Does This Look Like A F-12 To You CBH

harveypb · October 27, 2012 9:29PM

Have a look at this 1827 O.148 on Stacks Auction. Its a Rare Variety, but aren't they being
a little generous on the grade??

http://stacksbowers.com/auctions/AuctionLot.aspx?LotID=402400

ajaan · October 27, 2012 9:40PM

No to title question.

lkeigwin · October 27, 2012 10:32PM

Looks around AG3 to me.

Here's a PCGS-graded G04, same rare variety.
Lance.

jdimmick · October 27, 2012 11:45PM

This coin might have been ranked and not graded sometime back

astrorat · October 28, 2012 12:42AM

That has to be a cataloging error or a mechanical error ... unless PCGS opened an office in Jamaica and it was graded on Ganja Friday.

Edited for spelling ...

DennisH · October 28, 2012 12:58AM

Looks Good-04 to me.

roadrunner · October 28, 2012 1:12AM

The high bidder on this coin is probably PCGS. Closer to a Fr02 than a F12. Badly cleaned as well.

astrorat · October 28, 2012 1:35AM

<< The high bidder on this coin is probably PCGS. Closer to a Fr02 than a F12. Badly cleaned as well. >>

Do you really think this would have slipped past a competent grader AND finalizer as an F-12? This has got to be an error. Stevie Wonder wouldn't even be that far off on the grade.

jayPem · October 28, 2012 1:44AM

F12 ? No sir....perhaps the grade on the holder doesn't really matter so much in this case though ? It will go for whatever the bidders believe it's worth.
No one bidding will be concerned about it I'd hazard...

astrorat · October 28, 2012 1:50AM

<< F12 ? No sir....perhaps the grade on the holder doesn't really matter so much in this case though ? It will go for whatever the bidders believe it's worth.
No one bidding will be concerned about it I'd hazard... >>

Funny ... if it actually IS in a PCGS F-12 holder, the "value" of the plastic will likely triple the value of the coin making it quite profitable for the buyer to have PCGS to regrade it under their guarantee and either buy it back or pocket the difference between it's real grade (AG) and the label grade.

If it really is in a PCGS holder, I agree with roadrunner that PCGS will be the high bidder ... and it won't be cheap as the CBH nuts will be out to add this rare DM to their collection.

jayPem · October 28, 2012 2:08AM

<< 

<< F12 ? No sir....perhaps the grade on the holder doesn't really matter so much in this case though ? It will go for whatever the bidders believe it's worth.
No one bidding will be concerned about it I'd hazard... >>

Funny ... if it actually IS in a PCGS F-12 holder, the "value" of the plastic will likely triple the value of the coin making it quite profitable for the buyer to have PCGS to regrade it under their guarantee and either buy it back or pocket the difference between it's real grade (AG) and the label grade.

If it really is in a PCGS holder, I agree with roadrunner that PCGS will be the high bidder ... and it won't be cheap as the CBH nuts will be out to add this rare DM to their collection. >>

I guess I don't get this....wouldn't PCGS value this coin at about $60 or so ? Are they going to pay out anymore because it's a rare DM ?
Why would a marriage collector care if such a low grade coin is in plastic or not ? If it's a registry thing, then I confess that I'm completely clueless...and possibly completely clueless anyway

lkeigwin · October 28, 2012 2:49AM

<< 

<< 

<< F12 ? No sir....perhaps the grade on the holder doesn't really matter so much in this case though ? It will go for whatever the bidders believe it's worth.
No one bidding will be concerned about it I'd hazard... >>

Funny ... if it actually IS in a PCGS F-12 holder, the "value" of the plastic will likely triple the value of the coin making it quite profitable for the buyer to have PCGS to regrade it under their guarantee and either buy it back or pocket the difference between it's real grade (AG) and the label grade.

If it really is in a PCGS holder, I agree with roadrunner that PCGS will be the high bidder ... and it won't be cheap as the CBH nuts will be out to add this rare DM to their collection. >>

I guess I don't get this....wouldn't PCGS value this coin at about $60 or so ? Are they going to pay out anymore because it's a rare DM ?
Why would a marriage collector care if such a low grade coin is in plastic or not ? If it's a registry thing, then I confess that I'm completely clueless...and possibly completely clueless anyway

>>

It'll probably go for a lot more than that, as an R6+.

Here's another reason why SB should show images of the holder.
Lance.

astrorat · October 28, 2012 3:20AM

<< 

<< 

<< F12 ? No sir....perhaps the grade on the holder doesn't really matter so much in this case though ? It will go for whatever the bidders believe it's worth.
No one bidding will be concerned about it I'd hazard... >>

Funny ... if it actually IS in a PCGS F-12 holder, the "value" of the plastic will likely triple the value of the coin making it quite profitable for the buyer to have PCGS to regrade it under their guarantee and either buy it back or pocket the difference between it's real grade (AG) and the label grade.

