Without the VDB diagnostics there is no way on earth this is a proof. The submitter got a gift. If he sells, the buyer will be extremely disappointed sometime in the future. The graders should know better.
oh wow...interesting. with so many skeptics...that will certainly hurt the value of the supposed 40K coin. i imagine any buyer for it would (or should) do their research.
It doesn't look like an MPL to me either, FWIW. PR65 is very generous.
If it turns out to be MS, will PCGS call it a mechanical or make a big payout?
Lance.
I'd sell it before PCGS changes their mind. I wonder if threads like this pique their interest enough to flag it in their database in case it is submitted for review or correction.
Well, simply because they bought the coin for $56...and the retail is $40,000.
I wouldn't assume that to be the case.
ASSUMING the coin is actually a PR, then i would stick to my affirmation claim.
Well, you may be happy to pay taxes on the gain, but that doesn't mean that the owner of the coin would.
And it's not a gain until you sell it of course
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......
@robec said:
Without the VDB diagnostics there is no way on earth this is a proof. The submitter got a gift. If he sells, the buyer will be extremely disappointed sometime in the future. The graders should know better.
Yep. It's a gift, mistake or mechanical error. Regardless if this gets resold as a MPL its going to leave a mark.
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......
As one famous poster on one of the forums say, would have to see it in hand as no image is good enough to make a real judgment. At some point maybe 3D images will be an option.
It's also in a Secure holder. Put me down in the "It's Real" category.
If it's not, and somehow PCGS finds a way to get it off the market without having to buy it, how dumb will that owner feel for bragging about his good fortune to the whole coin world?
1) I would still tell people to NOT purchase from GSC...unless they (a) know what they are doing and/or (b) are prepared for any potential loss/problem and accept it
2) I think it likely that PCGS would call this a mechanical error and that someone, if this gets sold as a PR, is going to be quite upset at some point.
Even if it stays a PR and is actually one (I don't see it from the photo), doesn't mean that is a good reason for people to just run out and bid on GSC auctions.
I don't mean to ruffle feathers, but if it is reviewed and determined NOT to be a proof, our host's guarantee should come in to play. You can't pass off every single mistake as a mechanical error. Otherwise the guarantee doesn't really mean anything. You can spend $40k on positive advertising or zero on more than $40k worth of bad advertising.......
@BryceM said:
I don't mean to ruffle feathers, but if it is reviewed and determined NOT to be a proof, our host's guarantee should come in to play. You can't pass off every single mistake as a mechanical error. Otherwise the guarantee doesn't really mean anything. You can spend $40k on positive advertising or zero on more than $40k worth of bad advertising.......
Nevertheless, if the person that submitted the coin is on record having paid $56 for it, I don't think they're going to get a $40K check from PCGS if this was a mistake. We also don't know what kind of audit trail there is for this coin from grading through encapsulation. That would likely also come into play.
@Wabbit2313 said:
... It is hard to imagine a 40K coin went out the door mechanical error.
I got a 1953-S Franklin MS65FBL Mechanical error once. PCGS called about a week later asking for me to return the coin for correction. Not quite a $40,000 coin, but well into 5 figures, so it CAN happen.
BTW, OP sure doesn't look like a proof to me either.
Honestly coin friends, I don't see a single diagnostic on this from the "big 4" you would use to authenticate this as a VDB proof. Matte Proofs are my #1 thing and I've researched them quite avidly. Problems with this coin:
1) Rims are very wrong. They aren't nearly as square as every other VDB proof I've seen (I've had the privilege of seeing them in person) Interestingly, VDB proofs have the most squared off rims of all the matte proofs. Even the "plain" 1909 has very distinctively square rims. The weakest rims I've seen on matte proofs are on 1913's and even those are more convincing than this one.
2) Missing the die line that goes from Lincoln's back towards the "R" in Liberty. This is on all VDB proofs and on obverse die #1 of the "plain" 1909 matte.
3) Missing the lines that go SSE to the right of Lincoln's nose. (Also on die #1 of the "plain")
4) Missing the raised crescent to the right of the M in "UNUM". Without this, it ain't happening.
This coin is also missing some of the lesser known markers too, including a raised chip between the left wheat stalk and the rim.
