To me…..the coin looks “fishy”, electroplated…….it would be nice to really examine the rims. As to the reverse, a big blow up of the letters on the top…… what the hell is going on there?? Metal has been removed from the reverse… it didn’t face the anode? Science project some high school kid done. He scratched it to see how deep the plating was. Worth One Cent.
@CoinOM said:
The absence of the cert page right now doesn’t necessarily mean PCGS is “hiding” anything. It’s quite common for newly graded or unusual items—especially mint errors—to take time before they appear in the online Cert Verification system. There’s often a lag between encapsulation and database visibility, and error attributions are sometimes slower to populate. The coin already exists in a PCGS holder with a valid cert number, which is what matters most. If anything, this looks more like a routine update delay than any deliberate action.
Sometimes, it is better to admit you don't know rather than make things up. You're talking to a group of experienced coin people. You're not going to fool anyone.
Fair point — and I appreciate you calling that out.
I’m not trying to present speculation as fact, and if my wording sounded too certain, that’s on me. My intention was simply to offer a possible explanation, not a definitive one.
To be clear: I don’t know yet why the cert isn’t currently visible online. I’ve already reached out to PCGS to clarify, and I’ll share whatever they confirm once I hear back.
What I do know is that the coin is in a PCGS holder with the stated attribution, and I’ve presented both grading outcomes (NGC and PCGS) as they occurred — nothing has been hidden or selectively shown.
I completely understand the skepticism here, especially with a coin like this. That’s exactly why I’ve been open about the entire process and welcome informed discussion.
At the end of the day, the auction will give the clearest answer as to how the market views it.
Fair enough
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@CoinOM said:
I’d like to clarify one important point, as I’ve seen some concerns raised.
There is absolutely no intention here to mislead anyone. I’ve simply shared the coin exactly as it exists, along with its full grading history — including both NGC and PCGS outcomes. In fact, the entire discussion is based on transparency, not on selective presentation.
The coin is currently in a PCGS holder with the stated attribution, and that is the basis on which it is being presented. At the same time, I fully understand that this is an unusual piece, and I welcome serious discussion, questions, and even skepticism — that’s part of how these discoveries are properly evaluated. Regarding the certification lookup: temporary or delayed visibility in online databases is not unheard of, especially with recently processed or complex attributions. I’ve reached out to PCGS for clarification, and I expect that to be resolved in due course.
At the end of the day, the coin will be presented at auction, where the market — informed collectors and specialists — will ultimately determine how it is viewed and valued.
For certs that were already published (like yours), you are incorrect. The only reason for the cert to no longer be valid, like it is, is that PCGS is reviewing whether to revoke certification for any number of reasons.
I don't think you are attempting any shadiness; you have been very transparent. Try telling your ChatGPT to be less verbose or stop copy and pasting it. The members of this forum know more than your AI and overuse of AI can lead you down the wrong path.
@CoinOM said:
The absence of the cert page right now doesn’t necessarily mean PCGS is “hiding” anything. It’s quite common for newly graded or unusual items—especially mint errors—to take time before they appear in the online Cert Verification system. There’s often a lag between encapsulation and database visibility, and error attributions are sometimes slower to populate. The coin already exists in a PCGS holder with a valid cert number, which is what matters most. If anything, this looks more like a routine update delay than any deliberate action.
None of that statement is accurate. PCGS has definitely pulled the certification, whether temporarily or permanently we don't know. Presumably you would hear first as the submitter.
But certs don't go live and then disappear for no reason. As of this moment, your coin is in a holder but it's just a chunk of plastic and the certification is invalid.
I just checked again and at the moment the cert number is not showing in the PCGS system. I’ve already contacted PCGS for clarification and will share their response once I receive it.
Given the nature of the coin, I think it’s best to rely on their official explanation rather than speculate.
@CoinOM said:
The absence of the cert page right now doesn’t necessarily mean PCGS is “hiding” anything. It’s quite common for newly graded or unusual items—especially mint errors—to take time before they appear in the online Cert Verification system. There’s often a lag between encapsulation and database visibility, and error attributions are sometimes slower to populate. The coin already exists in a PCGS holder with a valid cert number, which is what matters most. If anything, this looks more like a routine update delay than any deliberate action.
None of that statement is accurate. PCGS has definitely pulled the certification, whether temporarily or permanently we don't know. Presumably you would hear first as the submitter.
But certs don't go live and then disappear for no reason. As of this moment, your coin is in a holder but it's just a chunk of plastic and the certification is invalid.
I just checked again and at the moment the cert number is not showing in the PCGS system. I’ve already contacted PCGS for clarification and will share their response once I receive it.
