Census VS Slab. SP or PR?
2 2

34 posts in this topic

Is there data to back up the "specimen" claim? The photos show a common "proof" coin - nice but not special.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 7:03 PM, RWB said:

Is there data to back up the "specimen" claim? The photos show a common "proof" coin - nice but not special.

You are absolutely right - this is proof coin, but the question was not about that.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well your question is rather vague so it is rather hard to know what you want others to discuss.   My guess is that the info was a typo/human error when it was input either for the slab or into the database.   I would not call it a specimen so the slab label seems correct and the database needs to be corrected, but only a call to the PCGS customer service has any chance of yielding any results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another PCGS typo!!?? At what point exactly does an inability to accurately type impair general confidence in a firm? For me, LONNNNNNG ago. Yes, everybody does, but I see more examples from PCGS than anyone. And no, they’re NOT the biggest, just the most self-congratulatory. 

Edited by VKurtB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just guessing but a typo on PCGS's end (in the population report and/or the slab) unless there is something different with the finish/coin and PCGS changed the designation after the coin was encapsulated. Is the coin supposed to be proof, proof like, something else? There are a lot of coins that fall into PCGS's SP designation, including Burnished ASE's (those stared MS then SP later if I remember correctly), Satin Finish State Quarters, Presidential Dollars, Sacagawea Dollars, etc... I would need to know more about the coin before I could speculate further.

@medved what do you think the designation should be as you probably know more about this coin than anyone here. Have you tried contacting PCGS for an explanation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I know about these, they were not technically minted in proof. These were issued in mint sets and the coins came full cameo prooflike. Ivanauskas lists them as only coming in business strike. Krause calls them PL.

NGC calls them proofs. PCGS called them proofs (before they heavily instituted the SP designation), but apparently switched to SP. My guess is they choose SP instead of MS since the coins were specially struck (hence Specimen) and if they called them MS, people would complain since the coins don't look MS. SP is probably the correct term for them. 

By the way, I was the submitter of that coin. I sold it back in 2012 to a guy named Mantas in Lithuania. Is that you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 9:57 PM, Coinbuf said:

Well your question is rather vague so it is rather hard to know what you want others to discuss.   My guess is that the info was a typo/human error when it was input either for the slab or into the database.   I would not call it a specimen so the slab label seems correct and the database needs to be corrected, but only a call to the PCGS customer service has any chance of yielding any results.

I agree. English is not my native language, so sometimes my questions not very clear. I apologize for that. First I also thought about human error, but later I received an answer from other forum:
"I've got a lot of those, as PCGS has changed the PR/PL/MS/SP definition for a number of coin types over time. For example

  • Great Britain Maundy coins are now PL, I have some slabs that say MS
  • Essai / Prova / Proba coins are now mostly SP, I have some slabs that are MS or PR
  • French coins from "Specimen Sets" are now mostly MS, I have some slabs that are SP

As I am not looking to sell any time soon, I haven't done anything about the discrepancies between slab and the Cert Verification."

On 7/15/2021 at 9:58 PM, VKurtB said:

Another PCGS typo!!?? At what point exactly does an inability to accurately type impair general confidence in a firm? For me, LONNNNNNG ago. Yes, everybody does, but I see more examples from PCGS than anyone. And no, they’re NOT the biggest, just the most self-congratulatory. 

PCGS and NGC both made mistakes. NGC has a few counterfeit slabbed Latvian coins (it was written on another topic). 7-8 years ago fake Estonian coin 3 marks 1926 was graded as XF details by NGC. I saw also an incorrect label on the PCGS slabs (here is the link) and the photo will be at the end of the post (Litas and Centai).
So Errare Humanum Est.

On 7/15/2021 at 10:07 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Just guessing but a typo on PCGS's end (in the population report and/or the slab) unless there is something different with the finish/coin and PCGS changed the designation after the coin was encapsulated. Is the coin supposed to be proof, proof like, something else? There are a lot of coins that fall into PCGS's SP designation, including Burnished ASE's (those stared MS then SP later if I remember correctly), Satin Finish State Quarters, Presidential Dollars, Sacagawea Dollars, etc... I would need to know more about the coin before I could speculate further.

@medved what do you think the designation should be as you probably know more about this coin than anyone here. Have you tried contacting PCGS for an explanation?

2003 coins were issued only in coin sets "proof-like quality" as Lithuanian Bank announced (Some images of the set I will add) Mintage 10 000

FB_IMG_1618957032410.jpg

2003 a.JPG

2003 b.JPG

2003 c.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 10:47 PM, gmarguli said:

By the way, I was the submitter of that coin. I sold it back in 2012 to a guy named Mantas in Lithuania. Is that you? 

My name is Mihail. I'm from Latvia and I bought this coin in Riga from a Lithuanian guy at the summer antic fair in 2020 for 5€

By the way, I still awaiting your answer on the e-Bay (kabanjaka my nickname there) from 17th March about Latvian Proof 5 lati coin. Unfortunately, you ignored me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 10:07 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

Have you tried contacting PCGS for an explanation?

