Check out the sweet MS66 IKEs made on this submission

Rampage · February 6, 2009 11:18PM

This was a bulk submission with mostly Morgan dollars and a handful of IKEs in there. The 71P, 72P, 73P, and 76P-T1 are all MS66!!! There were some others, too, but those are the notable ones. All I could say was holy crap!

http://www.pcgs.com/Membership/sharedorder.aspx?OrderNo=20269374

sonoranmonsoon · February 6, 2009 11:31PM

There are some really nice pops among those Ikes. I noticed he/she had quite a few bodybags, I guess the submitter did not want any genuine holders. Perhaps hoping to resubmit at a later date?

Rampage · February 6, 2009 11:40PM

<< There are some really nice pops among those Ikes. I noticed he/she had quite a few bodybags, I guess the submitter did not want any genuine holders. Perhaps hoping to resubmit at a later date? >>

Since this appears to have been a bulk submission, I think you have to specify a minimum grade or something like that and those that don't make the minimum don't get slabbed,but you have to pay a screening fee or something like that. All-in-all, who cares about the massive hoard of Morgans when you have those sweet MS66 IKEs in there.

By the way, this was not my submission. I found it while poking through the shared orders page.

Dan50 · February 7, 2009 12:14AM

Fine job of lining them up grade wise also. Congrats to who ever owns this batch, the Ikes are impressive.

cupronik · February 10, 2009 11:10AM

These Ikes have not increased the PCGS populations for the respective dates in MS-66.

I have to wonder if these were resubmissions that didn't get the upgrade to MS-67???

LincolnsRule · February 10, 2009 4:11PM

Yeah, cupronik is right. I was going to say, it takes a lot of b.... to look for ms67s on those dates! I guess we do know someone on the message boards though that has those Ikes potentially that nice.

19Lyds · February 11, 2009 3:35AM

<< These Ikes have not increased the PCGS populations for the respective dates in MS-66.

I have to wonder if these were resubmissions that didn't get the upgrade to MS-67??? >>

I did not think you could mix upgrades with regular bulk submission grading. In other words, bulk submissions must be done in coin tubes and slabbed coins do not count.
However, it is interesting that the pops did not increase for the 1972 Type 1.

What's even more interesting is that none of the cert numbers above line 46 on that submission are valid for display which could account for the discrepancy in the populations. Pops do not get updated until the order is finalized and shipped out.

I think it is waiting to get paid...............or.........there is something wrong with the order.

Total Items: 220
Date Received: 1/28/2009
Date Shipped: N/A
Order Status: Shipped (Possibly only the last 4 coins were actually shipped?)

19Lyds · February 11, 2009 3:58AM

Still another question looms in my mind,

How could somebody have so many "mis-reads" on the morgans yet score so many MS66 IKEs?

Obviously the minimum acceptable grade was MS62 since MS63 is the lowest grade on the submission and......

here's the biggie..........

I am also under the impression that you cannot "mix" coin types on the same bulk submission. In other words, any date or mint mark as long as its an IKE or any date or mint mark as long as its a Morgan. But not Morgans and IKEs (even though they are dollar coins like a Sacagawea, SBA, or Presidential) on the same submission?

ajia · February 11, 2009 7:42AM

Does anyone know if the rules for bulk submissions have changed since it went to Dealers Only??
The limit was 4 different dates/mm's if I remember right.
Mixing denominations was absolutely a no-no.

GRANDAM · February 11, 2009 1:17PM

Whover made these I'm interested in the MS66 1976-P Ty 1 IKE

GrandAm

VAUSAThermographer · February 12, 2009 2:49AM

I am also under the impression that you cannot "mix" coin types on the same bulk submission. In other words, any date or mint mark as long as its an IKE or any date or mint mark as long as its a Morgan. But not Morgans and IKEs (even though they are dollar coins like a Sacagawea, SBA, or Presidential) on the same submission?

I am sending in 30 crossovers due to Special (FEB.). I am sending in Morgans with Ikes to 2009 Eagles. I didn't think there was an issue with crossovers about age of coins in a batch so long as below $300 and all US and no errors or VARs. . Otherwise ouch the S/H/I gets steep (per coin) fast breaking all those coins from one batch to 2 batches or more. I am sending in all as one batch of crossover few if any expected to be over 300.00.