The lamination error under the date isn't a complete disqualifier, but proofs are highly detailed and any with mistakes weren't supposed to be passed by the medal coiner.
The only thing that does pass on this one is the placement of the dots on the "V.D.B." On a genuine VDB proof, they are spaced similarly to a genuine 1909-S VDB. If the 2nd dot is close to the D, then it wouldn't be a proof. While this one has the right dot placement, I have 3 1909 VDBs right here in my house with dots placed like that and believe me, they are not proofs. This is just a basic starting place when you're eliminating candidates.
I wouldn't buy this as a proof, ever. I don't even care if PCGS passes it. They make mistakes and if this one actually did pass, it looks like a very big error. A $40,000 error!!
@Wabbit2313 said:
... It is hard to imagine a 40K coin went out the door mechanical error.
I got a 1953-S Franklin MS65FBL Mechanical error once. PCGS called about a week later asking for me to return the coin for correction. Not quite a $40,000 coin, but well into 5 figures, so it CAN happen.
BTW, OP sure doesn't look like a proof to me either.
I think the first indication that this will happen will be the cert number no longer checking out. It's very likely that our hosts are looking into this coin as it is being discussed here.
@robec said:
If it's a mechanical error, and I think it is, PCGS is not liable for anything more than their cost of an MS65 VDB.
I never got a payout for a mechanical error. I think PCGS's liability (if they assert it IS a mechanical) will be the cost of reholdering it and S/I both ways.
Lance.
Is there anyway to prove it was a grading mistake and not a mechanical error? Has pcgs ever paid up on the promise, or could they always claim mechanical error?I gotta say I would not be happy if I was the owner and that happened.
@jwitten said:
Is there anyway to prove it was a grading mistake and not a mechanical error? Has pcgs ever paid up on the promise, or could they always claim mechanical error?I gotta say I would not be happy if I was the owner and that happened.
It would be even worse, if the owner quickly flipped it for $40K to some poor, unsuspecting fool. What is their culpability then??
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
@jwitten said:
Is there anyway to prove it was a grading mistake and not a mechanical error? Has pcgs ever paid up on the promise, or could they always claim mechanical error?I gotta say I would not be happy if I was the owner and that happened.
I imagine there's an audit trail of some sort through the entire process that would show when the mistake was made.
I believe PCGS will say it is a mechanical error and not a grader mistake. In their words...
"The key concept is how obvious the error is to the naked eye. If you can easily tell just by looking at the coin that the description on the holder is wrong, then the coin/holder combination is not covered by the PCGS Guarantee."
PCGS cites examples, including...
"Proofs shown as regular strikes and regular strikes shown as proofs. For example, if you had an obvious regular strike 1907 $2.5 gold piece, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a proof, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the difference between a regular strike and proof 1907 $2.5 is obvious."
I believe they will say it is plain as day that the coin is not a proof.
Lance.
Maybe this is a smart marketing ploy by GSC. They took a photo of the coin and sent it out for grading. Got this coin as a PF and figured they will drum up some buzz for their coin and their company. Suspicious to me that the owner made this coin and decided to create a new account on CoinTalk and then brag about it.
I seriously doubt that, but it was mentioned on the other board as well. Getting a great cherry pick like this would make MOST people want to brag about it.
This thread ran for quite a while before someone questioned whether it was a proof or not. We still don't have a conclusive answer, but some smaht people are raising some important concerns. In this case, the subtle findings and die markers might be obvious to MPL experts, but I'd guess the vast majority of collectors and dealers would simply trust the label.
What it was purchased for is irrelevant. Whether or not it was sold before this was noticed is irrelevant. The coin left our host's shop in that label and plausibly could be exactly what they indicated it was. I agree that obvious label errors that 90% of collectors would immediately notice shouldn't be subject to the guarantee. Advertisers shouldn't be required to sell new cars for $100 when blatant typos make it to the newspaper. However, this coin has outstanding detail, pretty nice rims, nice color, and conceivably could easily be mistaken for a proof.
Another couple of questions I would have for the owner:
-What service level did he choose?
-Was there an added charge for the coins correct service level being valued at 40K?
