I took the advice of a couple of good people here. I have been doing some reading/exploring on the forum, and having fun doing it, too. Since I can now sit at the computer for much more than 3 mins, everything is more fun. Earned my 5 likes badge, and I got my first "Agree".
@dcfixer said:
I want the superior True View images; I want to see all of the rim, with only 1 band of copper (obverse/70%) and one band of cladding (reverse/30%); and I want it protected
@dcfixer said:
I need the best protection and I need the best imaging now - Trueview's advanced XRF, macro photography, focus stacking software, and specialized, multi-angle lighting. The grade and their FMV don't matter. I need the results of their mint error service so I know how to proceed with the coin. If they don't recognize the error, that's OK. The slab and those images are worth $100 to us. It looks like I did not make myself clear enough on this. I will work harder on that.
@dcfixer said:
In the submission comments I practically begged for their best imaging, including the edge. "Please treat her like she was a one-off error coin". I said I would pay 10x the normal TrueView fee.
Obviously, too little, too late and too spread out. I think I should have started my adventure in this forum with a "Hello" intro post, instead of just jumping in with a coin. Maybe then this data center hog of a thread could have been avoided. My bad. My excuse is my ignorance.
I have developed an introduction post I am going to try out with CONECA, if I can ever get by all the errors I am encountering on their forum. I could post a new topic here with it, but I think it would be redundant, now that everything and more about me already exists in bits and pieces in the 4 threads I have participated in. Can you see my bookmarks? Just in case you can't:
It may be late and diffused, but I think my intro is finally complete now. FYI: I sent my registered package this time via USPS ground instead of Priority mail, and it arrived at PCGS's inbox just as fast... maybe a day earlier. I saved $10. I live less than 2 hours from Newport Beach, so this probably does not apply when shipping outside California.
Have a great weekend, and take real good care out there,
I submitted the coin on 6/2/2026. It finally arrived back home on 9/5/2026 (my shot of the slab was attached). I wrote PCGS customer service on 9/6/2026 requesting detail information about the anomalies (photo of the text in that email is attached below), and included my photos showing both. I sent their obverse photo and my edge images (edge photo attached). Within 2 hours, PCGS responded with a confirmation email containing the ticket number and “We have received your inquiry, and a member of our team will respond within 2-3 business days.” I received their response 10 days later (photo of the text in that email is attached below).
Looks like their responses are AI generated or just a form letter. Do I sound upset in my inquiry on 9/6/2026? What are they apologizing for? I was just looking for some information about some specifics of our coin. There is nothing in their response, articles or service about the coin’s anomalies. I’m still not sure how those anomalies were formed. I still don’t know what to call the metal distortions on the edge and rim, if I am asked. Until credible, advanced and detailed analysis prove me wrong, I’m calling it a minor mint error. Yes, I’m disappointed that the top 2 grading companies in the Numismatic Industrial Complex don’t provide additional educational service on the specifics of a particular coin being graded. Not mine, anyway.
I seriously doubt PCGS used any advanced analysis for mint errors on our coin. Likely due to preserving or increasing their bottom line, they immediately saw that the coin was circulated, worn down below MS level, and probably finished with nothing but a 5X loupe. I suspect it would be a different story if our SAC$1 was a MS69. But we will probably never know, because, “Currently, our graders do not leave notes as to how they came to a particular determination...”. Hmm. Pretty much the same thing NGC said. I’m not disappointed with the determination of our SAC$1. The anomalies are small and not visible enough to the naked eye.
White balance of the True View Images of our SAC$1 is a little off, and shadows and highlights are too dark (official PCGS image is attached). That’s typical. I can globally adjust the white balance of the image to get a more accurate color, but the degree of luster/shine is too far from a decent representation of what the coin exhibits to the naked eye under natural light. The amount, sharpness and clarity of detail in the coin are amazing, as usual from True View. But, because of their lighting, a very important detail is not visible: the bump anomaly on the reverse rim. I can feel it with latex cloved fingers, but it is not recognizable it in their image. I offered to pay $50 extra, with a “please” on the submission form, for a True View image of the edge under that bump. Yes, I am disappointed they wouldn’t go with a little extra customer service and satisfaction. They would have gotten some great reviews if they had.
As usual, the PCGS slab is superior! I love that the edge and rim can be seen, instead of being hidden by the internal coin supports (my shot through the slab of the edge is attached).
