Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Neat information wrt 1772 PCGS 8 Reales population.

TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited February 28, 2020 6:45AM in World & Ancient Coins Forum
As I'm going through and documenting any instances of certified PCGS portrait 8 Reales from Mexico, I find these tidbits of information that I find pretty neat and want to share.

Here's one of them. There are 2 varieties for 1772 Charles III 8 Reales, both with inverted assayer initials and mintmark. The difference is that one assayer combination reads MF and the other FM. MF is the much scarcer of the two.

I currently own the less scarce 1772 Inverted variety FM in PCGS XF45:

image
image

As you might know, I'm working on a number of portrait 8 Reales sets @ PCGS and the scarcer variety is a part of the Charles III registry set. So, to fill that hole I could either hunt for the existing certified example (PCGS shows that it certified 2 of the 1772 Inverted MF variety), or look to get a raw example and get it slabbed.

As a part of my research, I was able to find the first one:

Certificate# 30019635: VF35. Sold in Heritage 2006 June Long Beach Signature Auction for $402.50 with BP.
Here are the images:
image
image
image


Notice anything odd? It's clearly an FM and not an MF variety.

Hmm... I guess there's another one left already in plastic that I might be able to add to my set.

The second example, an AU58 (certificate# 09105410), first surfaced in Goldberg's 2006 Pre-Long Beach Sale 37 and realized $432. It went quiet for over 5 years and appeared again this January in the Heritage January World Coin Non-Floor session. This time around it blew past any reasonable estimate and sold for $2,530 (including BP). image

Now that you know what to look for - notice anything?
image
image

That's right - PCGS incorrectly attributed this one, as well. It's also an FM.

Now I know that in order for me to add a 1772 Mexico 8R Inverted MF I have to find my own example and grade or cross it into PCGS plastic.

Here's a dilemma, though. The second coin is now residing in rosswb1's Mexico Type Set. The price at which he bought it makes me believe that he 1) believes the coin is a properly attributed MF variety; or 2) liked it so much that was willing to pay 100%+ premium on it. In any case, it's an error on PCGS side and should be (in my mind) corrected.

What would you do?

Would you send this info including certification numbers and slab images to PCGS so that they're able to update their pop report by removing both of the coins and updating the certification numbers to the proper 1772 Inverted FM variety? Would they even do that? Would they contact Rosswb1 to correct the incorrect attribution?

Would you send a note to Rosswb1 with this information? If he's not aware, he might be pretty upset (especially if you consider the premium that was paid for this coin).

Would you just leave it alone?

By the way, here's what the MF variety is supposed to look like:

Comments

  • I went to a local coin show once and saw a ZAR Pond. I asked the dealer if I could look at it and he let me. As soon as I saw it close up I saw that it was fake. I asked him whether he was asking €250 for the coin ( it was low grade ) and he said yes. Then I told him that the coin was fake - he was not happy but I'd rather that he was unhappy as opposed to the coin being circulated for an incorrect sum of money. It's buyer beware in this game.

    Imo, in order to get everything as it should be, you should tell PCGS and send a PM but then again that's just my opinion.
  • DeiGratiaDeiGratia Posts: 273 ✭✭✭
    That's a tough call Roman.

    Both coins in PCGS Slabs were incorrectly Attributed.

    I would venture to guess that if a person is willing to pay $2530 for a coin, he/she would Look BEYOND the slab alone and ACTUALLY at the coin.
    It's hard to believe someone is willing to lay down that sort of cash without knowing the difference between the MF and FM varieties.

    In regards to the error on PCGS, that's your call, I doubt they would do anything, unless the actual person who owns the coin contacts them.
  • bidaskbidask Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>As I'm going through and documenting any instances of certified PCGS portrait 8 Reales from Mexico, I find these tidbits of information that I find pretty neat and want to share.

    Here's one of them. There are 2 varieties for 1772 Charles III 8 Reales, both with inverted assayer initials and mintmark. The difference is that one assayer combination reads MF and the other FM. MF is the much scarcer of the two.

    I currently own the less scarce 1772 Inverted variety FM in PCGS XF45:

    image
    image

    As you might know, I'm working on a number of portrait 8 Reales sets @ PCGS and the scarcer variety is a part of the Charles III registry set. So, to fill that hole I could either hunt for the existing certified example (PCGS shows that it certified 2 of the 1772 Inverted MF variety), or look to get a raw example and get it slabbed.

    As a part of my research, I was able to find the first one:

    Certificate# 30019635: VF35. Sold in Heritage 2006 June Long Beach Signature Auction for $402.50 with BP.
    Here are the images:
    image
    image
    image


    Notice anything odd? It's clearly an FM and not an MF variety.

    Hmm... I guess there's another one left already in plastic that I might be able to add to my set.

    The second example, an AU58 (certificate# 09105410), first surfaced in Goldberg's 2006 Pre-Long Beach Sale 37 and realized $432. It went quiet for over 5 years and appeared again this January in the Heritage January World Coin Non-Floor session. This time around it blew past any reasonable estimate and sold for $2,530 (including BP). image

    Now that you know what to look for - notice anything?
    image
    image

    That's right - PCGS incorrectly attributed this one, as well. It's also an FM.

