As a shareholder of Collector's Universe (CLCT), I urge you guys not to submit these pieces to PCGS. The last thing we want to see as shareholders of arguably the most respected and well known rare and high-value collectible third party grading company is increased velocity, output, and revenue from grading, authentication, and encapsulation of numismatic items.
Similarly, I hope CLCT recognizes the potential danger of increased business from submission of these pieces and errs on the side of caution.
Let's let cooler heads prevail. I think we can all agree that the one thing none of us wants is continued blockbuster success of our host, a continued solid business model, respectable market growth, and the dividends these attributes provide.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
Originally posted by: cardinal Well, I figure it's been enough theorizing!
Since I have been the one prompting PCGS to create new Coin Numbers for token submissions, I will submit the 1964-D's I have to PCGS pronto, and then we will have the final answer in due time!!
My submission of the DCarr 1964-D overstrikes are now on their way to PCGS, to be graded under the "Express" service level. From my experience with token submissions, these won't get done during the typical turnaround for Express submissions, but they should be done sooner than if they were submitted as "Regular" submissions!
Once the grades post, I will let everyone know how they turned out.
Originally posted by: epcjimi1 Bought and sold tons of DCarr restrikes, not swimming upstream on anything. Jeez, last I knew, DCarr was soliciting PCGS for potential slabbing as posted on this board. Last I saw, not yet successful, hope abounds for many.
I talked to David Hall about it a couple times briefly (two to three years ago after their "tokens and medals" press release came out). All I did was ask him if they would "certify" them. I didn't get any firm answer at the time, and I didn't press the issue.
I never tried submitting one, so I don't know what would happen.
Yep. Looked it up in the archives. Here's what it said from 2/7/15 -
1) A few months ago PCGS announced that they will start certifying certain tokens and medals: PCGS Tokens and medals . That document specifically states that they will certify items that are listed in the US section of the Krause Unusual World Coins catalog (6th edition). I showed that catalog and the PCGS press release to Mr. Hall, along with two coins that are listed in it (in the US section, "Daniel Carr Prototype Dollars" subsection). Those two coins are my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar and "1975" over-strike Eisenhower Dollar. I asked flat-out if PCGS would certify those two coins and should I submit them. His answer was inconclusive but basically "not yet". He took some written notes concerning this.
Originally posted by: ambro51 Someone should set up a poll. I don't know how to. "Will Cardinal succeed in having a Dan Carr 1964 D Peace Dollar PCGS Certified?" Yes. No (my vote)
I really don't see the controversy here. There are numerous examples of colonials, federal coins, patterns and tokens that were overstruck on planchets that had already been struck with an earlier set of dies. In fact, the majority of the known copper patterns for the 1794 half dollar are only seen as having been cut down and overstruck to produce half cents dated 1795.
There are also two known 1795 flowing hair dollars that were overstruck on previously-struck 1794 dollars. One of those pieces sold at auction some time ago, and it had been graded and encapsulated as a "1795 flowing hair silver dollar," with the additional description that it was "Over 1794 S$1."
Once the piece is overstruck, it is classified as an example of the type and design of the dies that were used to strike over the original piece. I see the DCarr 1964-D pieces along those same lines.
There are also numerous examples of medals and tokens produced by various mints and private parties, and the grading companies do grade and encapsulate them in accordance with their own policies. Think about all the So-Called dollars and civil war tokens that are in holders today!
For PCGS specifically, they have stated publicly, with a earlier press release and then a webpage under the "Coin Grading" tab, their policies for "PCGS Tokens and Medals," stating,
"Tokens and Medals should be submitted under the appropriate service level based on their declared values (not available for on-site grading). Certain tokens and medals may require additional research, and turnaround times can fluctuate based on the amount of research required. Before submitting tokens or medals to PCGS, please verify that each of the tokens or medals are listed below. We continually update this list, so please check back for frequent updates." (emphasis added)
The "List" goes on to include:
"Krause Unusuals listed in the US Section, from the reference "Unusual World Coins, 6th Edition" by Krause Publications."
The DCarr 1964-D pieces are very clearly and explicitly listed in that reference book. You can ignore that source of the planchet, or acknowledge the source of the planchet, but they are just recently minted tokens struck in silver with no legal tender value.
Originally posted by: epcjimi1 "Daniel Carr Prototype Dollars" subsection
I don't get it.
You get the first "certified" by PCGS DCarr '64 Prototype Dollar?
I'm not sure of the point of your question.
I presume you have a fondness for the medal that serves as your chosen avatar. That is another medal that PCGS would grade and encapsulate, specifically because the reference book for such British Historical Medals is one of the references accepted by PCGS.
