Thread: Kudos to PCGS for correcting their error, with a trueview!

I sent this coin to PCGS to correct an attribution error they made. This coin was in an older slab attributed incorrectly as a lettered edge, when it was really a vine and bars edge. Since there is a difference in value, PCGS agreed to reimburse me the what the difference should have been in the grade.
While it was there, I had the coin trueviewed. The coin is a nice deep chocolate in hand.

Thanks to Mr. Hall for taking care of this for me! (thumbs u

PCGS VF30 CAC


Ankur

Originally Posted by AnkurJ

I sent this coin to PCGS to correct an attribution error they made. This coin was in an older slab attributed incorrectly as a lettered edge, when it was really a vine and bars edge. Since there is a difference in value, PCGS agreed to reimburse me the what the difference should have been in the grade.
While it was there, I had the coin trueviewed. The coin is a nice deep chocolate in hand.

Thanks to Mr. Hall for taking care of this for me! (thumbs u

PCGS VF30 CAC


Ankur

Nice S-8. R3 as a variety. While the 11b R4 or 11c R3- (Lettered edges) may have a slight premium as a type, I don't see any difference as a variety, You may have come out ahead with PCGS by having a type price differential and not actually have a loss from the variety perspective. Someone with an updated Copper Quotes could verify this.

The question that comes to mind is how did they mis-attribute it to begin with? It's not exactly a difficult attribution....and you'd think for a coin with a book value of $13,000 they would be a bit careful?

There is a rarity and slight value difference. Look at auction records.

I think PCGS is great at taking care of problems. Nice coin.

Beautiful coin. And It is hard to imagine how PCGS got this wrong to begin with, but at least they did correct it.

PCGS' strong suit is not attribution, and it's good to see them make it right.

That said, that's a heck of a coin Ankur -- much, much nicer than the one it replaced, IIRC.

Originally Posted by Leadfoot

PCGS' strong suit is not attribution, and it's good to see them make it right.

That said, that's a heck of a coin Ankur -- much, much nicer than the one it replaced, IIRC.

Strong suit not attribution? This wasn't a Newcomb variety or something. It was either words or vines/bars on the edge. If they can't see a difference like that, how am I to believe they can also grade a coin?

Good point, but these coins are attributed by Sheldon not Newcomb.

Getting past that, I'm simply saying they make mistakes like this all the time -- and after further review I'd wager it was listed incorrectly by the submitter and simply not caught by PCGS -- and the wise collector would spend the time to confirm attribution/variety before taking PCGS' word for it.

Regardless, my prior comments still stand -- PCGS does a fairly poor job at attribution.

Take care...Mike

Originally Posted by Leadfoot

Good point, but these coins are attributed by Sheldon not Newcomb.

Getting past that, I'm simply saying they make mistakes like this all the time -- and after further review I'd wager it was listed incorrectly by the submitter and simply not caught by PCGS -- and the wise collector would spend the time to confirm attribution/variety before taking PCGS' word for it.

Regardless, my prior comments still stand -- PCGS does a fairly poor job at attribution.

Take care...Mike

I know they are attributed by Sheldon not Newcomb....I was just offering an example of a difficult attribution. Edge lettering isn't one such type.

Agreed. Please see my explanation above (i.e. it was listed on the submission form incorrectly). In other words, they didn't attribute it at all, they simply didn't catch the submitter's mistake.

Yeah, both NGC and PCGS make mistakes that should be obvious. I just got a new medal that someone else had graded by NGC that is labeled (1971), that clearly says on the medal "1872" and the word "centennial". Hmmm....you'd think they could have figured that one out, that it was issued in 1972 not 1971.

I mean people pay the companies to attribute, grade, and encase the coins. Grading takes (according to experts) around 10 seconds max per coin per grader. The encasement takes like 1 minute. The attribution is apparently just taken for granted from whatever is written on the form? These guys are making out like bandits for the $20-$30 per coin they are getting for their 3 minutes of work.