<< <i>I simply can't imagine that they aren't being taped. When I was back in college I worked at a Jiffy Lube and we were taped all day long. I can't tell you how many times those tapes saved us from expensive allegations made by our customers >>
I would not be surprised that they tape them, but it is probably more to prevent the theft of a coin by pocketing it. There would be a big difference between that and having the camera set so that it can identify the specific coin by date & mintmark. Think about the cameras in a casino. They can catch misdealing swaping chips, a slight of hand theft, identify people etc. But see the date and or mintmark on their coins? I don't think so. For that the cammera would have to be much closer and the closer you get the more critical your depth of field is. The worker would have to place the coin just so right here, flip it over to show the back because many of the mintmarks were on the back etc. It could be done but it would require a completely seperate camera system.
The good thing is you can synch the time stamps on each so you can see with the main camera what is being done and then go to that same time stamp on the second system and see specificly which coin he was handling at that point in time.
<< <i>I simply can't imagine that they aren't being taped. When I was back in college I worked at a Jiffy Lube and we were taped all day long. I can't tell you how many times those tapes saved us from expensive allegations made by our customers >>
I would not be surprised that they tape them, but it is probably more to prevent the theft of a coin by pocketing it. There would be a big difference between that and having the camera set so that it can identify the specific coin by date & mintmark. Think about the cameras in a casino. They can catch misdealing swaping chips, a slight of hand theft, identify people etc. But see the date and or mintmark on their coins? I don't think so. For that the cammera would have to be much closer and the closer you get the more critical your depth of field is. The worker would have to place the coin just so right here, flip it over to show the back because many of the mintmarks were on the back etc. It could be done but it would require a completely seperate camera system.
The good thing is you can synch the time stamps on each so you can see with the main camera what is being done and then go to that same time stamp on the second system and see specificly which coin he was handling at that point in time. >>
They can zoom in at infinite distance with clarity on CSI.
All I have to say is that DennisH and his friend are honest. Some people would just keep their mouths shut and either keep the coin or sell it. Also with as many coins that PCGS and the other services grade, I can see an error occuring occasionally. After all it is in our nature as human beings to make mistakes.
I would be interested to know whether submission forms are handwritten documents. I am assuming they are. If so, an error on a submission form strikes me as unlikely unless it were in a bulk shipment of 1904 quarter eagles.
A mechanical error would be an easy thing to occur especially if the data entry is entered on a 10-key keypad. There the 4 is directly above the 1 and such substitutions are probably the most common type of 10-key error.
However, since the submission form says 1904 and the lable says 1904, a data entry error seems to be quite unlikely.
Let's summarize:
Submitter says he submitted a 1904. Submission form records a 1904. Receiving enters 1904 into PCGS record. Graders say nothing about the date on the coin and may not know or have access to any of the aforementioned documents. Lable is printed automatically from PCGS record and encapsulated with a coin. GC misses the discrepancy between the slabbed coin and the lable. Owner discovers the discrepancy.
Therefore, either the original coin did not conform to the submission slip or a different coin got into the slab intended for the submission. On the latter supposition the grade on the slab might be the grade for the 1901 or for the missing 1904. The 1901 certainly looks like a very nice coin and the price structure is such that the hypothetically missing 1904 (bought for about $75) would have to have been very nice indeed for an intentional switch to have been worthwhile--to my mind an unlikely proposition.
Near bullion price? $75 or $100 for this coin? Is that a rip or what?! I'd just hate to be the person with that hpothetical 1904 in the hypothetical 1901 holder. I suspect, I'd be shrieking on the phone at PCGS customer service before even stopping at a computer to post here or jabber to my coin dealer friends about it. Such a person has not stepped forward.
All things considered, it is most likely, however improbable, that the truth is that there was only one coin, not two, involved in this incident--the 1901. The submitted coin most likely did not conform to the submission form.
It's an interesting puzzler. I've had a lot of fun mulling it over.
I think the most likely scenario was that a 1901 was sent all along, with 1904 being on the submission form.
I once submitted 1942 Walker, and wrote 1941 on the form, and 1941 was on the slab (a MS66 to boot!). I sent it back to correct the mechanical error, which partly resulted from my submission form error!
