@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
That logic doesn’t need to lead to a complete lack of guarantee payouts. But it can certainly aid in the affordable management of them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
IMHO, grading 1926-S nickels is like grading 1922-D cents struck from the worser dies. You take into consideration what the coin looked like when it was new, and calculate how much is gone from that.
I own the finest known 1922 “No D, Weak Reverse” cent from Die Pair #4B. (There are of course nicer coins from Die Pairs #1 and #3.) Lots of original Red Brown. Take away that Red Brown and it is barely Good. It is in a major TPG AU-55 slab. I think it is Mint State but net graded.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
The matter of something being "routine" doesn't necessarily make it acceptable though.
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I look forward to reading what others have to think.
@bammbamm said:
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I look forward to reading what others have to think.
I'm reasonably sure late night shenanigans were involved. I see no reason to think it is a counterfeit.
Absence of toning on a gold coin is evidence of nothing. Gold does not tone easily. It also could easily have been dipped.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
I have a ton of doubt that they cut at least 52 checks/yr for grade guarantees. I don't know where or how to find this information but I would happily bet the under.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
@bammbamm said:
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I look forward to reading what others have to think.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is that it was struck in a U.S. Mint by U.S. dies on a U.S. $5 planchet. Whether it was a random error or a deliberate fabrication I do not know.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@coinkat said:
The 26-s Buff posted here is about as good as it gets for the majority of collectors. When the quality of the strike is discussed, it really needs context. How does this 26-s compare to others graded at the same level? How about even at a lower grade level at 63? There are MS examples of this date as well as the25-D and 25-s that just lack significant detail with some not even having a full horn.
I have no problem with the 64 grade and it was graded 64 for all the right reasons.
You clearly know Buffalos and we can agree to disagree. I don’t think a buffalo with that pancaked an obverse strike (the 6 is partial and the braid detail missing entirely) should be anything better than 63. JA did not sticker that coin (although I have no idea if it was ever submitted to CAC).
I fall back on a Mark Feld rule (No. 12):
“Eye appeal is hard to ignore but technical quality should not be overlooked/compromised.”
It can be a lovely MS63 but in my mind that strike can never get to 64.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@bammbamm said:
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I have always thought that was a strong possibility.
(Thanks for having the wherewithal to voice this opinion.)
Here is a copper counterfeit I own (photos taken just now):
On an added note, keep in mind there were some truly talented counterfeiters back in the day.
We are so inundated with crude chinese counterfeits today we possibly forget the skilled forgers of the past.
This is an example I own of a contemporary counterfeit that fooled many after these were struck and placed into circulation:
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
I have an 05 O Barber Half that didn't sticker in a PC MS 65 holder because he said it had a weak strike. Most coins minted in New Orleans have a weak strike. Please explain that.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
I have an 05 O Barber Half that didn't sticker in a PC MS 65 holder because he said it had a weak strike. Most coins minted in New Orleans have a weak strike. Please explain that.
JA has explicitly said in recorded interviews regarding O-mint coins that he has a hard time stickering them in gem with a terrible strike, which so many have.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't sticker it in a 63 or a 64. He has a different grading standard regarding those coins than PCGS/NGC.
@bammbamm said:
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
That’s not an argument against authenticity. There are plenty of coins with fresh surfaces that are much older than that coin, and a fresh look can easily be induced by dipping.
The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
Well yeah…it was struck from Buffalo nickel dies, so it would have the die flow of Buffalo nickel dies. Why would it be different if the composition of the planchet is different?
The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
Again, it’s struck from Buffalo nickel dies, so it would have an associated die clash.
The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
The use of worn dies is not a factor in authenticity.
The coin may or may not be authentic, but none of those are convincing arguments against it.
The coin may or may not be authentic, but none of those are convincing arguments against it.
True. Yet collectively they provide the basis for a healthy discussion.
But do they? Rexford pretty much swatted them all away without breaking a sweat.
The only point that might have some teeth is the composition of the planchet, one would think that a softer metal would have increased flow.
With that said, the flow lines on the coin do look rather overt to someone who has virtually no knowledge regarding buffalo nickels (🙋🏻♂️). However, it would only support his argument even more if that was in fact the case.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
I have a ton of doubt that they cut at least 52 checks/yr for grade guarantees. I don't know where or how to find this information but I would happily bet the under.