Given the nature of the coin, I think it’s best to rely on their official explanation rather than speculate.
I'm actually slightly surprised they didn't contact you
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@CoinOM said:
The absence of the cert page right now doesn’t necessarily mean PCGS is “hiding” anything. It’s quite common for newly graded or unusual items—especially mint errors—to take time before they appear in the online Cert Verification system. There’s often a lag between encapsulation and database visibility, and error attributions are sometimes slower to populate. The coin already exists in a PCGS holder with a valid cert number, which is what matters most. If anything, this looks more like a routine update delay than any deliberate action.
None of that statement is accurate. PCGS has definitely pulled the certification, whether temporarily or permanently we don't know. Presumably you would hear first as the submitter.
But certs don't go live and then disappear for no reason. As of this moment, your coin is in a holder but it's just a chunk of plastic and the certification is invalid.
I just checked again and at the moment the cert number is not showing in the PCGS system. I’ve already contacted PCGS for clarification and will share their response once I receive it.
Given the nature of the coin, I think it’s best to rely on their official explanation rather than speculate.
I'm actually slightly surprised they didn't contact you
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Just as a quick update — an article about the coin was published today in Coin World by Paul Gilkes: https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/cherrypicking-perseverance-pays-off
It outlines the discovery, the NGC and PCGS grading history, and the underweight bronze planchet aspect. Thought I’d share it here for anyone interested in additional context.
It is very discouraging that these media reports are not mentioning the questions that have been raised here and elsewhere.
It really feels like a PR campaign intended to suppress any skepticism about the coin.
I would be happy if it turns out to be a fantastical double error (wrong planchet, underweight planchet) but the truth needs to be confirmed for the coin to have legitimacy.
@JBK said:
It is very discouraging that these media reports are not mentioning the questions that have been raised here and elsewhere.
It really feels like a PR campaign intended to suppress any skepticism about the coin.
I would be happy if it turns out to be a fantastical double error (wrong planchet, underweight planchet) but the truth needs to be confirmed for the coin to have legitimacy.
Coin World. Tsk tsk. Very disappointing, especially given their knowledge of the NGC opinion.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@JBK said:
It is very discouraging that these media reports are not mentioning the questions that have been raised here and elsewhere.
It really feels like a PR campaign intended to suppress any skepticism about the coin.
I would be happy if it turns out to be a fantastical double error (wrong planchet, underweight planchet) but the truth needs to be confirmed for the coin to have legitimacy.
I want the same thing you do. The purpose of this post of mine is not to promote or showcase myself, but rather to highlight the state of affairs regarding valuations across various companies. That is precisely the topic I put up for discussion. Perhaps my experience proved useful to someone—specifically, to anyone who managed to avoid losing money on a valuation.
@JBK said:
It is very discouraging that these media reports are not mentioning the questions that have been raised here and elsewhere.
It really feels like a PR campaign intended to suppress any skepticism about the coin.
I would be happy if it turns out to be a fantastical double error (wrong planchet, underweight planchet) but the truth needs to be confirmed for the coin to have legitimacy.
Coin World. Tsk tsk. Very disappointing, especially given their knowledge of the NGC opinion.
In my view, the article is actually quite neutral, without passing judgment on either side. I get the impression that you place more trust in NGC—though that may just be a personal bias.
The issue here is not simply NGC vs PCGS, it's both opinions vs the questions that have been discussed here.
The Coin World article was not "neutral" on this point. It ignored it altogether.
BTW, the OP keeps using the word "valuation". I suppose the word "evaluation" could apply, but what they are actually doing is authenticating and grading.
@JBK said:
It is very discouraging that these media reports are not mentioning the questions that have been raised here and elsewhere.
It really feels like a PR campaign intended to suppress any skepticism about the coin.
I would be happy if it turns out to be a fantastical double error (wrong planchet, underweight planchet) but the truth needs to be confirmed for the coin to have legitimacy.
Coin World. Tsk tsk. Very disappointing, especially given their knowledge of the NGC opinion.
In my view, the article is actually quite neutral, without passing judgment on either side. I get the impression that you place more trust in NGC—though that may just be a personal bias.
Not at all, although IN THIS SINGLE CASE, I'm skeptical of the PCGS result. But reporting an exciting "find" should wait until the find is confirmed. Google "cold fusion".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
To all concerned,
This is an interesting coin, and it'll be neat to find out what the conclusion to all of this is.
I think @CoinOM has been more than fair in his evaluation and speculation and Red hopes is persistence pays off.
