@DCW said:
Why on earth would PCGS be expected to compensate a buyer for something that changes in public opinion? They grade coins and designate varieties from reference books. In other words, if the consensus changes on whether these things are indeed experimental strikes, should the TPG that holders them be penalized while the buyer that had the same knowledge carries zero risk?
Of course not. Same thing goes with designated varieties. If a Cherrypicker number gets delisted, PCGS doesn't pay out. They did their job, which was to identify the coin with the information known at the time. Nothing more.
Now, if they designated a variety incorrectly, for instance, I agree that they would be on the hook. A normal 1964 cent slabbed as the SMS variety without the known die markers incurs liability. Surely we can all agree on that.
I think for that reason, these things are not encapsulated without known provenance from their first origins, ie. The Stacks auctions of the 90s
I didn’t think of the recent exchanges as pertaining to “changes in public opinion”. But rather, they were addressing a hypothetical situation in which the coins were somehow definitively proved to be normal circulation strikes. And I don’t see how that could even happen with the 1964 “SMS” coins.
And I don’t know that all of the coins so-designated were submitted with proof of provenance. In theory, at least, if the die markers match, there shouldn’t be a requirement for a submitter to include such accompanying proof of provenance.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I went to the Mint archives in Philadelphia 20 years ago hoping to find documentation concerning the accented hair half, 1964 Peace dollars, the 1964 SMS coins and why pointed and blunt 9's exist on the 1964 proof dime. While you need to reserve what you want to look at in Records Group 104, they were kind enough to show me the "stash".
I was certain all of the answers where there. They weren't. Other than one piece of correspondence related to the "dollar project" (which I forwarded to Roger Burdette for his book), the rest of my research was like looking for unicorns.
Since the SMS coins seemed so closely related to Eva Adams, I asked Roger about Ms. Adams' personal archives which she donated to the University of Nevada - Reno. He had someone check already and there was nothing there.
The Philadelphia Mint: making coins since 1792. We make money by making money. Now in our 225th year thanks to no competition.
@Coinscratch said: I thought all you bigtime collectors didn't have any interest in moderns let alone LINCOLN CENTS.
In responding to this, I am not claiming to be a "bigtime" collector.
I in fact have no interest in the 1964 SMS Lincoln. However, I do think a 1964 SMS Kennedy would be a pretty cool item. At least the for 1965 - 1967 issues (based on hands-on experience) and the 1964 (based on photos), SMS Kennedys are almost always easily distinguished from the regular strikes. I wouldn't mind having a 1964 SMS Kennedy (though I wouldn't pay the going price )
@giantsfan20 said:
Does PCGS guarantee that the is SMS Cent as on holder and if later proven otherwise have to pay out the value for what it was graded for?
No. PCGS guarantees the grade is correct, not necessarily the designation. Changes in a coin's status is not covered by the PCGS guarantee, so if it is determined the 1964 SMS coins are not SMS, owners would be screwed.
I would think, hope and expect that PCGS would honor their guarantee with respect to their “SMS” designations for such coins. A buyer should be able to reasonably rely upon that.
I would hope so too Mark, but if they handle the situation like they do with varieties that are delisted, there will be no payout.
Alex, I believe that a designation such as “SP” would be handled differently from a variety, but I can certainly understand your point of view. And admittedly, I was surprised and disappointed by what occurred with some delisted varieties.
I would also hope they would honor it, but the PCGS guarantee does not apply to change in the status of a coin:
"The PCGS guarantee does not cover changes in a coin's status in the numismatic community. For example, in the 1980's, there was a variety of the 1942 Denver Walking Liberty half dollar that was considered an over-mint mark. This coin was known as a 1942-D/S. Subsequent research has revealed that the coin is actually a re-punched mint mark and it is now referred to as a 1942-D/D. The PCGS guarantee does not cover any change in value due to a change in a coin's status. "
The example they reference is a variety issue, but I would imagine the same could apply to SMS coins should things change.
@Higashiyama said: @Coinscratch said: I thought all you bigtime collectors didn't have any interest in moderns let alone LINCOLN CENTS.
In responding to this, I am not claiming to be a "bigtime" collector.