The PCGS numbers for a 1901 $2.5 is 007853, and a 1904 is 007856. The six and three are next to each other on a ten key. This could easily have been a keypad error.
I see no reason to suspect foul play as what would PCGS have to gain? Generally people who do dishonest things (like switch coins) do so for a reason (generally personal gain).
<< <i>-- "I will not tolerate baseless accusations on this forum and I'm really close to banning you for this one."
Wow. I didn't read the OP to say anything other than that PCGS made an innocent mistake, that a customer service representative either didn't understand or appreciate the potential problem, and that Dennis wanted to make sure that no one was hurt as a result. I certainly didn't take away anything negative about PCGS until I read this response. >>
PEACE! This is the first day of the rest of your life.
My friend who submitted the gold piece recently found the original 2x2 the coin was in and has confessed to having had a "senior moment" when he filled out the submission form. The coin was, in fact, a 1901 but he wrote down 1904 on the form.
PCGS did not make a mistake of any kind whatsoever here, and I again apologize for having started this thread.
My friend who submitted the gold piece recently found the original 2x2 the coin was in and has confessed to having had a "senior moment" when he filled out the submission form. The coin was, in fact, a 1901 but he wrote down 1904 on the form.
PCGS did not make a mistake of any kind whatsoever here, and I again apologize for having started this thread.
Ok by me. We're all human and make mistakes on occasion. Takes a big man to come back and admit he made one. Thanks for the update and "good on ya", lesson learned.
My friend who submitted the gold piece recently found the original 2x2 the coin was in and has confessed to having had a "senior moment" when he filled out the submission form. The coin was, in fact, a 1901 but he wrote down 1904 on the form.
PCGS did not make a mistake of any kind whatsoever here, and I again apologize for having started this thread.
I would like to know where the coins get cross referenced, coins to form? I too had a "senior moment" when I entered a clad coin number for silver 1997 Proof Kennedy's. Of course they came back without the Silver designation and wondered from that point, who (job title, not specific person) checks the coins to submission form?
<< <i>They way I see it, there are a number of places this could have gone wrong within PCGS. Assuming the grade was not an issue, I see 4 possible scenarios.
1) If the submission form said 1904 and a 1901 coin was sent in, shouldn't someone within PCGS have caught that? Then at QC, shouldn't this mechanical error have been caught? - This would be the PCGS missed the mark on so many different levels scenario. 2) If the submission form said 1904 and a 1904 coin was sent in, where's the 1904 coin and where did the 1901 coin come from? - This would be the PCGS has some explaining to do scenario. 3) If the submission form said 1901 and a 1901 coin was sent in, shouldn't someone within PCGS have caught this? - This would be the "only mechanical error" scenario. 4) If the submission form said 1901 and a 1904 coin was sent in, then where's the 1904 coin??? - This would be the PCGS REALLY missed the mark scenario.
It would be beneficial for the original poster to verify what was written on the original invoice. We would then be able to eliminate at least two of the above options. The way I see it, if the original submission form said it was a 1904 coin, PCGS has a lot of explaining to do. Neither of those scenarios play out well for PCGS. If the form said 1901, we may never know what really happened, but it could just be a mechanical error. >>
As I said in this post to this thread, it appears that the final answer is #1. This means that they missed the 1904 error when the coin entered their facility and never corrected anything as it went out the door. Good QC and this from a company that you can truly rely on. I'm glad that handle multi-million dollars' worth of coins in a day. Their opinion can mean the difference in hundreds if not thousands of dollars and they can't even get the paperwork process straight.
In response to my own reply about the Silver Kennedy's that I mis-numbered(?) as Clad, I was the root cause & was/am disappointed that it was not caught, but the error was mine.
I know I can send them back as mechanical error for little or no cost (I think I remember HRH saying there was no cost in reholdering mechanical errors) to me, I've just haven't done it yet. ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzz
And I am sure PCGS strives for perfection in their operation, but we're all still humans, and I wouldn't like it any other way.