He bought the coin 12/18 and is first bragging about PCGS today. That would indicate to me it was not Walkthough or Express service level. If he was charged, that would indicate to me that this is not mechanical error. Someone said hey, this is a 40K coin here, pay up!
wow, this is intriguing to say the least. my only knowledge of these is the diagnostics that are discussed here and what I know a "Proof" looks like. if the first "expert" couldn't tell from pictures that are good enough and Brian Wagner says no I would be skeptical of the assigned grade/designation. I also tend to be leery of online posts that are grammatically flawed and don't "sound" right.
I don't think this story is over and I hope PCGS is reading this thread. if it is an error of any kind they should correct it pronto. if/when the coin heads to a major auction I assume it will be given scrutiny.
@BLee23 said:
If you do some digging, you will find that this is far from the first very nice pick from GSC. I believe one of our fellow forum members cherried two PR Buffalo Nickels being sold as business strikes on two separate occasions.
Yes. GSC needs to send one of their experts back to a remedial course in identifying matte proof US coinage. It might take a few more noteworthy cherry picks for them to finally wake up.
I would also think that internal records should be produced on a mistake of this magnitude. There should be a process of ascertaining if a business is 100% forthcoming on graders' judgments, finalizer or other quality control people in the loop. I would not trust any business on what they claim is a "mechanical error" when it is not in their interest to take a big hit.
The lamination error under the date isn't a complete disqualifier, but proofs are highly detailed and any with mistakes weren't supposed to be passed by the medal coiner.
I would put more weight on this. I've yet to see an MPL with a planchet flaw. Given the relatively small amount that were minted, I can't see coiner missing this.
@WingedLiberty1957 said:
My 1909 VDB looks more Prooflike (esp the rims) ...
And it's a rock solid Biz Strike
MS65RB
maybe you should crack it out and send to greatsouthern to clean it and give it the mpl 'sparkle'
the coin is already in a registry set
what a blunder - even though a mechanical error, the cointalk thread makes it sound like the guy is a total newbie - how would they know better than PCGS ????
Gorgeous coin, but I totally agree that its a "mechanical error". I had the same thing happen on two different Lincolns in the same submission about 8 months ago. Both were Lincoln proofs (not matte) that were certified and graded as "MS".
Our hosts are 100% the best in the business....by a very large margin in my humble opinion....but mistakes do happen and everyone makes them from time to time.
Always looking for tougher PSA 10's of Nolan Arenado, Alex Bregman, Mookie Betts, Francisco Lindor, and Mike Trout.
Comments
Without the VDB diagnostics there is no way on earth this is a proof. The submitter got a gift. If he sells, the buyer will be extremely disappointed sometime in the future. The graders should know better.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
oh wow...interesting. with so many skeptics...that will certainly hurt the value of the supposed 40K coin. i imagine any buyer for it would (or should) do their research.
I noticed the lamination (?) below the date in the Trueview image...I was looking for those Proof PUP's myself...EDS?
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...
And it's not a gain until you sell it of course
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......
Yep. It's a gift, mistake or mechanical error. Regardless if this gets resold as a MPL its going to leave a mark.
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......
As one famous poster on one of the forums say, would have to see it in hand as no image is good enough to make a real judgment. At some point maybe 3D images will be an option.
Interesting thread for sure.
My YouTube Channel
High stakes coin drama!
This is like an episode of Treasure Hunters followed by CSI followed by ????
It's also in a Secure holder. Put me down in the "It's Real" category.
If it's not, and somehow PCGS finds a way to get it off the market without having to buy it, how dumb will that owner feel for bragging about his good fortune to the whole coin world?
Maybe the US Mint reused the proof dies on business strikes for obverse or reverse....
2 things:
1) I would still tell people to NOT purchase from GSC...unless they (a) know what they are doing and/or (b) are prepared for any potential loss/problem and accept it
2) I think it likely that PCGS would call this a mechanical error and that someone, if this gets sold as a PR, is going to be quite upset at some point.
Even if it stays a PR and is actually one (I don't see it from the photo), doesn't mean that is a good reason for people to just run out and bid on GSC auctions.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
It sure doesn't have any of the markers for a proof. The stuff under the date could be strike thru or lamination??
Is that a big ol' FAT fingerprint on the obverse?
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I don't mean to ruffle feathers, but if it is reviewed and determined NOT to be a proof, our host's guarantee should come in to play. You can't pass off every single mistake as a mechanical error. Otherwise the guarantee doesn't really mean anything. You can spend $40k on positive advertising or zero on more than $40k worth of bad advertising.......
