1857 Flying Eagle Proof?
EagleEye
Posts: 7,677 ✭✭✭✭✭
1857 PR-60 NGC
They say in the description that it "looks" much like a S5 doubled die. That's because it is! Since this variety is not known in Proof format, it is likely misattributed.
Assuming I'm right (for the sake of argument) what should the cataloger have done?
1) question NGC about the attribution as a Proof.
2) make a mention that it doesn't match my book.
3) say in-person examination is recommended.
4) sound like a politician and dance around the issue.
5) return the coin to the consignor.
Since it sold for PR-60 money, who should be liable for the sale in the future, if it is discovered by the new owner no to be a Proof. (again, assuming I'm right, for the sake of argument)
They say in the description that it "looks" much like a S5 doubled die. That's because it is! Since this variety is not known in Proof format, it is likely misattributed.
Assuming I'm right (for the sake of argument) what should the cataloger have done?
1) question NGC about the attribution as a Proof.
2) make a mention that it doesn't match my book.
3) say in-person examination is recommended.
4) sound like a politician and dance around the issue.
5) return the coin to the consignor.
Since it sold for PR-60 money, who should be liable for the sale in the future, if it is discovered by the new owner no to be a Proof. (again, assuming I'm right, for the sake of argument)
Rick Snow, Eagle Eye Rare Coins, Inc.Check out my new web site:
0
Comments
j/k, but if I were the auction house, I would just simply pull the coin from the auction and discuss the issue with the consignor.
1) question NGC about the attribution as a Proof.
If is is still listed as a proof because the attribution is cloudy then also include the details with:
2) make a mention that it doesn't match my book.
3) say in-person examination is recommended.
K
<< <i>Does NGC's attribution outweigh the seller's opinion? Should the seller (be it a collector on ebay, dealer or auction company) disclose questions about NGC attribution or is it right to say nothing. >>
It is a good question and a valid point which I would simply reply that I feel that there is a difference between a coin dealer("experts") and an auction house that deals coins(facilitator). While the difference is theoretical at best it doesn't change the fact that the buying public does more often than not put more weight in the TPG opinions then the sellers(with very few exceptions, you being one) due to their inferred neutrality and this is backed up by who materializes better prices most of the time. I wouldn't think of it as Stacks right to say nothing more as it is in Stacks best interest to let the official record be stated by the people with grade liability insurance and if a issues arises let them deal with it. Just as if transactionaly something goes arise in the auction process transport/financials/payment (the facilitation part) they are on the hook. That’s their lane and all businesses need to be careful with mission creep and liability assumption esp. without any additional profit motive . And lets not forget they all but said it's not a proof dummy it's a snow-5 thats well struck. The kind of buyer who buys proof FEC's needs to be a little smarter than the people who buy washington quarters.
<< <i>1857 PR-60 NGC
They say in the description that it "looks" much like a S5 doubled die. That's because it is! Since this variety is not known in Proof format, it is likely misattributed.
Assuming I'm right (for the sake of argument) what should the cataloger have done?
1) question NGC about the attribution as a Proof.
2) make a mention that it doesn't match my book.
3) say in-person examination is recommended.
4) sound like a politician and dance around the issue.
5) return the coin to the consignor.
Since it sold for PR-60 money, who should be liable for the sale in the future, if it is discovered by the new owner no to be a Proof. (again, assuming I'm right, for the sake of argument) >>
On number 1, Question NGC about the attribution - isn't this the kind of thing classified as "mechanical error" and not covered under the TPG guarantee?
<< <i>
<< <i>1857 PR-60 NGC
They say in the description that it "looks" much like a S5 doubled die. That's because it is! Since this variety is not known in Proof format, it is likely misattributed.
Assuming I'm right (for the sake of argument) what should the cataloger have done?
1) question NGC about the attribution as a Proof.
2) make a mention that it doesn't match my book.
3) say in-person examination is recommended.
4) sound like a politician and dance around the issue.
5) return the coin to the consignor.
Since it sold for PR-60 money, who should be liable for the sale in the future, if it is discovered by the new owner no to be a Proof. (again, assuming I'm right, for the sake of argument) >>
On number 1, Question NGC about the attribution - isn't this the kind of thing classified as "mechanical error" and not covered under the TPG guarantee? >>
It's not a mechanical error unless they unintentionally labeled it as a Proof. And even in that event, the grading company should still be responsible unless the error is (or should be) obvious. Yes, I know there is a slippery slope involved here.
Early coinage has questions all together different fron modern coinage.
If it's not listed by you as an official proof, I don't consider it a proof.
It doesn't matter if you're right. It does matter if the cataloger secretly agreed with you. And if he did, and if his employer did as well, then I'd vote for #5.
who should be liable for the sale in the future, if it is discovered by the new owner no to be a Proof. (again, assuming I'm right, for the sake of argument)
That depends on the terms of consignment and the terms of sale.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.