1916-d Merc certified by PCGS as 1916

sweetwilliet

I just got back a 1916-d mercury dime from PCGS. It was certified as good 6, but they certified it as a 1916 merc instead of a 1916-d. It was in an ANACS G4 1916-d holder, so it is a legitimate 1916-d. Does anyone find this interesting, is it "worth" more, less or no change than if it was in the correct holder, and would you send it in as a mechanical error for reholder or leave as is? Just wondering what others thought.

mercurydimeguy

Once again proof of what I've posted a number of times -- manual errors!!!

How many MS67 coins go in to MS65 or MS66 holders by accident?

How many MS64 coins go in to MS66 coins by accident?

It's easy to see the error when the mintmark is the problem, but how do you tell them about the error if they made a mistake printing the grade??

coinguy1

<< <i> is it "worth" more, less or no change than if it was in the correct holder, and would you send it in as a mechanical error for reholder or leave as is? >>

The coin will be FAR easier to sell for its full value if it is labeled correctly. Even if you plan to keep it, I'd strongly suggest sending it in under "mechanical error".

BECOKA

I agree, you should have it fixed. If you sold it to the wrong person they might do horrible things to you. Just kidding. Probably not but it is the right thing to do.

sweetwilliet

Man, you guys reply fast. That settles it, then, back to PCGS it goes tomorrow for appropriate holdering.

LincolnCentMan

Anybody ever wondered how many grades are actually mechanical errors?

David

ziggy29

Here's a hypothetical: What if, after submitting a crossover of a 1916-D in legitimate plastic, PCGS makes a "mechanical" error and then says the coin has an altered mintmark when resubmitted to correct the mistake?

Is there any recourse? At this point, the coin is no longer in a legitimate TPG's holder authenticating it as a '16-D. Is there any record that this coin was submitted as an certified '16-D by a top-tier TPG?

Hopefully (and probably) this coin is unquestionably a legitimate '16-D and this will be corrected. But what if it's not? What would happen?

sweetwilliet

I actually thought the same thing, I did submit it in an ANACS holder, they also sent back the ANACS labels with all my coins. If they now claimed it was an altered mint mark, then they made the original mistake by removing it from its original slab to put into theirs. I'll bet they would do something to make up for that if it happened, but I'm positive (well, almost positive, I'm an amateur collector) it's legit. We'll see in a few days. I am sending in the original submission form with the ANACS label on it.

kieferscoins

The mechanical error is the person in customer service entering the coin into the system wrong....the graders then get the coin and don't notice the D mintmark (or more likely didn't notice the D was not on the computer screen for that number/coin). It gets graded by several graders and a finalizer and not noticed...... and goes out the door. The label is printed off the computer info and the error is in the mintmark or dates on a coin and NOT the grade.

Cameron Kiefer

marz

I'll bet the Olsen twins would never make a mistake on a "d"!

MickeyD

The twins are only up to "C" in the alphabet. "D" comes next year.

tradedollarnut

The twins are only up to "C" in the alphabet

In their dreams.

kieferscoins

Cameron Kiefer

poorguy

The label is printed off the computer info and the error is in the mintmark or dates on a coin and NOT the grade.

If graders missed a whole mintmark, imagine what else could be overlooked.

Russ

<< <i>I actually thought the same thing, I did submit it in an ANACS holder, they also sent back the ANACS labels with all my coins. >>



You're covered. There is zero risk of you getting screwed on the deal. It will either be holdered correctly, or on the very remote chance that it did turn out to be altered PCGS would compensate you accordingly.

Russ, NCNE

sleeper

Glad to see people doing their job and proofing the finalized coins to make sure everything is in order before the coins are slabbed and shipped. Unfortunately these errors are more common then people realize or everyone just points them out any time they show up.

Andrew

sellsatan

Nice little upgrade, by the way.

Frankcoins

One would think the PCGS "finalizer" would have caught this, especially since
slabbing a 60 cent coin would be odd.

Veep

I recently received a 1919-D SLQ back in a 1919 holder. I thought, "Those idiots!" Then, I noticed that I had put the wrong coin number on the submission form. Its probably happened to others too. Should they have caught it? Maybe. But then again, I'm complicit. Should we hold PCGS to a standard of perfection and then give ourselves a pass?

ziggy29

<< <i>Should we hold PCGS to a standard of perfection and then give ourselves a pass? >>

Of course not. As long as PCGS has taken appropriate safeguards and has the audit trail to know that the coin being returned labelled as 1916-P was submitted as an ANACS 1916-D, then reholdering as a 1916-D or eating the coin as a '16-D if they (unexpectedly) determined it a fake is good enough. After all, it was submitted as a crossover in ANACS plastic, and by cracking it out they presumably authenticated it as a '16-D.

Mistakes happen. At least from my perspective, the question was simply, what safeguards are there when these mistakes happen to ensure that the submitter doesn't get screwed? If what Russ says about the process is true, then there's no worries. As long as PCGS can go back and see it was sent to them as an ANACS '16-D, it's all good.

Conder101

<< <i>You're covered. There is zero risk of you getting screwed on the deal. It will either be holdered correctly, or on the very remote chance that it did turn out to be altered PCGS would compensate you accordingly. >>


But what would the compensation be? Most likely the grading fee returned.