The "look" of the cent does appear to be an underweight bronze planchet.
Warmest Best Wishes,
R. Rocket
PS: I do hope I am not reading any petty jealousies within some of the posts here. That would be distasteful at best and disheartening at worse.
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
I agree. The fact that PCGS has, at least temporarily, pulled the cert for the 2017 as well as this one, suggests they are reevaluating their procedures.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
I agree. The fact that PCGS has, at least temporarily, pulled the cert for the 2017 as well as this one, suggests they are reevaluating their procedures.
They could also be in the process of reholdering/relabelling them after performing a specific gravity test regardless of what the test's outcome is?
@MsMorrisine said:
specific gravity tests require scales and water. they can be done routinely if certainty is needed. the biggest expense is time value
Yes, but I suspect that you, like me would do a specific gravity at home before sending the coin in and spending the money for authentication and grading, no?
And that 2017 was particular suspicious with a 99.1% copper value on the label, no such planchets were ever used, although the plating is probably about that value.
The real disappointment that I have in PCGS is two calls of off metal planchet so close in time without a thorough study.
And kudos to CoinOM for this open and honest discussion, we certainly did NOT see that with the 2017 coin.
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
I agree. The fact that PCGS has, at least temporarily, pulled the cert for the 2017 as well as this one, suggests they are reevaluating their procedures.
They could also be in the process of reholdering/relabelling them after performing a specific gravity test regardless of what the test's outcome is?
They wouldn't need to pull the cert unless there was a change. They would keep the same number.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
I agree. The fact that PCGS has, at least temporarily, pulled the cert for the 2017 as well as this one, suggests they are reevaluating their procedures.
They could also be in the process of reholdering/relabelling them after performing a specific gravity test regardless of what the test's outcome is?
They wouldn't need to pull the cert unless there was a change. They would keep the same number.
The coin is currently on route to Heritage. Under no circumstances can it be physically made available for re-marking or for the re-verification of its weight and density.
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
I agree. The fact that PCGS has, at least temporarily, pulled the cert for the 2017 as well as this one, suggests they are reevaluating their procedures.
They could also be in the process of reholdering/relabelling them after performing a specific gravity test regardless of what the test's outcome is?
They wouldn't need to pull the cert unless there was a change. They would keep the same number.
The coin is currently on route to Heritage. Under no circumstances can it be physically made available for re-marking or for the re-verification of its weight and density.
Oh yes they can make it physically available for re-marking or for re-verification of its weight and density.
When delivered, that is.
They are watching this thread, you can count on that.
@Morgan13 said:
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
I agree. The fact that PCGS has, at least temporarily, pulled the cert for the 2017 as well as this one, suggests they are reevaluating their procedures.
They could also be in the process of reholdering/relabelling them after performing a specific gravity test regardless of what the test's outcome is?
They wouldn't need to pull the cert unless there was a change. They would keep the same number.
The coin is currently on route to Heritage. Under no circumstances can it be physically made available for re-marking or for the re-verification of its weight and density.
I agree. But my point is that reholdering would not require deactivating the cert.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Here is the double struck 1989D bronze Lincoln Cent mentioned above, discovered over 20 years ago!
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@Byers said:
Heritage Auctions already knows about this coin.
Which coin? Yours or the OP?
The 1983 in this thread.
I sold my 1989D 20 years ago…
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@Byers said:
Heritage Auctions already knows about this coin.
Which coin? Yours or the OP?
Agreed.
Red thinks @Byers is piggybacking on the OP's thread and should honestly take his error coin(s) to either his own thread or to the BST forum.
Not a Supporter of Piggybacking,
Red R.
Isn't piggybacking how they transport large rockets?
Your interest in Rocket transportation is intriguing. Red is not sure if you are feigning such interest or it is genuine.
Here is additional information:
@Byers said:
Heritage Auctions already knows about this coin.
Which coin? Yours or the OP?
The 1983 in this thread.
I sold my 1989D 20 years ago…
Yes. We know. The OP sent it to Heritage and it is allegedly in transit.
I meant that Heritage Auctions already knows about the controversy regarding this 1983…
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
The highest price ever realized for a 1983 transitional Cent was $29,250.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
And the lowest price realized was $1880. in a Heritage Auction for a environmentally damaged coin.
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@MsMorrisine said:
1982 to 1989 is a long transition
Not really. Here is a 2005 St Quarter struck on a 3.1G copper planchet!
