Options
...........save
opportunity
Posts: 1,067 ✭✭✭✭
.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
1
Comments
Mint error
I maybe wrong, but I thought PCGS did not straight grade laminations?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
The only reason this coin could possibly be slabbed as damaged is the scratch over "LIB" that could possibly be where someone tried to pry off some remaining metal from the coin OR more likely some "ham-fisted" Bozo tried to improve the eye-appeal or clean out the surface under the detached lamination and left a damaged surface!
EDIT: AFAIK, the guys at PCGS are NOT idiots. In addition to the in-house grader's/authenticator's they have a "World Class" Error specialist as a consultant!
Well they do under mint error service (I learned that myself recently) https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/431142/Mint-Error-1918-S-Buffalo-Nickel-Laminated-Planchet-Reverse-2-Feathers-FS-401-FS-0166-PCGS-XF-40
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
Unless they think it would hurt it during slabbing. I had a peeling lamination gold error that they refused to holder. Then I sent it to NGC, and they happily holdered and graded it.
challenge it, I am curious how they respond. I like the coin, but very partial to the Buffalo
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
If it is indeed "damage", then maybe they were looking at the top of the "E" in LIBERTY. It looks like a chunk of the rim was moved down into the E from some unknown reason.
If you look real close, the "chunk" looks like it would fit rather nicely into the void if it was moved back up into it.
I don't know for sure, but you wanted observations...........
Is that a die crack above the L and I of LIBERTY?
Pete
Not too sure if it's a die crack, honestly, but the lamination does go all the way to the edge. A lot of the stuff you see in the pic, you can't see, or can barely see with your naked eye. The first pics with the white background is more along the lines of what you'd see without a magnifier. I just had my partner email customer service to ask if it went through the process correctly.
To anyone who has submitted a mint error, does the error description show up when the grade pops up also, on the website?
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
Why couldn't that planchet have landed on the other side! Still a great coin!
I am really interested in cust. services response...I don't think my coin was graded properly whatsoever in the sense that the lamination wasn't graded as an error but was designated as damage.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
I still say it's a lamination. I don't see how it could retain the letters in LIBERTY in any other way than a lamination that peeled off.
Try again but in big letters write LAMINATION ERROR across the submission form.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
NGC first, then cross?
"Damaged" is the wrong term. The problem is a mint caused planchet defect. Still PCGS could not give this coin a straight grade because it falls well out of the norm that most buyers would expect from a high grade 1918/7-D Buffalo Nickel. In this case the lamination lowers the value of the piece. Neither grading it low end Mint State or high end AU, nor net grading it down because of the problem would present a fair description of the coin to perspective buyers.
I was told by multiple people that submitting it as a mint error would preclude net grading and would simply give a designation of the lamination error along with the true straight grade.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
@BillJones said: "Damaged" is the wrong term. The problem is a mint caused planchet defect. Still PCGS could not give this coin a straight grade because it falls well out of the norm that most buyers would expect from a high grade 1918/7-D Buffalo Nickel. In this case the lamination lowers the value of the piece. Neither grading it low end Mint State or high end AU, nor net grading it down because of the problem would present a fair description of the coin to perspective buyers.
And that in a nutshell is why "commercial" grading is so frustrating. It is a slippery slope. LOL, remember not long ago a "cleaned coin" could not be graded! Now we are at the stage where an AU coin is graded MS because that's what it is worth. What's next? Is this the beginning of not grading coins with large, distracting mint errors?
I still say there was something done to the lamination of the OP's coin that qualifies as damage.
That is true, but for this coin, the mint error notation would lower the value.
That assumes that the line by the "LIBERTY" is not bad enough to knock it down to a "details" grade. I think that it is a scratch that was lines of metal on each side of it that make it look like a die break to some people.
In some cases, coins with distracting mint errors are worth less, sometimes a lot less, than coins that don't have that issue. This has been true for many years, even before third party grading was invented.
For example early gold and silver coins with obvious adjustment marks are supposed to be graded as if the marks were not there because they are of mint origin. That is true from the technical grade aspect, but go try and sell a coin with ugly adjustment marks and see how welll you will do. If you think you are going to get "full book" for such a piece, you will be severely disappointed unless you find an inexperienced buyer with more money than knowledge.
