Example of why self attribution is a must

Cladiator · October 28, 2006 1:57AM

Note the label on the slab and how it reads "Small 5C". The next photo is of the same coin and clearly shows the "Large 5C" that it actually has. For the 1836 it's really not that big of a deal as in this grade there is not much of a price differential between the two. If this mistake were made on an 1837 though you'd be talking about a difference of several hundred dollars.

Part of the reason I got this coin was so I'd have an example of missattribution in my inventory. Remember, always attribute yourself and you'll be golden.

VamGuy · October 28, 2006 2:01AM

Altered image. PCGS doesn't make mistakes.

messydesk · October 28, 2006 2:02AM

Are such misattributions treated by PCGS as "mechanical errors" or do they make you whole if you purchased a misattributed coin sight-unseen?

Cladiator · October 28, 2006 2:04AM

<< <i>Are such misattributions treated by PCGS as "mechanical errors" or do they make you whole if you purchased a misattributed coin sight-unseen? >>

Don't know. I'm not interested in any kind of fixing of the mistake though as half the reason I got it was the labeling error.

Coxe · October 28, 2006 2:09AM

I thought they took more time with submissions and limited the varieties attributed because they did guarantee the attributions.

Bought an 1878 8TF PCGS 64DMPL Morgan ten years ago. Got it cheap even though I knew it was a 7TF Rev 78 when I bought it. Thought I might squeeze a little cash for the mistake. But they said it was an obvious mechanical error. I could have bought it sight unseen for full 8TF bluesheet money, so I do not see that as the right answer. Nonetheless, it was a VAM-84 (long nock B1 reverse) and I got it because I wanted one in or about gem DMPL.

MrHalfDime · October 28, 2006 2:21AM

There are countless examples of misattributed coins in slabs, from all TPGs, and in all series. Cladiator is certainly correct - you should always attribute your coins yourself, especially if it is an important and/or expensive coin.

Perhaps the best example of a misattributed coin in a slab was a VF-20 "1873-CC No Arrows" dime that a friend of mine had. If that attribution were correct, then just Eliasberg and my friend would be the sole owners of this great American rarity. It seems that the TPG (one of the big two, but I honestly forget which one) missed the two big arrows, one at either side of the date. That's not a minor detail!

This problem becomes particularly acute when a highly specialized collection is sent off to the grading services to be graded and attributed prior to auction. The Reiver collection contained several errors in attribution, and the spectacular William A. Harmon half dime collection was plagued with numerous attribution errors from the TPGs. It should have been a no-brainer for the TPGs to attribute them, as Mr. Harmon was a specialist, and had them all attributed, but the coins and Mr. Harmon's original holders became separated at the auction house. While this created a great opportunity for alert and savvy buyers at the auction, it didn't do much for Mr. Harmon. Anyone considering consigning a specialized collection to auction should make careful note of this important aspect of the coins' descriptions.

The TPGs should either give up attribution altogether, or hire knowledgable and accurate attributors to do that important work.

Coxe · October 28, 2006 2:47AM

<< <i>Perhaps the best example of a misattributed coin in a slab was a VF-20 "1873-CC No Arrows" dime that a friend of mine had. >>

Hope it wasn't retagged. THAT is a classic mechanical error that should be preserved.

MrHalfDime · October 28, 2006 3:11AM

It is my understanding that the "1873-CC No Arrows" dime remains in its incorrectly labeled holder, merely as a curiousity. It belongs to a Liberty Seated dime specialist, and owner of the present Liberty Seated dime NGC Registry Set #1.

I'm not sure if I would call it a 'mechanical error' or a just a bonehead mistake.

RichieURich · October 28, 2006 5:36AM

<< <i>It is my understanding that the "1873-CC No Arrows" dime remains in its incorrectly labeled holder, merely as a curiousity. It belongs to a Liberty Seated dime specialist, and owner of the present Liberty Seated dime NGC Registry Set #1.

I'm not sure if I would call it a 'mechanical error' or a just a bonehead mistake. >>

This would be a very cool coin to see. Thanks for sharing this story, MrHalfDime!

