Looks like PCGS put a dateless 1917 SLQ in a 1916 holder.
commoncents05
Posts: 10,096 ✭✭✭
Link to eBay.
Shield rivets are too strong, and the hair has the extra curl. Definitely looks like a 1917 to me.
-Paul
Shield rivets are too strong, and the hair has the extra curl. Definitely looks like a 1917 to me.
-Paul
Many Quality coins for sale at http://www.CommonCentsRareCoins.com
0
Comments
EAC 6024
Rut-roh
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
<< <i>Someones not going to be happy if it is a 1917. >>
IF ? There ain't no IF. This is a 1917 issue. The sharp radius of the bottom of Liberty's gown, adjacent to the right foot(viewing left) as well as the prominent gap between the right ankle and gown are both positive markers for a 1917.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>That would be a slam-dunk guarantee case though, I'd think. >>
Reading that linked thread though it sounds like the PCGS guarantee is no guarantee? Guess I need to read the fine print to learn just how wide the net stretches for being qualified to make good on a PCGS guarantee when a coin is in the open market.
<< <i>That would be a slam-dunk guarantee case though, I'd think. >>
No, I believe this would fall under the clerical or "mechanical" clause in the guarantee.
This has actually happened a few times over the years. Assuming the holder is not tampered with/counterfeit (doesn't look like it), this is a guarantee issue as it was clearly our grading (attribution) mistake.
hrh
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
EAC 6024
You can tell the 16 from the design. What makes this one a 17? Is the 17 design different from later ones, couldn't it be anything 17 or later?
<< <i>This might be a silly question since I don't know the series.
You can tell the 16 from the design. What makes this one a 17? Is the 17 design different from later ones, couldn't it be anything 17 or later? >>
No, the reverse has stars below the eagle on type 2 slq's . If there are no stars below the eagle, it is either a 1916 or 1917.
<< <i>Well, to me, there seems to be no questions. David Hall has already chimed in. So, if the buyer is aware of the problem, hopefully, he/she will return it. If not aware, simply send the buyer a message once feedback has been left (so you know who it is). >>
What if the seller bought the coin already slabbed as a 1916? Will PCGS buy it back from him as a 1916 or should he take the loss for PCGS's mistake?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, to me, there seems to be no questions. David Hall has already chimed in. So, if the buyer is aware of the problem, hopefully, he/she will return it. If not aware, simply send the buyer a message once feedback has been left (so you know who it is). >>
What if the seller bought the coin already slabbed as a 1916? Will PCGS buy it back from him as a 1916 or should he take the loss for PCGS's mistake? >>
Should be irrelevant. David Hall has already stated that if someone returns the coin, then PCGS will pay out for it. So, if the buyer returns it, or if the seller returns it, it really should not matter, no? David Hall has also stated that this has happened a few times over the years and it clearly falls under the PCGS guarantee.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, to me, there seems to be no questions. David Hall has already chimed in. So, if the buyer is aware of the problem, hopefully, he/she will return it. If not aware, simply send the buyer a message once feedback has been left (so you know who it is). >>
What if the seller bought the coin already slabbed as a 1916? Will PCGS buy it back from him as a 1916 or should he take the loss for PCGS's mistake? >>
Should be irrelevant. David Hall has already stated that if someone returns the coin, then PCGS will pay out for it. So, if the buyer returns it, or if the seller returns it, it really should not matter, no? David Hall has also stated that this has happened a few times over the years and it clearly falls under the PCGS guarantee. >>
It wasn't clear if they would pay 1916 money for this coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
It wasn't clear if they would pay 1916 money for this coin. >>
Ended: May 23, 2013 11:49:43 PDT
Winning bid:US $1,550.00
[ 11 bids ]
Shipping: $3.95 Economy Shipping
Since the item sold and auction ended... it stands to reason the coin was worth the thread and it's no longer any of our concern.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, to me, there seems to be no questions. David Hall has already chimed in. So, if the buyer is aware of the problem, hopefully, he/she will return it. If not aware, simply send the buyer a message once feedback has been left (so you know who it is). >>
What if the seller bought the coin already slabbed as a 1916? Will PCGS buy it back from him as a 1916 or should he take the loss for PCGS's mistake? >>
Should be irrelevant. David Hall has already stated that if someone returns the coin, then PCGS will pay out for it. So, if the buyer returns it, or if the seller returns it, it really should not matter, no? David Hall has also stated that this has happened a few times over the years and it clearly falls under the PCGS guarantee. >>
It wasn't clear if they would pay 1916 money for this coin. >>
I think HRH was pretty clear on the issue, when he said if the holder wasn't counterfeit or tampered with, that it was their bad and it would be taken care of. I would assume this means they'd pay a proper value for a 1916 piece and remove this mistake from the holder.
