@PerryHall said:
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.
This. It would suck to lose the OGH to have a coin put in a new generation MS holder.
Lots of commentary in this thread. Anyone care to make a prediction as to what PCGS will do?
Choices are:
a) regrade as PR;
b) keep it as MS in the OGH;
c) reaffirm the MS, but in a new slab.
I’m picking (c), even though I’m in the PR camp.
@Copperindian said:
Lots of commentary in this thread. Anyone care to make a prediction as to what PCGS will do?
Choices are:
a) regrade as PR;
b) keep it as MS in the OGH;
c) reaffirm the MS, but in a new slab.
I’m picking (c), even though I’m in the PR camp.
If I were the consignor of that coin I would not allow PCGS to reholder it as MS in a new holder. It would either stay in the old holder as MS or I would allow PCGS to buy me out of the coin with it being placed in a PR holder. Those would be the only two options I would allow if I were the consignor.
If they call it mint state based on appearance, it'll upset someone. If they call it proof due to the dies, it will upset someone. The best option for PCGS is probably to buy the coin without any sort of admission and lock it away in a safe somewhere. I hope that doesn't happen though, because it's an interesting coin that raises a lot of questions.
@Copperindian said:
Lots of commentary in this thread. Anyone care to make a prediction as to what PCGS will do?
Choices are:
a) regrade as PR;
b) keep it as MS in the OGH;
c) reaffirm the MS, but in a new slab.
I’m picking (c), even though I’m in the PR camp.
If I were the consignor of that coin I would not allow PCGS to reholder it as MS in a new holder. It would either stay in the old holder as MS or I would allow PCGS to buy me out of the coin with it being placed in a PR holder. Those would be the only two options I would allow if I were the consignor.
Once voluntarily resubmitted does the consignor have the say? The guarantee is full of language about PCGS determining the remedy and PCGS’s vast discretion generally. Once resubmitted, an entire can of worms is potentially opened.
Never assume that everything is known about anything. When I started at ANACS to add Grading on to Authentification, the first thing that John Hunter and Ed FLeischmann did was to bring me up to speed on Authentication. We had files showing such things as date and mint mark shapes and positions for all of the key dates, as well as die markers for say 1893-S, 1894-P and 1895-P dollars.
For the 1928-P Peace dollar there were three known die pairs. Period. We taught that in Summer Seminar and road show classes. We routinely made notes on submission forms either "Die #1," "Die #2" or "Die #3." Then one day after seeing hundreds of 1928 Peace Dollars we discovered "Die #4." Was it from a very short press run made to finish up a bag of coins, since the Pittman Act recoinage was now otherwise finished? I have no idea. But it happened.
TD
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
@Maywood said:
If struck from the same dies, the latest Proof coins would be visually indistinguishable from the earliest Mint State coins.
Not necessarily. The proofs were struck under much higher pressure. Look at the coin that is the subject of this thread. There is some weakness of strike especially on the date and around 6:00 on the obverse that would not be expected on a proof coin. The lightly circulated proof hypothesis put forward in this thread does not account for this.
That brings up another interesting question: Does it matter if an accepted business strike was struck using proof dies? Do collectors collect 1877 cents by die marriages like collectors of early federal coinage might?
@Maywood said:
If struck from the same dies, the latest Proof coins would be visually indistinguishable from the earliest Mint State coins.
Not necessarily. The proofs were struck under much higher pressure. Look at the coin that is the subject of this thread. There is some weakness of strike especially on the date and around 6:00 on the obverse that would not be expected on a proof coin. The lightly circulated proof hypothesis put forward in this thread does not account for this.
Also the polished planchets used for proofs should produce a coin with reflective surfaces compared to a mint state coin from a normal planchet.
@cameonut2011 said:
Not necessarily. The proofs were struck under much higher pressure. Look at the coin that is the subject of this thread. There is some weakness of strike especially on the date and around 6:00 on the obverse that would not be expected on a proof coin. The lightly circulated proof hypothesis put forward in this thread does not account for this.