Conder101 · October 28, 2006 10:47PM

I don't know if they will guarantee the attributions now or not. In the past they always just called them mechanical errors and said the guarantee didn't cover them. (Probably because they very frequently got them wrong.) Now they have greatly expanded the attributions, but with not further clarification of their liability. I definitely would NOT buy any rare varieties in a TPG holder right now without personally verifying the attribution.

Another good example of a TPG goof on a par with the one related by MrHalfDime, after the stolen 1866 No Motto quarter was purchased over the counter by Superior they didn't recognize it for what it was and after a few weeks they sent it off to NGC for grading to include it in an upcoming sale. After it came back it sat around for a couple more week until they got around to writing the catalog description for it. At that point they realized something was different with the coin and did some more research. It was only then that they discovered it was the UNIQUE no motto quarter. Superior missed it when they first bought it, they missed it when they sent it in, all the NGC graders missed it, the finalizer missed it and it was slabbed as a regular with motto quarter. Then Superior missed it again when it came back.

Smoker · October 29, 2006 2:46AM

I have a PCGS MS-64 graded coin. There's no mention about the obvious D mint mark. It's a 1964 Roosevelt dime in one of their promotional sample holders from the 1980s.

BigTom · October 29, 2006 3:04AM

Great story Condor. I assume the coin was returned to it's rightful owner?

Conder101 · October 29, 2006 3:14AM

Yes, it was returned to DuPont.

coindeuce · October 29, 2006 3:41AM

<< <i>Are such misattributions treated by PCGS as "mechanical errors" or do they make you whole if you purchased a misattributed coin sight-unseen? >>

Depends on the situation John. I purchased a PCGS certiified coin from B&M's spring Baltimore sale, attributed as 1878 7/8 TF Strong(MS-64 DMPL). Received the coin by mail, which was actually 7/8 TF Weak(VAM 32). By Presidential review, PCGS offered to buy the coin at the auction price,or correctly attribute(reholder)and send the coin back to me along with a check for the difference in market value between 7/8 TF Strong and 7/8 TF Weak. It says a lot for PCGS' customer relations when they'll accept liability for a mistake which cost them $2,000. Of course, if you're "majorbigtime" that's not good enough, eh?

19Lyds · October 29, 2006 4:28AM

Well now the pops are screwed up at least until you report your finding to PCGS. Are you going to report it or keep it as is?

Barndog · October 29, 2006 4:56AM

in 2005, there was an NGC AU-58 1832 half dime attributed as LM-9.2 offered in a Heritage auction. There are maybe four to five (or less?) known examples of this exceedingly rare die remarriage. The auction closed at $1500 -- which was about six to seven times greysheet type price for a half dime. If the coin was truly an LM-9.2 as NGC said it was, it would have been a $10,000 coin. We in the very tiny community of half dime collectors discussed this on a now-defunct bust coin forum. We figured the buyer would likely receive the coin and note the error and send it back to Heritage. That's exactly what happened, since I noted the same coin offered by Heritage a couple months later (same slab) as a buy now item. I contacted a POC I use at Heritage and informed him of the error, so the coin was pulled and (assuming my point of contact followed through on his promise) resubmitted to NGC for proper attribution as 1832 LM-8.3.

Interestingly, the error in attribution was pointed out to Heritage by two collectors prior to the auction in which the coin sold for $1500, but Heritage did nothing about it at the time. This would have been a costly misattribution-related purchase if Heritage did not accept the customer return.

rec78 · October 29, 2006 5:18AM

Here is another example--

A friend of mine who collects both US and Foriegn coins saw what he thought to be a U.S. colonial coin attributed as a British coin(slabbed)by a major TPG (some colonial coins are similiar to some British coins). (I don't remember which TPG it was as this was quite some time ago). He Bought it for $25. Broke it out and resubmitted it. It came back as a colonial coin and he sold it for over $400. Knowlege is power-in this hobby you can never get too much of it.

Example of why self attribution is a must

Comments

Leave a Comment