I agree that if it turns out to not be one, they should make it right and pay, not just say, "oops! printing error!"
I noticed the lamination (?) below the date in the Trueview image...I was looking for those Proof PUP's myself...EDS?
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...
Nevertheless, if the person that submitted the coin is on record having paid $56 for it, I don't think they're going to get a $40K check from PCGS if this was a mistake. We also don't know what kind of audit trail there is for this coin from grading through encapsulation. That would likely also come into play.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Planchet flaw.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
It is a lot more believable that this is an input error than believing 3 graders missed all the diagnostics and the rounded rims.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
All of skeptics would like to see a CAC bean on it........
OINK
I was just thinking about that. ;{
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...
I think so too. On a proof?
Lance.
I got a 1953-S Franklin MS65FBL Mechanical error once. PCGS called about a week later asking for me to return the coin for correction. Not quite a $40,000 coin, but well into 5 figures, so it CAN happen.
BTW, OP sure doesn't look like a proof to me either.
Honestly coin friends, I don't see a single diagnostic on this from the "big 4" you would use to authenticate this as a VDB proof. Matte Proofs are my #1 thing and I've researched them quite avidly. Problems with this coin:
1) Rims are very wrong. They aren't nearly as square as every other VDB proof I've seen (I've had the privilege of seeing them in person) Interestingly, VDB proofs have the most squared off rims of all the matte proofs. Even the "plain" 1909 has very distinctively square rims. The weakest rims I've seen on matte proofs are on 1913's and even those are more convincing than this one.
2) Missing the die line that goes from Lincoln's back towards the "R" in Liberty. This is on all VDB proofs and on obverse die #1 of the "plain" 1909 matte.
3) Missing the lines that go SSE to the right of Lincoln's nose. (Also on die #1 of the "plain")
4) Missing the raised crescent to the right of the M in "UNUM". Without this, it ain't happening.
This coin is also missing some of the lesser known markers too, including a raised chip between the left wheat stalk and the rim.
The lamination error under the date isn't a complete disqualifier, but proofs are highly detailed and any with mistakes weren't supposed to be passed by the medal coiner.
The only thing that does pass on this one is the placement of the dots on the "V.D.B." On a genuine VDB proof, they are spaced similarly to a genuine 1909-S VDB. If the 2nd dot is close to the D, then it wouldn't be a proof. While this one has the right dot placement, I have 3 1909 VDBs right here in my house with dots placed like that and believe me, they are not proofs. This is just a basic starting place when you're eliminating candidates.
I wouldn't buy this as a proof, ever. I don't even care if PCGS passes it. They make mistakes and if this one actually did pass, it looks like a very big error. A $40,000 error!!
I think the first indication that this will happen will be the cert number no longer checking out. It's very likely that our hosts are looking into this coin as it is being discussed here.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
I agree with georgiacop50...
I think it is a misprint on the label.
If it's a mechanical error, and I think it is, PCGS is not liable for anything more than their cost of an MS65 VDB.
- Bob -
"Central Valley" Roosevelts
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Somebody scored HUGE. I remember looking at that raw GS coin. The color looked very funky to me.
Dave
I never got a payout for a mechanical error. I think PCGS's liability (if they assert it IS a mechanical) will be the cost of reholdering it and S/I both ways.
Lance.
Is there anyway to prove it was a grading mistake and not a mechanical error? Has pcgs ever paid up on the promise, or could they always claim mechanical error?I gotta say I would not be happy if I was the owner and that happened.
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
It would be even worse, if the owner quickly flipped it for $40K to some poor, unsuspecting fool. What is their culpability then??
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I imagine there's an audit trail of some sort through the entire process that would show when the mistake was made.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
I believe PCGS will say it is a mechanical error and not a grader mistake. In their words...
"The key concept is how obvious the error is to the naked eye. If you can easily tell just by looking at the coin that the description on the holder is wrong, then the coin/holder combination is not covered by the PCGS Guarantee."
PCGS cites examples, including...
"Proofs shown as regular strikes and regular strikes shown as proofs. For example, if you had an obvious regular strike 1907 $2.5 gold piece, but the PCGS holder showed the coin as a proof, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as the difference between a regular strike and proof 1907 $2.5 is obvious."