I've seen many, many examples of lamination errors with the designation and a straight grade. I could have just sent it in under express and saved all the drama, in this case. It's definitely going ATS, I don't know what else to say or do. I still think it was graded incorrectly since it was turned around so quickly.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
I agree...looks like it has been pried or scratched on at the rim. @opportunity! I thought you sold this coin!
It is a defective coin, not an error, which is also a "rare" coin. PCGS was correct in not giving the coin a grade.
In my experience, laminations are the kiss of death when selling though owners may try to talk them up as "errors".
@BillJones said: "In some cases, coins with distracting mint errors are worth less, sometimes a lot less, than coins that don't have that issue. This has been true for many years, even before third party grading was invented."
I agree. No one can argue with that!!! I think rare coins with problems are called "White Elephants."
However, that SHOULD have nothing to do with what a coin's condition of preservation is (technical grade). Unfortunately, AFAIK, the TPGS's claim to "market grade." That put's a value on a coin. So let's grade this coin VG-8 ($1300?) or less ($300) LOL. I say: " Grade the coin, state the mint error, and let the buyer decide what it is worth."
@opportunity said: "I never thought I'd get the 62 price/40k for the coin, but I've seen many, many examples of lamination errors with the designation and a straight grade..."
and "...I still think it was graded incorrectly since it was turned around so quickly."
Well, I don't know how experienced or knowledgeable you are to make that statement. The only way to find out is to get a second opinion. Until then, take three magnified images of the top half of the obverse while turning the coin 90 degrees to the light in each photo. Perhaps we can save you some time and money.
I should have Trueviews up whenever they upload them. That should help immensely.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
@291fifth said: "It is a defective coin, not an error, which is also a "rare" coin. PCGS was correct in not giving the coin a grade.
I disagree with this part of your post. Otherwise I should have greatly enjoyed
pushing the "disagree on you.
As I have posted, I hope the coin actually has a "problem" associated with PMD (scratches/cleaning) rather than being condemned for the mint error.
Yes, it is a defective coin. If that coin were "clipped" rather than "laminated ," would that be a defective coin due to something that happened at the mint in the production process. Would that then be called a mint error? See the point? The OP's coin is considered to be a Mint Error by informed numismatists on your level (??). They spend countless hours (some post here) teaching, writing and posting in order to educate collectors. From what I see, they rarely post misinformation. I hope my example of a "clip" will help you to modify your opinion of DEFECTS that are considered to be mint errors. It has nothing to do with a coin's value or grade.
@291fifth continued: "In my experience, laminations are the kiss of death when selling though owners may try to talk them up as "errors".
Mint errors are just another part of the business. Laminations are considered to be mint errors by folks who care. There are thousands of collectors and CRH that are pleased to find them or rip them off cheaply as they are considered as junk. I'll remind you of this (if you were around in the 1950"s), Indian, Barber, Morgan, Seated, etc, coins with major errors were all considered to be numismatic "weeds" in the same way a major lamination is today by the folks who don't collect them.
Here is food for though! Could PCGS not think the coin is not stable and might change in the future?
The B&E on Liberty is concerning. I remember this coin from your original post and I believed, like the others, it was lamination but now I'm not sure. It's a coin I'd have to see in hand. Send it in again.
@opportunity said: "I should have Trueviews up whenever they upload them. That should help immensely."
IMHO, NOPE, not at all; but we'll see if I change my mind. Your photos are pretty good. I need to see the magnified images of the laminated area. Images are static. That's why graders move the coin in the light by tipping it and rotating it in the light at the same time. J.P. Martin, an ex-ANACS employee, calls it "making the coin light dynamic." I like that.
If you feel like it, try doing what I asked when you get the coin back..
I wonder if they felt too much of the coin was missing and gave it a UNC details grade? Now it is up to you to decide how much it is worth.
I think PCGS blew it. It is a mint error and should have been graded so under the error tier.
I doubt they were concerned about fragility. They didn't have a problem with this one.
Lance.
Is that a bent rim or clip at 11 o'clock?
