I almost had a client buy this coin and it is a mechanical error at NGC. When you do a cert verification and check the rest of the order out the other coins are also proof. how do we bring this buy down?
<< <i>I almost had a client buy this coin and it is a mechanical error at NGC. When you do a cert verification and check the rest of the order out the other coins are also proof. how do we bring this buy down?
the coin looks more business strike to me than proof
after viewing a LARGE number of cents, dimes, quarters, halves that were most likely EDS and premium surfaces because of the EDS
they had what appeared to be proof surfaces, but further inspection in-hand revealed they were just PQ business strike coins
the fact it is given a 68 also states they thought it was just PQ for the strike/surface (if no mistake was made)
i'll give it 95/5 business strike/proof odds since the coin is not in-hand
a very nice lincoln in any event . if you want a real challenge, study the SMS years for ultra-high grade gems for all denominations and prepare yourself for an everest-sized challenge . i'm not saying i'd get em all right, just acknowledging the challenge .
"Men who had never shown any ability to make or increase fortunes for themselves abounded in brilliant plans for creating and increasing wealth for the country at large." Fiat Money Inflation in France, Andrew Dickson White (1912)
It sure does look like a proof, but I wouldn't swear to that unless I could see much bigger and clearer images, or the coin in hand.
It could very well be an early die state, very prooflike business strike, as LanceNewman pointed out. That's not my forte, so who knows.
Maybe NGC botched it with a mechanical error and maybe they didn't- maybe they knew something that we can't determine from the photos.
This is one situation where I'd have to say the edge-view holder is definitely a plus. I can't tell from the pix, but I don't think I see that knife-edge, square sort of rim like you'd see on a proof.
I have looked at a lot of Business strike rolls through the years for that date and they do come nice now and then but the strike is too nice on obv and rev for this coin and they never have obv cameo's for this date. That is pretty typical coin for a proof of that date. He has a pretty good little scam going with the business strike coins he is also trying to sell. Once again, he has an order with multiple proofs as follows:
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd 2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd 2546827-003 coin in question 2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67 2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67 2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc 2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc 2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67 ......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order.......................
<< <i>I have looked at a lot of Business strike rolls through the years for that date and they do come nice now and then but the strike is too nice on obv and rev for this coin and they never have obv cameo's for this date. That is pretty typical coin for a proof of that date. He has a pretty good little scam going with the business strike coins he is also trying to sell. Once again, he has an order with multiple proofs as follows:
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd 2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd 2546827-003 coin in question 2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67 2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67 2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc 2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc 2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67 ......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order....................... >>
Based on what I've seen, from going through a lot of proof sets, most denominations can be found in 1964 proof sets with a 'satin' appearance (especially cents and halves). I think this is one of those coins.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>I reported it to NGC. Not sure what they will do but at least they can decide what to do with their mistake. >>
They'll contact the seller and request to have the coin sent back so it can be corrected. The owner won't necessarily be compensated for the difference in value since it's a mechanical error and it's obvious the coin is a proof and not a circulation strike.
It is fraud because the seller knows where he got it from when he submitted it. Also, he is selling it despite knowing it is not what it says it is rather than sending it back and having NGC fix the mistake. I would not care except for the fact that there are probably some people out there that do not know these sorts of things happen and my customer is/was one of them.
<< <i>I have looked at a lot of Business strike rolls through the years for that date and they do come nice now and then but the strike is too nice on obv and rev for this coin and they never have obv cameo's for this date. That is pretty typical coin for a proof of that date. He has a pretty good little scam going with the business strike coins he is also trying to sell. Once again, he has an order with multiple proofs as follows:
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd 2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd 2546827-003 coin in question 2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67 2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67 2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc 2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc 2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67 ......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order....................... >>
<< <i>I have looked at a lot of Business strike rolls through the years for that date and they do come nice now and then but the strike is too nice on obv and rev for this coin and they never have obv cameo's for this date. That is pretty typical coin for a proof of that date. He has a pretty good little scam going with the business strike coins he is also trying to sell. Once again, he has an order with multiple proofs as follows:
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd 2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd 2546827-003 coin in question 2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67 2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67 2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc 2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc 2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67 ......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order....................... >>
Hmm, good detective work. Based on this, probably a proof, but it does look a lot like an SMS in the image.
I have seen sms for this date and they are truely rare but they are not cameo like this and they look more like a 1964 business trike except for the strike is better and there seems to be more die polish and afifferent look as i remember. Does anybody have close up scans of 1964 bus trike and 1964 sms handy?
ProfHaroldHill, I guess this is you then? This is obviously a proof Mr. Attorney..........Okay, let's assume it is not fraud. The coin is not what it is represented as and I do I believe when dealers sign on to slab and deal coins there is a piece where it is up to dealers to responsibly report coins slabbed in error and thay they are financially reponsible if the coins are sold and out in the collecting public. It is our business responsibility to report mistakes and it is our moral responsibility to not knowingly rip people off when a $10 coin is being sold as a $3,000 coin.
After looking over the images the coin looks to be a proof to me, with some nice cameo contrast on the obv. and no cam on the rev. I've seen this happen quite a few times with ngc's quality control, its just an error slab and needs to be sold as such for a lot less $$$.
The way I could tell is looking at the letters as they are raised more and thicker than a BS.
And looking at the submission is further evidence, all the other coins were graded as proofs.
<< <i>Unless the seller has somehow "faked" this coin/slab, there is absolutely no fraud involved. >>
If the seller is aware that the coin is a proof, it is absolutely fraud. It became so when they went the extra step of adding the note to the listing stating that it was a business strike and not a proof.
In any event, eBay has nuked the listing so nobody is going to get hosed.
