Mintmarks matter.

rhedden · January 30, 2014 1:56AM

Someone forgot to tell NGC, sadly. See auction item below.

An 1867-S half dime is less desirable than an 1867-P business strike in the AU grade range. This situation is similar to the 1853 "No Arrows" we saw last week in a PCGS holder (but it had arrows). I wonder if someone will buy it and get a nasty SSSSSSSurprise?

link to eBay auction

MrHalfDime · January 30, 2014 2:28AM

Wow. There certainly is a price difference between an AU-55 1867-S half dime ($335 on the PCGS Price Guide) and an AU-55 1867 half dime ($900 on the PCGS Price Guide). NGC would undoubtedly defend themselves by describing this as a 'mechanical error', but the possibility of misrepresentation of the coin is great, as seen by the eBay listing. The eBay seller is Brigandi Coin, a presumably reputable coin dealer with a long history and excellent reputation. Certainly they must have seen the S mint mark on this coin. Has anyone contacted Brigandi to point out the 'oversight'?

rec78 · January 30, 2014 2:40AM

I have sent them an email pointing out the error. Awaiting a response. I do not think that anyone will purchase it as an 1867, but you never know.

Bob

rhedden · January 30, 2014 2:53AM

I suspect the dealer will utter some curses when they realize that they purchased it as an 1867-P.

OldEastside · January 30, 2014 3:24AM

Good eye

Steve

ebaybuyer · January 30, 2014 4:04AM

is that considered a "mechanical error" ?

MrHalfDime · January 30, 2014 4:07AM

<< <i>is that considered a "mechanical error" ? >>

While I am certainly no expert on slabs and TPG's, it is my understanding that they refer to such labeling errors as 'mechanical errors'. And they are completely unapologetic about such errors, offering no compensation to collectors who are harmed by such errors.

crypto79 · February 18, 2014 8:40PM

<< <i>

<< <i>is that considered a "mechanical error" ? >>

While I am certainly no expert on slabs and TPG's, it is my understanding that they refer to such labeling errors as 'mechanical errors'. And they are completely unapologetic about such errors, offering no compensation to collectors who are harmed by such errors. >>

Having dealt with PCGS, I would be more than shocked if they didn't make a normal collector whole who had a receipt. Now a dealer who has history and has submitted dozens of warranty claims before and should know better might get the mechinal error ruling. From what I have seen PCGS bends over backwards when it comes to true collectors and customer service.

With stuff like that it is a case by case basis and they tend to error on the side of the little guy.

Mintmarks matter.

Comments

Leave a Comment