No I didn't
I will add a screenshot from Lithuanian Bank's web page

Untitled.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 12:58 PM, medved said:

By the way, I still awaiting your answer on the e-Bay (kabanjaka my nickname there) from 17th March about Latvian Proof 5 lati coin. Unfortunately, you ignored me.

I responded to a question on 3/17/21 from you. It's possible I missed another question. When I have hundreds of auctions running, I get flooded with questions and requests.

What was your question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • There is nothing to support use of "specimen." (This implies a special event surrounding a specific piece, only.)
  • Use the issuer's designation.
  • If visually justified, add "DMPL" or something similar to describe the surfaces.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I am confused by this thread. You got an answer from someone on another forum, who stated that PCGS had changed their designation on a number of coin types over the years. That seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation, to me. You also apparently did not feel the need to contact PCGS to answer your question. So, I guess I am wondering: What additional information were you hoping to get from this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 4:10 PM, Just Bob said:

I'm sorry, but I am confused by this thread. You got an answer from someone on another forum, who stated that PCGS had changed their designation on a number of coin types over the years. That seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation, to me. You also apparently did not feel the need to contact PCGS to answer your question. So, I guess I am wondering: What additional information were you hoping to get from this thread?

Probably the Great Awww of Commiseration. Never underplay its significance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 12:05 AM, RWB said:
  • There is nothing to support use of "specimen." (This implies a special event surrounding a specific piece, only.)
  • Use the issuer's designation.
  • If visually justified, add "DMPL" or something similar to describe the surfaces.

Dear RWB, I try to explain again. I know how to designate this coin. The question was about situation. Why we have different designations on the slab and on the web page and how it is possible?

On 7/16/2021 at 12:10 AM, Just Bob said:

I'm sorry, but I am confused by this thread. You got an answer from someone on another forum, who stated that PCGS had changed their designation on a number of coin types over the years. That seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation, to me. You also apparently did not feel the need to contact PCGS to answer your question. So, I guess I am wondering: What additional information were you hoping to get from this thread?

Why you so confused? Can you imagine I got the answer from other forum AFTER I post this topic here :-)
Why I didn't ask PCGS? From professional numismatists on different forums you can get the answer very fast. So I got the answer after one hour after I post this topic here. And I like to communicate with people on the forums.
The question was about situation. Why we have different designations on the slab and on the web page and how it is possible? Because this is first time when I see this. Now I got the answer - Thank you!
I hope now everything clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My preference would be PL on these, PL is a well know designation and more straight forward. DCPL, I'd be good with that too for those that qualify, anything not PL is MS. The SP designation, I get it, but in this case I would have not used it and PF, well. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 4:31 PM, gmarguli said:

Specimen = Special Strike. It's not a circulation strike, but not a traditional proof strike. These coins were made high quality cameo PL, but not proofs. SP seems like a valid designation. PL6x could have also worked, but that kind of implies that all the examples are PL and some may not be.

In @RWB’s defense (imagine THAT!) he has always been consistent with his personal definition of what constitutes an SP coin, and what does not. His emphasis is based on a historical inquiry of the events surrounding the striking. That is a perfectly defensible and understandable standard. Here’s the inquiry and the potential problem. Does anyone ELSE use that standard?  Is it agreed upon? And inquiring minds want to know if RWB would even care if they don’t. I suspect not. RWB marches to the beat of his own very unique drummer. Consensus does not enter his thinking. 

There is plenty to admire there. Not many have that kind of courage of their convictions.

I am unsatisfied by such a standard. There needs to be a meeting of the minds.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, sometimes, not very easy to get a clear understanding of designation. 
For example - Brilliant Uncirculated
NGC Glossary said: an adjectival grade which NGC defines as being MS 60 or higher
PCGS: 
A generic term applied to any coin that has not been in circulation. It often is applied to coins with little "brilliance" left, which properly should be described as simply Uncirculated.
As you can see, by these descriptions this is the condition of coins.

But for example in Europe (in many European countries) it is the quality of the minting, not the condition of the coins. Sometimes these coins are called: "Coins of the improved quality" or "Coins of the improved minting". You can also find a video of the Royal Mint on YouTube, which explains and shows that specially prepared dies are used for the production of such coins.

Moreover, if we will take a description of USSR commemorative 1 rouble coins, we will find another type of designation (Very strange designation IMHO). (Please see image below I will translate and try to explain "European style")
1) "ОБ" - Usual circulation coins -
These are coins for circulation which we can get from a roll or from coin sack or another package and can call this minting method like "usual strike". We can also call these coins from rolls - UNC coins
2) "АНЦ" - "Uncirculated" - Coins of the improved quality in package - Coins of the improved quality minted using other dies (dies not for a usual strike, but not a proof dies as well). Quality Brilliant Uncirculated. (Please see coin card below)
3) "Полир стар" - Сoins with mirrored field and matte details - Proof quality or Proof-like quality
4) "Полир нов" - Date "1988" on the edge - "NOVODEL" or "Restrike" 19 coins with same design, but Edge inscription has date "1988" and letter "H" (Новодел). Proof quality

I just trying to tell - every country has their own "Glossary" and sometimes the same designations can mean different things. In this way very hard to understand some things, especially if English is not your native language.

