1766 Pitt Farthing - PCGS Genuine Not Gradable

And to be certain of a fair appraisal, make some contacts at the C4 website I provided you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Diagnostically, I'm going to have to revise my previous assessment.

I believe this specimen is a Pitt Halfpenny. After rotating the specimen, I believe it better fits the halfpenny devices.

Reverse
The bow of the ship on the halfpenny is distant from the edge rim, while the bow on the farthing more closely abuts the edge. In this case, the bow of the ship is more distant than closer.

On the rigging of the ship, the top most flag points upwards on the farthing, while on the halfpenny it tilts downwards. In this case, the specimen's top most flag points downward.

Obverse
On the farthing token, Pitt's nose is more blunt, and slopes in a more downward angle. On the halfpenny token, Pitt's nose is less sloped, and more outwards. In this case, Pitt's nose is less sloped.

On the farthing token, the letters "NO" are struck mostly under Pitt's bust. On the halfpenny token, only the "O" sits mostly under Pitt's bust, while the "N" sits mostly outwards, about 7 o'clock. In this case, the letters more closely approximate the positioning of the halfpenny token.

Though it cannot be deemed with certainty, the specimen appears to be copper. Bowers lists the specimen with a rarity of URS-10 (250-499 known specimens), or about R-3.

I'll reach out to a few of my C4 peers and see what they also say.

 

Ah, well, it's a shame PCGS may have goofed on the ID. It's still a nice piece, though, and by far the oldest, most historic thing I own. Thanks for the careful analysis.

 

It's an error in your favor, indeed. Though I believe most Colonial enthusiasts would pick-up on the error after examination.

Regardless... it's a terrific specimen to have! :thumb:

 

Agreed. Thanks for your input CheetahCats. I was having my suspicions as well because of the position of the ship with the rim. Still a very nice historic token.

Bruce

 

As far as rarity goes, mine may well be the only Pitt halfpenny erroneously ID'd by PCGS as a farthing! :goof:

I suppose I should contact them. I don't want their database to incorrectly reflect the total number of known farthings.

 

Excellent idea ShutEye. Maybe they'll give it a second look and place it in a properly marked slab. I've returned things to them in the past that were misattributed and they've done just that...at no charge.

Bruce

 

Thanks for the side by side pictures. Definitely a halfpenny. Notice how far the word STAMPS is away from the bust compared to how close it is on the pictured farthing.

Sorry I had to tell you your very rare farthing was a much more common halfpenny. I wish it could have been the other way round.

 

At the end of the day, I believe that's the right thing to do. This misattribution impacts more than just PCGS' database. The Pitt farthings are incredibly rare; so rare, in fact, that just one [misattributed] specimen may throw off the official census by as much as 12%.

 

Hey, guys. I just wanted to check in and give an update. I've been having a hard time reaching and communicating with PCGS about my Pitt token. This is my first experience with them, and hopefully my last. Are they always so rude? Here is the the e-mail I sent them over two weeks ago, to which they never replied:

"Hi. I recently sent a coin to you, which you slabbed and ID'd as a
Genuine 1766 Pitt Farthing, Not Gradable. ID #232.97/19871086. After
further research, I believe the coin is, unfortunately, a halfpenny.
What is the best course of action? I don't want your database to
incorrectly reflect the number of known Pitt Farthings, nor do I want
my coin to be erroneously slabbed.

The dealer through whom I submitted the coin is retired, and it was a
hassle using him as an intermediary. If AT ALL POSSIBLE, I would MUCH
prefer to return the coin to you directly, have it reassessed,
properly slabbed, and sent directly back to me--at your expense.
Considering the error is totally yours, I do not want to be further
inconvenienced by again having to use the retired dealer as a middle
man, nor do I want to have to pay him an additional fee. Furthermore,
I expect my coin will be moved to the front of the inspection queue,
and that I won't have to wait an additional six weeks to receive it
again.

I have attached a photo of the coin in question, as well as a link to
the CoinTalk forum thread, which discusses the discrepancies between
my suspected halfpenny and a genuine Pitt farthing.

http://www.cointalk.com/t184683/

I look forward to hearing from you."


After not receiving a reply, I finally resolved to phone customer service this week. It took me a couple of days to even get through to them. When I did, I was "helped" by a very curt and rude female customer service rep. She said she would have time to reply to e-mails if customers would stop calling her all day. I tried to explain my situation, regarding the Pitt token, but was consistently interrupted. She assumed I was questioning the grading itself, not the identification. I was finally able to explain myself, to which she replied that a PCGS expert had ID'd the coin, and, therefore, he must be right and I must be wrong. I asked her to please read the e-mail I had sent, which includes photos of the coin, as well as a link to this forum discussion, which she flat out refused to do. She said, with much exasperation, that if I insisted on having the coin assessed again, I would have to go through the submission process again, via my dealer, and that she would not even forward my e-mail/concerns to the grading department prior to resubmission. At no point did she apologize for PCGS's possible error, nor its poor customer service; nor did she offer to in any way facilitate the process from here on out. I hope, for PCGS's sake, that this "customer service" rep is reassigned to a more suitable position.

At this point, I'm weary of the whole endeavor. If anything, I'm tempted to break my coin free of its PCGS slab and submit it to a different grading service altogether. Thoughts?

 

I should also mention that I followed up on the forum's suggestion and contacted the president of ColonialCoins.org. He was actually of the opinion that my coin is, in fact, a farthing. Based on this forum's insights, however, I have to believe that's not the case.

 

I should also mention that, based on the forum's suggestion, I contacted the president of ColonialCoins about my token. He is actually of the opinion that it's a farthing. However, based on your insights, I have to believe it's a halfpenny. :scratch:

(second posting attempt)

 

Wow, the reaction of those you spoke to at PCGS is stunning to me OldShutEye. Even if innundated with phone calls as she claimed, it was very unprofessional of her to react the way she did. If you're involved in the customer service end of any business you have to have a customer friendly attitude and be more understanding of their concerns. Putting that all aside though, I'm torn in regard to cracking it out and sibmitting to another TPG. I think CheetahCats is right with his advice in post #28, but at some point enough is enough. You have to make a tough decision. Good luck with it, and be sure to keep us posted.

Bruce

 

I sent you a private message about this. If you could reply back in the private message with who you communicated with over at Colonial Coin Collectors Club (C4) I can look into this for you. I'm a member of C4.

 

The reaction from PCGS doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.