PCGS grades over a million coins a year with a total of over 45 million coins. You don't think .005% of the coins graded annually fall into a guarantee at some point? I was one of them last year or year before (can't remember). Statistically it would be a miracle to be that low.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
Agreed. Per PCGS guidelines, MS60-MS62 can have very weak strikes, but MS65 must be well struck. That's probably what he is referring to. I'm pretty sure JA would sticker a 60-62 with any strike quality.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
I have a ton of doubt that they cut at least 52 checks/yr for grade guarantees. I don't know where or how to find this information but I would happily bet the under.
PCGS grades over a million coins a year with a total of over 45 million coins. You don't think .005% of the coins graded annually fall into a guarantee at some point? I was one of them last year or year before (can't remember). Statistically it would be a miracle to be that low.
No, I don't think that PCGS will honor and payout a grade guarantee for more than 0.005% of coins it grades.
As @MFeld noted earlier, they are the sole arbiter of a coins grade and its value. How many coins do you think get submitted for grade guarantee every year, especially because the submitter is on the hook for all expenses if PCGS (the judge, jury, and executioner) decides they didn't make a mistake?
Of the million coins submitted every year, how many of them would drop in value by more than ~$75 (approximate cost of grading and round-trip shipping) if downgraded by a grade or two?
I would wager a reasonable amount of money that fewer than 1000 coins are submitted for grade guarantee every year. And there's no way to prove it that I'm aware of but with decent odds I would take a much lower number than that.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
I have a ton of doubt that they cut at least 52 checks/yr for grade guarantees. I don't know where or how to find this information but I would happily bet the under.
PCGS grades over a million coins a year with a total of over 45 million coins. You don't think .005% of the coins graded annually fall into a guarantee at some point? I was one of them last year or year before (can't remember). Statistically it would be a miracle to be that low.
No, I don't think that PCGS will honor and payout a grade guarantee for more than 0.005% of coins it grades.
As @MFeld noted earlier, they are the sole arbiter of a coins grade and its value. How many coins do you think get submitted for grade guarantee every year, especially because the submitter is on the hook for all expenses if PCGS (the judge, jury, and executioner) decides they didn't make a mistake?
Of the million coins submitted every year, how many of them would drop in value by more than ~$75 (approximate cost of grading and round-trip shipping) if downgraded by a grade or two?
I would wager a reasonable amount of money that fewer than 1000 coins are submitted for grade guarantee every year. And there's no way to prove it that I'm aware of but with decent odds I would take a much lower number than that.
Given that likely 75+% of the coins graded are ASEs, modern commems and the like, i think I'd also take the under.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
It's not about whether there were 52 checks written per year. It's about whether it should have been 520 for the year.
It's always good when you get to be your own judge and jury.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
It's not about whether there were 52 checks written per year. It's about whether it should have been 520 for the year.
It's always good when you get to be your own judge and jury.
Lermish's argument was that cutting guarantee checks was not routine. I don't know why the discussion diverged from there, but I would say that any activity done on average 1/week or more is routine. That's all I ever said and I don't know how anyone can argue with that. The city picks up my trash every week. It is not a special activity, it is routine. The same as PCGS issuing guarantee checks. I am not up for a discussion about how many checks are or should be written as I have no data, or how fast or easy the process is, the only thing I am certain about is that this is a routine regular process that PCGS performs and is not a rare, non-routine event as @lermish asserted.
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
I have an 05 O Barber Half that didn't sticker in a PC MS 65 holder because he said it had a weak strike. Most coins minted in New Orleans have a weak strike. Please explain that.
JA has explicitly said in recorded interviews regarding O-mint coins that he has a hard time stickering them in gem with a terrible strike, which so many have.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't sticker it in a 63 or a 64. He has a different grading standard regarding those coins than PCGS/NGC.
It's really not that complicated.
Not to be difficult, but it actually is that complicated. I have an 1861 O Half in PC MS 65 + that is stickered. I rarely, if ever see New Orleans minted coins with solid strikes. It's possible it got the sticker because it has attractive toning, which increases its eye appeal. But to my point, is is that complicated.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
It's not about whether there were 52 checks written per year. It's about whether it should have been 520 for the year.
It's always good when you get to be your own judge and jury.
Lermish's argument was that cutting guarantee checks was not routine. I don't know why the discussion diverged from there, but I would say that any activity done on average 1/week or more is routine. That's all I ever said and I don't know how anyone can argue with that. The city picks up my trash every week. It is not a special activity, it is routine. The same as PCGS issuing guarantee checks. I am not up for a discussion about how many checks are or should be written as I have no data, or how fast or easy the process is, the only thing I am certain about is that this is a routine regular process that PCGS performs and is not a rare, non-routine event as @lermish asserted.
