conditions"? Who does that?
Smart people!
Have you read any of the eBay Authenticity Guarantee threads here (there have been several), where people have questions about the policy that are answered in eBay's Terms and Conditions (which has been linked to numerous times)?
@MasonG said:
Read the "Terms and Conditions"? Who does that?
Smart people!
Have you read any of the eBay Authenticity Guarantee threads here (there have been several), where people have questions about the policy that are answered in eBay's Terms and Conditions (which has been linked to numerous times)?
I read Terms and Conditions when it affects me
Ebay doesn't affect me so I don't care what they do
@renomedphys said:
Hi there, OP here. So it has been suggested to me that perhaps this coin has been “worked on” to the point where the coin started looking more and more like a mint state coin. Is that a thing? Can a skilled coin doctor make a proof coin look like an MS one? Can mirrored fields be made to look like mint luster?
Where is the mint luster? J see some residual mint red but do not see luster.
Having collected for 50 years I do not recall seeing bold N's raw or slabbed in circulated condition. If a reverse die was used to strike circulated would we not see many circulated bold N 77's? Did they use the bold N reverse to strike a few circulation strikes and then toss?
@Walkerlover said:
I don’t understand why legally GC can arbitrarily send the coin back to PCGS without the consignors consent. Would it not be more reasonable for GC to offer the consignor to ship the coin back if they are not comfortable with this situation? Or proceed with PCGS if the consignor agrees to that option? I know I would be distressed if this happened to me
I'm confident GC would have spoken to the consignor first. It would be an invitation for disaster and breach of consignor trust not to have done so. No auction house is going to insert itself into a guarantee dispute unilaterally.
@TomB said:
Something I find interesting is that this coin has apparently had a cloud over its head for for more than two weeks.
GC has acknowledged the conversation on the boards and had previously extended the auction for two weeks while it had been sent back to PCGS for review. The question then becomes what is taking so long? We aren't talking brain surgery here and we aren't talking about a corporation having to learn to do something new or change a paradigm. We are talking about the world's leading TPG merely having to look through some plastic at a coin it certified approximately 30+/- years ago and make a determination on type of issue. The issue of looking at the coin through plastic isn't even new since PCGS offers a Reconsideration tier that does just that, which means they should already be fluent in grading and attributing through their own plastic or they shouldn't offer a Reconsideration tier. So, PCGS either has universally serviceable internal standards for what constitutes a proof coin vs. what constitutes a business strike coin or they don't. Having this coin remain in limbo this long is a bad look for GC, but is a terrible look for PCGS. Which brings up the questions does PCGS even know what they are doing or do they even care?
It sounds like they may be consulting with an outside expert. Perhaps they agree that the coin matches the die pairings from known proof coins, but still think there is a basis to call it mint state for the reasons that many have pointed out in this thread. I can sort of understanding wanting more opinions before declaring a new die variety for mint state coins as it would open a floodgate.
@Copperindian said: @TomB is essentially correct. I received communication from GC that they were still making a determination as to the coin’s status. The “OGH” part was not mentioned in his communication. I believe I was contacted as I did make a bid on the coin; assume other bidders were as well. Stay tuned!
Did you contact them about the error? I would be surprised if they sent an email to everyone to further taint the coin when relisted.
@renomedphys said:
Hi there, OP here. So it has been suggested to me that perhaps this coin has been “worked on” to the point where the coin started looking more and more like a mint state coin. Is that a thing? Can a skilled coin doctor make a proof coin look like an MS one? Can mirrored fields be made to look like mint luster?
Where is the mint luster? J see some residual mint red but do not see luster.
Having collected for 50 years I do not recall seeing bold N's raw or slabbed in circulated condition. If a reverse die was used to strike circulated would we not see many circulated bold N 77's? Did they use the bold N reverse to strike a few circulation strikes and then toss?
Was this reverse die used for 1878 proofs? If so, that would rule out it being put into service as a business strike die.
