Home› U.S. Coin Forum

Wow! What Happened Here, and Which PCGS Opinion Do You Agree With?

LuxorLuxor Posts: 547 ✭✭✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMVVg5ibJsA

-

Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.

«1

Comments

  • Morgan WhiteMorgan White Posts: 10,387 ✭✭✭✭✭

  • jacrispiesjacrispies Posts: 1,207 ✭✭✭✭✭

    $20 on CACG 65 next auction.

    "But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
    BHNC #AN-10
    JRCS #1606

  • TrickleChargeTrickleCharge Posts: 337 ✭✭✭

    Similar things have happened before and will happen again.

    https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1098763/gtg-1921-peace-dollar-pr62-satin/p2

  • PeakRaritiesPeakRarities Posts: 4,689 ✭✭✭✭✭

    As far as the grading discrepancy, that’s business as usual for anyone who’s had experience with these types of coins. It’s not called the grading “game” for no reason…

    The most interesting part of this story, as noted by @Floridafacelifter, is the fact that it sold for what? 30% more from details to pr63 CAC?

    This situation could have caused MUCH more anguish for the original submitter, I would take solace in the fact that the coin didn’t sell for 3x as much with the new grade.

    Founder- Peak Rarities
    Website
    Instagram
    Facebook

  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,799 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:
    What happened isn’t any sort of mystery - it was a case of inconsistent grading results for a very rare and valuable coin. And that’s not nearly as unusual or surprising as the video made it out to be.

    I’m sure that many forum members are aware of easily recognizable rarities that were initially designated as circulation strikes, but upon resubmission, either “Specimen” or “Proof”. If you’d like an example, you need not look any further than the multi-million dollar “Specimen” 1794 Flowing Hair dollar. And as was the case with the 1922 Peace dollar, many other rare coins have received detail grades the first time around, and subsequently, straight grades.

    I wish that what occurred was shocking, but sadly, it wasn’t.

    I don't know, Mark, Going from PR, Unc details altered surfaces to a straight graded PR63 with CAC is a pretty big deal. I would have expected a coin of this importance to be handled by the "knowers" the first time around. I would not be as surprised/upset if it graded something like PR61. $48k is nothing to sneeze at, but it could also be due to market conditions at time of sale.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,140 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 19, 2025 6:34PM

    @ChrisH821 said:

    @MFeld said:
    What happened isn’t any sort of mystery - it was a case of inconsistent grading results for a very rare and valuable coin. And that’s not nearly as unusual or surprising as the video made it out to be.

    I’m sure that many forum members are aware of easily recognizable rarities that were initially designated as circulation strikes, but upon resubmission, either “Specimen” or “Proof”. If you’d like an example, you need not look any further than the multi-million dollar “Specimen” 1794 Flowing Hair dollar. And as was the case with the 1922 Peace dollar, many other rare coins have received detail grades the first time around, and subsequently, straight grades.

    I wish that what occurred was shocking, but sadly, it wasn’t.

    I don't know, Mark, Going from PR, Unc details altered surfaces to a straight graded PR63 with CAC is a pretty big deal. I would have expected a coin of this importance to be handled by the "knowers" the first time around. I would not be as surprised/upset if it graded something like PR61. $48k is nothing to sneeze at, but it could also be due to market conditions at time of sale.

    I think it is a big deal, too, but that doesn’t make it shocking.
    The 1794 dollar I mentioned was a far more important and recognizable coin than the Peace dollar and yet…
    Another example that quickly comes to mind was a superb 1796 Draped Bust dime graded PCGS MS67 and later, PCGS SP67.

    Edited to add: Currently, the PCGS pop report shows 14 “SP” 1907 High Reliefs. I think nearly all, if not all of them have been so-recognized in the past few years. In other words, for more than three decades High Reliefs weren’t designated as “SP” by PCGS. What happened?

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,799 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @ChrisH821 said:

    @MFeld said:
    What happened isn’t any sort of mystery - it was a case of inconsistent grading results for a very rare and valuable coin. And that’s not nearly as unusual or surprising as the video made it out to be.

    I’m sure that many forum members are aware of easily recognizable rarities that were initially designated as circulation strikes, but upon resubmission, either “Specimen” or “Proof”. If you’d like an example, you need not look any further than the multi-million dollar “Specimen” 1794 Flowing Hair dollar. And as was the case with the 1922 Peace dollar, many other rare coins have received detail grades the first time around, and subsequently, straight grades.

    I wish that what occurred was shocking, but sadly, it wasn’t.