Their website displays that over 300k coins were graded in the past 30 days, and if thats the rolling average, were talking about an approximate 3.5 million coins graded a year. You think that 1 coin a week covered under the guarantee is routine? 1/75,000?
Unrelated, but it also shows that only 1100 or so coins were given plus grades, out of 305k. That would seem to contradict the defined criteria for a + grade being the top 30% of coins in that grade. It's actually 1/100th of the stated criteria, .3% instead of 30%.
There used to be a page that showed the $ amount of money paid out on guaranteed, it was similar to the US National Debt clock. Coincidentally, that page no longer seems to be available anymore...color me shocked 🙃.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
It's not about whether there were 52 checks written per year. It's about whether it should have been 520 for the year.
It's always good when you get to be your own judge and jury.
Lermish's argument was that cutting guarantee checks was not routine. I don't know why the discussion diverged from there, but I would say that any activity done on average 1/week or more is routine. That's all I ever said and I don't know how anyone can argue with that. The city picks up my trash every week. It is not a special activity, it is routine. The same as PCGS issuing guarantee checks. I am not up for a discussion about how many checks are or should be written as I have no data, or how fast or easy the process is, the only thing I am certain about is that this is a routine regular process that PCGS performs and is not a rare, non-routine event as @lermish asserted.
Their website displays that over 300k coins were graded in the past 30 days, and if thats the rolling average, were talking about an approximate 3.5 million coins graded a year. You think that 1 coin a week covered under the guarantee is routine? 1/75,000?
Unrelated, but it also shows that only 1100 or so coins were given plus grades, out of 305k. That would seem to contradict the defined criteria for a + grade being the top 30% of coins in that grade. It's actually 1/100th of the stated criteria, .3% instead of 30%.
There used to be a page that showed the $ amount of money paid out on guaranteed, it was similar to the US National Debt clock. Coincidentally, that page no longer seems to be available anymore...color me shocked 🙃.
I was being generous. Statistically there's no way they only pay out one claim per week but my only point is really that the payments are routine and not special occurrences where the person in charge of guarantees has to try to remember where the check book is at. That's all.
Good point about plus grades, I see where you got the 30% number from. This article quotes David Hall saying that 15-20% of coins within a grade should qualify for a plus but that's far from what they give out. I just had a few boxes of 20 modern coins graded, all pretty much MS65-MS67 and not one single plus grade. Hard to imagine that if 15-20% of coins deserve a plus that out of about 40 coins not a single one fell in that part of the spectrum even though statistically 6-8 should have. It's more improbable to NOT get one if the odds really are 15-20%. I think the plus grades are pretty much issued on whims to try to get people to resubmit their coins in hopes of getting one. https://www.pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading
@coinkat said:
Within just about any series, the quality of the specific date/mint product matters… one cannot look at a 1926-S and a 1938-D Buffalo and compare them with the same yardstick.
And those different yardsticks leads to coins like this getting graded MS64:
jpg
It’s not a different yardstick, strike just isn’t a significant factor in grade. The yardstick that’s the same is surface condition.
It sure looks like a 64 to me. Anyone who has been collecting for a long time can remember that for a long time a coin's strike mattered for its commercial grade. MS-64 was as high as a coin could grade if it was not fully struck. One big problem with the Pre-1986 TPGS's was they would grade flat struck coins with hardly any marks as choice (MS-65 at the time) and dealers would discount the things because they were not worth 65 money!
I agree that the flow lines are not on the planchet. The flow lines are not on the dies either. As I see it, the flow lines are on the struck coin and are the result of moving planchet metal scouring out the die face. I'll bet that is what you tried to say.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
It's not about whether there were 52 checks written per year. It's about whether it should have been 520 for the year.
It's always good when you get to be your own judge and jury.
Lermish's argument was that cutting guarantee checks was not routine. I don't know why the discussion diverged from there, but I would say that any activity done on average 1/week or more is routine. That's all I ever said and I don't know how anyone can argue with that. The city picks up my trash every week. It is not a special activity, it is routine. The same as PCGS issuing guarantee checks. I am not up for a discussion about how many checks are or should be written as I have no data, or how fast or easy the process is, the only thing I am certain about is that this is a routine regular process that PCGS performs and is not a rare, non-routine event as @lermish asserted.
