Shame on NGC 2? by Johnathan
0

29 posts in this topic

3,247 posts

ERRORS?

 

I recently sent two of my coins in for error certification and was very disappointed with the way NGC graded them. The first received details grading ( was graded in an ICG holder originally wanted in a NGC holder) NGC certification #2692048-011. ICG had it as an MS68 (no detail grading although NGC gave it a detail grading). The second has a struck thru wire on liberty neck ( NGC didn't even acknowledge that it was struck thru even though had paid more for this certification) NGC certification #2692048-007. Take a look at the pictures on the NGC verification tool and give me feedback as to what you guys think. Should I send them in to PCGS to get the proper grading?

17569.jpg

 

See more journals by Johnathan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts

by the way- PCGS is just as bad when they get behind and have to add unqualified graders to pick up the slack. I know some of you 'pros' might argue with me, but I have been in this hobby longer than many of you have been breathing so please don't go there- there are far too many mistakes in slabs to say it isn't so, or are the *real* pros really THAT sloppy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,029 posts

This one NGC would probably fix for free. You paid for the mint error attribution and they missed it. The other one, they call them as they see them based on what they see before them at the time. Basically you are disputing someone elses opinion. You have an opinion, they have an opinion. Who's to say which is "right". You've seen it in hand and so have they. All we have seen is an image that may or may not be representative of what it really looks like and which may be hiding things (Or taken in such a way to make a minor issue look much worse depending upon which side of the issue you are on.). You can't draw definitive conclusions from images on subtle matters.

 

By the way, do you really have to have four threads on the same dispute?

Edited by Conder101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 posts

I called NGC customer service Conder101 to try to get them to correct the issue. They act as if they never make mistakes and will not rectify the situation. As far as the pictures I took there are no scratches on the coin as I have a high magnification microscope myself and the pictures are not retouched. You can also look at the picture NGC took of the coins by using the NGC verification tool and punching in the certification #'s of the coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,029 posts

Pictures don't have to be retouched to not show things. And I have never thought too much of NGC's images so that wouldn't help either. (I've often felt their images consider the slab more important and they often don't show the coin well.) Also to get a good examination of a coin and check for problems you have to tilt it back and forth and let the light play across the surfaces. Sometimes a problem will onlyshow when viewed at a certain angle. You can't do that with images.

 

You told them you paid for the error description, that it clearly has a large strike through and it wasn't noted and they just blew you off? Did you then ask to talk to their superior? This doesn't sound like normal NGC customer service. (I can understand not doing anything about the one they detailed, but the one pictured in this thread they should fix. ) If customer service isn't willing to help, get on the NGC forum and take your case there. Some of the head honchos post there on the boards and you can talk to them directly. David Lange, Director of Research, posts there and many times he has been either able to find out why the graders graded someones coin the way they did, or make arrangements for it to be sent back in and reviewed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
This one NGC would probably fix for free. You paid for the mint error attribution and they missed it. The other one, they call them as they see them based on what they see before them at the time. Basically you are disputing someone elses opinion. You have an opinion, they have an opinion. Who's to say which is "right". You've seen it in hand and so have they. All we have seen is an image that may or may not be representative of what it really looks like and which may be hiding things (Or taken in such a way to make a minor issue look much worse depending upon which side of the issue you are on.). You can't draw definitive conclusions from images on subtle matters.

 

By the way, do you really have to have four threads on the same dispute?

 

agreed. I'll add that I think they could alleviate some of these problems by allowing the submitter to include notes for them to follow as they evaluate the coin, as in what you want them to look at and note on the holder if warranted, afterall, we are the ones paying for the service.

 

As for making them look worse or not- I look at it a different way because I worked in exacting jobs all my life (equipment associated with the firing and guidance of nuclear weapons first, then I built computers for a living in my business later). If I gave my customers reason to fire a round at me, I guess I deserved it. For them to ignore the fact that the date on my coin was 1794 and then label it 1795 but state on the same insert that it was illegible is as contradictory as you can get- they first declare it a 1795 and then declare the date illegible? That goes beyond a mistake- it is a willful admittance that you don't really have a clue what you're saying.

 

Sorry if that insults anyone, I tend to call them as I see them, and I criticize myself when I act the same...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,041 posts
This one NGC would probably fix for free. You paid for the mint error attribution and they missed it. The other one, they call them as they see them based on what they see before them at the time. Basically you are disputing someone elses opinion. You have an opinion, they have an opinion. Who's to say which is "right". You've seen it in hand and so have they. All we have seen is an image that may or may not be representative of what it really looks like and which may be hiding things (Or taken in such a way to make a minor issue look much worse depending upon which side of the issue you are on.). You can't draw definitive conclusions from images on subtle matters.

 

By the way, do you really have to have four threads on the same dispute?

 

agreed. I'll add that I think they could alleviate some of these problems by allowing the submitter to include notes for them to follow as they evaluate the coin, as in what you want them to look at and note on the holder if warranted, afterall, we are the ones paying for the service.

 

As for making them look worse or not- I look at it a different way because I worked in exacting jobs all my life (equipment associated with the firing and guidance of nuclear weapons first, then I built computers for a living in my business later). If I gave my customers reason to fire a round at me, I guess I deserved it. For them to ignore the fact that the date on my coin was 1794 and then label it 1795 but state on the same insert that it was illegible is as contradictory as you can get- they first declare it a 1795 and then declare the date illegible? That goes beyond a mistake- it is a willful admittance that you don't really have a clue what you're saying.

 

Sorry if that insults anyone, I tend to call them as I see them, and I criticize myself when I act the same...

 

In the case of the 1794/1795, is it possible that the coin was somehow identifiable as a variety of 1795, but that the date was still illegible? Even if not in your case, I would guess that something like that has been the case before. And thus, the contradiction would actually make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428 posts

I sent a heavily circulated overdate 8 reales to NGC for grading. It was a recognized, albeit scarce, variety and for that reason I figured it would be examined carefully. There were no other graded examples at NGC or PCGS and it's still the only one certified. However, it received, in my mind, a grossly undergraded VG-10. I sent it back (and paid) for grade re-evaluation and it received a more reasonable VG-20, a 10 point jump. How could the first graders be so far off the mark? I suspect that they spend as little time as possible looking at what they perceive as low value items.

 

In my experience, you will get a more careful evaluation the second time you send your coins to NGC, but you have to pay for it.

 

163493.jpg.862d065fc2b235849820b73ee9c1744b.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,067 posts

I don't collect portrait coinage and can't speak to its grading. I know there is a wide discrepancy in the grades assigned to pillar coinage. Its an opportunity for the astute buyer to potentially acquire better coins for less money, even excluding the "investment" aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472 posts

<<< In my experience, you will get a more careful evaluation the second time you send your coins to NGC, but you have to pay for it. >>>

 

 

 

I'm curious why you think this?

 

 

As an example, here's my recent experience with a toned NGC 1879-S Morgan dollar........I had in my opinion a really PQ 1879-S in MS66 which I felt was undergraded. I sent the coin in raw again to NGC and this time it comes back downgraded as an MS65. I sent the coin back yet again, and now it's back to an MS66 again. I later become frustrated and sell the coin. Just a couple of months later I stumble upon the coin in a big Heritage sale (Lot #8231) and now it's graded MS66+* CAC and it sells for well over double what I recently sold it for. Yes, there's a very good reason it's commonly referred to as the "grading game", "grading merry go round", "a roll of the dice", etc.

 

lf%201_zpskqz2j70q.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
I sent a heavily circulated overdate 8 reales to NGC for grading. It was a recognized, albeit scarce, variety and for that reason I figured it would be examined carefully. There were no other graded examples at NGC or PCGS and it's still the only one certified. However, it received, in my mind, a grossly undergraded VG-10. I sent it back (and paid) for grade re-evaluation and it received a more reasonable VG-20, a 10 point jump. How could the first graders be so far off the mark? I suspect that they spend as little time as possible looking at what they perceive as low value items.

 

In my experience, you will get a more careful evaluation the second time you send your coins to NGC, but you have to pay for it.

 

 

on the contrary- I can grade any problem free coin in a matter of seconds, always have been able to with great accuracy, so if an 'amateur' like me can evaluate a coin that quickly the 'pros' can too. I attribute the problem more to graders who aren't proficient or competent in the coins that cross their grading tables. This is not meant as an insult to the graders but if I owned NGC or PCGS, I would match the coins to the true professionals no matter how difficult the logistics. I would definitely be ashamed of the things I'm seeing in this thread and I hope they are watching and learning. Getting back to my assertion- let's use capped bust half dollars for an example. Most every issue was made by hand on a screw press until the steam presses came into use in the mid 1830's, so each die had it's own charachteristics and many die pair varieties have to be evaluated and compared carefully to their peers, not other issues. There are 1810 issues with sunken dies that left the obv and rev centers void of design, a good example but one of many in the series. I have seen uncirculated specimens graded AU onlky because the grader had no clue that the flat centers weren't showing signs of circulation but the orginal surface ot the crude planchet. I have seen hundreds of mistakes in PCGS and NGC holders just in the bust half series, but I have seen the same in all series. So my point is- if these graders have little or no experience with the issues they are tasked with grading, they WILL make a lot of mistakes. After 51 years in the hobby, and with 45 years experience in bust halves and Morgan dollars, I think I can claim to know what I'm talking about, yet every time I bring it up in a conversation out here in the forums, I get poopoo'd off the screen. I don't particularly care what anyone believes, but the reality is in the photos and stories here. All respect for the monumental task the TPG's have with the millions of coins sent every year, but there IS a problem and it will grow as their credibility is questioned more loudly by the collectors who buy their 'products' (opinions)...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
This one NGC would probably fix for free. You paid for the mint error attribution and they missed it. The other one, they call them as they see them based on what they see before them at the time. Basically you are disputing someone elses opinion. You have an opinion, they have an opinion. Who's to say which is "right". You've seen it in hand and so have they. All we have seen is an image that may or may not be representative of what it really looks like and which may be hiding things (Or taken in such a way to make a minor issue look much worse depending upon which side of the issue you are on.). You can't draw definitive conclusions from images on subtle matters.

 

By the way, do you really have to have four threads on the same dispute?

 

agreed. I'll add that I think they could alleviate some of these problems by allowing the submitter to include notes for them to follow as they evaluate the coin, as in what you want them to look at and note on the holder if warranted, afterall, we are the ones paying for the service.

 

As for making them look worse or not- I look at it a different way because I worked in exacting jobs all my life (equipment associated with the firing and guidance of nuclear weapons first, then I built computers for a living in my business later). If I gave my customers reason to fire a round at me, I guess I deserved it. For them to ignore the fact that the date on my coin was 1794 and then label it 1795 but state on the same insert that it was illegible is as contradictory as you can get- they first declare it a 1795 and then declare the date illegible? That goes beyond a mistake- it is a willful admittance that you don't really have a clue what you're saying.

 

Sorry if that insults anyone, I tend to call them as I see them, and I criticize myself when I act the same...

 

In the case of the 1794/1795, is it possible that the coin was somehow identifiable as a variety of 1795, but that the date was still illegible? Even if not in your case, I would guess that something like that has been the case before. And thus, the contradiction would actually make sense.

 

good question but I think not. I think there may have been a miscommunication between the grader and the insert preparer. The coin doesn't allign with any 1795 variety and I personally tried to figure out what I had without success. The coin is without a doubt dated 1794 but there isn't much design left and I can't say it is either variety, but it definitely is a 4, not a 5, not a slant 5, not a 1795. Regardless, if they DID discern the date via the variety, they would still label it with a date simply because the evidence shows it to be. I have seen slabbed dateless coins with a date and variety on the label and that would be the logical way to do it. Why they didn't slab it is beyond me- it is a coin and they didn't label it counterfeit. Who knows, maybe the boss was out of the office so someone with little knowledge and a little authority made a command decision. All I know is it gets old having to resubmit coins to get it right...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
<<< In my experience, you will get a more careful evaluation the second time you send your coins to NGC, but you have to pay for it. >>>

 

 

 

I'm curious why you think this?

 

 

As an example, here's my recent experience with a toned NGC 1879-S Morgan dollar........I had in my opinion a really PQ 1879-S in MS66 which I felt was undergraded. I sent the coin in raw again to NGC and this time it comes back downgraded as an MS65. I sent the coin back yet again, and now it's back to an MS66 again. I later become frustrated and sell the coin. Just a couple of months later I stumble upon the coin in a big Heritage sale (Lot #8231) and now it's graded MS66+* CAC and it sells for well over double what I recently sold it for. Yes, there's a very good reason it's commonly referred to as the "grading game", "grading merry go round", "a roll of the dice", etc.

 

lf%201_zpskqz2j70q.jpg

 

beautiful coin, clean cheek, nice color- I have seen obviously worse in 67 slabs so I wonder why they dogged yours so badly. Really sorry to hear you got the shaft on this one. Next time try the alternate grading service- I have a lot of luck that way when I get an obviously undergraded slab and decide to try for an upgrade, and my success rate is about 75%, not bad at all if the upgrade is worthy of the resubmission...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472 posts

<<< I don't particularly care what anyone believes, but the reality is in the photos and stories here. >>>

 

......and we are only reading about a tiny sampling of these issues, probably far less than 1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

<<< but there IS a problem and it will grow as their credibility is questioned more loudly by the collectors who buy their 'products' (opinions)... >>>

 

IMO this problem has already been ongoing for many years to the point where it is no longer correctable, nor would the 3rd party services have any desire or motivation to even address that there is a "problem".

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,041 posts
This one NGC would probably fix for free. You paid for the mint error attribution and they missed it. The other one, they call them as they see them based on what they see before them at the time. Basically you are disputing someone elses opinion. You have an opinion, they have an opinion. Who's to say which is "right". You've seen it in hand and so have they. All we have seen is an image that may or may not be representative of what it really looks like and which may be hiding things (Or taken in such a way to make a minor issue look much worse depending upon which side of the issue you are on.). You can't draw definitive conclusions from images on subtle matters.

 

By the way, do you really have to have four threads on the same dispute?

 

agreed. I'll add that I think they could alleviate some of these problems by allowing the submitter to include notes for them to follow as they evaluate the coin, as in what you want them to look at and note on the holder if warranted, afterall, we are the ones paying for the service.

 

As for making them look worse or not- I look at it a different way because I worked in exacting jobs all my life (equipment associated with the firing and guidance of nuclear weapons first, then I built computers for a living in my business later). If I gave my customers reason to fire a round at me, I guess I deserved it. For them to ignore the fact that the date on my coin was 1794 and then label it 1795 but state on the same insert that it was illegible is as contradictory as you can get- they first declare it a 1795 and then declare the date illegible? That goes beyond a mistake- it is a willful admittance that you don't really have a clue what you're saying.

 

Sorry if that insults anyone, I tend to call them as I see them, and I criticize myself when I act the same...

 

In the case of the 1794/1795, is it possible that the coin was somehow identifiable as a variety of 1795, but that the date was still illegible? Even if not in your case, I would guess that something like that has been the case before. And thus, the contradiction would actually make sense.

 

good question but I think not. I think there may have been a miscommunication between the grader and the insert preparer. The coin doesn't allign with any 1795 variety and I personally tried to figure out what I had without success. The coin is without a doubt dated 1794 but there isn't much design left and I can't say it is either variety, but it definitely is a 4, not a 5, not a slant 5, not a 1795. Regardless, if they DID discern the date via the variety, they would still label it with a date simply because the evidence shows it to be. I have seen slabbed dateless coins with a date and variety on the label and that would be the logical way to do it. Why they didn't slab it is beyond me- it is a coin and they didn't label it counterfeit. Who knows, maybe the boss was out of the office so someone with little knowledge and a little authority made a command decision. All I know is it gets old having to resubmit coins to get it right...

 

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428 posts

<<< In my experience, you will get a more careful evaluation the second time you send your coins to NGC, but you have to pay for it. >>>

 

I'm curious why you think this?

 

I was referring to NGC's regrade service, not to cracking it out and sending it raw, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472 posts
<<< In my experience, you will get a more careful evaluation the second time you send your coins to NGC, but you have to pay for it. >>>

 

I'm curious why you think this?

 

I was referring to NGC's regrade service, not to cracking it out and sending it raw, again.

 

 

 

 

 

I understand, and I knew what you meant. I'm still curious why you think that though? Do you really believe they are more careful/cautious or spend additional time on any particular piece just because it's in for a regrade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428 posts
<<< In my experience, you will get a more careful evaluation the second time you send your coins to NGC, but you have to pay for it. >>>

 

I'm curious why you think this?

 

I was referring to NGC's regrade service, not to cracking it out and sending it raw, again.

 

I understand, and I knew what you meant. I'm still curious why you think that though? Do you really believe they are more careful/cautious or spend additional time on any particular piece just because it's in for a regrade?

 

I have seen the NGC videos of the grading room so I have some basis of estimate for how much time the grader spends on a coin (it's not much) and I understand that two graders handle each raw coin. I have read on this forum that on a regrade, only one grader is involved. It's the same fee, split across two graders for raw coins but only one for regrading. It may be an invalid assumption, but the one grader can spend twice the time on the regrade. Anyone with more information on the regrading process is welcome to chime in.

 

My only other evidence is that I am 2 for 2 on getting better grades through this process.

 

Have you ever tried the regrade service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472 posts

I may have used the regrade service once or twice in the past 25 yrs. or so, so I can't really comment on results.

 

I'm not sure how much stock I'd put into drawing conclusions from watching a video of the grading process or the results of going 2 for 2 using this service in the past, but if it works for you....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
...For them to ignore the fact that the date on my coin was 1794 and then label it 1795 but state on the same insert that it was illegible is as contradictory as you can get- they first declare it a 1795 and then declare the date illegible? That goes beyond a mistake- it is a willful admittance that you don't really have a clue what you're saying.

 

Sorry if that insults anyone, I tend to call them as I see them, and I criticize myself when I act the same...

 

In the case of the 1794/1795, is it possible that the coin was somehow identifiable as a variety of 1795, but that the date was still illegible? Even if not in your case, I would guess that something like that has been the case before. And thus, the contradiction would actually make sense.

 

good question but I think not. I think there may have been a miscommunication between the grader and the insert preparer. The coin doesn't allign with any 1795 variety and I personally tried to figure out what I had without success. The coin is without a doubt dated 1794 but there isn't much design left and I can't say it is either variety, but it definitely is a 4, not a 5, not a slant 5, not a 1795. Regardless, if they DID discern the date via the variety, they would still label it with a date simply because the evidence shows it to be. I have seen slabbed dateless coins with a date and variety on the label and that would be the logical way to do it. Why they didn't slab it is beyond me- it is a coin and they didn't label it counterfeit. Who knows, maybe the boss was out of the office so someone with little knowledge and a little authority made a command decision. All I know is it gets old having to resubmit coins to get it right...

 

Thank you.

 

Hi Mark- here are a few pics of this coin just in case you see something that we haven't that might help figure it out.

 

 

 

163541.jpg.c0cd9ed108884889c2dc68f25b84654a.jpg

163542.jpg.268c6921a96feeeb3f9f282ae01caafa.jpg

163543.jpg.f6fdfcf8549ed128385a136018fa9347.jpg

163544.jpg.4e0de18b6a9e0af985bac4060672d43d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,029 posts

Thanks for the pictures of the half dollar.

 

Interesting piece, I can't find a variety match for ANY 1794 or 1795 half dollar. For either the obv or the rev.

 

Closest obv's are 1794 obv 5 O-108, only obv where neither star 1 or 2 touch the curl. But the curl is further away from star 1 than on your coin. The curve of the bust where it meets the hair is also much more strongly curved than on your coin.

 

Closest 1795 obv is obv 6 O-111 and 112. This is closer than the 1794 obv, but the shape of the two bottom curls are different than on your coin. Once again the curve of the base of the bust is steeper and more sharply curved than on your coin.

 

The only obverses that have a gentle curve like your are 1795 obv 15, 16, and 17 and on those the placements of stars 1 and 13 are wrong.

 

The rev doesn't really match anything. The key feature is the leaf cluster under the OF. It approaches it at a steep angle with one leaf point under the end of the left foot of the F, and the other leaf point under the right side of the O.

 

None of the 1795 reverses have that leaf cluster approach at a steep angle, the cluster always follows the curve of the rim. Two of the 1794 reverses do approach at a steep angle like that (A & E)

 

On rev A both leaf point are under the O. On E one is below the center of the upright of F and the other ends just barely left of the left foot of F.

 

 

Unlisted variety or contemporary counterfeit? Considering neither die matches a known one being a genuine coin is less likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
Thanks for the pictures of the half dollar.

 

Interesting piece, I can't find a variety match for ANY 1794 or 1795 half dollar. For either the obv or the rev.

 

Closest obv's are 1794 obv 5 O-108, only obv where neither star 1 or 2 touch the curl. But the curl is further away from star 1 than on your coin. The curve of the bust where it meets the hair is also much more strongly curved than on your coin.

 

Closest 1795 obv is obv 6 O-111 and 112. This is closer than the 1794 obv, but the shape of the two bottom curls are different than on your coin. Once again the curve of the base of the bust is steeper and more sharply curved than on your coin.

 

The only obverses that have a gentle curve like your are 1795 obv 15, 16, and 17 and on those the placements of stars 1 and 13 are wrong.

 

The rev doesn't really match anything. The key feature is the leaf cluster under the OF. It approaches it at a steep angle with one leaf point under the end of the left foot of the F, and the other leaf point under the right side of the O.

 

None of the 1795 reverses have that leaf cluster approach at a steep angle, the cluster always follows the curve of the rim. Two of the 1794 reverses do approach at a steep angle like that (A & E)

 

On rev A both leaf point are under the O. On E one is below the center of the upright of F and the other ends just barely left of the left foot of F.

 

 

Unlisted variety or contemporary counterfeit? Considering neither die matches a known one being a genuine coin is less likely.

 

hey Conder, that is some work you put into it! Yes, same thing I found- it matches no varieties known. I collected Overton varieties some time back, had over 400 varieties including several R6 & R7's, studied that book so closely that I found discrepancies in a few sets of photographs! Overton was very thorough though, so your guess is as good as mine- that is why I sent it for grading- to get authentication, but instead I got it back in a body bag, something I rarely see. I also got a very lightly hairlined common date mint state half eagle back in a body bag with the same submission of only a dozen coins, the insert labeled 'residue'. I couldn't find any residue that affected the original surface, just a small mildly discolored area on the reverse that looked natural to us and didn't detract from the coin's beauty. I sent it in expecting them to hit it on the hairlines and call it MS60 or 61, but no biggie, it's worth as much raw, write it off as a cost of collecting I guess. My bet is it would grade straight if it was properly cleaned, which is what they wanted me to pay for and why it ended up in a body bag. In any case, very unusual to get a single coin back in a body bag let alone two in a small order, but that's the breaks.

 

Appreciate the footwork, I should have mentioned that I had already done it. The mystery of the half dollar will be solved, maybe by someone out here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,304 posts

Under/over-grading by increments is to be expected especially with hard to pin down types in the world coinage department. A dealer friend showed me a US Colonial coin that CAC gold stickered when they did those. Statistical anomalies are to be expected, but represent a very small percentage of coins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,029 posts
I should have mentioned that I had already done it.

Even if you had I still would have done it.

 

This is a coin that need to be looked at by some other serious bust half collectors. I don't trust the TPG's to identify previously unknown varieties on their own (frankly I don't trust them to identify KNOWN varieties) Once it gets declared a new variety by knowledgeable specialists (if that is what it is) then you might get the TPG's to slab it.

 

Have you run a SG test on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
Under/over-grading by increments is to be expected especially with hard to pin down types in the world coinage department. A dealer friend showed me a US Colonial coin that CAC gold stickered when they did those. Statistical anomalies are to be expected, but represent a very small percentage of coins.

 

 

easy enough to say unless you're the sucker holding ten or twenty of them until retirement. There are dealers who buy these 'anomolies' and then resell them to unsuspecting 'trusters' of the slab. I have been saying it since the grading services came along- it should have been for authentication purposes only and any mention of a grade should have been called a loose opinion in the fine print. I met a guy once at a show who showed me a couple of boxes full of NGC & PCGS slabs- he said he bought them for the trust factor. Out of both boxes, I agreed with about 25% of them and many were just mistakes, with some AU's labeled in mint state grades and cleaned/scratched coins mixed in. I asked him why he bought them and he told me he was scammed by a bad dealer. He wouldn't write it off as casually as you just did, with all respect for your opinion of course...

 

By the way- to put that 'statistical anomoly' into perspective, the top two TPG's have graded about 65,000,000 coins so far. What percentage of sixty five million would be a safe anomoly?

 

Edited by LuckyOne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487 posts
I should have mentioned that I had already done it.

Even if you had I still would have done it.

 

This is a coin that need to be looked at by some other serious bust half collectors. I don't trust the TPG's to identify previously unknown varieties on their own (frankly I don't trust them to identify KNOWN varieties) Once it gets declared a new variety by knowledgeable specialists (if that is what it is) then you might get the TPG's to slab it.

 

Have you run a SG test on it?

 

I bought it at a flea market or garage sale a while ago and it has been sitting in the back of a safe deposit box for years so it hasn't been tested in any way, just was never a concern since I bought it so inexpensively. I had a collection of over 400 Overton varieties at one time, tracked them all down myself as un-attributed commons, so I learned a thing or two. By the time I rediscovered this piece, the whole set was gone and I think I might have a few busties left in my collection, so I really had no need to keep it and decided to have it authenticated. Now I don't have a clue what they meant- is it authentic or not? As for a new variety, never thought of that possibility, just thought it would allign with one of the two known varieties and was surprised when I tried and failed. I have lived in the heartland for two decades now but one day we'll move closer to a major city that hosts big shows and I'll take it to some experts then. Until then, it's an interesting conversation piece, and who knows, it might not even be real. Makes you wonder why NGC didn't follow through with that part of it...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
This one NGC would probably fix for free. You paid for the mint error attribution and they missed it.

 

In my experience, the services are not willing to designate strike thru errors that are that small. It's still interesting, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,029 posts
In my experience, the services are not willing to designate strike thru errors that are that small.

In that case they shouldn't have charged him the fee for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,875 posts
In my experience, the services are not willing to designate strike thru errors that are that small.

In that case they shouldn't have charged him the fee for doing so.

 

I would tend to agree, but the grading services will tell you that the fee is for the examination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0