Martin
Well, here we go. Trueview's up. The rim feature at 11:00 that a couple people mentioned, I don't know what it is. It's pretty minuscule to the naked eye.
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/34459903
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
This specimen is very perplexing. It's really a shame this occurred on a rare overdate.
Could this possibly be a struck thru? I'm out of reasons for this.
Pete
I think the spot at 11 o'clock as well as the scratches running across over LIB are the reason for the damage designation.
picky picky.... I can feel your pain.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Looks like a doubled die in "Liberty", as well as the planchet flaw. Re SUBMIT under "error". Or send it to ANACS, or NGC.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Resubmitting feels like it'd be beating a dead horse...I think the coin is too memorable, and it'll have the same result. I guess.
I'm still wondering if they even graded it as a mint error due to the much faster turnaround time than I expected. Maybe they thought I didn't know what I was asking for, and asked for the mint error due to the overdate, so they just shuffled it through express or something.
Shouldn't any error mention show up here or on my account page? If it's on the label as a mint error, I can probably assume they graded it "correctly" and thought it was damaged in some other way. If not, Houston, we have a problem.
A random error example:
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
when you get it back you will see the submission invoice and then what they charged you for.
Well, the True View shows just how ugly the lamination peel really is and in a focal point no less. I think you are looking at the 'damaged' end of the scale right there and look no further for something else on the coin. I think PCGS got it right, hard to say and swallow, I would think your going to have to shop this one around until you can get this into straight grade plastic.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
@amwldcoin said: "Here is food for though! Could PCGS not think the coin is not stable and might change in the future?"
No, damaged coins do not get better.
@opportunity DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME OR MONEY! The wonderful image you posted of the lamination show the SCRATCH DAMAGE perfectly. As I suspected, some idiot got the coin and tried to remove the debris that caused the lamination! That's what all the curly lines (mostly to the left) are from.
It the "right" person get's this coin, it will be easily improved and sold as a mint error. That's the best thing about our TPGS's - they look out for us
What on Earth does that even mean?
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
Didn't notice whether anyone else covered it, but have you checked with customer service to make sure your coin was correctly processed according to your submission? A few months ago I submitted five raw Buffalos for variety attribution and all were slabbed and graded as the regular issues. As soon as the grades were posted I called and the representative confirmed the request for variety designation was never logged in when they were received. If you requested multiple levels of service, maybe one got missed?
Thing is, it was originally logged as "Regular - Mint Error" when it was received and in process. But now, there's no mention of an error (see about 6 posts up)
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
Call Customer Service. They should be able to clarify. I'm not sure why you haven't already done so. After it posted, they still had the coin. Even now, they still have the True Views.
Rather than asking a bunch of amateurs to figure out what "damage" refers to, ask the professionals who did it. It is possible there is something there they are calling "damage" rather than "mint error". It is also possible that someone is calling the lamination "damage" rather than "lamination".
A dealer friend of mine sent a chop-marked Trade Dollar in once and it came back labelled damage. Whoever looked at it didn't recognize the squiggly lines as chop marks
Mistakes happen.
But sometimes the mistakes are ours.
I guess my mistake was emailing customer service...smh.
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
I think he's saying that if you get it into a Mint Error holder> @opportunity said:
Yes, they are SLOW on the email. You've got to call them.
I emailed them a week ago asking about submission of So-Called Dollars and I still haven't heard back. Fortunately, I"m not in any rush so I'm just letting it go for now.
I have looked at this piece for so long now I think I might have damaged my monitor. I gotta believe this is lamination, no question. What I also believe is someone at some point in time picked at it to the point to where some of the alloy is missing which would explain away why some of the rim is gone. How they can look at that and declare it was removed or it just fell off on it's own is beyond me. Of course this is just my opinion from a looooooong observation of this piece.
With that said I do believe this coin is worth a second look. In my mind it should have straight graded with the lamination mentioned on the label as Lance's great example clearly shows. The coin would still be a standout in any buffalo nickel collection as most buffalo nickel collections don't even have one and this one your showing is still quite nice and pretty damn rare.
I wish you the best of luck .