Their website displays that over 300k coins were graded in the past 30 days, and if thats the rolling average, were talking about an approximate 3.5 million coins graded a year. You think that 1 coin a week covered under the guarantee is routine? 1/75,000?
Unrelated, but it also shows that only 1100 or so coins were given plus grades, out of 305k. That would seem to contradict the defined criteria for a + grade being the top 30% of coins in that grade. It's actually 1/100th of the stated criteria, .3% instead of 30%.
There used to be a page that showed the $ amount of money paid out on guaranteed, it was similar to the US National Debt clock. Coincidentally, that page no longer seems to be available anymore...color me shocked 🙃. I think the plus grades are pretty much issued on whims to try to get people to resubmit their coins in hopes of getting one.
@bammbamm said:
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
That’s not an argument against authenticity. There are plenty of coins with fresh surfaces that are much older than that coin, and a fresh look can easily be induced by dipping.
True, but if it was dipped, then it should be graded as such, as cleaned. But, also, when you compare its surfaces to any gold coin from that era, it doesn't look the same. It doesn't have the skin of a 1913 gold coin. I'm not talking toning, just skin. That subtle look of old gold. Other than its weight being similar to a half eagle (8.33 versus 8.359 grams), I wonder if its alloy composition was tested? Is it indeed 90% gold and 10% copper?
The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
Well yeah…it was struck from Buffalo nickel dies, so it would have the die flow of Buffalo nickel dies. Why would it be different if the composition of the planchet is different?
Because the malleability of gold differs from the malleability of copper/nickel. The metal flow would also be different if the dies were struck on a silver planchet or a bronze planchet. Each alloy would fill the details and recesses of the die differently, whether the dies are worn or not.
The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
Again, it’s struck from Buffalo nickel dies, so it would have an associated die clash.
Yes, but if the coin was truly struck and not just copied, because of the softness and high malleability of a gold planchet, the clash mark would have sharper edges.
The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
No one has addressed this yet. This ultra rare mint error just happened to appear after 107 years. The entire numismatic world had never seen nor heard of this coin before. Not even a rumor of its existence. But then, during COVID shutdown in 2020, it appears out of nowhere. The coin had to have changed hands at least three or four times over 107 years, even if tightly held within a family. And yet no one mentioned or leaked anything about it all that time. Really? Sorry, but that doesn't add up.
The use of worn dies is not a factor in authenticity.
It certainly is. How do you explain otherwise? Even the auction description of the coin -- which I included in my first post -- questions this. I can only imagine the conversation between two mint employees back in the end of 1913: "Hey, let's try coining a half eagle gold planchet with a buffalo nickel die. They're about the same size. And let's use this old, worn, crappy die, and give it a shitty, weak strike. That will be a good test."
The coin may or may not be authentic, but none of those are convincing arguments against it.
I certainly think I have made strong, convincing arguments against this coin's authenticity. I was hoping to hear or see something substantial to prove otherwise. Maybe pictures of similar metal flow on another gold coin. Maybe even pictures of similar metal flow on a silver or bronze coin. I stand by my belief that this coin is a fake, a gold replica made of a 1913 type-2 Buffalo nickel. Just because many experts (including TPG companies) have been fooled by the coin, doesn't make it authentic.
Here are two more, zoomed-in pictures of the coin in question that raise more doubts of its authenticity:
On the zoomed-in obverse picture, note the tooling and what looks like graffiti on the low area in the field to the left of the feather, that continues up onto the detail of the feather itself. And what is the odd looking thing with what looks like a tail in the field at the bottom right of the feather?
And on the zoomed-in reverse picture, note the strange looking nibs that look like bubbles or impurities in the metal along the outside of the edge and on the rim where the test cut was made -- even inside the test cut. It gives the look of poured or cast metal.
@ProofCollection said:
In general, rarity equals value. And grading leniency also equates to increased liability for TPGs. Are TPGs willingly incurring extra liability on rare (higher value) coins? I think the tendency would be the other way.
Realistically, how much increased liability is there when the companies that offer the grading guarantees are the same ones that decide whether the coins have been graded accurately?
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
It's not about whether there were 52 checks written per year. It's about whether it should have been 520 for the year.
It's always good when you get to be your own judge and jury.
Lermish's argument was that cutting guarantee checks was not routine. I don't know why the discussion diverged from there, but I would say that any activity done on average 1/week or more is routine. That's all I ever said and I don't know how anyone can argue with that. The city picks up my trash every week. It is not a special activity, it is routine. The same as PCGS issuing guarantee checks. I am not up for a discussion about how many checks are or should be written as I have no data, or how fast or easy the process is, the only thing I am certain about is that this is a routine regular process that PCGS performs and is not a rare, non-routine event as @lermish asserted.