    I don't know, Mark, Going from PR, Unc details altered surfaces to a straight graded PR63 with CAC is a pretty big deal. I would have expected a coin of this importance to be handled by the "knowers" the first time around. I would not be as surprised/upset if it graded something like PR61. $48k is nothing to sneeze at, but it could also be due to market conditions at time of sale.

    I think it is a big deal, too, but that doesn’t make it shocking.
    The 1794 dollar I mentioned was a far more important and recognizable coin than the Peace dollar and yet…
    Another example that quickly comes to mind was a superb 1796 Draped Bust dime graded PCGS MS67 and later, PCGS SP67.

    Edited to add: Currently, the PCGS pop report shows 14 “SP” 1907 High Reliefs. I think nearly all, if not all of them have been so-recognized in the past few years. In other words, for more than three decades High Reliefs weren’t designated as “SP” by PCGS. What happened?

    But the argument here isn't circulation strike vs proof or SP. They knew it was a proof in the first grading event and called it such, but completely blew the grading part of the job by calling it altered surfaces.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 37,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @ChrisH821 said:

    @MFeld said:
    What happened isn’t any sort of mystery - it was a case of inconsistent grading results for a very rare and valuable coin. And that’s not nearly as unusual or surprising as the video made it out to be.

    I’m sure that many forum members are aware of easily recognizable rarities that were initially designated as circulation strikes, but upon resubmission, either “Specimen” or “Proof”. If you’d like an example, you need not look any further than the multi-million dollar “Specimen” 1794 Flowing Hair dollar. And as was the case with the 1922 Peace dollar, many other rare coins have received detail grades the first time around, and subsequently, straight grades.

    I wish that what occurred was shocking, but sadly, it wasn’t.

    I don't know, Mark, Going from PR, Unc details altered surfaces to a straight graded PR63 with CAC is a pretty big deal. I would have expected a coin of this importance to be handled by the "knowers" the first time around. I would not be as surprised/upset if it graded something like PR61. $48k is nothing to sneeze at, but it could also be due to market conditions at time of sale.

    I think it is a big deal, too, but that doesn’t make it shocking.
    The 1794 dollar I mentioned was a far more important and recognizable coin than the Peace dollar and yet…
    Another example that quickly comes to mind was a superb 1796 Draped Bust dime graded PCGS MS67 and later, PCGS SP67.

    Edited to add: Currently, the PCGS pop report shows 14 “SP” 1907 High Reliefs. I think nearly all, if not all of them have been so-recognized in the past few years. In other words, for more than three decades High Reliefs weren’t designated as “SP” by PCGS. What happened?

    I'm not sure instituting an "SP" designation is quite the same as a coin un-altering itself.

    That said, I agree with you that it is neither surprising nor terribly unusual there is a reason why reconsideration and resubmission are a thing. And for any coin without pristine surfaces, it is not so difficult to understand that what is "market acceptable" is open to interpretation.

    It is an interesting coin and story but I don't really see any big mystery (conspiracy?) here.

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.

  • CatbertCatbert Posts: 7,727 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 19, 2025 6:59PM

    I wonder if the recent auction price was suppressed somewhat given that it had an early details grade assigned. Surely the bidders would know of its history.

    Seated Half Society member #38
    "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,140 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @ChrisH821 said:

    @MFeld said:

    @ChrisH821 said:

    @MFeld said:
    What happened isn’t any sort of mystery - it was a case of inconsistent grading results for a very rare and valuable coin. And that’s not nearly as unusual or surprising as the video made it out to be.

    I’m sure that many forum members are aware of easily recognizable rarities that were initially designated as circulation strikes, but upon resubmission, either “Specimen” or “Proof”. If you’d like an example, you need not look any further than the multi-million dollar “Specimen” 1794 Flowing Hair dollar. And as was the case with the 1922 Peace dollar, many other rare coins have received detail grades the first time around, and subsequently, straight grades.

    I wish that what occurred was shocking, but sadly, it wasn’t.

    I don't know, Mark, Going from PR, Unc details altered surfaces to a straight graded PR63 with CAC is a pretty big deal. I would have expected a coin of this importance to be handled by the "knowers" the first time around. I would not be as surprised/upset if it graded something like PR61. $48k is nothing to sneeze at, but it could also be due to market conditions at time of sale.

    I think it is a big deal, too, but that doesn’t make it shocking.
    The 1794 dollar I mentioned was a far more important and recognizable coin than the Peace dollar and yet…
    Another example that quickly comes to mind was a superb 1796 Draped Bust dime graded PCGS MS67 and later, PCGS SP67.

