Options
Don't make the same mistake I made - A cautionary tale about the ANACS guarantee, and my assumptions
MrBreeze
Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭
Just the facts.
I have a coin that I have owned for several months. It was graded by ANACS as a business strike. As a business strike, it was four to five times more valuable than a proof of the same date and grade. Well, to make a long story short, I finally got around to checking the coin myself, and realized, with the help of several board members, that it was, in fact, a proof. I sent the coin back to ANACS for a regrade. ANACS returns the coin as AU, but now it has proof written on the label. Original grade - AU, new grade - AU w/ proof written on the holder. I ask about the guarantee just to see if there is any way this may apply. The answer - the problem is a labelling error, and not covered by the guarantee. The coin was in their system as a proof, but it was mislabelled on the holder. Therefore, by putting the word proof on a coin graded AU, all is fixed. Now, I realize all of the mistakes I have made in this episode. By posting this, I am simply trying to help other board members from making the same mistake. Hopefully, my blunders, and ANACS' response will help others learn a free lesson on my tab. Also, feel free to comment. I know where I stand, but I would like to hear other people's opinions.
mb
I have a coin that I have owned for several months. It was graded by ANACS as a business strike. As a business strike, it was four to five times more valuable than a proof of the same date and grade. Well, to make a long story short, I finally got around to checking the coin myself, and realized, with the help of several board members, that it was, in fact, a proof. I sent the coin back to ANACS for a regrade. ANACS returns the coin as AU, but now it has proof written on the label. Original grade - AU, new grade - AU w/ proof written on the holder. I ask about the guarantee just to see if there is any way this may apply. The answer - the problem is a labelling error, and not covered by the guarantee. The coin was in their system as a proof, but it was mislabelled on the holder. Therefore, by putting the word proof on a coin graded AU, all is fixed. Now, I realize all of the mistakes I have made in this episode. By posting this, I am simply trying to help other board members from making the same mistake. Hopefully, my blunders, and ANACS' response will help others learn a free lesson on my tab. Also, feel free to comment. I know where I stand, but I would like to hear other people's opinions.
mb
0
Comments
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Sounds like ANACS is calling it a mechanical error. PCGS and NGC both occasionally make those too, and if they call it such, don't guaranty them. >>
No, but the person you acquired the coin from should.
I bought it in the holder.
https://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/collectors-showcase/world-coins/one-coin-per-year-1600-2017/2422
Note the MS cameo
or this half.....
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Further study and die diagnostics confirmed it to be an 1866-S ..... ANACS called it a clerical error, and would not do anytihng about it other than correcting the slab..... and there is a substantial difference in price between the 2 and I had to eat the loss........
<< <i>I had a similar experience with, I think it was an 1866-S Seated Liberty dime........ The mintmark was non-existant, and it was slabbed as an 1866...... ALBEIT in LOW GRADE I forget if it was GOOD or AG ...
Further study and die diagnostics confirmed it to be an 1866-S ..... ANACS called it a clerical error, and would not do anytihng about it other than correcting the slab..... and there is a substantial difference in price between the 2 and I had to eat the loss........ >>
IMO that one is definitely NOT a clerical error and ANACS should have eaten the loss!
About 15 to 20 years ago I bought a raw 1866 dime in VG from a reputable dealer. After a week of study I was convinced it was an 1866-S without a mintmark. The dealer said "You are right, I missed that one" and refunded my money in full.
An authorized PCGS dealer, and a contributor to the Red Book.
Edited to add: The coin in question was a Seated Quarter, which, I can assure you, takes a little effort to discern between proof and mint state.
https://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/collectors-showcase/world-coins/one-coin-per-year-1600-2017/2422
<< <i>
<< <i>I had a similar experience with, I think it was an 1866-S Seated Liberty dime........ The mintmark was non-existant, and it was slabbed as an 1866...... ALBEIT in LOW GRADE I forget if it was GOOD or AG ...
Further study and die diagnostics confirmed it to be an 1866-S ..... ANACS called it a clerical error, and would not do anytihng about it other than correcting the slab..... and there is a substantial difference in price between the 2 and I had to eat the loss........ >>
IMO that one is definitely NOT a clerical error and ANACS should have eaten the loss!
About 15 to 20 years ago I bought a raw 1866 dime in VG from a reputable dealer. After a week of study I was convinced it was an 1866-S without a mintmark. The dealer said "You are right, I missed that one" and refunded my money in full. >>
I, of course, agree.... but I couldn't get anywhere with the 2 people I spoke to..... I know a bit more now, and would probably have pursued it further.... A costly, (fortunately not excessive), tuition......
In fact, I just was involved in a transaction where an 1860 Great Britain mule might have been mis-attributed... Virtually impossible to be 100% sure because the holder was blocking most of the rim of the coin, but there were about 5 other factors involved that made me think they got it wrong.... The owner is making further investigations, and will let me know the ultimate determination......
Bottom line is, only really trust yourself.... buy the book, convince yourself, share information with fellow knowledgeable collectors, and use the TPG's as a tool, not as the BIBLE.....
<< <i>My personal situation was resolved when the guys at David Lawrence (one of the best coin businesses out there, IMO) took the coin back, even after ANACS took the coin and typed proof on the label. >>
Good show. A round of applause for the good folk at DLRC.
and over 90% of the people on these boards could not with 100% certainty
that is one of the reasons we send them in for professional grading
to say that is an obvious mechanical error truly makes my opinion of ANACS drop a few notches closer to SGS and NNC
<< <i>i doubt I could tell the difference between a PR50 and a AU50
and over 90% of the people on these boards could not with 100% certainty
that is one of the reasons we send them in for professional grading
to say that is an obvious mechanical error truly makes my opinion of ANACS drop a few notches closer to SGS and NNC >>
The grading companies do make mistakes. It's too bad they won't make things right.
Ray
https://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/collectors-showcase/world-coins/one-coin-per-year-1600-2017/2422
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
two coins and I doubt 99% of the posters here can also. The fact that the coin is in a slab makes it even
more difficult to differentiate between a proof and business strike, so come on, give the poster a break.
That's one of the reasons we buy slabbed coins. We buy them under the assumption that they can tell the difference between a business strike and a proof on a 150 year old coin. If they can't, which they couldn't in this situation, they should be held accountable. We're paying to get them slabbed and in my mind ANACS sucks and they really blew it big time. I'll be even more reluctant to buy one of their slabbed coins in the future. They
need to stand behind their product and not come up with a Mickey Mouse explanation. I'd go to Disneyland if I wanted to see Mickey and watch
Pinnochio's nose get bigger.l
I have been a very happy and loyal customer of DLRC. Way to go DLRC!!
Bruce
<< <i>How the poster can be blamed for this is beyond me. I know I probably can't tell the difference between the
two coins and I doubt 99% of the posters here can also. The fact that the coin is in a slab makes it even
more difficult to differentiate between a proof and business strike, so come on, give the poster a break.
Bruce >>
The coin MrBreeze is writing about, was an 1873 no arrows closed 3 Seated Quarter.
There's no problem in telling the proof from the business strike.
The proof reverse die has a cut across the upper left side of the shield. The business strike does not.
This same reverse die was used in later years for both proof and business strike coins.
ANACS should have made him whole. They made the mistake. It just goes to show that you can't rely soley on the opinion of TPG.
Ray