If the city only picked up one person's trash every week and skipped the rest, the service could still be called routine but leave a lot of people confused and upset.
It's also probably a good time to remind everyone that grade guarantees do not apply to the original submitter or their affiliates. So right out of the gate a large percentage of submissions are immediately excluded from any grade guarantee even if obviously over graded. PCGS graded coins only become eligible for a guarantee after being purchased by someone other than the original submitter or their affiliates.
@TrickleCharge said:
It's also probably a good time to remind everyone that grade guarantees do not apply to the original submitter or their affiliates. So right out of the gate a large percentage of submissions are immediately excluded from any grade guarantee even if obviously over graded. PCGS graded coins only become eligible for a guarantee after being purchased by someone other than the original submitter or their affiliates.
Considering that a very high percentage of valuable coins are submitted by dealers, a great many submissions likely become eligible for the grade guarantee fairly quickly (as they are sold by the submitters).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@TrickleCharge said:
It's also probably a good time to remind everyone that grade guarantees do not apply to the original submitter or their affiliates. So right out of the gate a large percentage of submissions are immediately excluded from any grade guarantee even if obviously over graded. PCGS graded coins only become eligible for a guarantee after being purchased by someone other than the original submitter or their affiliates.
The “large percentage of submissions” to which you referred are only excluded from grade guarantees until they are sold. And considering that a very high percentage of such coins are submitted by dealers, most of them likely become eligible for the guarantee fairly quickly, anyway.
I believe we are stating the same thing. A large percentage of submissions only become eligible for guarantee after being purchased by someone else.
True, a "very high percentage" of submissions are likely from dealers. Some dealers may even welcome over graded coins and sell them at a premium through various channels.
Can a purchaser of such a coin submit for a guarantee resubmission without being a PCGS member? Even if so, that purchaser would have to be able to grade well enough to determine if the coin they bought was over graded. At the end of the day, the guarantee process would seem to have quite a few twists and turns aimed at limiting guarantee resubmissions.
@TrickleCharge said:
It's also probably a good time to remind everyone that grade guarantees do not apply to the original submitter or their affiliates. So right out of the gate a large percentage of submissions are immediately excluded from any grade guarantee even if obviously over graded. PCGS graded coins only become eligible for a guarantee after being purchased by someone other than the original submitter or their affiliates.
The “large percentage of submissions” to which you referred are only excluded from grade guarantees until they are sold. And considering that a very high percentage of such coins are submitted by dealers, most of them likely become eligible for the guarantee fairly quickly, anyway.
I believe we are stating the same thing. A large percentage of submissions only become eligible for guarantee after being purchased by someone else.
True, a "very high percentage" of submissions are likely from dealers. Some dealers may even welcome over graded coins and sell them at a premium through various channels.
Can a purchaser of such a coin submit for a guarantee resubmission without being a PCGS member? Even if so, that purchaser would have to be able to grade well enough to determine if the coin they bought was over graded. At the end of the day, the guarantee process would seem to have quite a few twists and turns aimed at limiting guarantee resubmissions.
I hope we’re saying the same thing,😉
I’m not certain but think I’ve heard that one need not be a PCGS member in order to make use of the grade guarantee. Either way, a purchaser of a coin would need to be proficient at grading (as you said) or have someone who is, provide an opinion that might lead to a grade guarantee submission.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
By that logic the TPGs then never pay out on guarantees for getting the grade wrong, but we know they do make such payments routinely.
http://ProofCollection.Net
That logic doesn’t need to lead to a complete lack of guarantee payouts. But it can certainly aid in the affordable management of them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Routinely?
Not by a LONG shot. Try fighting for months to get a penny out of them (for anything, not just grade guarantee), even when they have already acknowledged an error.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Yes routinely. I have no doubt that they cut checks every week. That has nothing to do with how hard it is to get through the process, but with millions of coins graded and having received a few checks myself, I have no doubt that more than 52 checks are being written every year making it a weekly routine.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Apropos grading 1926-S nickels:
IMHO, grading 1926-S nickels is like grading 1922-D cents struck from the worser dies. You take into consideration what the coin looked like when it was new, and calculate how much is gone from that.