Untitled2.jpg

Untitled3.jpg

Card 2016 (1).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another example, now NGC.
Latvian coins dedicated to Song festival (Ag & CuNi) and dedicated Latvian ABC (Ag & CuNi)
CuNi - Brilliant Uncirculated quality, Silver coins - Proof quality
And my friend has two NGC slabs with CuNi coins graded PF

2008.jpg

2010.jpg

IMG_20210716_183924.jpg

2008 Song Festival (3).JPG

2010 Latvian ABC (2).JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm way less hung up on stuff like this now, "Mechanical Errors" or label errors happen with all TPG's sometimes it's just human error or the SCWC is wrong, etc.. With coins like these the SCWC is probably their go to and if they are not well know coins, the TPG may need a little help identifying coin and strike. The more information a person can give them when submitting, either on the form or additional documents and original mint packaging helps insure that the label is correct. That's been my experience anyway. I know that this may not be a viable option for you or your friend as you are based overseas but I'm sure NGC would be happy to relabel these at no cost if they were shipped back to them and proper documentation provided. When any TPG grades 50 million coins there are going to be a few wrong labels. I know it's annoying but the ball is in your friends court now, if he wants to have them corrected he can. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 8:03 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

I'm way less hung up on stuff like this now, "Mechanical Errors" or label errors happen with all TPG's sometimes it's just human error or the SCWC is wrong, etc.. With coins like these the SCWC is probably their go to and if they are not well know coins, the TPG may need a little help identifying coin and strike. The more information a person can give them when submitting, either on the form or additional documents and original mint packaging helps insure that the label is correct. That's been my experience anyway. I know that this may not be a viable option for you or your friend as you are based overseas but I'm sure NGC would be happy to relabel these at no cost if they were shipped back to them and proper documentation provided. When any TPG grades 50 million coins there are going to be a few wrong labels. I know it's annoying but the ball is in your friends court now, if he wants to have them corrected he can. 

Unfortunately, they don't care about our arguments. For example:
I have two coins 10 latu 1996 Endangered Wildlife "Corncrake". As you can see in Krause the edge has inscription. Same description has Latvian Bank's web page.
But one of them has mint error with ribbed edge. And my dealer sent this coin like mint error with full description of this coin why it is must be labeled like a mint error. 
As you can see on the label, according NGC - they are the same coins.
By the way ribbed edge coin was send to Latvian bank for attribution, because a long time our local collectors thought - this is a fake, but Bank of Latvia told to our society - this is not a fake - this is mint error.
I even have unofficial COA with ribbed edge coin :-)

grieze.jpg

grieze 2.jpg

IMG_20210716_202516.jpg

IMG_20210716_202538.jpg

! 1996 Grieze.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another situation with Latvian KM#22.2 coin
First time i got from NGC coin labeled like usual KM#22.1
So I paid twice to get correct label

20 santimu Krause 2.JPG

m [1600x1200].jpg

IMG_20200723_164855.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 1:32 PM, medved said:

Unfortunately, they don't care about our arguments. For example:
I have two coins 10 latu 1996 Endangered Wildlife "Corncrake". As you can see in Krause the edge has inscription. Same description has Latvian Bank's web page.
But one of them has mint error with ribbed edge. And my dealer sent this coin like mint error with full description of this coin why it is must be labeled like a mint error. 
As you can see on the label, according NGC - they are the same coins.
By the way ribbed edge coin was send to Latvian bank for attribution, because a long time our local collectors thought - this is a fake, but Bank of Latvia told to our society - this is not a fake - this is mint error.
I even have unofficial COA with ribbed edge coin :-)

Mint errors/varieties are a whole different ball game when compared to general identification/information. For those I will first check the variety list and if it's not there, email the TPG direct and present my case, they will either tell me yes, no or maybe but you have to send it in. If they say no you're SOL, then I go back to the drawing board, keep all my info updated and I'll check back in a few years to see if anything has changed. :bigsmile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 9:05 PM, Fenntucky Mike said:

email the TPG direct

Where I can find this e-mail? And what is TPG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2021 at 2:39 PM, medved said:

Where I can find this e-mail? And what is TPG?

TPG = Third Party Grader. NGC or PCGS for example.

Reads like you've already been in contact with them but here is the NGC email. service@NGCcoin.com 

Those are some really great coins and information that you've posted by the way. (thumbsu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/15/2021 at 5:05 PM, RWB said:
  • There is nothing to support use of "specimen." (This implies a special event surrounding a specific piece, only.)
  • Use the issuer's designation.
  • If visually justified, add "DMPL" or something similar to describe the surfaces.

 

not correct.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2