As I understand it, the question posed in this thread is not whether the forum members like or dislike what other members choose to submit to PCGS for grading, but whether PCGS will accept a particular item for encapsulation or not. At least at this point, both your avatar medal and the DCarr 1964-D pieces both share the same characteristic of being specifically identified in a reference book that has been approved for use by PCGS for the identification and encapsulation of medals and tokens.
With my submission now it PCGS' possession, I have put up the money that will answer the question.
I really don't see the controversy here. There are numerous examples of colonials, federal coins, patterns and tokens that were overstruck on planchets that had already been struck with an earlier set of dies. In fact, the majority of the known copper patterns for the 1794 half dollar are only seen as having been cut down and overstruck to produce half cents dated 1795.
There are also two known 1795 flowing hair dollars that were overstruck on previously-struck 1794 dollars. One of those pieces sold at auction some time ago, and it had been graded and encapsulated as a "1795 flowing hair silver dollar," with the additional description that it was "Over 1794 S$1."
Once the piece is overstruck, it is classified as an example of the type and design of the dies that were used to strike over the original piece. I see the DCarr 1964-D pieces along those same lines.
There are also numerous examples of medals and tokens produced by various mints and private parties, and the grading companies do grade and encapsulate them in accordance with their own policies. Think about all the So-Called dollars and civil war tokens that are in holders today!
For PCGS specifically, they have stated publicly, with a earlier press release and then a webpage under the "Coin Grading" tab, their policies for "PCGS Tokens and Medals," stating,
"Tokens and Medals should be submitted under the appropriate service level based on their declared values (not available for on-site grading). Certain tokens and medals may require additional research, and turnaround times can fluctuate based on the amount of research required. Before submitting tokens or medals to PCGS, please verify that each of the tokens or medals are listed below. We continually update this list, so please check back for frequent updates." (emphasis added)
The "List" goes on to include:
"Krause Unusuals listed in the US Section, from the reference "Unusual World Coins, 6th Edition" by Krause Publications."
The DCarr 1964-D pieces are very clearly and explicitly listed in that reference book. You can ignore that source of the planchet, or acknowledge the source of the planchet, but they are just recently minted tokens struck in silver with no legal tender value.
Excellent explanation Cardinal, will you post the true view so I can see it.... .....or send me a pm. I too want to send it in along with many political and other various tokens soon. Just haven't been well enough.
Originally posted by: epcjimi1 "Daniel Carr Prototype Dollars" subsection
I don't get it.
You get the first "certified" by PCGS DCarr '64 Prototype Dollar?
I'm not sure of the point of your question.
The icon stuff you point out is nonsense, shows the superficial aspect of this board. Fact - I randomly picked this image because I was going thru crowns.
DCarr described by Krause catalog, 6th ed., are "64 Prototype Dollar".
So ya get a slabbed / certified DCarr PCGS "'64 prototype dollar", via the subsection description. Can't think how else iit would be described.
My guess is PCGS hesitation to certify lies with the fine line DCarr describes, my words, original planchet, metal moved around a little bit on restrike, date has changed.
Excellent explanation Cardinal, will you post the true view so I can see it.... .....or send me a pm. I too want to send it in along with many political and other various tokens soon. Just haven't been well enough.
Thanks!
Yes, I will post the grades and TrueViews when available. For your upcoming submission, what I have found is, it is best to do your own research and attributions before sending in the submission, and then include a copy of the pages from the related reference book, highlighted to make it easy to see which listing matches the items submitted.
For things like Bust dollars, Capped Bust half dollars, half cents and large cents, PCGS offers a die variety attribution service as an add-on service for a grading submission. Those series are truly mainstream, and the staff at PCGS know exactly which book to pick up when attributing those die varieties. (Surprisingly, for the bust dollars, for the basic redbook varieties that PCGS automatically recognizes, the grading room still uses the short pamphlet I put together more than 10 years ago. )
For tokens and medals, PCGS does not charge for an add-on service fee for identifying the specific variety, even though the listing of the reference books used for that is quite extensive. Imagine getting in a medal or token you are not familiar with, and need to figure out what it is...you wouldn't even know which reference book to look in! So, including the pages from the correct reference with the submission really helps the process!
cardinal, thx for the legwork and info. There are many DC collectors here, regardless of the controversy, the result of your diligence will be a boom(let) for CU. :-)
if you are interested in having Daniel Carr issues encapsulated you should probably get the proper publication to be sure they qualify. a quick look by me indicates that many may not be listed, it isn't like PCGS has issued a blanket approval of his issues.
My opinion PCGS is number one for certifying your US mint coins ! BUT ANACS is best for DC coins ! they have colorful holders for his coins ! And I do know the subject of this thread just my comment
Here's the deal. PCGS cert of DC '64, not going to happen. Despite the Cardinal pitch of what is published by PCGS. I expect a PCGS exception, retraction, ain't going to happen. MHO.