Question. What if a coin does go over the value of service. Say you paid $14.00 to grade a coin that comes back say $405.00 though it paid for a $300.00 or less value coin. Only hoping this happens to me.

cupronik · February 13, 2009 2:41AM

Apparently these MS-66 Ikes (71-P, 72-P T-1, 73-P ,& 76-P T-1) are for real as the populations increased
by one for each date.

Those are home runs! WOW!

19Lyds · February 13, 2009 5:21AM

<< Apparently these MS-66 Ikes (71-P, 72-P T-1, 73-P ,& 76-P T-1) are for real as the populations increased
by one for each date.

Those are home runs! WOW! >>

The cert numbers are now good so the order must have been finalized:

This fella Sucks!

And the fact that he/she was able to mix 15 IKEs along with 9 Peace Dollars with all those Morgans sucks even more.

IRCWCoins · February 15, 2009 6:10AM

That was one of APMEX's submissions. All of the clad Ikes have nice toning. All of the 1971-S Ikes are Peg Legs, including the 2 MS-66.

GRANDAM · February 15, 2009 6:42AM

Let me be the first to say:

YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GrandAm

edited to add: I see Lee beat me to the "YOU SUCK" Award

cladking · February 15, 2009 7:08AM

Wow!!!

I hope to see some pictures.

cupronik · February 15, 2009 1:57PM

I'm curious (not having seen these coins(yet)) if these came from a Whitman album where they
have been housed since the 1970's?

19Lyds · February 15, 2009 5:19PM

<< That was one of APMEX's submissions. All of the clad Ikes have nice toning. All of the 1971-S Ikes are Peg Legs, including the 2 MS-66. >>

So we can assume that they will be attributed at some later time?

19Lyds · February 15, 2009 5:21PM

<< Let me be the first to say:

YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GrandAm

edited to add: I see Lee beat me to the "YOU SUCK" Award

>>

The entire thing kinda sucks since when I WAS able to do bulk submissions, I couldn't include Morgans with IKE's!

19Lyds · March 2, 2009 2:28PM

Have any of these popped up on the market just yet?

GRANDAM · March 14, 2009 4:22PM

I have been watching,,,, haven't seen any of these IKE's come up for sale and not listed on APMEX's Web Site???

Wonder what they are going to do with them?

GrandAm

Rampage · March 16, 2009 4:37AM

Maybe just a private collector submitted them for his collection?

19Lyds · March 17, 2009 3:57AM

<< Maybe just a private collector submitted them for his collection? >>

You mean submitted them to Apmex for submission?

19Lyds · March 20, 2009 9:57AM

I just received word from a reliable souce that two of the Eisenhower coins in this submission are misattributed.

The 1972 Type 1 in MS66 ($10,500) is actually a 1972 Type 3 ($6,500).

The 1976 Type 1 in MS66 ($3,850) is actually a 1976 Type 2 ($265).

These represent significant pricing differences and supposedly the coins have been reported as misattributed yet nothing has been done about them.

So............... if either of these come up for sale, be sure to buy the coin and not the slab.

19Lyds · March 30, 2009 12:32PM

As of 3/30, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed.

Rampage · April 2, 2009 11:28AM

I must apologize as I never intended this thread to get anyone in trouble. I just thought it strange that out of all them lower grade Morgans, there were several high grade IKEs thrown in the bunch. It just amazed me. One of each date, all MS66 plus.

So, my next question is with the misattributions, how much can we trust the grades of these IKEs? This is no bash to any person or entity, just a questions I've pondered.

LincolnsRule · April 2, 2009 9:44PM

Uhm, where have you been? You can't trust the grade on any pcgs coin... here's a good one And don't just say, oh it spotted in the holder, look at the strike! Meanwhile I have a 1982-d that was the best of my 25 ms67's, and now resides very absurdly in an ms64 holder.

GRANDAM · April 2, 2009 11:10PM

I saw the misattributed 1976-P coin. It is BEAUTIFUl and I consider it solid for the grade. The grading wasn't the problem.

A clerical error somewhere along the line

GrandAm

Rampage · April 3, 2009 7:15AM

<< Uhm, where have you been? You can't trust the grade on any pcgs coin... here's a good one And don't just say, oh it spotted in the holder, look at the strike! Meanwhile I have a 1982-d that was the best of my 25 ms67's, and now resides very absurdly in an ms64 holder. >>

My question was with regards to these specific IKEs, not some run-of-the-mill submission. My question was simply stating that if they messed up that badly on the types, then how are the grades?