I do have to say that XF45 was a bit of a surprise. My guess was 43, at best. Did I get my money’s worth on this one? No, because I can’t use their images. That’s the first out of 6 PCGS submissions, and the second out of 10 total submissions by me.
Congratulations.
That is now a worthy, low-pop coin and one you may be immensely proud to have discovered and own.
Many will be jealous. You will need to get past the haters.
We're back to the responses you received on page 1 of this thread.
Multiple people stated that the Sacagawea you posted does not have any errors. PCGS agrees. It was an expensive lesson, sometimes called "tuition". The unfortunate thing is, I don't think any lessons were learned. 😕
@JBK said:
We're back to the responses you received on page 1 of this thread.
Multiple people stated that the Sacagawea you posted does not have any errors. PCGS agrees. It was an expensive lesson, sometimes called "tuition". The unfortunate thing is, I don't think any lessons were learned. 😕
I learned a lesson. But it has nothing to do with that coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
I'm pretty sure we did. He didn't hear it. He still doesn't hear it. But we told him.
Let's see how many misconceptions I can spot, for the benefit of anyone else coming across this thread even if the OP isn't listening.
@dcfixer said:
I wrote PCGS customer service on 9/6/2026 requesting detail information about the anomalies
PCGS doesn't provide detailed information to submitters. They never claimed that they do. We said earlier in this thread that they don't. Requesting is irrelevant. Even paying is irrelevant. It's not a service they provide.
PCGS is not an anomaly analysis service. They provide authentication, and they provide grading. In this case they provided both of those. They never claimed they would do more than that.
There are organizations that provide detailed information to submitters. PCGS isn't one of them. For example, I think CONECA is one of them. Their website says that an "Examiner diagnoses and describes mint errors. He’s a diagnostician." That sounds more like what the OP was looking for. Their fees seem to be less than $25 including return postage, although they don't say what they would charge for international shipping (https://conecaonline.org/examination-services/).
There is nothing in their response, articles or service about the coin’s anomalies.
As above, that is exactly as expected. PCGS provides authentication and grading, nothing more.
I’m still not sure how those anomalies were formed.
That question was answered repeatedly earlier in this thread. You didn't like that answer, but that's not going to change the answer.
When you submit a coin to PCGS (or any other grading service), YOU are the one who is responsible for describing what you are submitting. It is not the fault of the grading service if you can't do that.
I still don’t know what to call the metal distortions on the edge and rim
As above, this was answered repeatedly earlier in this thread. Your coin is damaged and/or dirty, depending on what parts you're looking at.
Until credible, advanced and detailed analysis prove me wrong, I’m calling it a minor mint error.
You can also call it struck in solid gold. That's equally accurate.
Yes, I’m disappointed that the top 2 grading companies in the Numismatic Industrial Complex don’t provide additional educational service on the specifics of a particular coin being graded.
Educational companies provide educational services. Grading companies provide grading services. I understand that you are disappointed. I am sorry that you are disappointed. I am not sympathetic about your disappointment. PCGS did exactly what they said they'd do and what you paid them to do. It's not their fault if you wanted a service that they don't provide.
I seriously doubt PCGS used any advanced analysis for mint errors on our coin.
I also doubt it. PCGS never said that they would use advanced analysis of any type.
and probably finished with nothing but a 5X loupe.
I doubt they used a loupe of any sort. There are many coins where it is inappropriate to use a loupe when grading.
I suspect it would be a different story if our SAC$1 was a MS69.
That much is probably true. PCGS has graded a total of 10 SAC$1 as MS-69, out of over 30,000 submissions. Grading is a service that PCGS does provide. They have an interest in getting the grading right, especially for a noteworthy submission such as a potential MS-69 SAC$1.
Hmm. Pretty much the same thing NGC said.
PCGS and NGC provide pretty much the same services. It would be noteworthy if they DIDN'T say pretty much the same thing.
I do have to say that XF45 was a bit of a surprise. My guess was 43, at best.
PCGS provides grading services, and they document the grades that they issue. There is no such grade as 43. It was never possible for you to get a 43 grade.
There is nothing in their response, articles or service about the coin’s anomalies.
besides not giving notes, the anomalies are insignificant mis-aligned dies a curious looking smearing of the copper layer that is also not an error, and some damage
Comments
dont forget to send it in to cac
Not eligible. Not funny. Not terribly kind.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Don't mind Lanzie; he misses the thread of any thread.