If it really is in a PCGS holder, I agree with roadrunner that PCGS will be the high bidder ... and it won't be cheap as the CBH nuts will be out to add this rare DM to their collection. >>

I guess I don't get this....wouldn't PCGS value this coin at about $60 or so ? Are they going to pay out anymore because it's a rare DM ?
Why would a marriage collector care if such a low grade coin is in plastic or not ? If it's a registry thing, then I confess that I'm completely clueless...and possibly completely clueless anyway

>>

You bring up a really good point about how PCGS may value it with respect to their grade guarantee, unless the label states it's an O-148. You are correct regarding DM collectors ... most do not care if such a rare variety (especially in a low grade) is "graded" by a TPG or not.

mozin · October 28, 2012 4:00AM

The PCGS label on this coin lists it as a generic 1827 Square 2. I think PCGS has no reason to be concerned that their guarantee will cost them more than the difference between a generic F 12, and an AG. Maybe the buyer could send the coin to PCGS for Variety attribution. If it slips by, the PCGS guarantee could become much more costly. Sounds like a fun thing to do.

Lucanus · October 28, 2012 4:06AM

<< 

<< The high bidder on this coin is probably PCGS. Closer to a Fr02 than a F12. Badly cleaned as well. >>

Do you really think this would have slipped past a competent grader AND finalizer as an F-12? This has got to be an error. Stevie Wonder wouldn't even be that far off on the grade. >>

Do you really still believe that a finalizer looks at each coin submitted?

Doug

BustHalfBrian · October 28, 2012 4:13AM

Maybe the TPGs thought major metal-flow issues were due to the lack of detail? I honestly can't say, but there's no way that thing is "F12" by any standards.

Very odd indeed... but Lord knows this wouldn't be the first time something like this has happened.

illini420 · October 28, 2012 4:16AM

Anyone seen it in hand yet at lot viewing??? With 10000+ lots in this auction, it's possible it could be an error in the catalog.

Edited to add that this is another reason that having a photo of the slab would be helpful in these auctions.

roadrunner · October 28, 2012 4:28AM

<< Anyone seen it in hand yet at lot viewing??? With 10000+ lots in this auction, it's possible it could be an error in the catalog.

Edited to add that this is another reason that having a photo of the slab would be helpful in these auctions. >>

Good point. It seems more likely for a lone cataloguer to have made this mistake than for several graders and then QC miss it.
And no, I don't believe 2 graders and/or a finalizer graded this coin Fine 12.

BustHalfBrian · October 28, 2012 5:05AM

<< Anyone seen it in hand yet at lot viewing??? With 10000+ lots in this auction, it's possible it could be an error in the catalog.

Edited to add that this is another reason that having a photo of the slab would be helpful in these auctions. >>

But the variety attribution is correct, and this isn't the type of marriage you'd see two examples of in any open auction - it's an R6+ in URS rating.

I don't think it's any sort of error on the S-B team's part.

stealer · October 28, 2012 5:21AM

<< 

<< Anyone seen it in hand yet at lot viewing??? With 10000+ lots in this auction, it's possible it could be an error in the catalog.

Edited to add that this is another reason that having a photo of the slab would be helpful in these auctions. >>

But the variety attribution is correct, and this isn't the type of marriage you'd see two examples of in any open auction - it's an R6+ in URS rating.

I don't think it's any sort of error on the S-B team's part. >>

But does it not worry them that they are putting their integrity on the line by offering a coin that is incredulously overgraded without mentioning it in the description?

astrorat · October 28, 2012 5:22AM

<< 

<< 

<< The high bidder on this coin is probably PCGS. Closer to a Fr02 than a F12. Badly cleaned as well. >>

Do you really think this would have slipped past a competent grader AND finalizer as an F-12? This has got to be an error. Stevie Wonder wouldn't even be that far off on the grade. >>

Do you really still believe that a finalizer looks at each coin submitted?

Doug >>

Yes, do you have evidence otherwise?

BustHalfBrian · October 28, 2012 5:26AM

<< 

<< 

<< Anyone seen it in hand yet at lot viewing??? With 10000+ lots in this auction, it's possible it could be an error in the catalog.

Edited to add that this is another reason that having a photo of the slab would be helpful in these auctions. >>

But the variety attribution is correct, and this isn't the type of marriage you'd see two examples of in any open auction - it's an R6+ in URS rating.