Like Cardinal said, some of Dan Carr's pieces are listed in the Krause Unusual World Coins catalog. Pretty sure that these will be encapsulated by PCGS. We will see...
Originally posted by: epcjimi1 Here's the deal. PCGS cert of DC '64, not going to happen. Despite the Cardinal pitch of what is published by PCGS. I expect a PCGS exception, retraction, ain't going to happen. MHO.
No need for any speculation or other opinions, humble or otherwise. I have already paid for the submission at the Express level, and we will ALL know PCGS' official answer soon enough -- in all likelihood, sometime next week or the week after!
I likewise see no reason why it should not be accepted. And frankly gotten a bit sick of the one-sided interpretations of the HPA as they can be read in different ways vis a vis Dan's overstrikes. Although I like the matte 1964 D of his, it is the 1927 semi-matte Oregon Trail that is really the finest IMO.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Originally posted by: keets There are many DC collectors here, regardless of the controversy, the result of your diligence will be a boom(let) for CU.
as a "heads-up" before someone just starts submitting DCarr issues there are only a few that seem to interest members here which are listed: --- 1964-D Dollar. --- 1975 Dollar. --- 1975-D Dollar. --- 2007-D Trade Dollar.
The last listing is in error. All of the "1975-D" over-strike coins released were copper-nickel clad, not 40% silver.
These Eisenhower Dollar over-strikes were also produced but are not listed in that catalog: "1970" (copper-nickel clad); "1970" (40% silver); "1975-S" (regular reverse, 40% silver); "1975" (Bicentennial reverse, copper-nickel clad); "1975" (Bicentennial reverse, 40% silver).
Other "prototype dollars" listed in that catalog include my Apollo, Bessie Coleman, and Sacagawea dollars. My prototype states quarters (CO, NV, ME) and my parody states quarters are also listed.
The Sixth (most recent) Edition of the Krause "Unusual World Coins" was published some time late in 2011 or early 2012. It lists the selected items that I produced prior to about July 2011. If another edition of this catalog is ever produced, it might contain more items, although the catalog could get pretty thick rather quickly.
something I just read might be of interest to members who are confused about the overstrikes that Dan produces.
I was looking around for "chance" One Concept Dollar sales and stumbled onto an old article about the Gallery Mint Museum from May 1st, 2000. all the way at the bottom is this explanation of why it was OK for the Landis/Rust Team to overstike Jefferson Nickels:
I asked Joe if there is any legal problem regarding the mutilation of legal tender. I guess I entertained secret fears that the Small Change Division of the Secret Service might raid the place while I was there. He told me that this is a common misconception on the part of the public. The law only provides for the punishment of persons who mutilate money with the intent to defraud. So drawing on a one dollar bill to make it look like a ten is a crime, but lighting your cigar with it is not.
that's interesting when you consider the 1964-D overstrike and the random date Jefferson Nickel the GMM overstuck to look like a Viking. they're really the same thing.
Originally posted by: keets that's interesting when you consider the 1964-D overstrike and the random date Jefferson Nickel the GMM overstuck to look like a Viking. they're really the same thing.
I disagree. There is a gulf of difference a genuine mint product--the 1964 peace dollar--and a fantasy hobo nickel.
We know the '64 peace dollars actually existed. They were coined. They were probably even intended to circulate.
The intent to defraud is the part that sticks out. If by intent to defraud the secret service means an attempt to coin something designed to have a higher face value, then DCARR is in the clear. He's not striking $20 gold pieces over $1 peace dollars and trying to spend them.
The grey area, as I see it, is if the law is read to mean defraud in the sense of deception by counterfeiting a rarity from a non-rarity. Striking a 1914-D over a 1914-P cent, for example.
But that's the brilliance of DCARR's pieces. A 1964 peace dollar isn't a rarity. It's a fantasy. There are none--at least according to the mint's records. You can't claim DCARR made "a fake" when there isn't "a real" to begin with. He threaded all of these needles and still found a demand waiting to be satisfied.
I would never own a copy of a 1964 peace dollar. They're literally as inauthentic as you can get. But I love DCARR's overstruck peace dollars. Because until the mint releases a backdated 1964 peace dollar, they're as authentic as you can get.
We are like children who look at print and see a serpent in the last letter but one, and a sword in the last. --Severian the Lame
LOL! Yes, the mint missed a golden (silver) opportunity to rake over its collector base and release a bunch of 50th anniversary 1964/2014 Peace Dollars....
