OK. Here's A PERFECT Example Of Why Mechanical Errors Should NOT Be Excluded From The Grade Guarante

RBinTex

LINK

Now before you jump down my throat, consider the following:

1. This is a variety that has the SAME FS# (013.8) for BOTH business strikes AND SMS examples.
2. NGC has a SEPARATE pop for BOTH the business strike AND SMS examples slabbed with this FS#.
3. ANACS has a SEPARATE pop for BOTH the business strike AND SMS examples slabbed with this FS#.
4. Many people can't (& it shouldn't be encumbent upon them) tell the difference simply by the "look" of an SMS coin.
5. Even fewer people would realize that the 1st 5 characters of the number line on the cert - "E6846..." represent the fact that PCGS assigned the PCGS No of the SMS version of this coin (6846) preceded by the letter "E" to designate an "error" of that particular striking (We'll ignore the misuse of the terminology for now).
6. No where on the slab does PCGS bother (like NGC & ANACS do) to notate that the coin is SMS.
7. An uninformed consumer, relying on PCGS's expertise, and looking at the POP for a 1966 (2/1) & the priceguide value ($2,000 - probably low in this case) could SERIOUSLY get burned.
8. If someone bought it and did not realize until AFTER whatever return policy had elapsed, should they get burned for relying on PCGS & for their ignorance?
9. Should PCGS fein "mechanical error" or assert that the "look" was of an SMS & the "E6846.." was of an SMS & ...

The problem here is SO FRUSTRATINGLY EASY to fix if PCGS simply put EVERY coin in the pop report and (in this particular case) put the words SMS on the holder and NOT force a consumer to perform a near professional sleuthing job just to figure out what's inside the plastic!

Russ

<< <i>4. Many people can't (& it shouldn't be encumbent upon them) tell the difference simply by the "look" of an SMS coin. >>



Anybody who cannot immediately see that this one is obviously an SMS example has no business buying Kennedys of this era. That one is a no-brainer. And, aside from that, it has the coin number (6846) for a 1966 SMS right on the holder.

Russ, NCNE

wondercoin

"Anybody who cannot immediately see that this one is obviously an SMS example has no business buying Kennedys of this era. That one is a no-brainer. And, aside from that, it has the coin number (6846) for a 1966 SMS right on the holder."

Agreed - now, if you are spending around $250 like the exact coin sold for you are discussing, perhaps PCGS would relax the "due dliigence" expectaction and cut a check for $250. On the other hand, if one was trying to recoup $5,000 on the buy - the obvious nature of the coin's appearance PLUS the coin number would be more than enough for PCGS to determine you were an unreasonable purchaser of the mechanical error and entitled to nothing IMHO.

Wondercoin

dbldie55

Sold for $180 +(isn't it like 12% now?).

MrEureka

Anybody who cannot immediately see that this one is obviously an SMS example has no business buying Kennedys of this era.

I disagree, but I would have agreed if the sentence had ended with "for thousands of dollars".

In other words, at $180 it should be OK a collector to simply trust PCGS. But if he's going to spend thousands, PCGS has the right to demand that the collector exercise some significant care before pulling the trigger.

mozeppa

i some what agree...."sms" on the label isn't any harder than FSB or FBL.

majorbigtime

"mechanical erorr" is a grading guaranty loophole--the authenticity guaranty is all loophole IMO.

docday2003

I think that PCGS has a duty to be as transparent as possible. Like I have said in the past, I am a Canadian collector, who occasionally buys nice "foreign" coins (like USA ). I would not be able to tell you that that coin was SMS. If I bought it, it would be based on a price guide, and the label on the holder. Furthermore, by the time it arrived to my address in Northern Canada (usual postage time plus the delay passing through customs...) any reasonable return policy would have long expired....