I don't think it's any sort of error on the S-B team's part. >>

But does it not worry them that they are putting their integrity on the line by offering a coin that is incredulously overgraded without mentioning it in the description? >>

Ultimately, it's the buyer's decision, and the bidders should have enough knowledge to know the coin may not be accurately graded.

S-B isn't gonna "talk down" coins they're auctioning off. They want to maximize potential bids.

And this isn't something so severe that it'd ruin their reputation. For all we know, the coin is accurately graded, and the lack-of-detail is just the result of some sort of metal flow or related issues. More research must be done before we jump to any conclusions, IMO.

stealer · October 28, 2012 6:22AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Anyone seen it in hand yet at lot viewing??? With 10000+ lots in this auction, it's possible it could be an error in the catalog.

Edited to add that this is another reason that having a photo of the slab would be helpful in these auctions. >>

But the variety attribution is correct, and this isn't the type of marriage you'd see two examples of in any open auction - it's an R6+ in URS rating.

I don't think it's any sort of error on the S-B team's part. >>

But does it not worry them that they are putting their integrity on the line by offering a coin that is incredulously overgraded without mentioning it in the description? >>

Ultimately, it's the buyer's decision, and the bidders should have enough knowledge to know the coin may not be accurately graded.

S-B isn't gonna "talk down" coins they're auctioning off. They want to maximize potential bids. >>

True, but in the same light there are auctioneers (such as Goldbergs and Morphy) who do put their own grading opinions in the descriptions.
Take, for example, the Naftzger collection. Thumbing through the catalog, it seems that Goldbergs felt that the majority of the coins (mind you, PCGS graded) were overgraded and subsquently clearly printed in bold their sentiments as to what the coin should grade.

Some were harshly downgraded by the auctioneers. Lot #827 was described (only part of the description) as, PCGS graded MS64 Brown. Nicely struck and the eye appeal is quite nice, but this coin is not a mint state cent. Our grade is EF45+, close to AU50.

VanHalen · October 28, 2012 6:30AM

<< Does This Look Like A F-12 To You CBH? >>

No.

keets · October 28, 2012 6:32AM

Lucanus · October 28, 2012 9:39AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< The high bidder on this coin is probably PCGS. Closer to a Fr02 than a F12. Badly cleaned as well. >>

Do you really think this would have slipped past a competent grader AND finalizer as an F-12? This has got to be an error. Stevie Wonder wouldn't even be that far off on the grade. >>

Do you really still believe that a finalizer looks at each coin submitted?

Doug >>

Yes, do you have evidence otherwise? >>

Numerous poorly graded coins are the evidence.

harveypb · October 28, 2012 10:39AM

Here's a pic of my 1827 O.148. Its also double struck and slightly offcenter and has reverse brokage. Most O.148
pieces have multiple errors. I call it a VG. I really should have it slabbed..

STONE · October 31, 2012 10:14PM

Coin is now labed G-4 details, cleaned......as it should be!

messydesk · October 31, 2012 10:43PM

So... cataloging error, perhaps? Now that we can put our pitchforks away, I find this sentence in the description to be strange:

"Most examples are double or triple struck as discovered and researched by Russell J. Logan in the prior decades before his untimely passing."

Setting aside the redundancy issue with "prior decades before":

1. He wasn't exactly going to discover or research this after his passing.
2. The fact that was discovered and researched in the "prior decades" rather than the night before his passing make the timing of his passing seem irrelevant.
3. What is a timely passing? Sounds like something scheduled by a death panel.

STONE · October 31, 2012 10:55PM

Not all is completely necessary in the description, but I also think you're reading into it too much!

astrorat · October 31, 2012 11:31PM

<< So... cataloging error, perhaps? Now that we can put our pitchforks away, I find this sentence in the description to be strange:

"Most examples are double or triple struck as discovered and researched by Russell J. Logan in the prior decades before his untimely passing."

Setting aside the redundancy issue with "prior decades before":

1. He wasn't exactly going to discover or research this after his passing.
2. The fact that was discovered and researched in the "prior decades" rather than the night before his passing make the timing of his passing seem irrelevant.
3. What is a timely passing? Sounds like something scheduled by a death panel. >>

Not all catalogers write well, let alone with any eloquence. That makes those who can cleverly cobble together intelligent, insightful thoughts, like JK, all the more enjoyable to read.

Unknown · October 31, 2012 11:43PM

This content has been removed.

ColonelJessup · November 1, 2012 6:25AM

Perhaps a look at lot 1691 would sooth some doubters. The coin pictured is lot 1693.

roadrunner · November 1, 2012 7:10AM

Did they change the listing? I'm pretty sure I saw that scrubbed AG piece sitting under a Fine description. Now I could agree with the PCGS net grade of Good + cleaning.

Does This Look Like A F-12 To You CBH

Comments

Leave a Comment