I in fact have no interest in the 1964 SMS Lincoln. However, I do think a 1964 SMS Kennedy would be a pretty cool item. At least the for 1965 - 1967 issues (based on hands-on experience) and the 1964 (based on photos), SMS Kennedys are almost always easily distinguished from the regular strikes. I wouldn't mind have a 1064 SMS Kennedy (though I wouldn't pay the going price )
Yeah, that be pretty sweet. Bust that one out and stick it in the ole album.
Me: Honey, I have some modern mint sets coming in the mail today so I’ll be busy in the coin room geeking out later.
@WaterSport said:
PCGS did offer any compensation when a few varieties they had attributed based on the CPG were later delisted. So that should be their answer.
WS
Presumably, you meant to write “PCGS did not offer…” as opposed to “PCGS did offer…”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't believe PCGS owes the seller anything more than their opinion on the coin. If I were to sell that coin for $1 to someone should PCGS have to pay me? No. How much it sells for is only dictated by the amount the seller is (willing) to let it go for.
@JCH22 - again, the "special look" of the 1964 SMS coins traces back to at LEAST 1958 in the Smithsonian collection. Those presses have no impact on the status of these coins, unless they're time traveling.
@Sanitarium_inmate2 said:
I don't believe PCGS owes the seller anything more than their opinion on the coin. If I were to sell that coin for $1 to someone should PCGS have to pay me? No. How much it sells for is only dictated by the amount the seller is (willing) to let it go for.
I don’t see where anyone posted otherwise. The comments regarding liability pertained to PCGS or any other grading service delisting the “SP” designation due to proof that it was incorrect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Sanitarium_inmate2 said:
I don't believe PCGS owes the seller anything more than their opinion on the coin. If I were to sell that coin for $1 to someone should PCGS have to pay me? No. How much it sells for is only dictated by the amount the seller is (willing) to let it go for.
I don’t see where anyone posted otherwise. The comments regarding liability pertained to PCGS or any other grading service delisting the “SP” designation due to proof that it was incorrect.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
Why on earth would PCGS be expected to compensate a buyer for something that changes in public opinion? They grade coins and designate varieties from reference books. In other words, if the consensus changes on whether these things are indeed experimental strikes, should the TPG that holders them be penalized while the buyer that had the same knowledge carries zero risk?
Of course not. Same thing goes with designated varieties. If a Cherrypicker number gets delisted, PCGS doesn't pay out. They did their job, which was to identify the coin with the information known at the time. Nothing more.
Now, if they designated a variety incorrectly, for instance, I agree that they would be on the hook. A normal 1964 cent slabbed as the SMS variety without the known die markers incurs liability. Surely we can all agree on that.
I think for that reason, these things are not encapsulated without known provenance from their first origins, ie. The Stacks auctions of the 90s
This is probably an unpopular opinion but I think I agree. They are insuring their opinion based on current research, they are not sinply insuring the coin.
1914/13 nickels come to mind. Are they buying them back?
@Sanitarium_inmate2 said:
I don't believe PCGS owes the seller anything more than their opinion on the coin. If I were to sell that coin for $1 to someone should PCGS have to pay me? No. How much it sells for is only dictated by the amount the seller is (willing) to let it go for.
The price sold is NOT the issue. It is the change in designation.
If you bought a high relief $20 gold in a PCGS 66 holder and it was later determined that it was actually an exceptional contemporary counterfeit worth little more than gold value, would you just say "oops, my bad"? The price is determined in large measure by the expert opinion attached to the coin.
The 1964 coins which the Smithsonian sent you pictures of, and upon which you article was based, did you record the ID Numbers? I ask because the Smithsonian seems to hold multiple examples of 1964 coins.
ID Number
NU.NU81424.09
ID Number
NU.283480.0005
ID Number
1992.0324.0306
As well as multiple examples of other 1964 denominations. Imagine one is a proof---the others were likewise proofs except for the one's pictured in your write up?
All examples you were provided pictures of had the same appearance, all had the exact same die markers?
I do have the numbers, but a search for "Cent, 1964" and a couple of scrolls should be able to take you to the images that were publicly posted after my research request. They're the same images in my article. I only requested documents for the coins that were "SMS" and the Smithsonian asked for me not to publish those documents.
