PCGS Counterfeit Man-made Mint Error question
davewesen
Posts: 6,502 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am scratching my head over the following item in an upcoming auction. Did the error specialist decide the entire coin was made outside of the mint, or an authentic coin that had surface altered (electrolysis, acid etched, other) to make it look like a clad layer missing error, or something else?
0
Comments
Acid treated. Totally typical, no deciding involved
it looks acid treated to me as well, jmo
I’ve seen only a few of those that say “man-made error” for an
Obviously altered surface/acid-treated so-called error
The reject label should have said – “altered surfaces“, or ‘environmental damage“,
Or ‘acid treated surfaces’
The WQ in the OP was likely dropped into aqua regia (a mixture of nitric acid and hydrochloric acid). I would produce coins like this whenever I had an acid waste mix in the lab and they looked exactly like the coin in the OP. It is 100% man-made after leaving the Mint, so it is PMD, and I am certain PCGS knew how this was done. They should have given the submitter a little more information.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Maybe they were found in a parking lot. From that I assume PCGS doesn't know how to authenticate genuine errors found in parking lots.
i thhink the other question is: what does the label indicate about the authenticity of the subject coin or "coin" ?
I think "Mint" is the most confusing word on the label. It would be much clearer if the label said something like "Man-Made Fake Error" or "Damaged - Not a Mint Error"
It just means it was a "man made" "mint error". I didn't add the "mint error part", if this was a coin I saw, since it's not one, but I'm sure whoever wrote the tag was trying to say it's "made outside the mint to look like a mint error."
I think we all agree it's a genuine coin with Altered Surfaces. I hope the "man-made Mint error" terminology is a thing of the past and happened before the professionals got better educated.
I own a couple of these. Disregard the after-market holders, these two originally came in plastic flips from PCGS:
peacockcoins
I am not sure of the error grading process. Do they send coins to the error expert or do they come in once a week or something? So they probably are not around for the finalization of slab. Whatever the case, Counterfeit is bad terminology and Altered would be more appropriate.
Most of the graders are experienced enough to identify most fake errors accurately.
PCGS has several experts available for the questionable items. Fred Weinberg was one until he retired, Jon Sullivan stepped up.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1067452/congrats-to-jon-sullivan-new-pcgs-error-consultant-and-authenticator
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
I think “counterfeit”, “man-made”, and “mint error” are all poor terms to describe this piece.
Firstly “counterfeit” implies intent. One cannot determine the intent of the individual(s) that did this. Did the make it for the purpose of making this piece look like a mint-error, or is it simply damage as a result of someone’s curiosity? It cannot be a counterfeit of a mint error, because there is not mint error that looks like this. What error would it be? “Man-made”, as mentioned, adds confusion about whether the piece itself originated from the US Mint. Is it wholly counterfeit, or simply an altered US Mint-made coin? And “mint error”, is incorrect, because again, that would imply intent AND adds confusion about the origins of the piece.
Do coins like this get no-holdered when you don’t submit on the error tier, or is this special treatment for coins submitted that way? I say give these coins a .98 damaged label and slab them, or send them back raw as “authenticity unverifiable”. Get rid of the weird lingo.