@alaura22 said:
I wish EVERYONE would stay on topic!!
Happy 4000th post! 🥳
Thanks, I didn't even know. I wish it could have been on a better issue
Well as you keep typing they all update with the current number...so you should change your post here and say something like "my actual 4000th post was this amazing comment in another thread" and none of us will know the difference!
As other members have pointed out, the subject coin has been removed from the PCGS pop. Yet, the auction is still “live” as originally posted. GC should provide an update - yesterday!
@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.
Been reviewing the thread and would like everybody to re-read this post, and to follow the DLRC link to the coin, which has excellent enlargement capabilities. As POCKETCHANGE correctly points out, this coin shares characteristics with the OP coin, including arguably questionable Proof characteristics.
One slab calls its coin a Proof and the other slab calls its coin a Mint State piece. Obviously, then, we cannot say that all Slabs are automatically correct (even though the vast majority of them are).
Take a look at the DLRC images, and enlarge the reverse rim to the right of 12 o'clock. Also look at the upper right angle of the shield below that rim. I cannot tell if these disruptions are planchet defects or post-mint damage, and I would appreciate your opinions on that subject.
Is is possible that the DLRC coin is another non-Proof coin? Yes, just as it is possible that the OP coin is a Proof coin, if both were carelessly made and not made according to the normal Proof standards of the day. There is an old saying that 10% of the average work week is a Monday Morning, and that you should never buy a car built on a Monday Morning. (as an aside, my Dad built Packards before WW2, so obviously that rule never applied to Packards).
Perhaps the DLRC coin was adjudged to be a Proof solely on the presence of the strong N's, ignoring the appearance of the rest of the coin, as some people here seem to believe should be done. All I ask is that coins be attributed and graded based upon the whole coin, and not just upon one characteristic that may, possibly, be ambiguous.
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.
@CaptHenway: there were a few of the earliest posts in the thread that referred to various pickup points that were/are attributable to a 1877 IHC PR (i.e. more than one characteristic). The OP linked a page from Snow’s guide, which describes most of them. Interestingly, not cited was the Bold N nor the clash mark over the “O” in ONE. The “Bold N” is normally associated with Proofs, while the clash mark is almost universal on biz strikes. The OP happens to own one without this pickup, which is the only one he or I are aware of.
@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.
Been reviewing the thread and would like everybody to re-read this post, and to follow the DLRC link to the coin, which has excellent enlargement capabilities. As POCKETCHANGE correctly points out, this coin shares characteristics with the OP coin, including arguably questionable Proof characteristics.
One slab calls its coin a Proof and the other slab calls its coin a Mint State piece. Obviously, then, we cannot say that all Slabs are automatically correct (even though the vast majority of them are).
Take a look at the DLRC images, and enlarge the reverse rim to the right of 12 o'clock. Also look at the upper right angle of the shield below that rim. I cannot tell if these disruptions are planchet defects or post-mint damage, and I would appreciate your opinions on that subject.
Is is possible that the DLRC coin is another non-Proof coin? Yes, just as it is possible that the OP coin is a Proof coin, if both were carelessly made and not made according to the normal Proof standards of the day. There is an old saying that 10% of the average work week is a Monday Morning, and that you should never buy a car built on a Monday Morning. (as an aside, my Dad built Packards before WW2, so obviously that rule never applied to Packards).
Perhaps the DLRC coin was adjudged to be a Proof solely on the presence of the strong N's, ignoring the appearance of the rest of the coin, as some people here seem to believe should be done. All I ask is that coins be attributed and graded based upon the whole coin, and not just upon one characteristic that may, possibly, be ambiguous.
TD
It still doesn’t explain the lack of usual proof characteristics on this coin. Yes impaired proofs exist, but I see no wear. There is no obvious reflectivity of the fields. And even if the Mint were sloppy, that is still a really weak strike even for a poorly made proof.
@Harlequin said:
I would think GC would go with the grade on the holder to avoid any liability and confusion and just sell it as is IMO 😎
"Grade" is one thing. This is a discussion over MS vs PR, which is something else. It's not all that different from small date vs large date, which has prompted listings to be removed before.