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@MsMorrisine said:
1982 to 1989 is a long transition
one has really got to wonder how legitimate some of these mistakes are.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
@MsMorrisine said:
considering all the helped errors, i'm on the side of a 2005 state quarter struck on a 3.1g planchet not be due to a transitional period error
similarly for a 90's cent
I agree. Not transitional in the strict definition , but still referred it as transitional (on the previous planchet composition).
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
@Byers said:
And the lowest price realized was $1880. in a Heritage Auction for a environmentally damaged coin.
It says "Stk on Pre 1983 CU Plan" and doesn't say "Bronze" and weight is not declared.
Jmlanzaf beat me to it:
The words mean the same thing. CU is "copper" and "transitional wrong plan" means it's a pre-1983 bronze (copper) planchet.
It is a transitional Cent and sold for $1880. in Heritage.
Yours is damaged (scratched) and the one that sold for $1880. is damaged (environmental damage).
(That is IF yours turns out to be a transitional).
mikebyers.com Dealer in Major Mint Errors, Die Trials & Patterns - Author of NLG Best World Coin Book World's Greatest Mint Errors - Publisher & Editor of minterrornews.com.
Comments
To me…..the coin looks “fishy”, electroplated…….it would be nice to really examine the rims. As to the reverse, a big blow up of the letters on the top…… what the hell is going on there?? Metal has been removed from the reverse… it didn’t face the anode? Science project some high school kid done. He scratched it to see how deep the plating was. Worth One Cent.
Fair enough
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
For certs that were already published (like yours), you are incorrect. The only reason for the cert to no longer be valid, like it is, is that PCGS is reviewing whether to revoke certification for any number of reasons.
I don't think you are attempting any shadiness; you have been very transparent. Try telling your ChatGPT to be less verbose or stop copy and pasting it. The members of this forum know more than your AI and overuse of AI can lead you down the wrong path.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I'd be fairly surprised if this coin actually makes it to a hammer as it sits currently.
Coin Photography
I just checked again and at the moment the cert number is not showing in the PCGS system. I’ve already contacted PCGS for clarification and will share their response once I receive it.
Given the nature of the coin, I think it’s best to rely on their official explanation rather than speculate.
I'm actually slightly surprised they didn't contact you
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
does heritage already have the coin?
It is on its way to.
Me too.
upcoming heritage error coin auction
https://coins.ha.com/c/search/results.zx?dept=1909&mode=live&auction_name=60547&ic4=ListView-AuctionNo-051517
If its a genuine error there has to be more out there.
Right now I am very curious why the cert. number is not showing up.
How can PCGS void a certification number?
Has it been done before?
Will the owner be compensated or just be left with a voided slab?
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7 JWP BruceS bigjpst
They do it all the time. They MAY comp the submission, but often not. After all, they are being paid to get it right.
We know there are a couple out there, see Mike Byers post. But in 50 years, only a few have turned up.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Just as a quick update — an article about the coin was published today in Coin World by Paul Gilkes:
https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-coins/cherrypicking-perseverance-pays-off
It outlines the discovery, the NGC and PCGS grading history, and the underweight bronze planchet aspect. Thought I’d share it here for anyone interested in additional context.
It is very discouraging that these media reports are not mentioning the questions that have been raised here and elsewhere.
It really feels like a PR campaign intended to suppress any skepticism about the coin.
I would be happy if it turns out to be a fantastical double error (wrong planchet, underweight planchet) but the truth needs to be confirmed for the coin to have legitimacy.
Coin World. Tsk tsk. Very disappointing, especially given their knowledge of the NGC opinion.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I want the same thing you do. The purpose of this post of mine is not to promote or showcase myself, but rather to highlight the state of affairs regarding valuations across various companies. That is precisely the topic I put up for discussion. Perhaps my experience proved useful to someone—specifically, to anyone who managed to avoid losing money on a valuation.
In my view, the article is actually quite neutral, without passing judgment on either side. I get the impression that you place more trust in NGC—though that may just be a personal bias.
The issue here is not simply NGC vs PCGS, it's both opinions vs the questions that have been discussed here.
The Coin World article was not "neutral" on this point. It ignored it altogether.
BTW, the OP keeps using the word "valuation". I suppose the word "evaluation" could apply, but what they are actually doing is authenticating and grading.
Not at all, although IN THIS SINGLE CASE, I'm skeptical of the PCGS result. But reporting an exciting "find" should wait until the find is confirmed. Google "cold fusion".
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
To all concerned,
This is an interesting coin, and it'll be neat to find out what the conclusion to all of this is.
I think @CoinOM has been more than fair in his evaluation and speculation and Red hopes is persistence pays off.
The "look" of the cent does appear to be an underweight bronze planchet.