Happy hunting, Joe
I was originally in lamination crowd, but now feel there is something else involved as well. The laminations I have seen are usually in straight lines. The damage curls upward in the back of the head and looks like some areas may be raised.
Personally, I don't think it matters what kind of holder you get it in. That's probably the biggest White Whale I have ever seen!
First, let me direct this to those of you who are not beginners. All that anyone could be expected to see in the original images is a major lamination. I don't care who you are! In fact, I (and others?) spent too much time trying to figure out what the heck PCGS was doing and why they called the coin damaged! The excellent new image posted by the OP is all you need to see:
The coin is a great variety and it is certainly rare in that condition. While there will be some disagreement as to the coin's grade - it may have too much "cabinet friction" for some to grade it Uncirculated, no "informed" numismatist will say that this is not a genuine coin with a genuine major lamination. Professional numismatists call it a mint error.
If any of you disagree with this, perhaps you should look into the ANA's seminars. I've been in a few and have posted before that I examine coins closely using a stereo microscope. Nevertheless, I'm a no-name poster around here. I believe if David Hall, Fred Weinberg, Tom Delorey, etc. (I've left so many others out)
posted that the coin was damaged (spot removal, tooling, all scratched up surface) this thread would have died. Unfortunately, some are still disagreeing with the PCGS opinion and telling the OP to resubmit. You know what. I think he should. It costs money to run a grading service and every $35 counts!
Furthermore, I wrote: "If the "right" person gets this coin, it will be easily improved (scratches removed, surface altered a bit, and the interior of the lamination cleaned up just a little while leaving traces of dark debris) and sold as a mint error."
Is there anyone else here who did not understand this?
@davewesen said: "I was originally in lamination crowd, but now feel there is **something else involved **as well. The laminations I have seen are usually in straight lines. The damage curls upward in the back of the head and looks like some areas may be raised."
While I agree that the majority of laminations run in a straight line (probably due to the way the strip is rolled) that is not always the case. The OP's coin is an excellent example of a major lamination and it's interior is exactly (without the failed attempt to improve parts of it) what we expect to see.
@crazyhounddog said: "I have looked at this piece for so long now I think I might have damaged my monitor. I gotta believe this is lamination, no question. What I also believe is someone at some point in time picked at it to the point to where some of the alloy is missing which would explain away why some of the rim is gone. How they can look at that and declare it was removed or it just fell off on it's own is beyond me. Of course this is just my opinion from a looooooong observation of this piece."
Great post! However, we know with one hundred percent certainty that after this coin left the press, a piece fell off. At least most of it did. Without seeing the coin in hand, I'll say that part of the lamination at the edge was possibly "picked off."
@crazyhounddog continued: "With that said I do believe this coin is worth a second look. In my mind it should have straight graded with the lamination mentioned on the label as Lance's great example clearly shows. The coin would still be a standout in any buffalo nickel collection as most buffalo nickel collections don't even have one and this one your showing is still quite nice and pretty damn rare."
Joe, you almost nailed it.
However, this is a fact: THE COIN WILL NEVER STRAIGHT GRADE until it is fraudulently repaired by a professional coin restorer who finally gets it past one of the three TPGS. I can say with absolute certainty that it will NEVER get by the other one!
So weird. Totally didn't expect this (the label was a surprise). I have never owned a coin that has had me more confused, frustrated, etc. But here it is.
I'm also posting a couple of MS64's from Coinfacts for comparison. What do you all think?
And, the 64's:
Early American Copper, Bust and Seated.
@opportunity asked: "What on Earth does that even mean?"
It should have read: IF the right...
Frankly, I got so sick of discussing this coin that I didn't bother to check my post carefully.
EDIT: I got so tired of it that I need to make another correction: The coin is a mint error. However, someone scratched the heck out of it at one end of the lamination!
@opportunity said: "So weird. Totally didn't expect this (the label was a surprise). I have never owned a coin that has had me more confused, frustrated, etc."
There is enough good information in this thread about your coin to become satisfied and more educated to boot.
I like your coin! If a grading/authentication instructor had it in his teaching set, he could kill a few birds with one coin. I'm not going to explain that comment.