@Harlequin said:
I would think GC would go with the grade on the holder to avoid any liability and confusion and just sell it as is IMO 😎
"Grade" is one thing. This is a discussion over MS vs PR, which is something else. It's not all that different from small date vs large date, which has prompted listings to be removed before.
It’s a certified coin. It is describing it as an 1877 cent graded as MS64 RB by PCGS which is exactly what this is even if we disagree with it. The remedy is with PCGS.
@Harlequin said:
I would think GC would go with the grade on the holder to avoid any liability and confusion and just sell it as is IMO 😎
"Grade" is one thing. This is a discussion over MS vs PR, which is something else. It's not all that different from small date vs large date, which has prompted listings to be removed before.
I’d think that a small date or large date determination is a lot easier than an MS or PR one - at least with respect to the subject coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Let’s play devil’s advocate. What if a coin is over graded, does an auction house have an obligation to pull it? If your response is that it is grade and grading is different because it is subjective, this thread proves that the proof versus business strike determination can be every bit as subjective.
@Harlequin said:
I would think GC would go with the grade on the holder to avoid any liability and confusion and just sell it as is IMO 😎
"Grade" is one thing. This is a discussion over MS vs PR, which is something else. It's not all that different from small date vs large date, which has prompted listings to be removed before.
It’s a certified coin. It is describing it as an 1877 cent graded as MS64 RB by PCGS which is exactly what this is even if we disagree with it. The remedy is with PCGS.
"Exactly what this is" is under debate here. My observation is that, for just about ever other coin I've seen, PR vs MS is typically based on the dies and the strike. "Grade" is affected by what happens after that -- circulation wear, bag marks, etc. (qualifiers like full head/bands/bell lines aside).
PCGS has made mistakes before. Some of them obvious (like the small/large date example). This example is perplexing, and if PCGS's label is incorrect, the buyer may end up overpaying. On the other hand, it may be unique enough to warrant whatever price it ends up getting.
GC really needs to weigh in. With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system, it seems the coin as presented in the auction no longer exists in the form shown. That means, to me, no more OGH & possibly now a PR coin. If it was cracked out for PCGS to examine, I would think the consignor would need to OK that.
If PCGS affirmed the MS, the coin would now be in a new slab. GC needs to clear this up.
@Copperindian said:
GC really needs to weigh in. With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system, it seems the coin as presented in the auction no longer exists in the form shown. That means, to me, no more OGH & possibly now a PR coin. If it was cracked out for PCGS to examine, I would think the consignor would need to OK that.
If PCGS affirmed the MS, the coin would now be in a new slab. GC needs to clear this up.
I’m confident that GC will clear it up, even if not as quickly as everyone would like.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Copperindian said:
GC really needs to weigh in. With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system, it seems the coin as presented in the auction no longer exists in the form shown. That means, to me, no more OGH & possibly now a PR coin. If it was cracked out for PCGS to examine, I would think the consignor would need to OK that.
If PCGS affirmed the MS, the coin would now be in a new slab. GC needs to clear this up.
I’m confident that GC will clear it up, even if not as quickly as everyone would like.
@Copperindian said:
GC really needs to weigh in. With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system, it seems the coin as presented in the auction no longer exists in the form shown. That means, to me, no more OGH & possibly now a PR coin. If it was cracked out for PCGS to examine, I would think the consignor would need to OK that.
If PCGS affirmed the MS, the coin would now be in a new slab. GC needs to clear this up.
If it comes back in a new holder, I would be very angry if I were the consignor unless PCGS compensates them for loss of the OGH which is unlikely. I would be even more mad if it comes back in a new holder with a proof label and no compensation having been adjudged a mechanical error.
I do not envy GC at all. There are stuck in the middle of this and potentially stuck between a rock and a hard place.
GC bears no responsibility at all
They receive a coin from a consignor, list it and that's it
Now if someone alerts them about the coin and has concerns about it, its up to them to investigate which Ian did. He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision
@alaura22 said:
GC bears no responsibility at all
They receive a coin from a consignor, list it and that's it
Now if someone alerts them about the coin and has concerns about it, its up to them to investigate which Ian did. He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision
@alaura22 said:
GC bears no responsibility at all
They receive a coin from a consignor, list it and that's it
Now if someone alerts them about the coin and has concerns about it, its up to them to investigate which Ian did. He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision
@alaura22 said:
GC bears no responsibility at all
They receive a coin from a consignor, list it and that's it
Now if someone alerts them about the coin and has concerns about it, its up to them to investigate which Ian did. He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision
I know it's still listed
Are you saying because it's still listed the decision has been made?