I own the finest known 1922 “No D, Weak Reverse” cent from Die Pair #4B. (There are of course nicer coins from Die Pairs #1 and #3.) Lots of original Red Brown. Take away that Red Brown and it is barely Good. It is in a major TPG AU-55 slab. I think it is Mint State but net graded.
TD
The matter of something being "routine" doesn't necessarily make it acceptable though.
As a Heritage client, I remember when that 1913 type 2 Buffalo Nickel struck on a $5 gold planchet came to auction. I think it is a fake, intentionally made to pass as an extremely rare error coin and to sell at a steep profit above the value of its gold bullion -- which it did -- it sold for $78,000 at Heritage in January 2021.
I am not a professional grader nor do I work for a TPG company, but I have seen many Buffalo nickels and U.S. gold coins, and the look of this coin does not add up to being what it is claimed to be nor having been produced by the U.S. mint.
Here is my evidence, but you be the judge:
1. The color of the surfaces of the coin look fresh and new, not 107 years old, as it was when it was "found" and encapsulated. In fact, the color of the surfaces look the same as the the gold in the test cut mark on its rim. There is no old skin tone on this coin.
2. The metal flow caused from long-in-use, old dies matches the metal flow of a 25% nickel/75% copper five cent piece, but it does not match the metal flow of any 90% gold/10% copper gold piece that I've ever seen.
3. The die clash from the chin, under the E Pluribus Unum, on the reverse matches the soft, rounded die clash of many Buffalo nickels struck on a 25% nickel/75% copper planchet, but it does not match the usually sharp-edged die clashes seen on any gold coins.
4. The auction description itself casts a few doubts: why old worn dies would have been used, and the unknown history of the piece that just happened to appear out of nowhere after 107 years.
My theory is that the coin was struck from dies that were made from a cast of a mold of a 1913 nickel -- and a worn, poorly struck one at that. This would explain the metal flow and the AU wear look.
I look forward to reading what others have to think.
I'm reasonably sure late night shenanigans were involved. I see no reason to think it is a counterfeit.
Absence of toning on a gold coin is evidence of nothing. Gold does not tone easily. It also could easily have been dipped.
JA told me that CAC doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes, about 10 years ago.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I have a ton of doubt that they cut at least 52 checks/yr for grade guarantees. I don't know where or how to find this information but I would happily bet the under.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
He doesn't sticker coins with weak strikes depending on the grade. I have seen plenty of coins (and own a couple) with weak strikes and green beans.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
My opinion is that it was struck in a U.S. Mint by U.S. dies on a U.S. $5 planchet. Whether it was a random error or a deliberate fabrication I do not know.
Does the mint use different striking pressures when striking a gold coin versus nickel?
You clearly know Buffalos and we can agree to disagree. I don’t think a buffalo with that pancaked an obverse strike (the 6 is partial and the braid detail missing entirely) should be anything better than 63. JA did not sticker that coin (although I have no idea if it was ever submitted to CAC).
I fall back on a Mark Feld rule (No. 12):
“Eye appeal is hard to ignore but technical quality should not be overlooked/compromised.”
It can be a lovely MS63 but in my mind that strike can never get to 64.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
I have always thought that was a strong possibility.
(Thanks for having the wherewithal to voice this opinion.)
Here is a copper counterfeit I own (photos taken just now):
peacockcoins
On an added note, keep in mind there were some truly talented counterfeiters back in the day.
We are so inundated with crude chinese counterfeits today we possibly forget the skilled forgers of the past.
This is an example I own of a contemporary counterfeit that fooled many after these were struck and placed into circulation:
edited to fix photos
peacockcoins
I have an 05 O Barber Half that didn't sticker in a PC MS 65 holder because he said it had a weak strike. Most coins minted in New Orleans have a weak strike. Please explain that.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
JA has explicitly said in recorded interviews regarding O-mint coins that he has a hard time stickering them in gem with a terrible strike, which so many have.
That doesn't mean he wouldn't sticker it in a 63 or a 64. He has a different grading standard regarding those coins than PCGS/NGC.
It's really not that complicated.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Grading remains subjective… A 1905 O Barber in 65 remains a very desirable coin with or without a sticker.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
That’s not an argument against authenticity. There are plenty of coins with fresh surfaces that are much older than that coin, and a fresh look can easily be induced by dipping.
Well yeah…it was struck from Buffalo nickel dies, so it would have the die flow of Buffalo nickel dies. Why would it be different if the composition of the planchet is different?
Again, it’s struck from Buffalo nickel dies, so it would have an associated die clash.