    Edited to add: Currently, the PCGS pop report shows 14 “SP” 1907 High Reliefs. I think nearly all, if not all of them have been so-recognized in the past few years. In other words, for more than three decades High Reliefs weren’t designated as “SP” by PCGS. What happened?

    But the argument here isn't circulation strike vs proof or SP. They knew it was a proof in the first grading event and called it such, but completely blew the grading part of the job by calling it altered surfaces.

    While you’re correct, each is still an example of a major inconsistency in the grading of a very rare and valuable coin. And by the way, why do you assume that the detail-grade (rather than the straight grade) for the Peace dollar was the assessment that “completely blew” it? 😉

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • steve_richardsonsteve_richardson Posts: 212 ✭✭✭✭

    I know the finder of this coin through the Facebook Peace Dollars group. I’ve told him about this thread, and asked him to chime in. Might be interesting to hear his perspective.

  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I find it hard to believe that the great and mighty PCGS could make any mistake, much less this one, the horror.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • RelaxnRelaxn Posts: 1,115 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If the original submitter had that much issue with the grade why sell it at that moment? I have had dealings with heritage where I disagreed with a grade and they pulled a lot and either submitted to another company or re-submitted... This was in 2011/12 but it could have been done.
    GRADING IS SUBJECTIVE. That is just the fact of this matter. It is why CAC stickers and JA have so much clout because he is respected and when someone submits to CAC stickering (early on) they were pretty sure JA would touch it.
    You submit to PCGS and a grader touches it... It is not oen of the Mount Rushmore graders who made this industry... Its a grader... That is just the reality. Creating this outrage does who good? Does this highlight an ongoing problem that has been taking place since 1989? Sure... I guess. But you pay PCGS for an opinion. The grader believed that something about that coin was not original. We do not know if the buyer dipped it, soaked it, did something that made the surface appear more stable or less something... This is the game...

  • ChrisH821ChrisH821 Posts: 6,799 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @MFeld said:

    @ChrisH821 said:

    @MFeld said:

    @ChrisH821 said:

    @MFeld said:
    What happened isn’t any sort of mystery - it was a case of inconsistent grading results for a very rare and valuable coin. And that’s not nearly as unusual or surprising as the video made it out to be.

    I’m sure that many forum members are aware of easily recognizable rarities that were initially designated as circulation strikes, but upon resubmission, either “Specimen” or “Proof”. If you’d like an example, you need not look any further than the multi-million dollar “Specimen” 1794 Flowing Hair dollar. And as was the case with the 1922 Peace dollar, many other rare coins have received detail grades the first time around, and subsequently, straight grades.

    I wish that what occurred was shocking, but sadly, it wasn’t.

    I don't know, Mark, Going from PR, Unc details altered surfaces to a straight graded PR63 with CAC is a pretty big deal. I would have expected a coin of this importance to be handled by the "knowers" the first time around. I would not be as surprised/upset if it graded something like PR61. $48k is nothing to sneeze at, but it could also be due to market conditions at time of sale.

    I think it is a big deal, too, but that doesn’t make it shocking.
    The 1794 dollar I mentioned was a far more important and recognizable coin than the Peace dollar and yet…
    Another example that quickly comes to mind was a superb 1796 Draped Bust dime graded PCGS MS67 and later, PCGS SP67.

    Edited to add: Currently, the PCGS pop report shows 14 “SP” 1907 High Reliefs. I think nearly all, if not all of them have been so-recognized in the past few years. In other words, for more than three decades High Reliefs weren’t designated as “SP” by PCGS. What happened?

    But the argument here isn't circulation strike vs proof or SP. They knew it was a proof in the first grading event and called it such, but completely blew the grading part of the job by calling it altered surfaces.

    While you’re correct, each is still an example of a major inconsistency in the grading of a very rare and valuable coin. And by the way, why do you assume that the detail-grade (rather than the straight grade) for the Peace dollar was the assessment that “completely blew” it? 😉

    First rule of resubmission; the higher grade is always correct.

    The CAC endorsement of the PR63 grade carries a lot of weight, and is also a "third" grading event. Otherwise yes, I would be suspicious of the 63 grade.

    Collector, occasional seller

  • pmh1nicpmh1nic Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Given the value of the coin how many graders would have looked at the coin to come up with a grade?

    The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 20, 2025 8:29AM

    Par for the course on these.

    Market doesn't seem to care much about the holder on this, since the difference between $144k and $190k is pretty negligible.

    The fact of the matter is this - I'd bet that this is the first and only Matte 1922 the graders who graded that coin have seen. That makes grading them incredibly inconsistent, and the same goes for any eccentric type out there.