I don’t know exactly what to make of it. @Copperindian posted “With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system…”
That sounds like either PCGS has decided that the coin should be labeled as a Proof, or that they haven’t reached a decision. But it sure doesn’t sound as if they’ve confirmed that the coin is a circulation strike.
You wrote of Ian “He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision”
I posted the link to the still-live auction because it hasn’t been postponed. And at the same time, it doesn’t appear that PCGS has determined that the label should remain as is.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@alaura22 said:
GC bears no responsibility at all
They receive a coin from a consignor, list it and that's it
Now if someone alerts them about the coin and has concerns about it, its up to them to investigate which Ian did. He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision
I know it's still listed
Are you saying because it's still listed the decision has been made?
I don’t know exactly what to make of it. @Copperindian posted “With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system…”
That sounds like either PCGS has decided that the coin should be labeled as a Proof, or that they haven’t reached a decision. But it sure doesn’t sound as if they’ve confirmed that the coin is a circulation strike.
You wrote of Ian “He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision”
I posted the link to the still-live auction because it hasn’t been postponed. And at the same time, it doesn’t appear that PCGS has determined that the label should remain as is.
Ian postponed the auction when it first was listed. The coin in question was to go off 2 weeks ago I believe
@alaura22 said:
GC bears no responsibility at all
They receive a coin from a consignor, list it and that's it
Now if someone alerts them about the coin and has concerns about it, its up to them to investigate which Ian did. He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision
…
I know it's still listed
Are you saying because it's still listed the decision has been made?
I don’t know exactly what to make of it. @Copperindian posted “With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system…”
That sounds like either PCGS has decided that the coin should be labeled as a Proof, or that they haven’t reached a decision. But it sure doesn’t sound as if they’ve confirmed that the coin is a circulation strike.
You wrote of Ian “He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision”
I posted the link to the still-live auction because it hasn’t been postponed. And at the same time, it doesn’t appear that PCGS has determined that the label should remain as is.
Ian postponed the auction when it first was listed. The coin in question was to go off 2 weeks ago I believe
Thanks. it will be interesting to see the final outcome.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
I wish EVERYONE would stay on topic!!
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Happy 4000th post! 🥳
Empty Nest Collection
Thanks, I didn't even know. I wish it could have been on a better issue
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Well as you keep typing they all update with the current number...so you should change your post here and say something like "my actual 4000th post was this amazing comment in another thread" and none of us will know the difference!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
On this and every thread.
As other members have pointed out, the subject coin has been removed from the PCGS pop. Yet, the auction is still “live” as originally posted. GC should provide an update - yesterday!
“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
Been reviewing the thread and would like everybody to re-read this post, and to follow the DLRC link to the coin, which has excellent enlargement capabilities. As POCKETCHANGE correctly points out, this coin shares characteristics with the OP coin, including arguably questionable Proof characteristics.
One slab calls its coin a Proof and the other slab calls its coin a Mint State piece. Obviously, then, we cannot say that all Slabs are automatically correct (even though the vast majority of them are).
Take a look at the DLRC images, and enlarge the reverse rim to the right of 12 o'clock. Also look at the upper right angle of the shield below that rim. I cannot tell if these disruptions are planchet defects or post-mint damage, and I would appreciate your opinions on that subject.
Is is possible that the DLRC coin is another non-Proof coin? Yes, just as it is possible that the OP coin is a Proof coin, if both were carelessly made and not made according to the normal Proof standards of the day. There is an old saying that 10% of the average work week is a Monday Morning, and that you should never buy a car built on a Monday Morning. (as an aside, my Dad built Packards before WW2, so obviously that rule never applied to Packards).
Perhaps the DLRC coin was adjudged to be a Proof solely on the presence of the strong N's, ignoring the appearance of the rest of the coin, as some people here seem to believe should be done. All I ask is that coins be attributed and graded based upon the whole coin, and not just upon one characteristic that may, possibly, be ambiguous.