Comments
<< <i>I simply can't imagine that they aren't being taped. When I was back in college I worked at a Jiffy Lube and we were taped all day long. I can't tell you how many times those tapes saved us from expensive allegations made by our customers >>
I would not be surprised that they tape them, but it is probably more to prevent the theft of a coin by pocketing it. There would be a big difference between that and having the camera set so that it can identify the specific coin by date & mintmark. Think about the cameras in a casino. They can catch misdealing swaping chips, a slight of hand theft, identify people etc. But see the date and or mintmark on their coins? I don't think so. For that the cammera would have to be much closer and the closer you get the more critical your depth of field is. The worker would have to place the coin just so right here, flip it over to show the back because many of the mintmarks were on the back etc. It could be done but it would require a completely seperate camera system.
The good thing is you can synch the time stamps on each so you can see with the main camera what is being done and then go to that same time stamp on the second system and see specificly which coin he was handling at that point in time.
<< <i>
<< <i>I simply can't imagine that they aren't being taped. When I was back in college I worked at a Jiffy Lube and we were taped all day long. I can't tell you how many times those tapes saved us from expensive allegations made by our customers >>
I would not be surprised that they tape them, but it is probably more to prevent the theft of a coin by pocketing it. There would be a big difference between that and having the camera set so that it can identify the specific coin by date & mintmark. Think about the cameras in a casino. They can catch misdealing swaping chips, a slight of hand theft, identify people etc. But see the date and or mintmark on their coins? I don't think so. For that the cammera would have to be much closer and the closer you get the more critical your depth of field is. The worker would have to place the coin just so right here, flip it over to show the back because many of the mintmarks were on the back etc. It could be done but it would require a completely seperate camera system.
The good thing is you can synch the time stamps on each so you can see with the main camera what is being done and then go to that same time stamp on the second system and see specificly which coin he was handling at that point in time. >>
They can zoom in at infinite distance with clarity on CSI.
Edited: Wednesday October 11, 2006 at 12:57 PM by DennisH
Currently Thursday October 12, 2006 at 14:26 cdt by DrPerry
With all the hubub in between do you think that we have heard all three sides to the story yet???
My side
His side
the TRUTH
Now where's that d#$% popcorn eating thingie
sorry
are you really a doctor or do you just play one on tv?
hi, i'm tom.
i do not doctor coins like some who post in here.
Also with as many coins that PCGS and the other services grade, I can see an error occuring occasionally. After all it is in our nature as human beings to make mistakes.
<< <i>you can't handle the truth.
sorry
are you really a doctor or do you just play one on tv? >>
The TROLL speaks
A mechanical error would be an easy thing to occur especially if the data entry is entered on a 10-key keypad. There the 4 is directly above the 1 and such substitutions are probably the most common type of 10-key error.
However, since the submission form says 1904 and the lable says 1904, a data entry error seems to be quite unlikely.
Let's summarize:
Submitter says he submitted a 1904.
Submission form records a 1904.
Receiving enters 1904 into PCGS record.
Graders say nothing about the date on the coin and may not know or have access to any of the aforementioned documents.
Lable is printed automatically from PCGS record and encapsulated with a coin.
GC misses the discrepancy between the slabbed coin and the lable.
Owner discovers the discrepancy.
Therefore, either the original coin did not conform to the submission slip or a different coin got into the slab intended for the submission. On the latter supposition the grade on the slab might be the grade for the 1901 or for the missing 1904. The 1901 certainly looks like a very nice coin and the price structure is such that the hypothetically missing 1904 (bought for about $75) would have to have been very nice indeed for an intentional switch to have been worthwhile--to my mind an unlikely proposition.
Near bullion price? $75 or $100 for this coin? Is that a rip or what?! I'd just hate to be the person with that hpothetical 1904 in the hypothetical 1901 holder. I suspect, I'd be shrieking on the phone at PCGS customer service before even stopping at a computer to post here or jabber to my coin dealer friends about it. Such a person has not stepped forward.
All things considered, it is most likely, however improbable, that the truth is that there was only one coin, not two, involved in this incident--the 1901. The submitted coin most likely did not conform to the submission form.
It's an interesting puzzler. I've had a lot of fun mulling it over.
I once submitted 1942 Walker, and wrote 1941 on the form, and 1941 was on the slab (a MS66 to boot!). I sent it back to correct the mechanical error, which partly resulted from my submission form error!
Human or mechanical error is likely the culprit.