As far as I could see, the coins appeared to be from the same die pair.
Comments
I thought all you bigtime collectors didn't have any interest in moderns let alone LINCOLN CENTS.
I didn’t think of the recent exchanges as pertaining to “changes in public opinion”. But rather, they were addressing a hypothetical situation in which the coins were somehow definitively proved to be normal circulation strikes. And I don’t see how that could even happen with the 1964 “SMS” coins.
And I don’t know that all of the coins so-designated were submitted with proof of provenance. In theory, at least, if the die markers match, there shouldn’t be a requirement for a submitter to include such accompanying proof of provenance.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I went to the Mint archives in Philadelphia 20 years ago hoping to find documentation concerning the accented hair half, 1964 Peace dollars, the 1964 SMS coins and why pointed and blunt 9's exist on the 1964 proof dime. While you need to reserve what you want to look at in Records Group 104, they were kind enough to show me the "stash".
I was certain all of the answers where there. They weren't. Other than one piece of correspondence related to the "dollar project" (which I forwarded to Roger Burdette for his book), the rest of my research was like looking for unicorns.
Since the SMS coins seemed so closely related to Eva Adams, I asked Roger about Ms. Adams' personal archives which she donated to the University of Nevada - Reno. He had someone check already and there was nothing there.
@Coinscratch said: I thought all you bigtime collectors didn't have any interest in moderns let alone LINCOLN CENTS.
In responding to this, I am not claiming to be a "bigtime" collector.
I in fact have no interest in the 1964 SMS Lincoln. However, I do think a 1964 SMS Kennedy would be a pretty cool item. At least the for 1965 - 1967 issues (based on hands-on experience) and the 1964 (based on photos), SMS Kennedys are almost always easily distinguished from the regular strikes. I wouldn't mind having a 1964 SMS Kennedy (though I wouldn't pay the going price
)
I would also hope they would honor it, but the PCGS guarantee does not apply to change in the status of a coin:
"The PCGS guarantee does not cover changes in a coin's status in the numismatic community. For example, in the 1980's, there was a variety of the 1942 Denver Walking Liberty half dollar that was considered an over-mint mark. This coin was known as a 1942-D/S. Subsequent research has revealed that the coin is actually a re-punched mint mark and it is now referred to as a 1942-D/D. The PCGS guarantee does not cover any change in value due to a change in a coin's status. "
The example they reference is a variety issue, but I would imagine the same could apply to SMS coins should things change.
Yeah, that be pretty sweet. Bust that one out and stick it in the ole album.
Me: Honey, I have some modern mint sets coming in the mail today so I’ll be busy in the coin room geeking out later.
Wife: hotdogs with mustard for dinner.
PCGS did not offer any compensation when a few varieties they had attributed based on the CPG were later delisted. So that should be their answer.
WS
Presumably, you meant to write “PCGS did not offer…” as opposed to “PCGS did offer…”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.
I don't believe PCGS owes the seller anything more than their opinion on the coin. If I were to sell that coin for $1 to someone should PCGS have to pay me? No. How much it sells for is only dictated by the amount the seller is (willing) to let it go for.
.
@JCH22 - again, the "special look" of the 1964 SMS coins traces back to at LEAST 1958 in the Smithsonian collection. Those presses have no impact on the status of these coins, unless they're time traveling.
I don’t see where anyone posted otherwise. The comments regarding liability pertained to PCGS or any other grading service delisting the “SP” designation due to proof that it was incorrect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
.
This is probably an unpopular opinion but I think I agree. They are insuring their opinion based on current research, they are not sinply insuring the coin.
1914/13 nickels come to mind. Are they buying them back?
The price sold is NOT the issue. It is the change in designation.
If you bought a high relief $20 gold in a PCGS 66 holder and it was later determined that it was actually an exceptional contemporary counterfeit worth little more than gold value, would you just say "oops, my bad"? The price is determined in large measure by the expert opinion attached to the coin.
.
I do have the numbers, but a search for "Cent, 1964" and a couple of scrolls should be able to take you to the images that were publicly posted after my research request. They're the same images in my article. I only requested documents for the coins that were "SMS" and the Smithsonian asked for me not to publish those documents.
As far as I could see, the coins appeared to be from the same die pair.
.