  • ParadisefoundParadisefound Posts: 8,615 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 19, 2025 11:59PM

    ❤️ PCGS is still the most preferred so small sample does exist for any inconsistencies as any other graders IMHO.

    You play the game of 6 figures then this is A drop in A BIG bucket …… yet it’s a sky worth of arguments for most of us 🤔

  • LuciuscoinsLuciuscoins Posts: 11 ✭✭
    edited September 20, 2025 9:52AM

    @Relaxn said:
    If the original submitter had that much issue with the grade why sell it at that moment? I have had dealings with heritage where I disagreed with a grade and they pulled a lot and either submitted to another company or re-submitted... This was in 2011/12 but it could have been done.
    GRADING IS SUBJECTIVE. That is just the fact of this matter. It is why CAC stickers and JA have so much clout because he is respected and when someone submits to CAC stickering (early on) they were pretty sure JA would touch it.
    You submit to PCGS and a grader touches it... It is not oen of the Mount Rushmore graders who made this industry... Its a grader... That is just the reality. Creating this outrage does who good? Does this highlight an ongoing problem that has been taking place since 1989? Sure... I guess. But you pay PCGS for an opinion. The grader believed that something about that coin was not original. We do not know if the buyer dipped it, soaked it, did something that made the surface appear more stable or less something... This is the game...

    Hi,

    I am the person that submitted the coin to Heritage Holland.

    I did have issues with that grade that is why I send them emails to understand why it was slabbed Details.

    When the coin returned with a designation of "Altered Surfaces," I was happy it was considered genuine but disappointed it did not grade. I began emailing both companies (Heritage and PCGS) to understand the reasoning behind that grade.
    This was send to Heritage Holland on 08/12/2022 .(TRANSLATED FROM DUTCH)

    I am indeed very glad that the coin is in a slab and that it is authentic.
    However, I would like to know why they specifically slabbed the coin as UNC. There is always a reason for this, and it is provided after grading. Is there any PVC present on the coin? In the past, coins were sometimes lacquered to prevent toning. This could also be the case here.
    Could you find out the exact reason? It only states "altered surf," but I do not have the real reason.

    This was send to PCGS on 07/12/2022 Van:
    matt.leclef@gmail.com Onderwerp: Peace dollar 1922 high relief Datum: 7 december 2022 om 12:11:25 CET
    Aan: info@pcgs.com

    Goodmorning,
    I submitted a coin through heritage auctions to send for grading at Pcgs. Here is my coin certification code: 46595995
    It says UNC DETAILS Alt.surface. I would like to know why they chose to call it that. What is the reason behind?
    Is it damage to the coin that could have been restored by dipping or is it irreparable? Thank you for answering my questions:-)

    Best regards,

    Since I wasn't the original submitter, I also didn't receive any relevant feedback from PCGS.

    I accepted this outcome and assumed nothing more could be done. The coin eventually sold for $144,000.
    Later in 2025, I saw the same coin reappear—this time graded PR63, which was my original predicted grade. It then sold for $192,000—a $48,000 increase.

    I contacted Heritage and PCGS.

    • Heritage explained that the complaint period had expired and directed me to follow up directly with PCGS."

    • PCGS suggested the coin may have been dipped voiding the grade guarantee."

    For the record, I am not looking to discredit or accuse anyone, but I do believe this case deserves to be handled fairly and transparently.

    This is my personal experience and opinion based on the documentation I have. I'm simply seeking clarity, fairness, and to better understand if others have had similar experiences."

    and excuse me for the caps lock on some sentences I don't know why that is and can't seem to change it.
    _

  • LuciuscoinsLuciuscoins Posts: 11 ✭✭
    edited September 20, 2025 3:41AM

    @Floridafacelifter said:
    It would be interesting to know what the original buyer at the first auction did to get it in a straight graded holder. Reconsideration? Crackout and resubmit? Talk to someone at PCGS with coin in hand?

    Another thing that strikes me is I’m surprised how much it went for at the first auction, and then how little it went for at the second auction. Seems like the straight grade and CAC sticker would have commanded a greater premium over the first auction result.

    Also IMHO the Price Guide is too low on these coins- PCGS has only graded 8. I own the single PR67 CAC, and I paid well over the Price Guide for it five years ago, and I was happy to do so. These are spectacular numismatic treasures.

    I am the finder of the Proof Peace dollar 1922 coin in Europe.
    You can email me I have some other footage you might want to see.
    I also have an instagram account named ' Lucius Us Coins '

    Matt.Leclef@gmail.com

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,140 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @FlyingAl said:
    Par for the course on these.

