Mechanical Error and CAC Error - Makes you wonder?
SmithAuctionCo
Posts: 170 ✭✭✭
This 1963 Franklin is labeled as 1962 by NGC and also CAC in its database. Granted this is not out of the ordinary for PCGS or NGC to mislabel a coin by accident, but how does it get into the CAC database as a 1962 as well? Isn't it CAC's job to review the coin to make sure it is correct for the grade and attribution?
Makes you wonder how closely they actually examine each coin they review.
0
Comments
Someone better get in there and change the date then don't ya think?
There's no way CAC got that wrong, it's obviously a mistake from the mint, they put the wrong date on the coin. It happens every once in awhile. Just enjoy the sticker that's what this hobby is all about anyways.
CAC should have noticed the wrong date on the coin. They likely input the cert number into their database for the coin details instead entering it by hand and that helps to propagate the error.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Here is another. Not only is the date wrong but also the mint. It is not a 1935-S, it is a 1934. No mintmark as no Texas Commemoratives were minted in San Francisco in 1934.
Its an error. I'm sure both companies would admit it. Extrapolating a couple of errors to "incompetentcy" is a bit harsh.
Edited to add I had to fix a typo in this post.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Checking the NGC Database finds:
1210390-001 was a 1961 Franklin Half, and labeled as such
1210390-002 was a 1962 Franklin Half, and labeled as such
1210390-003 was a 1962 Franklin Half, and labeled as such
1210390-004 was a 1963 Franklin Half, but labeled as 1962 - as seen above
1210390-005 was a 1963 Franklin Half, AND labeled as a 1963 half
All five were graded Proof 68, with the last one also designated as being "Cameo."
Looks like the admin person at NGC got confused looking at a group of virtually identical coins, and mistakenly thought there were three 1962's.
NGC thinks that coin is a PR68.
It passes CAC 's critera for that grade.
For this one coin, I'm not going to sweat the clerical error.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Collecting these error slabs together might make for an interesting collection. We already have error coinage.
IMO, they DO NOT GET A PASS! Ridiculous that due caution was not taken and does impugn their grading/authentication capabilities that I have often come to question in the past. How is CAC not also implicated in this? What if the denomination is wrong, or indeed they put a bottle cap in there that is "P68"?
Mechanical error is just not good enough; what is either service really for?
Well, just Love coins, period.
In the late 1980's I was at a major coin show and at the PCGS booth was one case lined in black velvet with a single NGC slab that was mislabeled. A friend and I walked around the show for another hour and we bought a mislabeled PCGS slab that we took over to the PCGS booth to show them. I wish I could say that PCGS removed the NGC "error" from the case but I really cannot remember.
Sorry.
This happens all the time. I guess the question is, what should CAC do? Refuse to assess the coin and return it to the owner? Or judge it in spite of the mechanical error?
It appears CAC has chosen the latter. And because their database is tied to the cert# when it is input the mechanical error gets carried forward.
Lance.
They might well be worth more as errors than if the errors were fixed.
They could make note of the error and add a message to clarify that they assessed the coin and not the holder.
IMO, the best thing to do is to send the coin back to the TPGS to be fixed. I don't know about NGC or PCGS policy or recent ANACS policy but old time ANACS and present day ICG have thanked me and sent a coupon for a free coin submission to defray my postage.
They could. But a paper note wouldn't help much. It probably wouldn't stay with the coin in many cases. And most folks accept that the coin was assessed first and foremost. Don't we?
A database note could be made (and maybe is, internally?) but that does nothing unless CAC begins citing such notations with coin look-ups.
I have no doubt that the information displayed on look-ups is what CAC built and/or pulled from the PCGS database. I.e., it isn't typed-in separately with every coin, so there's no opportunity to add to the end of the description a comment like "we know this is an 1822, not 1825!"
Lance.
Perfection is a high bar to reach. Mistakes will always be made. I can excuse the rare mistakes as long as the correction is handled appropriately. In this case I would expect NGC/PCGS to correct the slab providing shipping both ways, and CAC to re-sticker doing the same. And if they don't then I can no longer excuse them.
Joseph J. Singleton - First Superintendent of the U.S. Branch Mint in Dahlonega Georgia
Findley Ridge Collection
About Findley Ridge
As far as CAC goes I think they are really looking at the coins grade, surfaces, luster etc... and they get a pass from me on the mechanical error.
For those giving CAC a pass what happens if I have a 1889 Morgan dollar ms65 but the label says 1890 ms65. I get the sticker and sell it to CAC sight unseen, do I get 1890 money? Sure it's not a problem with common dates with little to no price difference but mistakes happen and if you don't remedy the mistakes you're eventually going to have bigger problem on your hands, not so much with the original tpg because they have the mechanical error to fall back on. Just seems CAC would be more diligent seeing that they are set up for buying coins back sight unseen. Just my two cents
That's a little sad they missed it, but it was probably just an honest mistake.
