Options
GC has another misattributed cent up for auction. This time it's an 1877 called "MS"
renomedphys
Posts: 4,022 ✭✭✭✭✭
This time I'll just cut to the chase and post the pic, which has the item number, and the attribution guide page. I encourage you to go to the site and look closely, the die dots are there.
What's more is that any grader or authenticator worth his salt would pick up on the fat N in ONE and know for sure they weren't looking at an MS coin.
5
Comments
@ianrussell
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Did you contact G.C.?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That coin doesn’t look like a proof. Could this be a very good counterfeit? I saw a similar one years ago dated 1869 with the Bold N. It would have fooled me had I not known about the reverses.
I believe this coin is a PR3 that has seen some circulation. Mirrors on all the 1877’s are medium at best & this one seems even less than that.
I see all the diagnostics except the dot just beneath the first “7” of the date. Among them: thinner right side obv denticles vs. thicker (& outlined) ones on the left; extra outlines on “UNITED”; raised die lumps on the neck.
I should add all the 1877 PR’s were struck with the bold N reverse in “ONE”. The MS versions were all of the Shallow N reverse. Just about all of the MS 1877’s show a distinctive clash mark above the “N” in ONE (the OP happens to own the only example I’ve ever seen that doesn’t have this pickup).
Conclusion: with virtual certainty, the GC coin is a PR & misattributed as MS.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Copperindian II
Indy Eagles
Gold Rush
Bust Caps
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Early Walkers
Successful transactions: Eagle Eye, redraider, winesteven, renomedphys, splitaces, oreville, ajaan, Cent1225, onlyroosies, justindan, blitzdude, DesertMoon, johnnyb, Heubschgold, SunshineRareCoins, ParadimeCoins, ndeagles, Southern_Knights, pcgsregistrycollector, BruceS
Why this makes a difference is the price guide valuations of each (64RB):
MS: $13000;
PR: $5750.
Here’s the coin:
This is a grading error made many years ago & before there even was a GC.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Copperindian II
Indy Eagles
Gold Rush
Bust Caps
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Early Walkers
Successful transactions: Eagle Eye, redraider, winesteven, renomedphys, splitaces, oreville, ajaan, Cent1225, onlyroosies, justindan, blitzdude, DesertMoon, johnnyb, Heubschgold, SunshineRareCoins, ParadimeCoins, ndeagles, Southern_Knights, pcgsregistrycollector, BruceS
Any possibility that the Proof-Only view of the dies are outdated and some were actually used on business strikes?
The "only struck once" ; "weak denticles' ; "mirrors are very shallow" ; "edges on many are more beveled than typical proofs" almost sounds like the definition of a Proof die later used on business strikes.
The shield is also weaker than the die variety photos and even the circulated coin. Maybe proof is accurate. How was it determined no business strikes were made from former proof dies?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I’ve only owned one proof ‘77 and it looked a helluva lot nicer and looked like a proof from across the room. (Also 64 RB.) Interesting thread. Paging Mr. Snow.
I know that “everyone knows” that every 1877 Proof has the fat N’s. Why does that mean that every fat N is a Proof?
While I was at ANACS we got in a fat N that had absolutely no Proof characteristics. I certified it as a business strike from Proof dies. Never saw another.
T.D.
I think that this happened.
What the OP didn’t show was photos of the PR1 die (the PR2 may not exist). He used the PR3 pic as the GC coin most & almost entirely resembles that. All the diagnostics are there except a minor one I mentioned in my first post above. I added others that are also important.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Copperindian II
Indy Eagles
Gold Rush
Bust Caps
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Early Walkers
Successful transactions: Eagle Eye, redraider, winesteven, renomedphys, splitaces, oreville, ajaan, Cent1225, onlyroosies, justindan, blitzdude, DesertMoon, johnnyb, Heubschgold, SunshineRareCoins, ParadimeCoins, ndeagles, Southern_Knights, pcgsregistrycollector, BruceS
why rag on GC when they are just entering what the TPG service has on the slab?
There's no reason to do anything except let Ian know that you think there's an error and let them take care of it.
I don’t think OP, nor anyone else, was or is ragging on GC.
I view this as a marketing success for GC. After all, I don’t seem to be catching this sort of thing at any of the other auction houses lately, which at least means GC has my attention
Empty Nest Collection
It kinds of seems to be that this is ragging on GC a bit. Publicly calling them out in yet another thread title like this gives me the initial impression that GC has done something wrong, like foolishly listing a coin exactly the way PCGS has attributed it without knowing better on their own.
I know if I were the consignor I wouldn't appreciate my coin being publicly called out like this.
If it were me, I'd contact GC directly if I felt strongly enough about it.
Could someone check the die state and see if the certified one is an earlier or later die stage from known proofs? That could shed some light on the situation.
“Land of the free because of the brave”
“Saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
In Deo solo confidimus
ΙΧΘΥΣ
ΙϹ ΧϹ ΝΙΚΑ (ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ ΝΙΚΑ)
Member since 2026
Successful BST transactions with: Ted 1, JWP, bigjpst, Vetter, nickelsciolist, ajaan, USMarine6, ad4400, grote15, coinbuf, Gothat3rs, No Headlights, PROMETHIUS88, Harlequin, Coin Finder, Coins3675, CKcollectibles2
I let GreatCollections know about this coin being a proof a few days ago.
The Penny Lady®
I'm not convinced that PCGS got the designation of this coin wrong. I'm no expert but as others have pointed out, the mint didn't waste dies and would sometimes reuse a die previously used to strike proofs for the production of regular business strike coins. This coin may very well fall into this category. I'll sit on the sidelines and let the exerts hash it out but this is a very interesting discussion.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Is it still a proof if the mint struck some of these coins only once on unpolished planchets?