    Market doesn't seem to care much about the holder on this, since the difference between $144k and $190k is pretty negligible.

    The fact of the matter is this - I'd bet that this is the first and only Matte 1921 the graders who graded that coin have seen. That makes grading them incredibly inconsistent, and the same goes for any eccentric type out there.

    The graders might not have seen any 1921 Matte Proofs - the one being discussed is a 1922.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 37,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    As far as the grading discrepancy, that’s business as usual for anyone who’s had experience with these types of coins. It’s not called the grading “game” for no reason…

    The most interesting part of this story, as noted by @Floridafacelifter, is the fact that it sold for what? 30% more from details to pr63 CAC?

    This situation could have caused MUCH more anguish for the original submitter, I would take solace in the fact that the coin didn’t sell for 3x as much with the new grade.

    @PeakRarities said:
    As far as the grading discrepancy, that’s business as usual for anyone who’s had experience with these types of coins. It’s not called the grading “game” for no reason…

    The most interesting part of this story, as noted by @Floridafacelifter, is the fact that it sold for what? 30% more from details to pr63 CAC?

    This situation could have caused MUCH more anguish for the original submitter, I would take solace in the fact that the coin didn’t sell for 3x as much with the new grade.

    I understand what you're saying, but a difference of $48,000 is significant for some people myself included.
    The coin would have had much more potential if it had been straight graded the first time, especially with a compelling backstory that could have attracted even more buyers.
    As far as I know, this is the only one ever found in Europe, which makes it truly unique.

    I'm sorry, but with coins like this, it shouldn't come down to a grading game. I truly believe the original finder(myself) should be able to realize the coin’s full potential and not be limited by inconsistent grading decisions. and again this was not a grade point or two.

    You could have sold it raw, if you don't like the "grading game". But you know that would have meant lower prices. You could have asked for reconsideration for resubmitted the coin. Based on your own testimony, you thought it was possible that the surfaces had been altered. So, you have to take some responsibility here for the decisions that led to the sale.

    You can also rue the result, but what did you pay for the coin? Did you reward the person you bought it from with your windfall? So why would you be upset that years later it sold for more.

    Not knowing who the second seller was, it is possible that they put in the extra effort. Did they get it conserved? Did they submit it multiple times?

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.

  • LuciuscoinsLuciuscoins Posts: 11 ✭✭

    @Relaxn said:
    If the original submitter had that much issue with the grade why sell it at that moment? I have had dealings with heritage where I disagreed with a grade and they pulled a lot and either submitted to another company or re-submitted... This was in 2011/12 but it could have been done.
    GRADING IS SUBJECTIVE. That is just the fact of this matter. It is why CAC stickers and JA have so much clout because he is respected and when someone submits to CAC stickering (early on) they were pretty sure JA would touch it.
    You submit to PCGS and a grader touches it... It is not oen of the Mount Rushmore graders who made this industry... Its a grader... That is just the reality. Creating this outrage does who good? Does this highlight an ongoing problem that has been taking place since 1989? Sure... I guess. But you pay PCGS for an opinion. The grader believed that something about that coin was not original. We do not know if the buyer dipped it, soaked it, did something that made the surface appear more stable or less something... This is the game...

    I'm sorry, but with coins like this, it shouldn’t come down to a grading game. I truly believe the original finder( myself ) should be able to realize the full potential of the coin, not be held back by inconsistent grading decisions.

    And this wasn’t just a matter of a grade point or two. Before the auction, I asked whether the “Altered Surface” (ALT SURF) designation could have been avoided for example, by dipping or if the issue was irreparable. At the time, I was made to believe the coin was permanently damaged.

  • dqwarddqward Posts: 12 ✭✭

    PCGS makes a product - authenticated, graded and encapsulated non-fungible coins & tokens. NFTs are fast becoming a financial asset class on to themselves.

    Successful manufacturers know that product quality control is vital to their survival.
    Ask Boeing what happens when quality control fails – airplane doors fall off...
    Maybe PCGS should be regulated and required to produce QC files for their NFT’s?
    They should at least be reported to Consumer Affairs or the Better Business Bureau.

    I agree with @Floridafacelifter. I own the Farran Zerbe PR66 coin and have researched it and its sisters extensively. They hold as much intrigue as the vaunted 1804 Dollars and are rarer – just 12 known. Unfortunately, this won’t help its value according to the powers that be… they are going ape-crazy in their quiet solitude.

  • dqwarddqward Posts: 12 ✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    You could have sold it raw, if you don't like the "grading game". But you know that would have meant lower prices.