Warmest Best Wishes,
R. Rocket
PS: I do hope I am not reading any petty jealousies within some of the posts here. That would be distasteful at best and disheartening at worse.
I have handled (2) dated 1989, (1) dated 1989 double struck, (2) dated 1990 and (2) dated 1991. These all weighed 3.1g or extremely close and were unquestionably struck on the earlier bronze Lincoln Cent planchets. Anything as far off in weight as the 2 being discussed in this thread and several other threads, thought to be struck on the earlier 3.1g planchets need specific gravity tests. XRF analysis isn’t enough.
My prediction is that in the future, before PCGS and NGC designate a transitional off metal that is NOT within the accepted weight range of that planchet, they will notify the submitter and request at the submitter’s expense, authorization to have a specific gravity analysis conducted, in order to proceed!
I agree. The fact that PCGS has, at least temporarily, pulled the cert for the 2017 as well as this one, suggests they are reevaluating their procedures.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
They could also be in the process of reholdering/relabelling them after performing a specific gravity test regardless of what the test's outcome is?
specific gravity tests require scales and water. they can be done routinely if certainty is needed. the biggest expense is time value
Yes, but I suspect that you, like me would do a specific gravity at home before sending the coin in and spending the money for authentication and grading, no?
And that 2017 was particular suspicious with a 99.1% copper value on the label, no such planchets were ever used, although the plating is probably about that value.
The real disappointment that I have in PCGS is two calls of off metal planchet so close in time without a thorough study.
And kudos to CoinOM for this open and honest discussion, we certainly did NOT see that with the 2017 coin.
They wouldn't need to pull the cert unless there was a change. They would keep the same number.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The coin is currently on route to Heritage. Under no circumstances can it be physically made available for re-marking or for the re-verification of its weight and density.
Oh yes they can make it physically available for re-marking or for re-verification of its weight and density.
When delivered, that is.
They are watching this thread, you can count on that.
I agree. But my point is that reholdering would not require deactivating the cert.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Here is the double struck 1989D bronze Lincoln Cent mentioned above, discovered over 20 years ago!
Heritage Auctions already knows about this coin.
1982 to 1989 is a long transition
with what we know is found in a functioning mint press, perhaps a few planchets could have been scavenged during maintenance
Which coin? Yours or the OP?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Agreed.
Red thinks @Byers is piggybacking on the OP's thread and should honestly take his error coin(s) to either his own thread or to the BST forum.
Not a Supporter of Piggybacking,
Red R.
Isn't piggybacking how they transport large rockets?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The 1983 in this thread.
I sold my 1989D 20 years ago…
Yes. We know. The OP sent it to Heritage and it is allegedly in transit.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Your interest in Rocket transportation is intriguing. Red is not sure if you are feigning such interest or it is genuine.
Here is additional information:
https://beardown-logistics.com/heavy-hauling/super-load/space-rockets/
Let me now if you plan to use their service and if so Red will place a phone call for you thus providing you a 5% discount.
Attempting Not to Derail This Thread,
Red R.
I meant that Heritage Auctions already knows about the controversy regarding this 1983…
The highest price ever realized for a 1983 transitional Cent was $29,250.
And the lowest price realized was $1880. in a Heritage Auction for a environmentally damaged coin.
Not really. Here is a 2005 St Quarter struck on a 3.1G copper planchet!
It says "Stk on Pre 1983 CU Plan" and doesn't say "Bronze" and weight is not declared.
Gotcha. That makes more sense
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
The words mean the same thing. CU is "copper" and "transitional wrong plan" means it's a pre-1983 bronze (copper) planchet.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
considering all the helped errors, i'm on the side of a 2005 state quarter struck on a 3.1g planchet not be due to a transitional period error
similarly for a 90's cent
one has really got to wonder how legitimate some of these mistakes are.
Einstein’s view of God was non-traditional and pantheistic, focusing on the harmony, order, and intelligibility of the cosmos rather than a personal deity. His quotes reveal a profound respect for the universe’s mysteries, a belief in rational laws, and a moral philosophy grounded in compassion and understanding, bridging science and spirituality.
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
Albert Einstein (14 March 1879--18 April 1955)
I agree. Not transitional in the strict definition , but still referred it as transitional (on the previous planchet composition).
Jmlanzaf beat me to it:
The words mean the same thing. CU is "copper" and "transitional wrong plan" means it's a pre-1983 bronze (copper) planchet.
It is a transitional Cent and sold for $1880. in Heritage.
Yours is damaged (scratched) and the one that sold for $1880. is damaged (environmental damage).
(That is IF yours turns out to be a transitional).