I believe where a data entry error might come into play would be if I had a, say, 1896-S Morgan but in a "1893-S" PCGS holder; it would be fairly clear that it was a typo/mixup, and I wouldn't expect PCGS to pay out a 1893-S value to fix that.
Otherwise people would submit coins like that over and over as 1916 hoping pcgs makes a error then cash in on the mistake.
<< <i>If the seller is the original submitter of the coin to pcgs then I doubt pcgs wouldnt pay them anything. >>
Why should the original submitter have less protection than someone else who bought it from him at a later date?
<< <i>
<< <i>If the seller is the original submitter of the coin to pcgs then I doubt pcgs wouldnt pay them anything. >>
Why should the original submitter have less protection than someone else who bought it from him at a later date? >>
Cause they are not out anything other than shipping/grading fees.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the seller is the original submitter of the coin to pcgs then I doubt pcgs wouldnt pay them anything. >>
Why should the original submitter have less protection than someone else who bought it from him at a later date? >>
Cause they are not out anything. >>
They are if they bought it raw as a 16 and just wanted to get it slabbed. Is there someplace in the PCGS guarantee that says they're only liable for what someone paid for the coin in question?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If the seller is the original submitter of the coin to pcgs then I doubt pcgs wouldnt pay them anything. >>
Why should the original submitter have less protection than someone else who bought it from him at a later date? >>
Cause they are not out anything. >>
They are if they bought it raw as a 16 and just wanted to get it slabbed. Is there someplace in the PCGS guarantee that says they're only liable for what someone paid for the coin in question? >>
Why would it be logical at all that they pay you more?
<< <i>Why would it be logical at all that they pay you more? >>
Because the market value of a coin is not necessarily the same as someone's cost. Looking up PCGS's guarantee, I found this:
If the grade determined under such "Guarantee Resubmission" procedures is lower than the grade originally assigned to the coin, or if the coin is found to be misattributed, non-authentic, PCGS shall pay the current market value for the coin in question at the originally assigned grade, or at the owner of the coin's option, the difference between the current market value for the coin in question at the newly established grade and the current market value of the coin in question at the grade originally assigned.
There is nothing in there about their liability being limited to the submitter's cost.
If you cant prove what you paid for the item or its been so long that that price is outdated then you get the current fair market value, even if thats far less than what you paid for it.
<< <i>You keep bringing up the idea that what a person paid for a coin is relevant to what PCGS will pay on their guarantee. I'm not seeing that in there anywhere- could you point out where that's noted? >>
Your right, I am wrong. Have great weekend!
<< <i>
<< <i>You keep bringing up the idea that what a person paid for a coin is relevant to what PCGS will pay on their guarantee. I'm not seeing that in there anywhere- could you point out where that's noted? >>
Your right, I am wrong. Have great weekend! >>
I'm not really getting the controversy here, but maybe HRH will chime in again later.
I highly doubt anyone with dreams of submitting a roll's worth of dateless 1917's now, is going to "cash in" on typographical errors courtesy of PCGS either.
Mechanical Error - its a 1917 ............
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Coin collecting is not a hobby, it's an obsession !
New Barber Purchases
What i'm thinking is HRH stepped up and said it appears to be a mistake that pcgs made and they will take care of it...good enough for me....
Also by pcgs (HRH) stepping up I think that if either party, the seller or the buyer....who ever has the coin now, once notified, does not come forward and return it to pcgs promptly for reimbursement, is SOL ....all bets are off........JMO
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
<< <i>That's true, buyer or seller would have to reach out to PCGS to have it corrected, but I have no doubt it would be. It's really not a classic mechanical error in that it's dateless, so you can't tell at a glance, thus PCGS is on the hook for it as a 1916. I have no doubt they'll stand by their guarantee, as they always do. Were the date clearly readable, so that anyone reasonable could see it wasn't a 1916, that would be a mech. error. >>
This has to be one of the easiest coins to authenticate. Even at the quickest glance, one can easily pick out a dateless 16 slq over any dateless 17. If the holder is legitimate and untampered with, I believe that it's probably a mechanical error.
I sent the buyer a message with a link to this thread.
<< <i>We all make mistakes, I'm sure as HRH stated they will honor their guarantee. >>
Sort of off topic since not limited to the situation at hand, but does PCGS buy insurance (presumably with a deductible) that would cover what they might have to pay under a guarantee? If so, wouldn't the insurance company have a say so as well into what the final reimbursement amount would be?