    So, we’re all hostages to the graders?

    Knowledge is power and power is money. The lazy persons who failed to recognize and research the coin they had in hand are responsible for the their decisions and the consequences. This should apply to the previous owner who sold it for a song, as well as the trusted grading company that, by their own admission, failed in the appraisal for which they were paid.

    The finder had little control from the moment it was submitted to Heritage, who then decided which company should grade it, despite the finder’s request for NGC. Buzz-off, he was told! Shady all the way around…

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 37,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    As far as the grading discrepancy, that’s business as usual for anyone who’s had experience with these types of coins. It’s not called the grading “game” for no reason…

    The most interesting part of this story, as noted by @Floridafacelifter, is the fact that it sold for what? 30% more from details to pr63 CAC?

    This situation could have caused MUCH more anguish for the original submitter, I would take solace in the fact that the coin didn’t sell for 3x as much with the new grade.

    @PeakRarities said:
    As far as the grading discrepancy, that’s business as usual for anyone who’s had experience with these types of coins. It’s not called the grading “game” for no reason…

    The most interesting part of this story, as noted by @Floridafacelifter, is the fact that it sold for what? 30% more from details to pr63 CAC?

    This situation could have caused MUCH more anguish for the original submitter, I would take solace in the fact that the coin didn’t sell for 3x as much with the new grade.

    I understand what you're saying, but a difference of $48,000 is significant for some people myself included.
    The coin would have had much more potential if it had been straight graded the first time, especially with a compelling backstory that could have attracted even more buyers.
    As far as I know, this is the only one ever found in Europe, which makes it truly unique.

    I'm sorry, but with coins like this, it shouldn't come down to a grading game. I truly believe the original finder(myself) should be able to realize the coin’s full potential and not be limited by inconsistent grading decisions. and again this was not a grade point or two.

    You could have sold it raw, if you don't like the "grading game". But you know that would have meant lower prices. You could have asked for reconsideration for resubmitted the coin. Based on your own testimony, you thought it was possible that the surfaces had been altered. So, you have to take some responsibility here for the decisions that led to the sale.

    You can also rue the result, but what did you pay for the coin? Did you reward the person you bought it from with your windfall? So why would you be upset that years later it sold for more.

    Not knowing who the second seller was, it is possible that they put in the extra effort. Did they get it conserved? Did they submit it multiple times?

    I bought the coin from a dealer, and that dealer got it from someone else. Should I also reward everyone down the chain? Most people thought this coin was fake until it was graded. I even got kicked out of a U.S. coin group for posting what they thought were fake Chinese coins. Please don’t lecture me about that.
    You would change your tune if you missed out on 48.000$

    It's 2 different sales, 3 years apart with no specific knowledge of what happened in between.

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 37,181 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 20, 2025 8:10AM

    @dqward said:
    @jmlanzaf said:
    You could have sold it raw, if you don't like the "grading game". But you know that would have meant lower prices.

    So, we’re all hostages to the graders?

    Knowledge is power and power is money. The lazy persons who failed to recognize and research the coin they had in hand are responsible for the their decisions and the consequences. This should apply to the previous owner who sold it for a song, as well as the trusted grading company that, by their own admission, failed in the appraisal for which they were paid.

    The finder had little control from the moment it was submitted to Heritage, who then decided which company should grade it, despite the finder’s request for NGC. Buzz-off, he was told! Shady all the way around…

    Not true. The consignor has control until the hammer goes down. The result may be disappointing. That doesn't make it "shady"

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 37,181 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @PeakRarities said:
    As far as the grading discrepancy, that’s business as usual for anyone who’s had experience with these types of coins. It’s not called the grading “game” for no reason…

    The most interesting part of this story, as noted by @Floridafacelifter, is the fact that it sold for what? 30% more from details to pr63 CAC?

    This situation could have caused MUCH more anguish for the original submitter, I would take solace in the fact that the coin didn’t sell for 3x as much with the new grade.

    @PeakRarities said:
    As far as the grading discrepancy, that’s business as usual for anyone who’s had experience with these types of coins. It’s not called the grading “game” for no reason…

    The most interesting part of this story, as noted by @Floridafacelifter, is the fact that it sold for what? 30% more from details to pr63 CAC?

    This situation could have caused MUCH more anguish for the original submitter, I would take solace in the fact that the coin didn’t sell for 3x as much with the new grade.

    I understand what you're saying, but a difference of $48,000 is significant for some people myself included.
    The coin would have had much more potential if it had been straight graded the first time, especially with a compelling backstory that could have attracted even more buyers.
    As far as I know, this is the only one ever found in Europe, which makes it truly unique.