The guy already took a beating. Is a little bit of grace too much to ask?
I'd also point out that when other newbies find these threads, they don't know people are kidding.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
You owe Johnny9434 some grace.
I granted it to him. My first version looked like you had written it. 😈
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Well, perhaps not all of us.
How kind.
Why not? Would we be upset if it turned out to be a minor error? I expect he will be disappointed. I'm not cheering for it.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
Well, perhaps not all of us.> @jmlanzaf said:
I based my conclusion on the posts that were authored above mine.
Ah...yes. I AGREE!
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
(This is nice... clear and static free)
I took the advice of a couple of good people here. I have been doing some reading/exploring on the forum, and having fun doing it, too. Since I can now sit at the computer for much more than 3 mins, everything is more fun. Earned my 5 likes badge, and I got my first "Agree".
Obviously, too little, too late and too spread out. I think I should have started my adventure in this forum with a "Hello" intro post, instead of just jumping in with a coin. Maybe then this data center hog of a thread could have been avoided. My bad. My excuse is my ignorance.
I have developed an introduction post I am going to try out with CONECA, if I can ever get by all the errors I am encountering on their forum. I could post a new topic here with it, but I think it would be redundant, now that everything and more about me already exists in bits and pieces in the 4 threads I have participated in. Can you see my bookmarks? Just in case you can't:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1123364/what-year-did-you-start-collecting-stacking-coins
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1046885/the-forum-needs-a-little-music-noise
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1123411/how-about-pictures-of-coins-with-a-moon-on-them#latest
It may be late and diffused, but I think my intro is finally complete now. FYI: I sent my registered package this time via USPS ground instead of Priority mail, and it arrived at PCGS's inbox just as fast... maybe a day earlier. I saved $10. I live less than 2 hours from Newport Beach, so this probably does not apply when shipping outside California.
Have a great weekend, and take real good care out there,
Don
OK, hopefully that will work.
Where the PDFs I attached? Please help.
Tried to edit a new post, still don't know where the PDFs are, and now the entire post is gone. I'm not surprised.
I've never seen PDFs attached here. I don't know if the board supports that.
3 months since you sent it the coin, did you get it back? What did PCGS say? Post a link to the Trueview.
the forum also has a bug. did you receive an notice on the page after you edited the post?
It was posted here earlier as the OP said. The coin graded XF5 (or XF40? I only looked briefly)with no errors or varieties noted.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Still looks like a bunch of garbage sitting on the state of Iowa.
I submitted the coin on 6/2/2026. It finally arrived back home on 9/5/2026 (my shot of the slab was attached). I wrote PCGS customer service on 9/6/2026 requesting detail information about the anomalies (photo of the text in that email is attached below), and included my photos showing both. I sent their obverse photo and my edge images (edge photo attached). Within 2 hours, PCGS responded with a confirmation email containing the ticket number and “We have received your inquiry, and a member of our team will respond within 2-3 business days.” I received their response 10 days later (photo of the text in that email is attached below).
Looks like their responses are AI generated or just a form letter. Do I sound upset in my inquiry on 9/6/2026? What are they apologizing for? I was just looking for some information about some specifics of our coin. There is nothing in their response, articles or service about the coin’s anomalies. I’m still not sure how those anomalies were formed. I still don’t know what to call the metal distortions on the edge and rim, if I am asked. Until credible, advanced and detailed analysis prove me wrong, I’m calling it a minor mint error. Yes, I’m disappointed that the top 2 grading companies in the Numismatic Industrial Complex don’t provide additional educational service on the specifics of a particular coin being graded. Not mine, anyway.
I seriously doubt PCGS used any advanced analysis for mint errors on our coin. Likely due to preserving or increasing their bottom line, they immediately saw that the coin was circulated, worn down below MS level, and probably finished with nothing but a 5X loupe. I suspect it would be a different story if our SAC$1 was a MS69. But we will probably never know, because, “Currently, our graders do not leave notes as to how they came to a particular determination...”. Hmm. Pretty much the same thing NGC said. I’m not disappointed with the determination of our SAC$1. The anomalies are small and not visible enough to the naked eye.
White balance of the True View Images of our SAC$1 is a little off, and shadows and highlights are too dark (official PCGS image is attached). That’s typical. I can globally adjust the white balance of the image to get a more accurate color, but the degree of luster/shine is too far from a decent representation of what the coin exhibits to the naked eye under natural light. The amount, sharpness and clarity of detail in the coin are amazing, as usual from True View. But, because of their lighting, a very important detail is not visible: the bump anomaly on the reverse rim. I can feel it with latex cloved fingers, but it is not recognizable it in their image. I offered to pay $50 extra, with a “please” on the submission form, for a True View image of the edge under that bump. Yes, I am disappointed they wouldn’t go with a little extra customer service and satisfaction. They would have gotten some great reviews if they had.
As usual, the PCGS slab is superior! I love that the edge and rim can be seen, instead of being hidden by the internal coin supports (my shot through the slab of the edge is attached).
I do have to say that XF45 was a bit of a surprise. My guess was 43, at best. Did I get my money’s worth on this one? No, because I can’t use their images. That’s the first out of 6 PCGS submissions, and the second out of 10 total submissions by me.
Take care out there,
Don
Congratulations.
That is now a worthy, low-pop coin and one you may be immensely proud to have discovered and own.
Many will be jealous. You will need to get past the haters.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
So, how about that tally?
We're back to the responses you received on page 1 of this thread.
Multiple people stated that the Sacagawea you posted does not have any errors. PCGS agrees. It was an expensive lesson, sometimes called "tuition". The unfortunate thing is, I don't think any lessons were learned. 😕
I learned a lesson. But it has nothing to do with that coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, even when irrefutably accurate.
i imagine they apologized because everyone else with results that don't match are mad
we could have told you they don't give notes unless you're a whale
It's "we". I ran my tally, and I definitely win. I learned the most.
Hi,
No, it just went back to the end of the thread, and my post was gone. Couldn't find the draft I saved, either.
I'm pretty sure we did. He didn't hear it. He still doesn't hear it. But we told him.
Let's see how many misconceptions I can spot, for the benefit of anyone else coming across this thread even if the OP isn't listening.
PCGS doesn't provide detailed information to submitters. They never claimed that they do. We said earlier in this thread that they don't. Requesting is irrelevant. Even paying is irrelevant. It's not a service they provide.
PCGS is not an anomaly analysis service. They provide authentication, and they provide grading. In this case they provided both of those. They never claimed they would do more than that.
There are organizations that provide detailed information to submitters. PCGS isn't one of them. For example, I think CONECA is one of them. Their website says that an "Examiner diagnoses and describes mint errors. He’s a diagnostician." That sounds more like what the OP was looking for. Their fees seem to be less than $25 including return postage, although they don't say what they would charge for international shipping (https://conecaonline.org/examination-services/).
As above, that is exactly as expected. PCGS provides authentication and grading, nothing more.
That question was answered repeatedly earlier in this thread. You didn't like that answer, but that's not going to change the answer.
When you submit a coin to PCGS (or any other grading service), YOU are the one who is responsible for describing what you are submitting. It is not the fault of the grading service if you can't do that.
As above, this was answered repeatedly earlier in this thread. Your coin is damaged and/or dirty, depending on what parts you're looking at.
You can also call it struck in solid gold. That's equally accurate.
Educational companies provide educational services. Grading companies provide grading services. I understand that you are disappointed. I am sorry that you are disappointed. I am not sympathetic about your disappointment. PCGS did exactly what they said they'd do and what you paid them to do. It's not their fault if you wanted a service that they don't provide.
I also doubt it. PCGS never said that they would use advanced analysis of any type.
I doubt they used a loupe of any sort. There are many coins where it is inappropriate to use a loupe when grading.
That much is probably true. PCGS has graded a total of 10 SAC$1 as MS-69, out of over 30,000 submissions. Grading is a service that PCGS does provide. They have an interest in getting the grading right, especially for a noteworthy submission such as a potential MS-69 SAC$1.
PCGS and NGC provide pretty much the same services. It would be noteworthy if they DIDN'T say pretty much the same thing.
PCGS provides grading services, and they document the grades that they issue. There is no such grade as 43. It was never possible for you to get a 43 grade.
i think he meant 53
my first glance was 45
besides not giving notes, the anomalies are insignificant mis-aligned dies a curious looking smearing of the copper layer that is also not an error, and some damage
all of those aren't worth commenting on
"Very entertaining thread and it gave me a déjà vu 🙂"
There is no such grade as 43. It was never possible for you to get a 43 grade.
You're right. I didn't know that the grading services skip that grade. Thank you.