The use of worn dies is not a factor in authenticity.
The coin may or may not be authentic, but none of those are convincing arguments against it.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
True. Yet collectively they provide the basis for a healthy discussion.
peacockcoins
But do they? Rexford pretty much swatted them all away without breaking a sweat.
The only point that might have some teeth is the composition of the planchet, one would think that a softer metal would have increased flow.
With that said, the flow lines on the coin do look rather overt to someone who has virtually no knowledge regarding buffalo nickels (🙋🏻♂️). However, it would only support his argument even more if that was in fact the case.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
PCGS grades over a million coins a year with a total of over 45 million coins. You don't think .005% of the coins graded annually fall into a guarantee at some point? I was one of them last year or year before (can't remember). Statistically it would be a miracle to be that low.
Agreed. Per PCGS guidelines, MS60-MS62 can have very weak strikes, but MS65 must be well struck. That's probably what he is referring to. I'm pretty sure JA would sticker a 60-62 with any strike quality.
http://ProofCollection.Net
The flow lines are on the dies, not the planchet.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
No, I don't think that PCGS will honor and payout a grade guarantee for more than 0.005% of coins it grades.
As @MFeld noted earlier, they are the sole arbiter of a coins grade and its value. How many coins do you think get submitted for grade guarantee every year, especially because the submitter is on the hook for all expenses if PCGS (the judge, jury, and executioner) decides they didn't make a mistake?
Of the million coins submitted every year, how many of them would drop in value by more than ~$75 (approximate cost of grading and round-trip shipping) if downgraded by a grade or two?
I would wager a reasonable amount of money that fewer than 1000 coins are submitted for grade guarantee every year. And there's no way to prove it that I'm aware of but with decent odds I would take a much lower number than that.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Given that likely 75+% of the coins graded are ASEs, modern commems and the like, i think I'd also take the under.
It's not about whether there were 52 checks written per year. It's about whether it should have been 520 for the year.
It's always good when you get to be your own judge and jury.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
Lermish's argument was that cutting guarantee checks was not routine. I don't know why the discussion diverged from there, but I would say that any activity done on average 1/week or more is routine. That's all I ever said and I don't know how anyone can argue with that. The city picks up my trash every week. It is not a special activity, it is routine. The same as PCGS issuing guarantee checks. I am not up for a discussion about how many checks are or should be written as I have no data, or how fast or easy the process is, the only thing I am certain about is that this is a routine regular process that PCGS performs and is not a rare, non-routine event as @lermish asserted.
http://ProofCollection.Net
Not to be difficult, but it actually is that complicated. I have an 1861 O Half in PC MS 65 + that is stickered. I rarely, if ever see New Orleans minted coins with solid strikes. It's possible it got the sticker because it has attractive toning, which increases its eye appeal. But to my point, is is that complicated.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Their website displays that over 300k coins were graded in the past 30 days, and if thats the rolling average, were talking about an approximate 3.5 million coins graded a year. You think that 1 coin a week covered under the guarantee is routine? 1/75,000?
Unrelated, but it also shows that only 1100 or so coins were given plus grades, out of 305k. That would seem to contradict the defined criteria for a + grade being the top 30% of coins in that grade. It's actually 1/100th of the stated criteria, .3% instead of 30%.
There used to be a page that showed the $ amount of money paid out on guaranteed, it was similar to the US National Debt clock. Coincidentally, that page no longer seems to be available anymore...color me shocked 🙃.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I was being generous. Statistically there's no way they only pay out one claim per week but my only point is really that the payments are routine and not special occurrences where the person in charge of guarantees has to try to remember where the check book is at. That's all.
Good point about plus grades, I see where you got the 30% number from. This article quotes David Hall saying that 15-20% of coins within a grade should qualify for a plus but that's far from what they give out. I just had a few boxes of 20 modern coins graded, all pretty much MS65-MS67 and not one single plus grade. Hard to imagine that if 15-20% of coins deserve a plus that out of about 40 coins not a single one fell in that part of the spectrum even though statistically 6-8 should have. It's more improbable to NOT get one if the odds really are 15-20%. I think the plus grades are pretty much issued on whims to try to get people to resubmit their coins in hopes of getting one.
https://www.pcgs.com/news/two-leading-grading-services-announce-plus-grading
http://ProofCollection.Net
It sure looks like a 64 to me. Anyone who has been collecting for a long time can remember that for a long time a coin's strike mattered for its commercial grade. MS-64 was as high as a coin could grade if it was not fully struck. One big problem with the Pre-1986 TPGS's was they would grade flat struck coins with hardly any marks as choice (MS-65 at the time) and dealers would discount the things because they were not worth 65 money!