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
I am confident that cardinal will tell us either way. if you have been paying attention to what he has said thus far you'd understand that with Tokens and other Exonumia the process of authentication and grading is much slower. my submission has been at PCGS since August 9th and the Tokens haven't yet been listed in the description column......................except for one. that is the only one they have seen and graded, the rest are evidently "first timers" that they'll have to verify before they even upload any information about them. contrast that with another submission I have at the factory, standard U.S. coins that are known and were listed at they were received.
I had told cardinal that I thought my Tokens would be done around September 20th but after this wait I think into October is more realistic expectation.
Originally posted by: keets I am confident that cardinal will tell us either way. if you have been paying attention to what he has said thus far you'd understand that with Tokens and other Exonumia the process of authentication and grading is much slower. my submission has been at PCGS since August 9th and the Tokens haven't yet been listed in the description column......................except for one. that is the only one they have seen and graded, the rest are evidently "first timers" that they'll have to verify before they even upload any information about them. contrast that with another submission I have at the factory, standard U.S. coins that are known and were listed at they were received.
I had told cardinal that I thought my Tokens would be done around September 20th but after this wait I think into October is more realistic expectation.
As keets said, Tokens and other Exonumia submissions require extreme patience. Here is one of my pending submissions -- delivered in person to PCGS at the Member's Show in Las Vegas on June 30th. The status as of 5 minutes ago is as follows:
Today is "business day" 33 for this submission, and as you can see, the 10 tokens in the submission have not even been identified by PCGS as yet, even though, to help them along, I included in the submission the relevant pages of the related reference book, highlighting the tokens in my submission, with their Rulau attribution numbers and their photos.
For an earlier token submission, the process took a full 55 business days, during which the estimated turnaround time for "regular" submissions never varied from 15 days. So, again, extreme patience is required with these non-mainstream submissions!
Heading for the gym to work on rehabilitating my new knee. Please assume any and all comments you might expect out of me and get on with life.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Heading for the gym to work on rehabilitating my new knee. Please assume any and all comments you might expect out of me and get on with life.
Gotcha down for a maybe.
Good luck with the new wheel. I went to say hi to you at JK's table at ANA but you laid rubber and poof.....gone
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
not a meltdown and neither of us seem to be upset by the long time. personally, I accept that the grading team at PCGS needs extra time to be certain of what they are doing. I would rather they be long and right than quick and wrong. now again, if they are long and wrong I'll be bummed out!!
We are another week in. This is "Express"? I am thinking this submission is involving not only graders and management but also lawyers. We do beg to be informed of any information on this.
Originally posted by: ambro51 We are another week in. This is "Express"? I am thinking this submission is involving not only graders and management but also lawyers. We do beg to be informed of any information on this.
There is no further progress with the submission whatsoever at this point. What I have learned about getting medals and tokens graded by PCGS is that the submission level is less regarded for tokens and medals than it is for regular U.S. coins.
I have routinely seen "regular" submissions of medals and tokens take triple the "estimated" turnaround for U.S. coins, and I have seen the same and worse for submissions above the "regular" level. "5-day Express" submissions typically take over a month, and even "2-day Walk-Through" submissions take up to two weeks.
That being said, I think we are currently seeing unprecedented increases in turnaround times. For this past week, the posted estimated turnaround time was reduced from the week before. However, this week, the "Coins Certified as of..." counter only increased by a bit over 36,000 coins -- averaging 7,200 per day, and extrapolating to about 160,000 per 30-day period.
Right now, the PCGS Statistics page says that 214,191 coins were certified during the last 30-days. So, this past week, the output of certified coins was down 25% from the last 30-day period. Based on that, I expect to see Monday's posting of the estimated turnaround times to jump back up to even longer waiting times!
With that in mind, I suspect internal resources will shifted to mainstream U.S. coins, rather than being applied to a small Express submission of tokens, for which PCGS states "Certain tokens and medals may require additional research, and turnaround times can fluctuate based on the amount of research required." Basically, that is PCGS' disclaimer saying that when you submit tokens and medals, they can totally disregard any other previously-stated estimate, and get to them when they have the time for the necessary "research."
Originally posted by: COCollector I'm sticking with ANACS for my DCarr stuff. They know his products, so no research delays. Turnaround is reasonable, 3-4 weeks for my last order IIRC.
And unique Moonlight Mint labels...
With a signature...
Let me ask this, how good are the photographs that ANACS provides with their grading service? For a lot of the tokens and medals I submit to PCGS, I'm more concerned with getting the superb high-resolution photos than even the grade on the label.
Photographic quality varies greatly! Here's a direct case in point!
Here is the auction photo for a raw silver medal, from a major auction house:
And here is the TrueView from PCGS, which, unsurprisingly is actually how the medal looks:
I submitted a 1964-D Peace D.Carr Overstrike myself and it was completed and shipped back today (Tuesday, Sept. 6th 2016)
I submitted it to PCGS as a Token ... with full documentation.