Here is a PR64RB from CoinFacts, from what I suspect is the same die pairing (obverse also has the die dot diagnostic). It shows weakness in the same areas of the date and denticles (6:00 obverse, 12:00 reverse). It also shows a distinct sharp wire rim on the obverse from 6:00 to 10:00…I do not see a wire rim on any of the business strikes on CoinFacts.
Of course, we can’t see the edge of the OP coin given the full gasket OGH, but given that another coin with similar strike characteristics exists and appears to be a proof (and is graded as such by PCGS and CAC), I lean towards the OP coin also being a proof, albeit a rather mediocre one.
@cameonut2011 said:
Not necessarily. The proofs were struck under much higher pressure. Look at the coin that is the subject of this thread. There is some weakness of strike especially on the date and around 6:00 on the obverse that would not be expected on a proof coin. The lightly circulated proof hypothesis put forward in this thread does not account for this.
Here is a PR64RB from CoinFacts, from what I suspect is the same die pairing (obverse also has the die dot diagnostic). It shows weakness in the same areas of the date and denticles (6:00 obverse, 12:00 reverse). It also shows a distinct sharp wire rim on the obverse from 6:00 to 10:00…I do not see a wire rim on any of the business strikes on CoinFacts.
Of course, we can’t see the edge of the OP coin given the full gasket OGH, but given that another coin with similar strike characteristics exists and appears to be a proof (and is graded as such by PCGS and CAC), I lean towards the OP coin also being a proof, albeit a rather mediocre one.
To my old, tired eyes that still looks like a far superior strike to the coin that is the subject of this thread. I also second @edwardjulio ‘s observation about the sloping date on the designated proof. It looks like a coin struck under high pressure.
I can only wish that I could examine the subject coin in hand. I hope PCGS provides some analysis with its decision.
@davewesen said:
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of a nice counterfeit yet?
Not I.
Professional Numismatist, Retired. 55 year member ANA. Former ANA Senior Authenticator. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and ANA Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner of the PNG's 2026 Robert Friedberg Award for "The Enigmatic Lincoln Cents of 1922," Available now from Whitman or Amazon.
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
It could be. I wish we had a video of it. If GC stills has it (i.e. it is not sitting somewhere at PCGS as we speak), it would be great if they would post a video.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
It could be. I wish we had a video of it. If GC stills has it (i.e. it is not sitting somewhere at PCGS as we speak), it would be great if they would post a video.
Considering that they don’t own the coin and that its status might not have been resolved, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to post a video. Never mind that they might not have the desire or time to do so.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
It could be. I wish we had a video of it. If GC stills has it (i.e. it is not sitting somewhere at PCGS as we speak), it would be great if they would post a video.
Considering that they don’t own the coin and that its status might not have been resolved, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to post a video. Never mind that they might not have the desire or time to do so.
Curiously why would a video be worse than the still shot already posted in the auction listing? I can certainly understand not necessarily wanting or being unable to do so.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
It could be. I wish we had a video of it. If GC stills has it (i.e. it is not sitting somewhere at PCGS as we speak), it would be great if they would post a video.
Considering that they don’t own the coin and that its status might not have been resolved, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to post a video. Never mind that they might not have the desire or time to do so.
Curiously why would a video be worse than the still shot already posted in the auction listing? I can certainly understand not necessarily wanting or being unable to do so.
Pictures in an auction listing are part of the ordinary course of business. Posting a video on a coin forum, when a coin has become controversial and its status is being reviewed, seems very different to me. I can understand if others disagree.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
It could be. I wish we had a video of it. If GC stills has it (i.e. it is not sitting somewhere at PCGS as we speak), it would be great if they would post a video.
Considering that they don’t own the coin and that its status might not have been resolved, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to post a video. Never mind that they might not have the desire or time to do so.
Curiously why would a video be worse than the still shot already posted in the auction listing? I can certainly understand not necessarily wanting or being unable to do so.