TD
I would think GC would go with the grade on the holder to avoid any liability and confusion and just sell it as is IMO 😎
🇺🇸 Harlequin
harlequinnumismatic@gmail.com
Home of the Americana Collection of USA silver coins
That’s no longer possible as PCGS has removed it from their system.
“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
@CaptHenway: there were a few of the earliest posts in the thread that referred to various pickup points that were/are attributable to a 1877 IHC PR (i.e. more than one characteristic). The OP linked a page from Snow’s guide, which describes most of them. Interestingly, not cited was the Bold N nor the clash mark over the “O” in ONE. The “Bold N” is normally associated with Proofs, while the clash mark is almost universal on biz strikes. The OP happens to own one without this pickup, which is the only one he or I are aware of.
“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
I would like to know PCGS’s verdict.
It still doesn’t explain the lack of usual proof characteristics on this coin. Yes impaired proofs exist, but I see no wear. There is no obvious reflectivity of the fields. And even if the Mint were sloppy, that is still a really weak strike even for a poorly made proof.
"Grade" is one thing. This is a discussion over MS vs PR, which is something else. It's not all that different from small date vs large date, which has prompted listings to be removed before.
It’s a certified coin. It is describing it as an 1877 cent graded as MS64 RB by PCGS which is exactly what this is even if we disagree with it. The remedy is with PCGS.
I’d think that a small date or large date determination is a lot easier than an MS or PR one - at least with respect to the subject coin.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Let’s play devil’s advocate. What if a coin is over graded, does an auction house have an obligation to pull it? If your response is that it is grade and grading is different because it is subjective, this thread proves that the proof versus business strike determination can be every bit as subjective.
"Exactly what this is" is under debate here. My observation is that, for just about ever other coin I've seen, PR vs MS is typically based on the dies and the strike. "Grade" is affected by what happens after that -- circulation wear, bag marks, etc. (qualifiers like full head/bands/bell lines aside).
PCGS has made mistakes before. Some of them obvious (like the small/large date example). This example is perplexing, and if PCGS's label is incorrect, the buyer may end up overpaying. On the other hand, it may be unique enough to warrant whatever price it ends up getting.
GC really needs to weigh in. With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system, it seems the coin as presented in the auction no longer exists in the form shown. That means, to me, no more OGH & possibly now a PR coin. If it was cracked out for PCGS to examine, I would think the consignor would need to OK that.
If PCGS affirmed the MS, the coin would now be in a new slab. GC needs to clear this up.
“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
I’m confident that GC will clear it up, even if not as quickly as everyone would like.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Tic Toc Tic Toc
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
If it comes back in a new holder, I would be very angry if I were the consignor unless PCGS compensates them for loss of the OGH which is unlikely. I would be even more mad if it comes back in a new holder with a proof label and no compensation having been adjudged a mechanical error.
I do not envy GC at all. There are stuck in the middle of this and potentially stuck between a rock and a hard place.
GC bears no responsibility at all
They receive a coin from a consignor, list it and that's it
Now if someone alerts them about the coin and has concerns about it, its up to them to investigate which Ian did. He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
The lot is still live: https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/2244049/1877-Indian-Cent-PCGS-MS-64-RB-OGH
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I know it's still listed
Are you saying because it's still listed the decision has been made?
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
I don’t know exactly what to make of it.
@Copperindian posted “With the coin’s ID# removed from the PCGS system…”
That sounds like either PCGS has decided that the coin should be labeled as a Proof, or that they haven’t reached a decision. But it sure doesn’t sound as if they’ve confirmed that the coin is a circulation strike.
You wrote of Ian “He postponed the auction until that they can confirm the issue. We're still waiting for the decision”
I posted the link to the still-live auction because it hasn’t been postponed. And at the same time, it doesn’t appear that PCGS has determined that the label should remain as is.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ian postponed the auction when it first was listed. The coin in question was to go off 2 weeks ago I believe
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
@alaura22: that’s correct Mike. The postponement was for two weeks - that ends tomorrow.
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
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
Thanks. it will be interesting to see the final outcome.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I consider this thread a very valuable learning experience, can't wait to see how it unfolds.
Mike
My Indians
Dansco Set
At current bid with juice, it is right at what a PCGS MS64 RB CAC fetched last year at Stacks.