FYI. There are some ways to identify "proof" coins by mechanical artifacts on the coins. These can separate screw press (i.e. "lever press") from toggle press ("circulation strikes") coins, and post-1893 hydraulic press from toggle press coins. Differences are subtle but consistent. I do not have enough data to publish anything meaningful. Only the authentication businesses have had access to enough variety of coins to accurately identify these artifacts, and to my knowledge the detailed data have not been fully compiled. [This is an area of numismatics where competent artificial intelligence software could reveal insights humans might miss.]
The coin in question is among several types/dates in the nebulous range where conventional opinion is not meaningful. Much as with pre-1855 Master Coins, we have to look at the complete coin with an emphasis on detail above "polish."
@renomedphys said:
Hi there, OP here. So it has been suggested to me that perhaps this coin has been “worked on” to the point where the coin started looking more and more like a mint state coin. Is that a thing? Can a skilled coin doctor make a proof coin look like an MS one? Can mirrored fields be made to look like mint luster?
Where is the mint luster? J see some residual mint red but do not see luster.
Having collected for 50 years I do not recall seeing bold N's raw or slabbed in circulated condition. If a reverse die was used to strike circulated would we not see many circulated bold N 77's? Did they use the bold N reverse to strike a few circulation strikes and then toss?
Was this reverse die used for 1878 proofs? If so, that would rule out it being put into service as a business strike die.
An excellent question.
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
I don't have much faith in strike type determination from many of the TPGS. We can speculate that they are doing a detailed analysis and consulting experts, but they are also known to factor things such as value and risk into these kinds of decisions.
@logger7 said:
The buyer gets the coin; would PCGS really be on the hook if it is not as labeled; couldn't they claim "mechanical error"? Unc. struck from proof dies vs. something else?
If it was a so-called “mechanical error”, I don’t think it was nearly obvious enough to void the guarantee.
It shouldn’t but how “obvious” is obvious enough to be considered a mechanical error? The “everyone knows [1877] proofs have fat Ns” comments from this thread don’t help.
Several years ago, David Hall extended this to the grade as well at one point declaring 3+ point/grading intervals were “obvious” mechanical errors and excepted from the guarantee. Given the 3+ point swings on monster toned Morgans that were once more common than you might initially think, that is troubling. What about the recent MS63 PCGS to CACG AU55 Peace Dollar thread? The point of all this is that what is “obvious” to PCGS may not be obvious to everyone else.
@logger7 said:
The buyer gets the coin; would PCGS really be on the hook if it is not as labeled; couldn't they claim "mechanical error"? Unc. struck from proof dies vs. something else?
If it was a so-called “mechanical error”, I don’t think it was nearly obvious enough to void the guarantee.
It shouldn’t but how “obvious” is obvious enough to be considered a mechanical error? The “everyone knows [1877] proofs have fat Ns” comments from this thread fat don’t help.
Several years ago, David Hall extended this to the grade as well at one point declaring 3+ point/grading intervals were “obvious” mechanical errors and excepted from the guarantee. Given the 3+ point swings on monster toned Morgans that were once more common than you might initially think, that is troubling. What about the recent MS63 PCGS to CACG AU55 Peace Dollar thread? The point of all this is that what is “obvious” to PCGS may not be obvious to everyone else.
You make a good point. Still, I think that the apparent lack of mirrored surfaces on a coin graded Proof 63 serves as a significant counterpoint to the “fat N’s”. Also, it seems to me that the buyer of a coin shouldn’t be held to a standard of expert knowledge, when/if a grading company’s considering declaration of a “mechanical error” in order to void a guarantee.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
As a collector I still am satisfied with PCGS opinion if I also agree with their assessment with my own two eyes after viewing auction photos. However I agree with your point that other collectors may feel differently after purchasing and getting 50 % negative feedback
I don’t understand why legally GC can arbitrarily send the coin back to PCGS without the consignors consent. Would it not be more reasonable for GC to offer the consignor to ship the coin back if they are not comfortable with this situation? Or proceed with PCGS if the consignor agrees to that option? I know I would be distressed if this happened to me
How do you know this is what occurred?
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
I don’t you are right. The impression from this forum is that they just decided themselves to send it in to PCGS. Maybe they did consult the consignor first. Just seems odd that the consignor would take such a big risk
From GC's Terms and Conditions: "GreatCollections reserves the right to withdraw any lot prior to the end of the auction, regardless of bids being received, although this very rarely occurs and is usually due to an error in the listing."