It doesn't appear to me PCGS even slabbed it Genuine or otherwise. They did assign a Cert Number as 81600058, but that number is not active in the database (at least not as of a few minutes ago).
I have a feeling it's coming back to me in the flip as and a message that says "PCGS does not holder D.Carr overstrikes" or something to that effect. I will know for certain on Thursday Sept 8th when I get the package back from PCGS. I will post the contents of the package when it arrives.
I did pay for a TrueView photo, but it doesn't appear PCGS was willing to do that either.
Oh well. I tried.
Robec did a bang up job photographing the beast a few years back tho! Three cheers for Robec.
At Baltimore I submitted a Patina (INA), Edward VII Wyon crown in gold that was treated this way and came back in a flip - even though listed in Odd & Curious Krause.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
Comments
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Similarly, I hope CLCT recognizes the potential danger of increased business from submission of these pieces and errs on the side of caution.
Let's let cooler heads prevail. I think we can all agree that the one thing none of us wants is continued blockbuster success of our host, a continued solid business model, respectable market growth, and the dividends these attributes provide.
--Severian the Lame
Well, I figure it's been enough theorizing!
Since I have been the one prompting PCGS to create new Coin Numbers for token submissions, I will submit the 1964-D's I have to PCGS pronto, and then we will have the final answer in due time!!
My submission of the DCarr 1964-D overstrikes are now on their way to PCGS, to be graded under the "Express" service level. From my experience with token submissions, these won't get done during the typical turnaround for Express submissions, but they should be done sooner than if they were submitted as "Regular" submissions!
Once the grades post, I will let everyone know how they turned out.
Bought and sold tons of DCarr restrikes, not swimming upstream on anything. Jeez, last I knew, DCarr was soliciting PCGS for potential slabbing as posted on this board. Last I saw, not yet successful, hope abounds for many.
I talked to David Hall about it a couple times briefly (two to three years ago after their "tokens and medals" press release came out).
All I did was ask him if they would "certify" them.
I didn't get any firm answer at the time, and I didn't press the issue.
I never tried submitting one, so I don't know what would happen.
Yep. Looked it up in the archives. Here's what it said from 2/7/15 -
1) A few months ago PCGS announced that they will start certifying certain tokens and medals: PCGS Tokens and medals . That document specifically states that they will certify items that are listed in the US section of the Krause Unusual World Coins catalog (6th edition). I showed that catalog and the PCGS press release to Mr. Hall, along with two coins that are listed in it (in the US section, "Daniel Carr Prototype Dollars" subsection). Those two coins are my "1964-D" over-strike Peace Dollar and "1975" over-strike Eisenhower Dollar. I asked flat-out if PCGS would certify those two coins and should I submit them. His answer was inconclusive but basically "not yet". He took some written notes concerning this.
Text
What's the difference between slabbing and certifying? J/W.
Someone should set up a poll. I don't know how to. "Will Cardinal succeed in having a Dan Carr 1964 D Peace Dollar PCGS Certified?" Yes. No (my vote)
Don't forget the third option.
Someone should set up a poll. I don't know how to. "Will Cardinal succeed in having a Dan Carr 1964 D Peace Dollar PCGS Certified?" Yes. No (my vote)
I really don't see the controversy here. There are numerous examples of colonials, federal coins, patterns and tokens that were overstruck on planchets that had already been struck with an earlier set of dies. In fact, the majority of the known copper patterns for the 1794 half dollar are only seen as having been cut down and overstruck to produce half cents dated 1795.
There are also two known 1795 flowing hair dollars that were overstruck on previously-struck 1794 dollars. One of those pieces sold at auction some time ago, and it had been graded and encapsulated as a "1795 flowing hair silver dollar," with the additional description that it was "Over 1794 S$1."
Once the piece is overstruck, it is classified as an example of the type and design of the dies that were used to strike over the original piece. I see the DCarr 1964-D pieces along those same lines.
There are also numerous examples of medals and tokens produced by various mints and private parties, and the grading companies do grade and encapsulate them in accordance with their own policies. Think about all the So-Called dollars and civil war tokens that are in holders today!
For PCGS specifically, they have stated publicly, with a earlier press release and then a webpage under the "Coin Grading" tab, their policies for "PCGS Tokens and Medals," stating,
"Tokens and Medals should be submitted under the appropriate service level based on their declared values (not available for on-site grading). Certain tokens and medals may require additional research, and turnaround times can fluctuate based on the amount of research required. Before submitting tokens or medals to PCGS, please verify that each of the tokens or medals are listed below. We continually update this list, so please check back for frequent updates." (emphasis added)
The "List" goes on to include:
"Krause Unusuals listed in the US Section, from the reference "Unusual World Coins, 6th Edition" by Krause Publications."