All of the parties involved have been notified and agree that it is proof and the case is closed to my understanding. That covers the seller, ebay and NGC. End of story.
<< <i>I've sold PCGS/NGC coins that I felt were "overgraded", (and I had sent them in,) ...does that mean I committed fraud, simply because my hobbyist opinion differed with the TPG? >>
Not the same thing, and you know it. Grading is subjective, striking method is not.
<< <i>So how can we fault the seller, unless we actually *know* that s/he had the skill to make the determination that NGC missed, (or mis-labelled,) and went ahead and listed it based on the NGC error? >>
Being able to distinguish a modern coin as either proof or circulation strike is basic knowledge, IMO. If someone isn't able to they probably shouldn't be dealing in coins.
Comments
<< <i>I almost had a client buy this coin and it is a mechanical error at NGC. When you do a cert verification and check the rest of the order out the other coins are also proof. how do we bring this buy down?
Ebay Link >>
The coin is clearly a proof from the images. I'm betting the seller knows this as well.
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
aside from the information about the order
the coin looks more business strike to me than proof
after viewing a LARGE number of cents, dimes, quarters, halves that were most likely EDS and premium surfaces because of the EDS
they had what appeared to be proof surfaces, but further inspection in-hand revealed they were just PQ business strike coins
the fact it is given a 68 also states they thought it was just PQ for the strike/surface (if no mistake was made)
i'll give it 95/5 business strike/proof odds since the coin is not in-hand
a very nice lincoln in any event
.
if you want a real challenge, study the SMS years for ultra-high grade gems for all denominations and prepare yourself for an everest-sized challenge
.
i'm not saying i'd get em all right, just acknowledging the challenge
.
-Paul
It could very well be an early die state, very prooflike business strike, as LanceNewman pointed out. That's not my forte, so who knows.
Maybe NGC botched it with a mechanical error and maybe they didn't- maybe they knew something that we can't determine from the photos.
This is one situation where I'd have to say the edge-view holder is definitely a plus. I can't tell from the pix, but I don't think I see that knife-edge, square sort of rim like you'd see on a proof.
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd
2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd
2546827-003 coin in question
2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67
2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67
2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc
2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc
2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67
......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order.......................
<< <i>I have looked at a lot of Business strike rolls through the years for that date and they do come nice now and then but the strike is too nice on obv and rev for this coin and they never have obv cameo's for this date. That is pretty typical coin for a proof of that date. He has a pretty good little scam going with the business strike coins he is also trying to sell. Once again, he has an order with multiple proofs as follows:
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd
2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd
2546827-003 coin in question
2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67
2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67
2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc
2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc
2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67
......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order....................... >>
that IS some compelling evidence!
.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Contact NGC with a link to the auction and they'll contact the seller and take care of it.
Franklin-Lover's Forum
<< <i>I reported it to NGC. Not sure what they will do but at least they can decide what to do with their mistake. >>
They'll contact the seller and request to have the coin sent back so it can be corrected. The owner won't necessarily be compensated for the difference in value since it's a mechanical error and it's obvious the coin is a proof and not a circulation strike.
Franklin-Lover's Forum
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
<< <i>I have looked at a lot of Business strike rolls through the years for that date and they do come nice now and then but the strike is too nice on obv and rev for this coin and they never have obv cameo's for this date. That is pretty typical coin for a proof of that date. He has a pretty good little scam going with the business strike coins he is also trying to sell. Once again, he has an order with multiple proofs as follows:
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd
2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd
2546827-003 coin in question
2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67
2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67
2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc
2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc
2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67
......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order....................... >>
Looks suspicious???
<< <i>I have looked at a lot of Business strike rolls through the years for that date and they do come nice now and then but the strike is too nice on obv and rev for this coin and they never have obv cameo's for this date. That is pretty typical coin for a proof of that date. He has a pretty good little scam going with the business strike coins he is also trying to sell. Once again, he has an order with multiple proofs as follows:
2546827-001 1959 Lincoln pf 67rd
2546827-002 1962 Linclon pf 68 rd
2546827-003 coin in question
2546827-004 1967 jefferson pf 67
2546827-005 1963 jefferson pf 67
2546827-006 1983 jeff 69uc
2546827-007 1984 jeff 69uc
2546827-008 1957 wash pf 67
......
anyway, the junk just keeps on rolling for this order....................... >>
Hmm, good detective work. Based on this, probably a proof, but it does look a lot like an SMS in the image.
Russ, NCNE
The way I could tell is looking at the letters as they are raised more and thicker than a BS.
And looking at the submission is further evidence, all the other coins were graded as proofs.
<< <i>Unless the seller has somehow "faked" this coin/slab, there is absolutely no fraud involved. >>
If the seller is aware that the coin is a proof, it is absolutely fraud. It became so when they went the extra step of adding the note to the listing stating that it was a business strike and not a proof.
In any event, eBay has nuked the listing so nobody is going to get hosed.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I've sold PCGS/NGC coins that I felt were "overgraded", (and I had sent them in,) ...does that mean I committed fraud, simply because my hobbyist opinion differed with the TPG? >>
Not the same thing, and you know it. Grading is subjective, striking method is not.
Russ, NCNE
Who owns it? I will try to get it fixed in the pop report tomorrow.
Wondercoin
edited to add ... thanks for the PM
<< <i>So how can we fault the seller, unless we actually *know* that s/he had the skill to make the determination that NGC missed, (or mis-labelled,) and went ahead and listed it based on the NGC error? >>
Being able to distinguish a modern coin as either proof or circulation strike is basic knowledge, IMO. If someone isn't able to they probably shouldn't be dealing in coins.
Franklin-Lover's Forum