The PCGS numbers for a 1901 $2.5 is 007853, and a 1904 is 007856. The six and three are next to each other on a ten key. This could easily have been a keypad error.
I see no reason to suspect foul play as what would PCGS have to gain? Generally people who do dishonest things (like switch coins) do so for a reason (generally personal gain).
PCGS, ANACS, & NGC Certified Coins on My Website.
<< <i>-- "I will not tolerate baseless accusations on this forum and I'm really close to banning you for this one."
Wow. I didn't read the OP to say anything other than that PCGS made an innocent mistake, that a customer service representative either didn't understand or appreciate the potential problem, and that Dennis wanted to make sure that no one was hurt as a result. I certainly didn't take away anything negative about PCGS until I read this response. >>
Fred, Las Vegas, NV
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
PCGS, ANACS, & NGC Certified Coins on My Website.
My friend who submitted the gold piece recently found the original 2x2 the coin was in and has confessed to having had a "senior moment" when he filled out the submission form. The coin was, in fact, a 1901 but he wrote down 1904 on the form.
PCGS did not make a mistake of any kind whatsoever here, and I again apologize for having started this thread.
End of story, OK?
<< <i>UPDATE
My friend who submitted the gold piece recently found the original 2x2 the coin was in and has confessed to having had a "senior moment" when he filled out the submission form. The coin was, in fact, a 1901 but he wrote down 1904 on the form.
PCGS did not make a mistake of any kind whatsoever here, and I again apologize for having started this thread.
End of story, OK? >>
Good lord.
<< <i>End of story, OK? >>
Ok by me.
<< <i>UPDATE
My friend who submitted the gold piece recently found the original 2x2 the coin was in and has confessed to having had a "senior moment" when he filled out the submission form. The coin was, in fact, a 1901 but he wrote down 1904 on the form.
PCGS did not make a mistake of any kind whatsoever here, and I again apologize for having started this thread.
End of story, OK? >>
Oh, that's different, Nevermind!
I would like to know where the coins get cross referenced, coins to form?
I too had a "senior moment" when I entered a clad coin number for silver 1997 Proof Kennedy's.
Of course they came back without the Silver designation and wondered from that point, who (job title, not specific person) checks the coins to submission form?
<< <i>They way I see it, there are a number of places this could have gone wrong within PCGS. Assuming the grade was not an issue, I see 4 possible scenarios.
1) If the submission form said 1904 and a 1901 coin was sent in, shouldn't someone within PCGS have caught that? Then at QC, shouldn't this mechanical error have been caught? - This would be the PCGS missed the mark on so many different levels scenario.
2) If the submission form said 1904 and a 1904 coin was sent in, where's the 1904 coin and where did the 1901 coin come from? - This would be the PCGS has some explaining to do scenario.
3) If the submission form said 1901 and a 1901 coin was sent in, shouldn't someone within PCGS have caught this? - This would be the "only mechanical error" scenario.
4) If the submission form said 1901 and a 1904 coin was sent in, then where's the 1904 coin??? - This would be the PCGS REALLY missed the mark scenario.
It would be beneficial for the original poster to verify what was written on the original invoice. We would then be able to eliminate at least two of the above options. The way I see it, if the original submission form said it was a 1904 coin, PCGS has a lot of explaining to do. Neither of those scenarios play out well for PCGS. If the form said 1901, we may never know what really happened, but it could just be a mechanical error. >>
As I said in this post to this thread, it appears that the final answer is #1. This means that they missed the 1904 error when the coin entered their facility and never corrected anything as it went out the door. Good QC and this from a company that you can truly rely on. I'm glad that handle multi-million dollars' worth of coins in a day. Their opinion can mean the difference in hundreds if not thousands of dollars and they can't even get the paperwork process straight.
I know I can send them back as mechanical error for little or no cost (I think I remember HRH saying there was no cost in reholdering mechanical errors) to me, I've just haven't done it yet. ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzz
And I am sure PCGS strives for perfection in their operation, but we're all still humans, and I wouldn't like it any other way.
Wrong Coin.....itza 64D and wrong coin number..............the number belongs to a Franklin.
Herb
Actually, PCGS screwed-up when they mislabeled the coin.