PCGS Code 93--Planchet Flaw--Problem coin or not?

Ahrensdad

Why does a planchet flaw impede the no-problem holdering of a coin? The coin afterall (assuming no other defects) had that flaw the day it came off the presses. I was just looking at the codes again and noticed this. This is certainly not a knock on our hosts or those ATS which I believe do the same thing.

pmac

I think that this is an inconsistancy that haunts both NGC & PCGS, much like grading 18th century US coins that have been cleaned.

PerryHall

If it were submitted as an error, it would have been graded.

DennisH

I agree that there is a great deal of room for debate on this topic. But it would appear that a foundational premise by the TPGs is that as-struck by the Mint is not a blanket qualification for a problem-free holder.

MsMorrisine

<< <i>If it were submitted as an error, it would have been graded. >>




a very interesting philosophical question.

mint error vs. problem

could one say that a small planchet flaw would not be big enough for an error, but big enough for a problem?

however, would these small flaws still not be graded "as struck?"

liefgold

I think "planchet defect" coins are the biggest bargain out there! Both grading major services are either net grading them down for minor defects, or details grading them for bigger defects. Then the market tends to treat them like a cleaned or "problem" coin. People turn their noses up at them and they tend to go for, what I consider, bargain prices. I think they illustrate the crude nature of the minting process of the time.
Here is a branch mint gold dollar produced by the mint with the worst reputation for poor planchets. I was able to buy this coin for less than half of it's "no problem" value. I think the grading services need to relook at the way they grade these types of coins.

JCMhouston

I just wish they would be consistant about it. I have one example of an 1825 GB penny with huge cracks all through the planchet which got graded MS65, another 6 pence with a very small planchet defect which has to be pointed out got the planchet defect holder.

BillJones

One aspect of slab grades that many people don't realize is that the slabbers are looking to make coins in the same grade comparible in value. For many 19th century coins planchet defects are a negative not a positive when it comes to placing a market value on the piece. Therefore if you are trying to estimate a value with a grade, a planchet defect can have a negative influence that can’t be reflected with a grading number.

BTW when it comes to Dahlonega gold dollars from the 1850s, it is unusual for those coins to come on a good planchet. “Rustic” or “crusty” is pretty much the norm. If that were a Philadelphia mint gold dollar, it would be whole different story; it would be very hard coin to sell. Still that coin’s defect is a bit larger than normal, but for the right price, it is a good buy or even a bargain. BUT I would not pay for catalog for the piece in the assigned grade. You can find “D mint” gold dollars with “lesser” planchet problems.

ambro51

Sheldon, in all his wisdom...had it right. Grade the coin, list the problem. Planchet defects, according to Breen, are pre striking and not to be considered as damage to the coin.

Yet, TPGs and most collectors ignore these long time guidelines.

Julian

Would you rather have the coin without the planchet flaw?

Most collectors and, therefore, dealers would rather have the coin without the flaw.

Regardless of when it happened, it is less desirable and therefore the need to differentiate between one with the flaw and one without it.

jhdfla

Bill makes a good point regarding 19th century type with planchet defects. How do you all feel about strike throughs? In the same league in your mind as planchet defects?

Consider this example: 1880 seated quarter in ms64 which went off three separate times at auction in the past year or so at Heritage. The coin is a solid 64, but has a planchet defect on the rim of the obverse between stars 10 and 11. The second time around, it received a CAC sticker, so the guys at CAC do not consider the flaw to detract from the grade on the TPG. Hammered for slightly more each time the coin appeared at auction.

Heritage pointed out each time that "...A strike-through at star 10 on the obverse should not be taken for damage." CAC feels the same apparently. But now to me this strike through would always be a distraction every time I looked at the coin, even though otherwise it is a very nice 64. Not a date in this grade which shows up at auction all that often, but certainly not rare either.

Personally I'd pass and wait for another 64 to come around, even though it's a solid 64 otherwise with apparently original surfaces. Opinions?




Heritage link

Ahrensdad

<< <i>Would you rather have the coin without the planchet flaw?

Most collectors and, therefore, dealers would rather have the coin without the flaw.

Regardless of when it happened, it is less desirable and therefore the need to differentiate between one with the flaw and one without it. >>



I agree that generally I would prefer the coin without the planchet flaw. However, the question is should the coin be considered a problem coin like one would consider a cleaned or whizzed coin? I think the coin should be graded problem free and have the planchet flaw noted. Yes, a coin with a planchet flaw would be priced differently that one without a flaw. But then again, what the heck do I know.

lkeigwin

I got this one for a song. PCGS MS66BN (okay, a little generous). The one beneath it cost a bit more.

I agree there's too much inconsistency.
Lance.

mozin

I would like the grading services to grade the coin as if it had no plan defect, and then list plan flaw on the label. Simple.

PerryHall

<< <i>I would like the grading services to grade the coin as if it had no plan defect, and then list plan flaw on the label. Simple. >>



Isn't that what they do when you submit it as an error? Or course, they charge more for error coin submissions.

g048406

To me, a "Planchet Flaw" is similar an issue as "Adjustment marks". They clearly distract negatively to a coins appearance, but, they are not issues created outside the mint. I believe a coin with these problems should be discounted just as coins that have some cleaning or minor scratches. JMO

ambro51

This 1857 C gold dollar is PCGS graded XF45 and one of my favorites. Not all too bad for a Charlotte coin, it still is far from a quality piece. They are noted for planchet flaws, and this coin shows one at about 7 oclock on the obverse.

But...it graded.

astrorat

The Lincoln cent below is a defective planchet error. It was graded as a mint error, PCGS-63 BN. It was not purchased for a huge discount over a "problem free" 1963 cent (although that would have been nice!). [Image also posted in another thread].



Edited to add ... Hey! This is my 4000th post!

ambro51

YIKES...Did John Wilkes Booth have anything to do with that??