The DCarr 1964-D pieces are very clearly and explicitly listed in that reference book. You can ignore that source of the planchet, or acknowledge the source of the planchet, but they are just recently minted tokens struck in silver with no legal tender value.
I don't get it.
You get the first "certified" by PCGS DCarr '64 Prototype Dollar?
"Daniel Carr Prototype Dollars" subsection
I don't get it.
You get the first "certified" by PCGS DCarr '64 Prototype Dollar?
I'm not sure of the point of your question.
I presume you have a fondness for the medal that serves as your chosen avatar. That is another medal that PCGS would grade and encapsulate, specifically because the reference book for such British Historical Medals is one of the references accepted by PCGS.
As I understand it, the question posed in this thread is not whether the forum members like or dislike what other members choose to submit to PCGS for grading, but whether PCGS will accept a particular item for encapsulation or not. At least at this point, both your avatar medal and the DCarr 1964-D pieces both share the same characteristic of being specifically identified in a reference book that has been approved for use by PCGS for the identification and encapsulation of medals and tokens.
With my submission now it PCGS' possession, I have put up the money that will answer the question.
I really don't see the controversy here. There are numerous examples of colonials, federal coins, patterns and tokens that were overstruck on planchets that had already been struck with an earlier set of dies. In fact, the majority of the known copper patterns for the 1794 half dollar are only seen as having been cut down and overstruck to produce half cents dated 1795.
There are also two known 1795 flowing hair dollars that were overstruck on previously-struck 1794 dollars. One of those pieces sold at auction some time ago, and it had been graded and encapsulated as a "1795 flowing hair silver dollar," with the additional description that it was "Over 1794 S$1."
Once the piece is overstruck, it is classified as an example of the type and design of the dies that were used to strike over the original piece. I see the DCarr 1964-D pieces along those same lines.
There are also numerous examples of medals and tokens produced by various mints and private parties, and the grading companies do grade and encapsulate them in accordance with their own policies. Think about all the So-Called dollars and civil war tokens that are in holders today!
For PCGS specifically, they have stated publicly, with a earlier press release and then a webpage under the "Coin Grading" tab, their policies for "PCGS Tokens and Medals," stating,
"Tokens and Medals should be submitted under the appropriate service level based on their declared values (not available for on-site grading). Certain tokens and medals may require additional research, and turnaround times can fluctuate based on the amount of research required. Before submitting tokens or medals to PCGS, please verify that each of the tokens or medals are listed below. We continually update this list, so please check back for frequent updates." (emphasis added)
The "List" goes on to include:
"Krause Unusuals listed in the US Section, from the reference "Unusual World Coins, 6th Edition" by Krause Publications."
The DCarr 1964-D pieces are very clearly and explicitly listed in that reference book. You can ignore that source of the planchet, or acknowledge the source of the planchet, but they are just recently minted tokens struck in silver with no legal tender value.
Excellent explanation Cardinal, will you post the true view so I can see it....
.....or send me a pm. I too want to send it in along with many political and other various tokens soon. Just haven't been well enough.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
"Daniel Carr Prototype Dollars" subsection
I don't get it.
You get the first "certified" by PCGS DCarr '64 Prototype Dollar?
The icon stuff you point out is nonsense, shows the superficial aspect of this board. Fact - I randomly picked this image because I was going thru crowns.
DCarr described by Krause catalog, 6th ed., are "64 Prototype Dollar".
So ya get a slabbed / certified DCarr PCGS "'64 prototype dollar", via the subsection description. Can't think how else iit would be described.
My guess is PCGS hesitation to certify lies with the fine line DCarr describes, my words, original planchet, metal moved around a little bit on restrike, date has changed.
Excellent explanation Cardinal, will you post the true view so I can see it....
.....or send me a pm. I too want to send it in along with many political and other various tokens soon. Just haven't been well enough.
Thanks!
Yes, I will post the grades and TrueViews when available. For your upcoming submission, what I have found is, it is best to do your own research and attributions before sending in the submission, and then include a copy of the pages from the related reference book, highlighted to make it easy to see which listing matches the items submitted.
For things like Bust dollars, Capped Bust half dollars, half cents and large cents, PCGS offers a die variety attribution service as an add-on service for a grading submission. Those series are truly mainstream, and the staff at PCGS know exactly which book to pick up when attributing those die varieties. (Surprisingly, for the bust dollars, for the basic redbook varieties that PCGS automatically recognizes, the grading room still uses the short pamphlet I put together more than 10 years ago.