Gary-thanks for your input. It appears the grades are solid, just the attributions are not.

Rampage · April 3, 2009 7:16AM

<< Uhm, where have you been? You can't trust the grade on any pcgs coin... here's a good one And don't just say, oh it spotted in the holder, look at the strike! Meanwhile I have a 1982-d that was the best of my 25 ms67's, and now resides very absurdly in an ms64 holder. >>

Maybe you shouild resubmit that 1982D you have if you feel strongly about the grade.

19Lyds · April 6, 2009 3:25AM

<< As of 3/30, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed. >>

As of 4/6, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed.

19Lyds · April 21, 2009 7:03AM

<< 

<< As of 3/30, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed. >>

As of 4/6, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed. >>

As of 4/21, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed. I can't help but wonder what the hold up might be?

Bear · April 24, 2009 5:03AM

I would truly like to see pictures of those IKES!

They must be a sight to behold.

19Lyds · May 26, 2009 12:35PM

<< 

<< 

<< As of 3/30, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed. >>

As of 4/6, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed. >>

As of 4/21, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed. I can't help but wonder what the hold up might be? >>

As of 5/26, both of these misattributed IKEs are still..................uh..................misattributed.

GRANDAM · May 26, 2009 12:41PM

GRANDAM · May 26, 2009 1:00PM

19Lyds · May 26, 2009 2:20PM

<< OK, put up or shut up,,,, Here you go:

The cert for the 1976-P Ty 1

COIN INFORMATION
Cert Verification #: 14140986
PCGS Coin #: 7418
Date, mintmark: 1976
Denomination: $1
Variety: Type 1
Minor Variety:
Mint Error:
Pedigree:
Country: The United States of America
Grade: MS66
Mintage: 4,019,000
PCGS Price GuideSM Value: $3,850

PROOF:

GrandAm

This is one heck of a NICE COIN and accurately graded BUT it ain't no Ty 1 !!!!! >>

That's one heck-uv-a MISATTRIBUTED Ike there grandam!

Lets see,

1976 MS66 Type 2 IKE = $265

1976 MS66 Type 1 IKE = $3,850

Misattributed 1976 MS66 Type 2 IKE in a Type 1 Slab = Priceless!

oxy8890 · May 28, 2009 6:57AM

<< Does anyone know if the rules for bulk submissions have changed since it went to Dealers Only??
The limit was 4 different dates/mm's if I remember right.
Mixing denominations was absolutely a no-no. >>

Funny you mention that Ajia, I was thinking the exact same thing. I was told a couple weeks ago members could submit again but it had to be the same series and limited the 4 different dates/mms.

bronze6827 · May 28, 2009 11:05AM

<< This is one heck of a NICE COIN and accurately graded BUT it ain't no Ty 1 !!!!! >>

Big G, I haven't looked at this thing since we initially hit on the mis-labeling. It sure has nice color, but I am NOT on the MS66 band wagon. The annealing marks remaining on the periphery that didn't strike out and the weak strike on the reverse lettering holds it back for me. It's a great MS65. Perhaps it's getting a boost for color. To me, something without a strong strike across the entire coin (for a coin that's capable) isn't worthy.

I don't know - maybe I'd feel differently with it in hand and in different light. The main devices are certainly better than normal, and the color is pleasing for an Ike.

19Lyds · May 29, 2009 3:32PM

The coin probably BOOM's with Luster but since Gary has a scanner, luster gets lost.

Rampage · May 29, 2009 10:44PM

It still seems odd to me that the submitter could grade MS66 IKEs all day long with only a handful of them, but when they submit a hundred or so Morgans, the best they could score is two MS66.

19Lyds · May 30, 2009 7:54AM

Yes, this submission illicit's many questions which will, unfortunately, go unanswered!

19Lyds · May 31, 2009 4:00AM

<< The coin probably BOOM's with Luster but since Gary has a scanner, luster gets lost. >>

This is such a wrong response since its not Gary's scan!

Its the submitters photo which was sent to Gary!

GRANDAM · June 1, 2009 8:55AM

THANK-YOU PCGS!!!

Both coins have now been corrected.

The mislabeled 1972-P TY 1 MS66 is now correctly labeled Ty 3 and the mislabeled 1976-P Ty 1 MS66 is now labeled a Ty 2

GrandAm

19Lyds · June 3, 2009 3:08PM

Thanks for your persistance Gary!

Check out the sweet MS66 IKEs made on this submission

Comments