Pictures in an auction listing are part of the ordinary course of business. Posting a video on a coin forum, when a coin has become controversial and its status is being reviewed, seems very different to me. I can understand if others disagree.
You've always struck me as quite reasonable. That was making me re-evaluate my position, not criticizing yours. The unwritten etiquette of the hobby and auctions is very interesting to me.
@P0CKETCHANGE said:
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
It could be. I wish we had a video of it. If GC stills has it (i.e. it is not sitting somewhere at PCGS as we speak), it would be great if they would post a video.
Considering that they don’t own the coin and that its status might not have been resolved, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to post a video. Never mind that they might not have the desire or time to do so.
Curiously why would a video be worse than the still shot already posted in the auction listing? I can certainly understand not necessarily wanting or being unable to do so.
Pictures in an auction listing are part of the ordinary course of business. Posting a video on a coin forum, when a coin has become controversial and its status is being reviewed, seems very different to me. I can understand if others disagree.
You've always struck me as quite reasonable. That was making me re-evaluate my position, not criticizing yours. The unwritten etiquette of the hobby and auctions is very interesting to me.
Thank you. I didn’t take your question as a criticism. I tend to be on the cautious side, especially in unusual situations.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Copperindian said:
Lots of commentary in this thread. Anyone care to make a prediction as to what PCGS will do?
Choices are:
a) regrade as PR;
b) keep it as MS in the OGH;
c) reaffirm the MS, but in a new slab.
I’m picking (c), even though I’m in the PR camp.
If C happens, the issue for the owner of the coin is that they may very well lose the RB designation.
@Copperindian said:
Lots of commentary in this thread. Anyone care to make a prediction as to what PCGS will do?
Choices are:
a) regrade as PR;
b) keep it as MS in the OGH;
c) reaffirm the MS, but in a new slab.
I’m picking (c), even though I’m in the PR camp.
If C happens, the issue for the owner of the coin is that they may very well lose the RB designation.
And any OGH premium. I would not be a happy camper if it was my coin.
Comments
This. It would suck to lose the OGH to have a coin put in a new generation MS holder.
Lots of commentary in this thread. Anyone care to make a prediction as to what PCGS will do?
Choices are:
a) regrade as PR;
b) keep it as MS in the OGH;
c) reaffirm the MS, but in a new slab.
I’m picking (c), even though I’m in the PR camp.
“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
If I were the consignor of that coin I would not allow PCGS to reholder it as MS in a new holder. It would either stay in the old holder as MS or I would allow PCGS to buy me out of the coin with it being placed in a PR holder. Those would be the only two options I would allow if I were the consignor.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Agree with @TomB’s insertion “if I were the consignor, etc….”, but the question was “what will PCGS do?”
“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
Totally agree with @TomB
I just hope this goes well for the consignor
A little suprised that Rick Snow hasn't replied to this thread
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
My prediction is B
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
He hasn't signed in here since June of 2024.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Humm.......
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
If they call it mint state based on appearance, it'll upset someone. If they call it proof due to the dies, it will upset someone. The best option for PCGS is probably to buy the coin without any sort of admission and lock it away in a safe somewhere. I hope that doesn't happen though, because it's an interesting coin that raises a lot of questions.
@alaura22: Mike, I’ll PM you….
Ken
“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
Once voluntarily resubmitted does the consignor have the say? The guarantee is full of language about PCGS determining the remedy and PCGS’s vast discretion generally. Once resubmitted, an entire can of worms is potentially opened.
Never assume that everything is known about anything. When I started at ANACS to add Grading on to Authentification, the first thing that John Hunter and Ed FLeischmann did was to bring me up to speed on Authentication. We had files showing such things as date and mint mark shapes and positions for all of the key dates, as well as die markers for say 1893-S, 1894-P and 1895-P dollars.
For the 1928-P Peace dollar there were three known die pairs. Period. We taught that in Summer Seminar and road show classes. We routinely made notes on submission forms either "Die #1," "Die #2" or "Die #3." Then one day after seeing hundreds of 1928 Peace Dollars we discovered "Die #4." Was it from a very short press run made to finish up a bag of coins, since the Pittman Act recoinage was now otherwise finished? I have no idea. But it happened.