For tokens and medals, PCGS does not charge for an add-on service fee for identifying the specific variety, even though the listing of the reference books used for that is quite extensive. Imagine getting in a medal or token you are not familiar with, and need to figure out what it is...you wouldn't even know which reference book to look in! So, including the pages from the correct reference with the submission really helps the process!
as a "heads-up" before someone just starts submitting DCarr issues there are only a few that seem to interest members here which are listed:
--- 1964-D Dollar.
--- 1975 Dollar.
--- 1975-D Dollar.
--- 2007-D Trade Dollar.
And thanks Al, for your information as well.... Cheers, RickO
Thanks Cardinal...look forward to your results. I will get one of these...
And thanks Al, for your information as well.... Cheers, RickO
+1
Thank you!
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
I agree. 1940coupe knows his DC.
Here's the deal. PCGS cert of DC '64, not going to happen. Despite the Cardinal pitch of what is published by PCGS. I expect a PCGS exception, retraction, ain't going to happen. MHO.
No need for any speculation or other opinions, humble or otherwise. I have already paid for the submission at the Express level, and we will ALL know PCGS' official answer soon enough -- in all likelihood, sometime next week or the week after!
Although I like the matte 1964 D of his, it is the 1927 semi-matte Oregon Trail that is really the finest IMO.
Well, just Love coins, period.
There are many DC collectors here, regardless of the controversy, the result of your diligence will be a boom(let) for CU.
as a "heads-up" before someone just starts submitting DCarr issues there are only a few that seem to interest members here which are listed:
--- 1964-D Dollar.
--- 1975 Dollar.
--- 1975-D Dollar.
--- 2007-D Trade Dollar.
To clarify this a little further ...
The listed fantasy-date over-strike coins include:
"1964-D" Peace;
"1975" Eisenhower (regular reverse, copper-nickel clad);
"1975-D" Eisenhower (regular reverse, 40% silver).
The last listing is in error. All of the "1975-D" over-strike coins released were copper-nickel clad, not 40% silver.
These Eisenhower Dollar over-strikes were also produced but are not listed in that catalog:
"1970" (copper-nickel clad);
"1970" (40% silver);
"1975-S" (regular reverse, 40% silver);
"1975" (Bicentennial reverse, copper-nickel clad);
"1975" (Bicentennial reverse, 40% silver).
Other "prototype dollars" listed in that catalog include my Apollo, Bessie Coleman, and Sacagawea dollars. My prototype states quarters (CO, NV, ME) and my parody states quarters are also listed.
The Sixth (most recent) Edition of the Krause "Unusual World Coins" was published some time late in 2011 or early 2012. It lists the selected items that I produced prior to about July 2011. If another edition of this catalog is ever produced, it might contain more items, although the catalog could get pretty thick rather quickly.
I was looking around for "chance" One Concept Dollar sales and stumbled onto an old article about the Gallery Mint Museum from May 1st, 2000. all the way at the bottom is this explanation of why it was OK for the Landis/Rust Team to overstike Jefferson Nickels:
I asked Joe if there is any legal problem regarding the mutilation of legal tender. I guess I entertained secret fears that the Small Change Division of the Secret Service might raid the place while I was there. He told me that this is a common misconception on the part of the public. The law only provides for the punishment of persons who mutilate money with the intent to defraud. So drawing on a one dollar bill to make it look like a ten is a crime, but lighting your cigar with it is not.
that's interesting when you consider the 1964-D overstrike and the random date Jefferson Nickel the GMM overstuck to look like a Viking. they're really the same thing.
that's interesting when you consider the 1964-D overstrike and the random date Jefferson Nickel the GMM overstuck to look like a Viking. they're really the same thing.
I disagree. There is a gulf of difference a genuine mint product--the 1964 peace dollar--and a fantasy hobo nickel.
We know the '64 peace dollars actually existed. They were coined. They were probably even intended to circulate.
The intent to defraud is the part that sticks out. If by intent to defraud the secret service means an attempt to coin something designed to have a higher face value, then DCARR is in the clear. He's not striking $20 gold pieces over $1 peace dollars and trying to spend them.
The grey area, as I see it, is if the law is read to mean defraud in the sense of deception by counterfeiting a rarity from a non-rarity. Striking a 1914-D over a 1914-P cent, for example.
But that's the brilliance of DCARR's pieces. A 1964 peace dollar isn't a rarity. It's a fantasy. There are none--at least according to the mint's records. You can't claim DCARR made "a fake" when there isn't "a real" to begin with. He threaded all of these needles and still found a demand waiting to be satisfied.
I would never own a copy of a 1964 peace dollar. They're literally as inauthentic as you can get. But I love DCARR's overstruck peace dollars. Because until the mint releases a backdated 1964 peace dollar, they're as authentic as you can get.
--Severian the Lame
Well, just Love coins, period.