No. It would be considered a business strike coin.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Heard of this before. Yes, its interesting
Also my understanding is that pre 20th century proofs were only struck once albeit under much higher pressure with a special press.
Thank you for expanding on that. In the Snow reference above it mentions "These pieces are proofs, but were only struck once."
I think that part lead me to believe the other proofs were struck more than once.
Questionable green label grades are not uncommon.
Circulated proof.
For that to be true, that means they got the method of manufacture wrong AND missed circulation wear that caused them to be off by five full numerical grades. Not impossible, but definitely more improbable.
Food for thought:
The word obvious is doing a lot of heavy lifting. This particular scenario doesn't appear to fall under mechanical error but rather misattribution (if the OP is correct and it is indeed misattributed).
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Do we really expect GC to be grading the TPGs? I personally do not.
“Tough to call” attributions are a mainstay of this hobby. So are disputes over attributions.
At some point bidders/buyers have to be accountable for knowing what they’re bidding on. GC bidders have the best opportunities possible to decipher yay or nay for coins exactly this one thanks to Phil and their photography dept.
If it was circulated, how did it grade MS64RB ?
Here is a link to the lot.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2244049/1877-Indian-Cent-PCGS-MS-64-RB-OGH
Look at the date and the denticles below the date.
Look at the shield on the reverse of the coin, opposite the date, and the denticles above the shield.
Does that look like a Proof strike?
I bet they would call it a clerical error claiming the “fat N” is obvious. The difference in price guide value is $7,250. Your only remedy would be to sue if they refuse to payout and expert witness and attorney’s fees would far eclipse that amount with no guarantee of recovery of fees and costs even if you prevail as most jurisdictions follow the American Rule.
In short, those blindly relying on labels are likely to get burned more and more as these misattributions appear to be more common. About the only corporate entity that would be helpful is a market maker. The only one I’m familiar with is CAC and if it didn’t sticker, you’re screwed. The other option would be flipping it to one of the lowball unknowledgeable dealer at many regional shows that are oblivious and just look at the label and use a percentage back of greysheet.
I just had a 76 T$ reholdered from a business strike ($875 PCGS guide) to an impaired proof ($2200 PCGS price guide, ignoring the variety premium). It was a more obvious difference than in this example, assuming one is looking for it.
Getting even a dollar out of PCGS is extremely difficult these days but I do not think they would attempt to call this mechanical error.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
No idea. Possibly the residual mint red and lightly circulated device strength.
Thanks everyone - we spoke to PCGS on Friday about it - and we're having it reviewed. The auction was extended by 14 days to allow for this.
We obviously stand behind everything we offer in our auctions, not to mention PCGS's guarantee.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
Bravo Ian!
I'd be pretty sad if I bought a MS and it turned out to be a proof.
+1
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Matt, you know it is not MS. Ian should correct this. MS vs PR for 1877 is huge
It looks like he is because he/GC are good people. I'm not sure it is GC's problem however. They are not warrantying the coin IMHO by simply offering it for auction. It is advertised as a PCGS MS64 which is what PCGS called it. And the photos clearly show the diagnostics.
I bought an 1883 seated quarter in a PCGS XF 45 holder a few years ago. A gorgeous coin with no doubt original surfaces.
Cracked it to put it in my 7070 album.
Then a couple years later I sent the whole album off to PCGS.
Coin came back PR45. I ended up agreeing with our hosts based mainly on the denticles, even though i initially didn’t suspect the label was wrong and obviously wouldn’t have cracked it if I did.
Ended up including it in a decent sized deal with a long time national dealer who I consider to be extremely knowledgeable and he was/is absolutely convinced it’s a business strike.
Only point of this story is even when markers appear clear cut……some attributions/TPG decisions are just always going to be disputed.
Owners/sellers of coins can request that grading companies reconsider their grading determinations. But in the end, they have no control over what the grading companies decide.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I also find this particular piece fascinating. Other than the diagnostics which conclusively show it was struck from proof dies, nothing shouts proof. As others have alluded to, merely being struck by a proof die doesn't make it a proof as the Mint at various times has used retired proof dies to strike business strike coins. While I would never assume the risk and buy it as MS, I wonder what PCGS will ultimately conclude.
No. Is there any chance this was the coin from your ANACS days?
@EagleEye
One thing I know for sure now is that I’m adding “extra proofy 1877 PR3” to my watch for list 😅
Empty Nest Collection
It is possible of course, but I have no visual memory of the piece.
It will be very interesting to see what PCGS calls on this coin. There is a chance that it could be considered MS. I know @Copperindian has an 1871 MS coin that was struck using proof dies and is considered unique in MS format. Could this be the same scenario?
Some things on this coin that I don't like as a proof are the extreme weakness in the shield and the denticles below the date and above the shield. Maybe there was a very minor clip on the planchet below the date, which explains the weakness on both sides in the same area.
If the mirrors are not there, I would not be surprised to see this stay in an MS holder. I know the markers of this coin being a proof are there, but maybe this is unique.
Hmm... When I have found mis-attributed examples on GC in the past I contacted them directly and they immediately respond with a thank you and either correct it or pull it. Don't know why the OP did know do that here. Mistakes happen.
There is a possibility that it's not a mistake. Other than the die pairing, what do you see that makes it a proof?
Hopefully, PCGS can examine the coin in the OGH vintage slab and they can see enough to make a determination of grade. If they stand by their original determination, it would be a shame to unnecessarily destroy an old vintage slab.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire