<< <i>They are not too common on silver or gold coins in this general time period, but they do occur. >>
They're more common on coins from this time period than on currently issued coins. The same sort of thing can be seen on coins from all over the world, which leads me to believe such coins were not considered errors at the time they were made.
if you all (those getting defensive over truths) cannot see the light, let it be to someone else to show it to you
can't say i know you nor know your knowledge or lack thereof
but i know my experience and that is what i go by >>
By your own admission, you have been involved in numismatics for about 3 years. That is hardly long enough to put yourself on a pedestal and talk down to the group. I've been collecting for more than 50 years and am still learning.
<< <i>They're more common on coins from this time period than on currently issued coins. The same sort of thing can be seen on coins from all over the world, which leads me to believe such coins were not considered errors at the time they were made. >>
On gold coins they are rare, and I actually can't think of any examples. On silver coins, to the degree shown in the OP coin, they are scarce, but more frequent on 18th century than 19th century. It can't be proven or disproven if this was considered an error at the time it was made because the criteria used for rejection by the adjusters does not exist, other than being under the weight tolerance. In general, I believe a planchet flaw of this magnitude on a silver coin is something that Elias Boudinot would not want to see leave the Mint, so I would classify it as an error.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
<< <i>They are not too common on silver or gold coins in this general time period, but they do occur. >>
They're more common on coins from this time period than on currently issued coins. The same sort of thing can be seen on coins from all over the world, which leads me to believe such coins were not considered errors at the time they were made. >>
One of the ideas behind third party grading is to provide a level of protection to novice buyers. This planchet defect does reduce the value. There is no question about that. If it were very minor, it could be ignored, but since it isn't it should be noted.
The fact that other coins have similar distracting defects does not make it irrelevant. It's presence makes the coin harder to sell and worth less money.
When I bought this high 1795 half cent a couple years ago, it was a raw coin. It does have the tiniest of planchet clips. When I bought it part of the deal was that PCGS would not mention the clip on the slab because it was so minor. If the piece was marked for the planchet clip as a mint error it would have four or five thousand of dollars off the value. PCGS to did not mark as such so now I own it.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>I too could pull made up fictitious statistics out of my butt or offer the real answer that pcgs felt that it was a planchet defect as made and MA on a 200+ year old American coin. >>
<< <i>My PCGS 1799 dollar also has a planchet flaw, and has been harshly cleaned 8 or 9 times, probably with a wire brush or a dremel tool. It still graded!
%
but that's ok, 117% of PCGS graded coins have the wrong grade, and - 0.000006457% are not even coins but foil wrapped chocolate discs >>
Not sure how serious you are about being cleaned but i've owned several 1799 dollars and looked at most of them on heritage and have concluded the alloy used in the planchets in 1799 was probably low in silver and resulted in some funky surfaces with age.
Code 93 is planchet flaw but that doesn't mean that all coins with planchet flaws receive genuine labels. Early coins should and do grade at pcgs and elsewhere. I do not know what the rule is for when planchet flaws receive a genuine holder but I would like to know if PCGS has a written rule. Early coins with moderate flaws are almost never given genuine holders in my experience. Modern coins are often given error labels with planchet flaws. Perhaps early to middle date US coinage where the flaw is so bad that it becomes so distracting that the coin loses it's appeal get the 93 code.
<< <i>On silver coins, to the degree shown in the OP coin, they are scarce, but more frequent on 18th century than 19th century. >>
Yes, that was my point, too.
<< <i>It can't be proven or disproven if this was considered an error at the time it was made because the criteria used for rejection by the adjusters does not exist, other than being under the weight tolerance. >>
The fact the older coins are available in quantites that appear to be greater than modern coins would seem to indicate less concern that the coins were substandard on the part of the issuing authorities then as compared to now.
<< <i>The fact the older coins are available in quantites that appear to be greater than modern coins would seem to indicate less concern that the coins were substandard on the part of the issuing authorities then as compared to now. >>
It has been my experience planchet flaws such as the one being discussed are easier to find on 18/19th century coins than on modern coins. Coupled with the fact there are fewer 18/19th century coins available than modern issues, that would seem to indicate that such flaws were not necessarily a major concern at the time of minting. Otherwise, they would have been scrapped at the time instead of being released into circulation, wouldn't they?
Or it could be something else altogether, I suppose.
I wouldn't mind owning this coin if it were very heavily discounted which is very unlikely to happen.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>. . i've been into numismatics for less than 3 years and i've learned a few things:
1. 30% of pcgs coins shouldn't have been graded 2. 50%+ of ngc coins shouldn't have been graded 3. anacs gives detailed grading, so they slide 4. 10% of cac coins shouldn't have been stickerd 5. 60% of gold coins should not have received a grade 6. if 75% of current graded pcgs, ngc coins went through the sniffer and/or re-grade, they would fail
i can go on but i will not . . >>
Are the above comments based on hard evidence after very careful study of a reasonable sampling of several hundred thousand or more PCGS / NGC graded coins, as well as after resubmitting at least fifty thousand previously graded PCGS coins through the sniffer?
or
Simply wild and baseless speculation based on absolutely nothing? >>
To Me, this sounds like what a dealer would tell you when you try to resell your slabbed collection. Well, some dealers.
No doubt Mr. Newman has received some negative information from some source but I would suggest quite a few more years of experience before making and standing behind such wild claims.
I saw two dogs yesterday. One had rabies.
I've learned that 50% of all dogs have rabies.
I'd comment on the OP's coin but its a big Red X for me. Does this mean that 75% of the pictures that DoubleEagle59 posts are unavailable or does it mean that Canadian Pictures are not allowed on the forums? >>
I have seen many older Bust Dollars have flaws like these graded by both TPG's. If PCGS deems them to be market acceptable shouldn't we agree? I bet they have seen more of these coins than anyone on this board including the dealers.
Awarded the coveted "You Suck" Award on 22 Oct 2010 for finding a 1942/1 D Dime in silver, and on 7 Feb 2011 Cherrypicking a 1914 MPL Cent on Ebay!
1) It's their coin grading company and they can grade whatever they like. Welcome to America. 2) When you get your own coin grading company, you can grade coins however YOU like.
<< <i>2) When you get your own coin grading company, you can grade coins however YOU like. >>
So, I need to get my own coin grading company in order to grade coins however I like. Thanks. I learned something new today.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Personally I don't think that PGCS should have graded this coin in the way that they did. The problem is mint caused, but it does have a direct, negative effect on the market value of the piece. It should have been graded as a piece with a mint error with a notation for a defective planchet. The way it is now the coin has been given a "generic" aspect that it does not have. >>
I have seen at least a few early dollars in my day. From my experience, the output of the early U.S. Mint was quite a bit different than the modern Mint. These days, a good number of collectors buying directly from the Mint are upset if their coins don't grade a perfect "70" and send them back. In the early days, such as when the subject dollar was minted, the ONLY way you could get coins directly from the Mint was to deposit bullion and/or foreign coins to be manufactured into new coins. So, the focus of the Mint was to give the depositor what they wanted in terms of face value and denominations of the coins ordered, and to give the depositor acceptable turnaround time in processing. The Mint wasn't concerned with producing "perfection," just satisfying their customers' demand. Minor planchet problems would not affect a coin's service in commerce, so those would not prevent a coin from being released by the Mint. (Can you imagine the conversations the Mint employees would have had if that were not the case? "Hey Bill, does this coin look okay to you? I dunno, see that mark there; Mr. Smith isn't gonna be happy with that. You'd better melt that thing down, make a new planchet and strike it again. Do you know how long that will take? Mr. Smith is already riding me about when he can get his coins, and how he needs them for his business yesterday.")
In the OP's huge image, the flaw is super obvious, but let's put this in perspective. This is probably how the coin looks in hand, at life size:
Yes, the flaw is still noticeable, but is it really that bad that it should have been bodybagged? I don't think so, myself, and I'd bet if it belonged to someone who posted here, we would see a thread flaming PCGS if they did bodybag it.
"government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is a force! like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." George Washington
I like the coin and I think it looks pretty original. Yes, the planchet flaw detracts, but it is definitely not PM damage so it's good to go, IMO. Now why PCGS didn't mark it as a Code 93, when they have a specific code for that purpose, I don't know. Probably because they thought it deserved to be graded.
I don't understand and wish PCGS would provide a little more information. If there is a code specifically called planchet defect which is cause for a Gennie, at what point do they enforce that code?
Is the determination that it is a small planchet defect? A non focal area planchet defect? An early classic coin defect?
Please remember that all planchet defects are pre-strike issues so those claiming it is an as-is mint issue have to realize that PCGS has a code for planchet defects resulting in a Gennie. Please explain PCGS?
<< <i>If there is a code specifically called planchet defect which is cause for a Gennie, at what point do they enforce that code? >>
I doubt there's an an answer to that question aside from this:
"We'll enforce it when we feel it's appropriate to do so."
It's a judgement call on issues that are not either/or determinations. With counterfeits, the coin is either real or it's not. With planchet defects, there are shades of gray.
Comments
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
<< <i>They are not too common on silver or gold coins in this general time period, but they do occur. >>
They're more common on coins from this time period than on currently issued coins. The same sort of thing can be seen on coins from all over the world, which leads me to believe such coins were not considered errors at the time they were made.
<< <i>.
.
actually i am done
if you all (those getting defensive over truths) cannot see the light, let it be to someone else to show it to you
can't say i know you nor know your knowledge or lack thereof
but i know my experience and that is what i go by
>>
By your own admission, you have been involved in numismatics for about 3 years.
That is hardly long enough to put yourself on a pedestal and talk down to the group.
I've been collecting for more than 50 years and am still learning.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>They're more common on coins from this time period than on currently issued coins. The same sort of thing can be seen on coins from all over the world, which leads me to believe such coins were not considered errors at the time they were made. >>
On gold coins they are rare, and I actually can't think of any examples. On silver coins, to the degree shown in the OP coin, they are scarce, but more frequent on 18th century than 19th century. It can't be proven or disproven if this was considered an error at the time it was made because the criteria used for rejection by the adjusters does not exist, other than being under the weight tolerance. In general, I believe a planchet flaw of this magnitude on a silver coin is something that Elias Boudinot would not want to see leave the Mint, so I would classify it as an error.
<< <i>I also agree it's a planchet flaw. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>They are not too common on silver or gold coins in this general time period, but they do occur. >>
They're more common on coins from this time period than on currently issued coins. The same sort of thing can be seen on coins from all over the world, which leads me to believe such coins were not considered errors at the time they were made. >>
One of the ideas behind third party grading is to provide a level of protection to novice buyers. This planchet defect does reduce the value. There is no question about that. If it were very minor, it could be ignored, but since it isn't it should be noted.
The fact that other coins have similar distracting defects does not make it irrelevant. It's presence makes the coin harder to sell and worth less money.
When I bought this high 1795 half cent a couple years ago, it was a raw coin. It does have the tiniest of planchet clips. When I bought it part of the deal was that PCGS would not mention the clip on the slab because it was so minor. If the piece was marked for the planchet clip as a mint error it would have four or five thousand of dollars off the value. PCGS to did not mark as such so now I own it.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>I too could pull made up fictitious statistics out of my butt or offer the real answer that pcgs felt that it was a planchet defect as made and MA on a 200+ year old American coin. >>
60% of statistics are made up. --Jerry
<< <i>Any Seinfeld fans? >>
Yadda, yadda, yadda...
<< <i>My PCGS 1799 dollar also has a planchet flaw, and has been harshly cleaned 8 or 9 times, probably with a wire brush or a dremel tool. It still graded!
but that's ok, 117% of PCGS graded coins have the wrong grade, and - 0.000006457% are not even coins but foil wrapped chocolate discs
Not sure how serious you are about being cleaned but i've owned several 1799 dollars and looked at most of them on heritage and have concluded the alloy used in the planchets in 1799 was probably low in silver and resulted in some funky surfaces with age.
--Jerry
Any other thoughts on what the criteria might be?
--Jerry
<< <i>On silver coins, to the degree shown in the OP coin, they are scarce, but more frequent on 18th century than 19th century. >>
Yes, that was my point, too.
<< <i>It can't be proven or disproven if this was considered an error at the time it was made because the criteria used for rejection by the adjusters does not exist, other than being under the weight tolerance. >>
The fact the older coins are available in quantites that appear to be greater than modern coins would seem to indicate less concern that the coins were substandard on the part of the issuing authorities then as compared to now.
<< <i>The fact the older coins are available in quantites that appear to be greater than modern coins would seem to indicate less concern that the coins were substandard on the part of the issuing authorities then as compared to now. >>
Huh?
<< <i>Huh?
It has been my experience planchet flaws such as the one being discussed are easier to find on 18/19th century coins than on modern coins. Coupled with the fact there are fewer 18/19th century coins available than modern issues, that would seem to indicate that such flaws were not necessarily a major concern at the time of minting. Otherwise, they would have been scrapped at the time instead of being released into circulation, wouldn't they?
Or it could be something else altogether, I suppose.
<< <i>I would not want it! >>
I wouldn't mind owning this coin if it were very heavily discounted which is very unlikely to happen.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>.
.
i've been into numismatics for less than 3 years and i've learned a few things:
1. 30% of pcgs coins shouldn't have been graded
2. 50%+ of ngc coins shouldn't have been graded
3. anacs gives detailed grading, so they slide
4. 10% of cac coins shouldn't have been stickerd
5. 60% of gold coins should not have received a grade
6. if 75% of current graded pcgs, ngc coins went through the sniffer and/or re-grade, they would fail
i can go on but i will not
.
. >>
Are the above comments based on hard evidence after very careful study of a reasonable sampling of several hundred thousand or more PCGS / NGC graded coins, as well as after resubmitting at least fifty thousand previously graded PCGS coins through the sniffer?
or
Simply wild and baseless speculation based on absolutely nothing? >>
To Me, this sounds like what a dealer would tell you when you try to resell your slabbed collection. Well, some dealers.
No doubt Mr. Newman has received some negative information from some source but I would suggest quite a few more years of experience before making and standing behind such wild claims.
I saw two dogs yesterday.
One had rabies.
I've learned that 50% of all dogs have rabies.
I'd comment on the OP's coin but its a big Red X for me. Does this mean that 75% of the pictures that DoubleEagle59 posts are unavailable or does it mean that Canadian Pictures are not allowed on the forums?
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
1) It's their coin grading company and they can grade whatever they like. Welcome to America.
2) When you get your own coin grading company, you can grade coins however YOU like.
I presume they holdered this since the flaw is 100% visible despite the slab and gasket.
If they had NOT wanted to holder it...any excuse could have been made ...cleaned being the biggest cop out.
<< <i>2) When you get your own coin grading company, you can grade coins however YOU like. >>
So, I need to get my own coin grading company in order to grade coins however I like. Thanks. I learned something new today.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Personally I don't think that PGCS should have graded this coin in the way that they did. The problem is mint caused, but it does have a direct, negative effect on the market value of the piece. It should have been graded as a piece with a mint error with a notation for a defective planchet. The way it is now the coin has been given a "generic" aspect that it does not have. >>
+1
Joe.
In the OP's huge image, the flaw is super obvious, but let's put this in perspective. This is probably how the coin looks in hand, at life size:
Yes, the flaw is still noticeable, but is it really that bad that it should have been bodybagged? I don't think so, myself, and I'd bet if it belonged to someone who posted here, we would see a thread flaming PCGS if they did bodybag it.
...are we sure that's not on the slab
...
Tom
If there is a code specifically called planchet defect which is cause for a Gennie, at what point do they enforce that code?
Is the determination that it is a small planchet defect?
A non focal area planchet defect?
An early classic coin defect?
Please remember that all planchet defects are pre-strike issues so those claiming it is an as-is mint issue have to realize that PCGS has a code for planchet defects resulting in a Gennie.
Please explain PCGS?
<< <i>If there is a code specifically called planchet defect which is cause for a Gennie, at what point do they enforce that code? >>
I doubt there's an an answer to that question aside from this:
"We'll enforce it when we feel it's appropriate to do so."
It's a judgement call on issues that are not either/or determinations. With counterfeits, the coin is either real or it's not. With planchet defects, there are shades of gray.