I believe they will say it is plain as day that the coin is not a proof.
Lance.
My thought is that there won't be any payouts on this one. One thing, someone at PCGS is in line for an unpleasant meeting with their boss...Ouch!
Puts tin foil hat on
Maybe this is a smart marketing ploy by GSC. They took a photo of the coin and sent it out for grading. Got this coin as a PF and figured they will drum up some buzz for their coin and their company. Suspicious to me that the owner made this coin and decided to create a new account on CoinTalk and then brag about it.
takes tin foil hat off
Since each graders grade is logged, it will be very easy to see what they all graded the coin if someone inside decides to.
I seriously doubt that, but it was mentioned on the other board as well. Getting a great cherry pick like this would make MOST people want to brag about it.
This thread ran for quite a while before someone questioned whether it was a proof or not. We still don't have a conclusive answer, but some smaht people are raising some important concerns. In this case, the subtle findings and die markers might be obvious to MPL experts, but I'd guess the vast majority of collectors and dealers would simply trust the label.
What it was purchased for is irrelevant. Whether or not it was sold before this was noticed is irrelevant. The coin left our host's shop in that label and plausibly could be exactly what they indicated it was. I agree that obvious label errors that 90% of collectors would immediately notice shouldn't be subject to the guarantee. Advertisers shouldn't be required to sell new cars for $100 when blatant typos make it to the newspaper. However, this coin has outstanding detail, pretty nice rims, nice color, and conceivably could easily be mistaken for a proof.
Another couple of questions I would have for the owner:
-What service level did he choose?
-Was there an added charge for the coins correct service level being valued at 40K?
He bought the coin 12/18 and is first bragging about PCGS today. That would indicate to me it was not Walkthough or Express service level. If he was charged, that would indicate to me that this is not mechanical error. Someone said hey, this is a 40K coin here, pay up!
wow, this is intriguing to say the least. my only knowledge of these is the diagnostics that are discussed here and what I know a "Proof" looks like. if the first "expert" couldn't tell from pictures that are good enough and Brian Wagner says no I would be skeptical of the assigned grade/designation. I also tend to be leery of online posts that are grammatically flawed and don't "sound" right.
I don't think this story is over and I hope PCGS is reading this thread. if it is an error of any kind they should correct it pronto. if/when the coin heads to a major auction I assume it will be given scrutiny.
Yes. GSC needs to send one of their experts back to a remedial course in identifying matte proof US coinage. It might take a few more noteworthy cherry picks for them to finally wake up.
I would also think that internal records should be produced on a mistake of this magnitude. There should be a process of ascertaining if a business is 100% forthcoming on graders' judgments, finalizer or other quality control people in the loop. I would not trust any business on what they claim is a "mechanical error" when it is not in their interest to take a big hit.
I would put more weight on this. I've yet to see an MPL with a planchet flaw. Given the relatively small amount that were minted, I can't see coiner missing this.
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase/2819
IMO he got what PCGS is going to call a "mechanical error" -- looks like a business strike to me all day long.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
My sets: [280+ horse coins] :: [France Sowers] :: [Colorful world copper] :: [Beautiful world coins]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
maybe you should crack it out and send to greatsouthern to clean it and give it the mpl 'sparkle'
the coin is already in a registry set
what a blunder - even though a mechanical error, the cointalk thread makes it sound like the guy is a total newbie - how would they know better than PCGS ????
Gorgeous coin, but I totally agree that its a "mechanical error". I had the same thing happen on two different Lincolns in the same submission about 8 months ago. Both were Lincoln proofs (not matte) that were certified and graded as "MS".
Our hosts are 100% the best in the business....by a very large margin in my humble opinion....but mistakes do happen and everyone makes them from time to time.
Always looking for tougher PSA 10's of Nolan Arenado, Alex Bregman, Mookie Betts, Francisco Lindor, and Mike Trout.
One out of 40,000 probably
Keets, I assume you mean this line from his post?
"The first thing I did was went back and checked the description to see if I missed anything when I seen that it was not advertised as a VDB I looked at the bid (Cited from: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ebay-still-a-cherrypickers-paradise-2017.290909/)"
Also, every run on sentence ended with 3 periods...
I wrote it off as modern college education.