I would consider listing an item as MS when it is really PR to be "an error in the listing". GC is within their rights to ensure that the listing is accurate, and if review shows that the coin in question was correctly attributed, you can be sure the listing will return.
Read the "Terms and Conditions"? Who does that?
Smart people!
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Unless the consignor was the original submitter, they would be covered with PCGS guarantee.
Hi there, OP here. So it has been suggested to me that perhaps this coin has been “worked on” to the point where the coin started looking more and more like a mint state coin. Is that a thing? Can a skilled coin doctor make a proof coin look like an MS one? Can mirrored fields be made to look like mint luster?
Empty Nest Collection
Jesus would know.
You can't fool Jesus.
The buyer gets the coin; would PCGS really be on the hook if it is not as labeled; couldn't they claim "mechanical error"? Unc. struck from proof dies vs. something else?
If it was a so-called “mechanical error”, I don’t think it was nearly obvious enough to void the guarantee.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Have you read any of the eBay Authenticity Guarantee threads here (there have been several), where people have questions about the policy that are answered in eBay's Terms and Conditions (which has been linked to numerous times)?
I read Terms and Conditions when it affects me
Ebay doesn't affect me so I don't care what they do
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Where is the mint luster? J see some residual mint red but do not see luster.
Having collected for 50 years I do not recall seeing bold N's raw or slabbed in circulated condition. If a reverse die was used to strike circulated would we not see many circulated bold N 77's? Did they use the bold N reverse to strike a few circulation strikes and then toss?
My point is- lots of people don't.
I'm confident GC would have spoken to the consignor first. It would be an invitation for disaster and breach of consignor trust not to have done so. No auction house is going to insert itself into a guarantee dispute unilaterally.
It sounds like they may be consulting with an outside expert. Perhaps they agree that the coin matches the die pairings from known proof coins, but still think there is a basis to call it mint state for the reasons that many have pointed out in this thread. I can sort of understanding wanting more opinions before declaring a new die variety for mint state coins as it would open a floodgate.
Did you contact them about the error? I would be surprised if they sent an email to everyone to further taint the coin when relisted.
Was this reverse die used for 1878 proofs? If so, that would rule out it being put into service as a business strike die.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
FYI. There are some ways to identify "proof" coins by mechanical artifacts on the coins. These can separate screw press (i.e. "lever press") from toggle press ("circulation strikes") coins, and post-1893 hydraulic press from toggle press coins. Differences are subtle but consistent. I do not have enough data to publish anything meaningful. Only the authentication businesses have had access to enough variety of coins to accurately identify these artifacts, and to my knowledge the detailed data have not been fully compiled. [This is an area of numismatics where competent artificial intelligence software could reveal insights humans might miss.]
The coin in question is among several types/dates in the nebulous range where conventional opinion is not meaningful. Much as with pre-1855 Master Coins, we have to look at the complete coin with an emphasis on detail above "polish."
An excellent question.
I don't have much faith in strike type determination from many of the TPGS. We can speculate that they are doing a detailed analysis and consulting experts, but they are also known to factor things such as value and risk into these kinds of decisions.
It shouldn’t but how “obvious” is obvious enough to be considered a mechanical error? The “everyone knows [1877] proofs have fat Ns” comments from this thread don’t help.
Several years ago, David Hall extended this to the grade as well at one point declaring 3+ point/grading intervals were “obvious” mechanical errors and excepted from the guarantee. Given the 3+ point swings on monster toned Morgans that were once more common than you might initially think, that is troubling. What about the recent MS63 PCGS to CACG AU55 Peace Dollar thread? The point of all this is that what is “obvious” to PCGS may not be obvious to everyone else.
You make a good point. Still, I think that the apparent lack of mirrored surfaces on a coin graded Proof 63 serves as a significant counterpoint to the “fat N’s”. Also, it seems to me that the buyer of a coin shouldn’t be held to a standard of expert knowledge, when/if a grading company’s considering declaration of a “mechanical error” in order to void a guarantee.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.