CCAC Representative of the General Public
Columnist for The Numismatist
2021 Young Numismatist of the Year
Bingo.
What do people want CAC to do? Put the correct date in and try to override the cert# when people look it up and it shows a different date than they do?
The way it is set up, they really do have to run with the cert# and then what shows up from that. Else people will be on CAC for having the wrong corresponding date/coin.
I see it as a no-win for CAC when this happens.
Maybe someone who sees such a big issue with this could just contact CAC and ask them about it, and how they handle it on any buys they do...instead of making suppositions online and complaining or denigrating CAC over it. I am sure CAC would be willing to respond to anyone calling them and asking...or emailing them to ask.
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
The last time PCGS did similar for me (wrong attribution/missing on the coin), they had me send it in, "corrected it" for free (gave it the missing attribution but knocked it down a grade....which was wrong but not worth me arguing), and gave me a free voucher for grading.
That "free" voucher for grading made it MORE expensive to grade a coin using it than otherwise. Shipping, etc. It was cheaper to put together a larger submission (8 or more coins) and pay shipping on that and the fees for each of the coins, than it was to send in 1 coin on a free grading voucher.
So, depending on the coin, it is NOT worth it at all in my experience....for a "common" coin.
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
I'm sorry, I'm not given cac a pass: If it were one, then maybe, but we have got several coins shown (just in this thread)here where a mechanical error was done by the TPG , and coin cac'd anyway. CAC should have noticed this and contacted the owner and returned it , so it can be corrected. Honestly makes me wonder how close they look at the coins now more than ever? over 90% of my collection is cac'd and they are nice, but really
>
Because both PCGS and NGC will correct label errors at minimal charge(may cost shipping) In my opinion CAC should not have stickered any of these coins. It only causes confusion and a likely misguided opinion that they didn't notice or weren't paying close enough attention. They have a disclaimer where they can refuse to put a sticker on a damaged or badly scratched holder I can see them just sending it back with a note to the submitter whether or not they feel the coin deserves a bean.
My Ebay Store
It looks like my cynicism is catching on.
It really makes you wonder what CAC would have done with the purported 1909 VDB matte proof Lincoln that turned out to be a business strike in PCGS plastic. I wonder if it would have stickered too.
...in the end all that really matters is the grade that was issued to a coin by PCGS or NGC, and if that coin inside of the holder meets or exceeds CAC's criteria for stickers...right? I always hear people complain that the TPG's discriminate on different dates and Mint marks inside of every series...so it's a little comforting to think that CAC could care little on what date or Mint mark is on a coin for review
@coinhack said:
Are you sure that's not from a private mint/grader in China? The label fell into a part of the holder that should be air-tight. The green bean isn't reflecting any light at all. And the toning looks like it was applied with a paintbrush.
ANA LM-6166
Clarity Numismatics: www.ClarityCoin.com
Instagram: @ClarityCoins
Etsy: http://www.etsy.com/shop/DoughDeoBourse
Ebay: http://stores.ebay.com/claritynumismatics
Wait a minute. Why would someone submit any obviously mislabeled coin to CAC?
ANA LM-6166
Clarity Numismatics: www.ClarityCoin.com
Instagram: @ClarityCoins
Etsy: http://www.etsy.com/shop/DoughDeoBourse
Ebay: http://stores.ebay.com/claritynumismatics
It seems to me, the submitter of these coins must have been aware of the mechanical error prior to submitting to CAC. Therefore, either they wanted to KEEP the mechanical error and just wanted the CAC approval, or the submitter themselves were clueless to begin with. I put the compound error on the submitter, not CAC. Cheers, RickO
I'd say the odds would have been a 100 million to 1 or higher for CAC to have stickered that coin, especially considering that the Forum members in general didn't like the coin as a MPL. In fact, I don't recall a single forum member who commented in that thread that they were confident or even optimistic that the coin was a MPL.
I agree with DoughDeo above that the bigger problem is the owner of a mis-labeled coin submitting it to CAC in the first place. And for all we know as soon as that shipment of Franklins was received, it was sent right out to CAC, possibly without even looking at the coins. I could see some buys dealers operating that way. And I'd bet if someone here submitted that same coin to CAC and got it returned for mis-labeling, there'd be a thread bashing CAC for not assessing the coin any ways (ie CAC wasted my $13!....lol).
Another example of CAC and mechanical error, currently on ebay.