    I'm sorry, but with coins like this, it shouldn't come down to a grading game. I truly believe the original finder(myself) should be able to realize the coin’s full potential and not be limited by inconsistent grading decisions. and again this was not a grade point or two.

    You could have sold it raw, if you don't like the "grading game". But you know that would have meant lower prices. You could have asked for reconsideration for resubmitted the coin. Based on your own testimony, you thought it was possible that the surfaces had been altered. So, you have to take some responsibility here for the decisions that led to the sale.

    You can also rue the result, but what did you pay for the coin? Did you reward the person you bought it from with your windfall? So why would you be upset that years later it sold for more.

    Not knowing who the second seller was, it is possible that they put in the extra effort. Did they get it conserved? Did they submit it multiple times?

    I bought the coin from a dealer, and that dealer got it from someone else. Should I also reward everyone down the chain? Most people thought this coin was fake until it was graded. I even got kicked out of a U.S. coin group for posting what they thought were fake Chinese coins. Please don’t lecture me about that.
    You would change your tune if you missed out on 48.000$

    My point was that you profited by knowing more than the dealer. And the person who bought it from you profited by knowing more than you. Nobody owes anyone anything nor did anyone miss out.

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,901 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Catbert said:
    I wonder if the recent auction price was suppressed somewhat given that it had an early details grade assigned. Surely the bidders would know of its history.

    I think that this is highly possible.

    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.
  • FlyingAlFlyingAl Posts: 4,023 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @MFeld said:

    @FlyingAl said:
    Par for the course on these.

    Market doesn't seem to care much about the holder on this, since the difference between $144k and $190k is pretty negligible.

    The fact of the matter is this - I'd bet that this is the first and only Matte 1921 the graders who graded that coin have seen. That makes grading them incredibly inconsistent, and the same goes for any eccentric type out there.

    The graders might not have seen any 1921 Matte Proofs - the one being discussed is a 1922.

    My mistake Mark, but I believe my point will still stand.

  • FloridafacelifterFloridafacelifter Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CaptHenway said:

    @Catbert said:
    I wonder if the recent auction price was suppressed somewhat given that it had an early details grade assigned. Surely the bidders would know of its history.

    I think that this is highly possible.

    Perhaps- I typically search auction results by the cert # or grade
    I don’t usually look at all grades and details holders for the same issue I’m looking at
    Maybe I’m not thorough enough and others are

  • dqwarddqward Posts: 12 ✭✭

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Not true. The consignor has control until the hammer goes down. The result may be disappointing. That doesn't make it "shady"

    That's not the way it went down...

    So the grader bear no responsibility? Indemnified by what? Their own subjective premise?
    How convenient...

  • CatbertCatbert Posts: 7,727 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Floridafacelifter said:

    @CaptHenway said:

    @Catbert said:
    I wonder if the recent auction price was suppressed somewhat given that it had an early details grade assigned. Surely the bidders would know of its history.

    I think that this is highly possible.

    Perhaps- I typically search auction results by the cert # or grade
    I don’t usually look at all grades and details holders for the same issue I’m looking at
    Maybe I’m not thorough enough and others are

    If only 8 PCGS grading events, I bet you would have in this case.

    Seated Half Society member #38
    "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
  • marmacmarmac Posts: 1,512 ✭✭✭

    As has been previously mentioned, I wonder what the hammer price would have been if the coin in question first surfaced at auction as a 63 CAC, I'd guess it would have achieved an even higher hammer price then the second time around...

  • coinbufcoinbuf Posts: 11,908 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 20, 2025 11:02AM

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Nobody owes anyone anything nor did anyone miss out.

    >

    If nobody owes anyone anything why did you suggest that @Luciuscoins should be rewarding someone?

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Did you reward the person you bought it from with your windfall?

    And how did you come to the conclusion that the original submitter was the beneficiary of a "windfall"; perhaps I missed it but do not see any discussion that lists the price for the coin when purchased raw.

    My Lincoln Registry
    My Collection of Old Holders

    Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,901 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @TrickleCharge said:
    I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.

    Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.

    Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.

    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.
  • LuciuscoinsLuciuscoins Posts: 11 ✭✭
    edited September 20, 2025 11:13AM

    @jmlanzaf said:

    @dqward said:
    @jmlanzaf said:
    You could have sold it raw, if you don't like the "grading game". But you know that would have meant lower prices.

    So, we’re all hostages to the graders?