I agree that the flow lines are not on the planchet. The flow lines are not on the dies either. As I see it, the flow lines are on the struck coin and are the result of moving planchet metal scouring out the die face. I'll bet that is what you tried to say.
...> @ProofCollection said:
Some here do quite well getting plus grades by resubmitting coins they think are nice for the grade.
True, but if it was dipped, then it should be graded as such, as cleaned. But, also, when you compare its surfaces to any gold coin from that era, it doesn't look the same. It doesn't have the skin of a 1913 gold coin. I'm not talking toning, just skin. That subtle look of old gold. Other than its weight being similar to a half eagle (8.33 versus 8.359 grams), I wonder if its alloy composition was tested? Is it indeed 90% gold and 10% copper?
Because the malleability of gold differs from the malleability of copper/nickel. The metal flow would also be different if the dies were struck on a silver planchet or a bronze planchet. Each alloy would fill the details and recesses of the die differently, whether the dies are worn or not.
Yes, but if the coin was truly struck and not just copied, because of the softness and high malleability of a gold planchet, the clash mark would have sharper edges.
No one has addressed this yet. This ultra rare mint error just happened to appear after 107 years. The entire numismatic world had never seen nor heard of this coin before. Not even a rumor of its existence. But then, during COVID shutdown in 2020, it appears out of nowhere. The coin had to have changed hands at least three or four times over 107 years, even if tightly held within a family. And yet no one mentioned or leaked anything about it all that time. Really? Sorry, but that doesn't add up.
It certainly is. How do you explain otherwise? Even the auction description of the coin -- which I included in my first post -- questions this. I can only imagine the conversation between two mint employees back in the end of 1913: "Hey, let's try coining a half eagle gold planchet with a buffalo nickel die. They're about the same size. And let's use this old, worn, crappy die, and give it a shitty, weak strike. That will be a good test."
I certainly think I have made strong, convincing arguments against this coin's authenticity. I was hoping to hear or see something substantial to prove otherwise. Maybe pictures of similar metal flow on another gold coin. Maybe even pictures of similar metal flow on a silver or bronze coin. I stand by my belief that this coin is a fake, a gold replica made of a 1913 type-2 Buffalo nickel. Just because many experts (including TPG companies) have been fooled by the coin, doesn't make it authentic.
Here are two more, zoomed-in pictures of the coin in question that raise more doubts of its authenticity:
On the zoomed-in obverse picture, note the tooling and what looks like graffiti on the low area in the field to the left of the feather, that continues up onto the detail of the feather itself. And what is the odd looking thing with what looks like a tail in the field at the bottom right of the feather?
And on the zoomed-in reverse picture, note the strange looking nibs that look like bubbles or impurities in the metal along the outside of the edge and on the rim where the test cut was made -- even inside the test cut. It gives the look of poured or cast metal.
If the city only picked up one person's trash every week and skipped the rest, the service could still be called routine but leave a lot of people confused and upset.
It's also probably a good time to remind everyone that grade guarantees do not apply to the original submitter or their affiliates. So right out of the gate a large percentage of submissions are immediately excluded from any grade guarantee even if obviously over graded. PCGS graded coins only become eligible for a guarantee after being purchased by someone other than the original submitter or their affiliates.
First impression it looks cast, but not a pro. I would pass were I interested.
Considering that a very high percentage of valuable coins are submitted by dealers, a great many submissions likely become eligible for the grade guarantee fairly quickly (as they are sold by the submitters).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I believe we are stating the same thing. A large percentage of submissions only become eligible for guarantee after being purchased by someone else.
True, a "very high percentage" of submissions are likely from dealers. Some dealers may even welcome over graded coins and sell them at a premium through various channels.
Can a purchaser of such a coin submit for a guarantee resubmission without being a PCGS member? Even if so, that purchaser would have to be able to grade well enough to determine if the coin they bought was over graded. At the end of the day, the guarantee process would seem to have quite a few twists and turns aimed at limiting guarantee resubmissions.
I hope we’re saying the same thing,😉
I’m not certain but think I’ve heard that one need not be a PCGS member in order to make use of the grade guarantee. Either way, a purchaser of a coin would need to be proficient at grading (as you said) or have someone who is, provide an opinion that might lead to a grade guarantee submission.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.