I had told cardinal that I thought my Tokens would be done around September 20th but after this wait I think into October is more realistic expectation.
I am confident that cardinal will tell us either way. if you have been paying attention to what he has said thus far you'd understand that with Tokens and other Exonumia the process of authentication and grading is much slower. my submission has been at PCGS since August 9th and the Tokens haven't yet been listed in the description column......................except for one. that is the only one they have seen and graded, the rest are evidently "first timers" that they'll have to verify before they even upload any information about them. contrast that with another submission I have at the factory, standard U.S. coins that are known and were listed at they were received.
I had told cardinal that I thought my Tokens would be done around September 20th but after this wait I think into October is more realistic expectation.
As keets said, Tokens and other Exonumia submissions require extreme patience. Here is one of my pending submissions -- delivered in person to PCGS at the Member's Show in Las Vegas on June 30th. The status as of 5 minutes ago is as follows:
Today is "business day" 33 for this submission, and as you can see, the 10 tokens in the submission have not even been identified by PCGS as yet, even though, to help them along, I included in the submission the relevant pages of the related reference book, highlighting the tokens in my submission, with their Rulau attribution numbers and their photos.
For an earlier token submission, the process took a full 55 business days, during which the estimated turnaround time for "regular" submissions never varied from 15 days. So, again, extreme patience is required with these non-mainstream submissions!
Heading for the gym to work on rehabilitating my new knee. Please assume any and all comments you might expect out of me and get on with life.
Gotcha down for a maybe.
Good luck with the new wheel. I went to say hi to you at JK's table at ANA but you laid rubber and poof.....gone
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
We are another week in. This is "Express"? I am thinking this submission is involving not only graders and management but also lawyers. We do beg to be informed of any information on this.
There is no further progress with the submission whatsoever at this point. What I have learned about getting medals and tokens graded by PCGS is that the submission level is less regarded for tokens and medals than it is for regular U.S. coins.
I have routinely seen "regular" submissions of medals and tokens take triple the "estimated" turnaround for U.S. coins, and I have seen the same and worse for submissions above the "regular" level. "5-day Express" submissions typically take over a month, and even "2-day Walk-Through" submissions take up to two weeks.
That being said, I think we are currently seeing unprecedented increases in turnaround times. For this past week, the posted estimated turnaround time was reduced from the week before. However, this week, the "Coins Certified as of..." counter only increased by a bit over 36,000 coins -- averaging 7,200 per day, and extrapolating to about 160,000 per 30-day period.
Right now, the PCGS Statistics page says that 214,191 coins were certified during the last 30-days. So, this past week, the output of certified coins was down 25% from the last 30-day period. Based on that, I expect to see Monday's posting of the estimated turnaround times to jump back up to even longer waiting times!
With that in mind, I suspect internal resources will shifted to mainstream U.S. coins, rather than being applied to a small Express submission of tokens, for which PCGS states "Certain tokens and medals may require additional research, and turnaround times can fluctuate based on the amount of research required." Basically, that is PCGS' disclaimer saying that when you submit tokens and medals, they can totally disregard any other previously-stated estimate, and get to them when they have the time for the necessary "research."
And unique Moonlight Mint labels...
With a signature...
Successful BST transactions with forum members thebigeng, SPalladino, Zoidmeister, coin22lover, coinsarefun, jwitten, CommemKing.
I'm sticking with ANACS for my DCarr stuff. They know his products, so no research delays. Turnaround is reasonable, 3-4 weeks for my last order IIRC.
And unique Moonlight Mint labels...
With a signature...
Let me ask this, how good are the photographs that ANACS provides with their grading service? For a lot of the tokens and medals I submit to PCGS, I'm more concerned with getting the superb high-resolution photos than even the grade on the label.
Photographic quality varies greatly! Here's a direct case in point!
Here is the auction photo for a raw silver medal, from a major auction house:
And here is the TrueView from PCGS, which, unsurprisingly is actually how the medal looks:
When sharing photos, which would you choose??
I submitted it to PCGS as a Token ... with full documentation.
It doesn't appear to me PCGS even slabbed it Genuine or otherwise. They did assign a Cert Number as 81600058, but that number is not active in the database (at least not as of a few minutes ago).
I have a feeling it's coming back to me in the flip as and a message that says "PCGS does not holder D.Carr overstrikes" or something to that effect. I will know for certain on Thursday Sept 8th when I get the package back from PCGS. I will post the contents of the package when it arrives.
I did pay for a TrueView photo, but it doesn't appear PCGS was willing to do that either.
Oh well. I tried.
Robec did a bang up job photographing the beast a few years back tho! Three cheers for Robec.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
The TrueViews have been backed up as well as submission results..."don't sell the bike shop yet Orville".
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
Well, just Love coins, period.