    Knowledge is power and power is money. The lazy persons who failed to recognize and research the coin they had in hand are responsible for the their decisions and the consequences. This should apply to the previous owner who sold it for a song, as well as the trusted grading company that, by their own admission, failed in the appraisal for which they were paid.

    The finder had little control from the moment it was submitted to Heritage, who then decided which company should grade it, despite the finder’s request for NGC. Buzz-off, he was told! Shady all the way around…

    Not true. The consignor has control until the hammer goes down. The result may be disappointing. That doesn't make it "shady"

    @TrickleCharge said:
    I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.

    Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.

    @seatedlib3991 said:
    @Luciuscoins . First off, thank you for sharing your experience. We are all human and don't want to talk about our mistakes or failures. I am sorry things went sideways for you. It is a simple fact that sometimes you can do everything exactly according to conventional wisdom and still get your butt handed to you. I don't know if there is any recourse that will allow you to recoup some of your loss, but wish you the best in the future and hope you don't let this sour you on life or coin collecting. james

  • LuciuscoinsLuciuscoins Posts: 11 ✭✭

    @seate> @seatedlib3991 said:

    @Luciuscoins . First off, thank you for sharing your experience. We are all human and don't want to talk about our mistakes or failures. I am sorry things went sideways for you. It is a simple fact that sometimes you can do everything exactly according to conventional wisdom and still get your butt handed to you. I don't know if there is any recourse that will allow you to recoup some of your loss, but wish you the best in the future and hope you don't let this sour you on life or coin collecting. james

    @seatedlib3991 Hi James,

    Thank you for your kind message.
    I will certainly continue collecting, and my passion for Peace Dollars has only grown stronger through this experience. I had the chance to visit the United States with my family and meet some wonderful collectors along the way.

    I agree that we are all human and make mistakes but when a mistake is made, I believe it’s important to try to make it right somehow.

  • LuciuscoinsLuciuscoins Posts: 11 ✭✭

    @CaptHenway said:

    @TrickleCharge said:
    I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.

    Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.

    Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.

    @CaptHenway And who gets to choose the TPG for the coin submitted the auctioneer or the submitter?

  • CaptHenwayCaptHenway Posts: 32,901 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @CaptHenway said:

    @TrickleCharge said:
    I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.

    Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.

    Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.

    @CaptHenway And who gets to choose the TPG for the coin submitted the auctioneer or the submitter?

    The person submitting the coin for grading.

    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.
  • LuciuscoinsLuciuscoins Posts: 11 ✭✭

    @CaptHenway said:

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @CaptHenway said:

    @TrickleCharge said:
    I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.

    Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.

    Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.

    @CaptHenway And who gets to choose the TPG for the coin submitted the auctioneer or the submitter?

    The person submitting the coin for grading.

    @CaptHenway Exactly!

  • MFeldMFeld Posts: 15,140 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @CaptHenway said:

    @Luciuscoins said:

    @CaptHenway said:

    @TrickleCharge said:
    I feel like Heritage could have offered some other options to the original seller here. The coin was new to the market and it might have been worth the time and additional cost to try to get it in a straight holder at NGC or make other attempts at PCGS before deciding to list it.

    Ultimately Heritage made commissions off both sales, $336k total. I think it would be less likely to see the coin reappear in 2 years time had it been sold as a straight graded coin the first time. Heritage may have been more focused on moving it across the block vs. maximizing the original sellers return.

    Other than obvious attribution errors, I do not believe that it is the role of auction houses to approve or disapprove of TPG gradings.

    @CaptHenway And who gets to choose the TPG for the coin submitted the auctioneer or the submitter?

    The person submitting the coin for grading

    I’m not going to try to speak for other companies or even any of my colleagues at Heritage. However, when I’m working with consignors, if they have a preference for submission to a particular grading company, I have the coins submitted to the one of their choice. Otherwise, my submission decision is based on the option that I think gives the consignor the best chance to maximize his return.

    Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.

  • jmlanzafjmlanzaf Posts: 37,181 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 20, 2025 12:06PM

    @coinbuf said:

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Nobody owes anyone anything nor did anyone miss out.

    >

    If nobody owes anyone anything why did you suggest that @Luciuscoins should be rewarding someone?

    @jmlanzaf said:
    Did you reward the person you bought it from with your windfall?

    And how did you come to the conclusion that the original submitter was the beneficiary of a "windfall"; perhaps I missed it but do not see any discussion that lists the price for the coin when purchased raw.

    I didn't. My question was largely rhetorical. It received the answer I suspected. The point being that he didn't feel the need to pay it backwards so why does he feel he was missing out by someone selling it 2 years later for more.

    He said that the dealer he bought it from didn't think it was a proof.

    All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...