    Now I know that in order for me to add a 1772 Mexico 8R Inverted MF I have to find my own example and grade or cross it into PCGS plastic.

    Here's a dilemma, though. The second coin is now residing in rosswb1's Mexico Type Set. The price at which he bought it makes me believe that he 1) believes the coin is a properly attributed MF variety; or 2) liked it so much that was willing to pay 100%+ premium on it. In any case, it's an error on PCGS side and should be (in my mind) corrected.

    What would you do?

    Would you send this info including certification numbers and slab images to PCGS so that they're able to update their pop report by removing both of the coins and updating the certification numbers to the proper 1772 Inverted FM variety? Would they even do that? Would they contact Rosswb1 to correct the incorrect attribution?

    Would you send a note to Rosswb1 with this information? If he's not aware, he might be pretty upset (especially if you consider the premium that was paid for this coin).

    Would you just leave it alone? >>

    You have certainly done your homework......I would let PCGS know as well as Heritage for not catching it as well....
    I manage money. I earn money. I save money .
    I give away money. I collect money.
    I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.




  • mrpotatoheaddmrpotatoheadd Posts: 7,576 ✭✭
    This is what the inverted variety looks like:

    image
  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,721 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I knew this date would eventually make an appearance=

    Mine is not the MF but the FM- Both are inverted which creates confusion. The coin I own was graded by NGC- au50

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,302 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This is an example of incorrect interpretation.

    If the legend is read clockwise, the M comes before the F, although they are both inverted. Perhaps the person IDing the coin does not know the two varieties and mistook one for the other having only seen the descriptions.
  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>This is an example of incorrect interpretation.

    If the legend is read clockwise, the M comes before the F, although they are both inverted. Perhaps the person IDing the coin does not know the two varieties and mistook one for the other having only seen the descriptions. >>



    Perhaps. But that means someone at PCGS misinterpreted both of them, as well as someone at Heritage with the AU example (the VF had a mention in the description). That's a lot of misinterpretation.
  • pruebaspruebas Posts: 4,302 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The cataloger at Heritage probably knew no better and deferred to PCGS.

    The coin in the OP could rightly be called MF.
  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>The cataloger at Heritage probably knew no better and deferred to PCGS.

    The coin in the OP could rightly be called MF. >>



    I guess to someone not familiar with the series it could very well look like an inverted MF.
  • mrpotatoheaddmrpotatoheadd Posts: 7,576 ✭✭
    Krause hasn't been helping. Last year's NA Coins and Prices catalog says: "Two varieties exist, one with inverted initials "F.M." (left) and one with normal presentation (right)." There is only one image (the MF variety), it is above the description and the pricing data is for "1772 FM" and "1772 FM Inverted". The SCWC is even worse, as it says exactly the same thing with only one image, and that image shows the obverse/reverse stacked with the assayer's initals obscured. This year's NA Coins and Prices is better, as it reads: "Mint mark and assayer initials facing rim." The pricing data includes "1772 FM" and "1772 MF", which is less confusing than the earlier issues.
  • For more specialized series, it happens a lot. In the recent Heritage World auctions, 2 of the 16 960 Reis listed were mis-attributed by both the TPG and Heritage. These were attributions that made a common coin into a rare variety. Fortunately, it looked like bidders were aware of the mistake and the final price was reasonable for the actual coin, not the slab (or auction description).

    This inverted FM/MF variety is a potentially confusing one though!
    960 Coins - Rare and high quality 960 Reis overstrikes and counterstamps from Brazil and more.
    http://blog.960coins.com - All about the 960 Reis coins.
    Check my BST!
  • dizzleccdizzlecc Posts: 1,111 ✭✭✭
    Great work on the definitive research. I have the "FM" variery in pcgs 53. When I saw the recent AU58 example with a different pcgs code I was curious as to the difference and made the assumption it was either an error or a minor variation. The variation is actually a major one and incorrect on the pcgs records and on the slab.

    I would inform both pcgs and Rosswb1 about the finding. I would want to know.


    With the few examples graded it is impression that we can account for more than a couple.
  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭
    After submitting my findings to PCGS, received an email today stating that they have investigated both coins and confirmed that they are misattributed. As a result, they have updated the certificate numbers to point to the correct 1772-FM coins and updated the population reports accordingly.

    I also followed-up with Ross and he informed me that he discovered the error after receiving the coin from Heritage, but decided to keep it because it's a very attractive example, knowing he overpaid by quite a bit.
  • DeiGratiaDeiGratia Posts: 273 ✭✭✭
    Perfect example of "Buy the Coin NOT the slab".
  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited February 28, 2020 6:26AM

    I should probably liberate my images from Photobucket and update the original post. Another one sold on Heritage a couple of times in the last 6 months. Mis-attributed (but looks to have been corrected in the certificate database) by PCGS. Heritage also correctly called it a 1772-FM


  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Coincidentally, PCGS has not yet certified a true 1772-MF, which is surprising to me since this variety does come up for sale a few times a year.

Sign In or Register to comment.