TD
If struck from the same dies, the latest Proof coins would be visually indistinguishable from the earliest Mint State coins.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Not necessarily. The proofs were struck under much higher pressure. Look at the coin that is the subject of this thread. There is some weakness of strike especially on the date and around 6:00 on the obverse that would not be expected on a proof coin. The lightly circulated proof hypothesis put forward in this thread does not account for this.
That brings up another interesting question: Does it matter if an accepted business strike was struck using proof dies? Do collectors collect 1877 cents by die marriages like collectors of early federal coinage might?
Also the polished planchets used for proofs should produce a coin with reflective surfaces compared to a mint state coin from a normal planchet.
Here is a PR64RB from CoinFacts, from what I suspect is the same die pairing (obverse also has the die dot diagnostic). It shows weakness in the same areas of the date and denticles (6:00 obverse, 12:00 reverse). It also shows a distinct sharp wire rim on the obverse from 6:00 to 10:00…I do not see a wire rim on any of the business strikes on CoinFacts.
Of course, we can’t see the edge of the OP coin given the full gasket OGH, but given that another coin with similar strike characteristics exists and appears to be a proof (and is graded as such by PCGS and CAC), I lean towards the OP coin also being a proof, albeit a rather mediocre one.
See slab shots and additional photos on DLRC: https://www.davidlawrence.com/product/2348332/
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
The date on the OP coin appears to be level.
The date on this PR65 appears to slope down to the right.
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All of Us
ANA LM, LSCC, EAC, FUN
I love this thread
I'm BACK!!! Used to be Billet7 on the old forum.
.
To my old, tired eyes that still looks like a far superior strike to the coin that is the subject of this thread. I also second @edwardjulio ‘s observation about the sloping date on the designated proof. It looks like a coin struck under high pressure.
I can only wish that I could examine the subject coin in hand. I hope PCGS provides some analysis with its decision.
Hope in one hand and poop in the other. See which one fills up first 😒
Zero chance PCGS provides us with anything.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
.
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
.
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Has anyone mentioned the possibility of a nice counterfeit yet?
This has been a really interesting thread, from the start. Thanks, all!
Not I.
The thought crossed my mind, but I didn’t see any evidence to support it. It matches a genuine die, albeit a die used to strike genuine proof coins.
I think the point made about the dates sloping differently is an optical illusion created by the obverse photos being rotated slightly differently in the GreatPhoto vs. TrueView. It's the same die (both have the die dot on the neck).
Superb collections are built more by omission than by addition.
It could be. I wish we had a video of it. If GC stills has it (i.e. it is not sitting somewhere at PCGS as we speak), it would be great if they would post a video.
Wow... it's a great day when I've learned something new!
Excellent thread...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Considering that they don’t own the coin and that its status might not have been resolved, I’m not sure it would be appropriate to post a video. Never mind that they might not have the desire or time to do so.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Curiously why would a video be worse than the still shot already posted in the auction listing? I can certainly understand not necessarily wanting or being unable to do so.
Pictures in an auction listing are part of the ordinary course of business. Posting a video on a coin forum, when a coin has become controversial and its status is being reviewed, seems very different to me. I can understand if others disagree.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
You've always struck me as quite reasonable. That was making me re-evaluate my position, not criticizing yours. The unwritten etiquette of the hobby and auctions is very interesting to me.
Thank you. I didn’t take your question as a criticism. I tend to be on the cautious side, especially in unusual situations.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
If C happens, the issue for the owner of the coin is that they may very well lose the RB designation.
I agree with Mark F I think a video would not be appropriate with respect to the consignor.
Just thinking out loud PCGS will have to do something. The diagnostics are too compelling.
Doing nothing (leaving it MS) opens the door to the other bold N slabbed PR 1877.
And any OGH premium. I would not be a happy camper if it was my coin.