Did PCGS make a mistake?

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Tyler G., Nov 26, 2011.

Page 3 of 3
  1. ratio411

    ratio411 Active Member

    I was at a (new to me) dealer today and he showed me some PCGS slabs that were scary...
    A 1943 Merc labeled by PCGS as a 45.
    An 1822 half slabbed as 1834.
    And, worst of all, a counterfiet IHC slabbed and graded as though it was real.

    That dime in question is a Denver, and we all know it, so slab it right.
     
    ratio411, Nov 29, 2011
    #41 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Numismat

    Numismat World coin enthusiast

    I think these incorrect date attributions are due to transcription errors, rather than a grader actually thinking it's a different date.
     
    Numismat, Nov 29, 2011
    #42 + Quote Reply
  4. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator


    Well, that's kind of what happens when we assume something.

    Look at the pics below. What do you see on the slabs ?

    44 jeff.jpg

    98 jeff.jpg


    You see a P on the slab. Do you know why ? Because there is a P mint mark on the coin. And that is the rule. If there is a positively identifiable mint mark on the coin then there will be a mint mark designation on the slab. If there is no mint mark, or there is an unidentifiable mint mark, there will be no mint mark designation on the slab.

    Now we assume that slabs with no mint mark designations mean that the coin must have been minted at Philly. But what about those occasions when cents were minted at West Point with no mint mark ? Or what about all of the years that ASE's were minted at West Point with no mint mark ? Not a one of them has a mint mark designation on the slab. And they were definitely not minted at Philly. And with the cents we have no idea how many came from Philly or how many came from West Point.

    The point is, there is only a mint mark designation put on the slab when you can positively identify that mint mark on the coin. And if you cannot, then you do not. Now we can assume a lot of things, but our assumption will not always be right. The TPGs do not assume when it comes to mint marks.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 30, 2011
    #43 + Quote Reply
  5. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I think thats a little harsh Doug. I understand the two coins you listed had a P on it, those are easy to show but are irrelevant to the point.

    If this is true, then why do price guides, red books, etc always list prices for Philadelphia specimens without a (P) designation? A 1928 Peace dollar listing is interpreted by ALL COLLECTORS as the Philadelphia specimen, it always has been.

    I just want to be straight, so if I see a 1928 Peace dollar designation on a slab, the TPG is in no way telling me this coin was minted in Philadelphia? So all slabs without a mintmark designation make no representation whatsoever that the coin is NOT minted at a branch mint instead? Like the previous poster said, sounds like a heck of a way to up value 1928 Peace, 1921 Walkers, and some other coins.

    I simply believe its horrible practice on the TPG part if this is true, as it goes against 150 years of US coin collecting tradition and practices. ALL US COLLECTORS are taught by all of our books that a non-mintmarked coin before 1965 was produced in Philadelphia, (with the exception of a couple of errors). It sounds like the TPG could really care less about our hobby's history if they can freely ignore this. Like I said, if they labelled philly issues with a (p), or designate on the slab if they are uncertain as to the mint, I would understand, but to label it as a 1921 dime when there IS uncertainty is misleading at best.

    Just my opinion.

    Chris

    Btw Doug I do hope I am not being too stubborn. I do respect your opinion, I am just shocked by this practice you are describing. If I sound mad, its at TPG and not the messenger. :)
     
    medoraman, Nov 30, 2011
    #44 + Quote Reply
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I don't know how else to explain it, but the TPGs assume nothing. If it cannot be proved, then they will not say one way or the other - period. This makes a great deal of sense when you think about it since they have to guarantee what they say and back it up with their own money. And they are quite consistent in this regard. Not just with unidentifiable mint marks, or no mint marks, but with everything else as well. We can know for a fact that a given coin was only minted in 1 specific year, or 2 specific years. But unless there is a clear, identifiable date on the coin itself then the TPG will not place a date on the slab - period. Instead they will place a date range covering the entire period of time of the King's/Queen's/Ruler's rule. The same thing goes for varieties, it must be able to be proved, beyond a doubt that a given coin is a certain variety or that coin will not be designated as such. And it's not just the TPGs, the ANA is the same and uses the same rules.

    Yes we can assume a great many things. But precisely because there are exceptions to some of those assumptions, assumptions are simply not good enough. Nor should they be.

    You see, it's what we don't know that is dangerous. It's what we don't know that makes assumptions exactly that, an assumption. A guess in other words. And guessing is a long, long way from proof.

    You can guess or assume that a given cent with no mint mark was minted at Philly. But you do not know that it was minted at Philly because some were minted at West Point and they have no mint mark either. So your assumption could be wrong. Same thing with the ASE's. Most people don't know those things, and like I said it's what we don't know that is dangerous when it comes to making assumptions.

    Maybe simply isn't good enough. It must be a certainty.
     
    GDJMSP, Nov 30, 2011
    #45 + Quote Reply
  7. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    I understand this point with all other examples you listed, I really do. I also support that reasoning and the end results. To not denote a specific variety unless proven, or a specific date unless proven, is all very understandable to me and supported.

    I just think this issue with mintmarks is different, that's all. When talking about traditional US coinage, (which btw was the ONLY coinage TPG promised they would grade, remember? :devil:), a "1928 Peace dollar" listing is read by every coin collector, dealer, etc as a Philadelphia coin. It always has been, and all coins are priced under this assumption. Like I said, if the TPG would simply label coins they were sure of no mint mark as (P), OR if they were unsure of the mintmark either body bag it or label the slab "mint uncertain" then I am completely ok with it. However, taking our longstanding, time honored tradition of labeling a Philadelphia issue 1928 dollar as "1928 Peace dollar", and twisting that listing to NOT mean a Philadelphia Peace dollar, but a "1928 dollar that we do not easily and verifiably see a mintmark" is completely misleading to collectors and completely disrespectful to the hobby.

    Maybe I am the only one this ticks off. I can drop it. Btw thanks again for explaining their reasoning to me Doug. :)

    Chris
     
    medoraman, Nov 30, 2011
    #46 + Quote Reply
  8. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    I am at an airport and can't read all of the back and forth here. But it is my understanding that the major grading companies don't grade and designate a coin as particular date and/or mint, unless they are confident they know which it is.

    So, for example, if a Peace Dollar from 1928 is so worn that a mintmark, if once present, could not be seen, they would not label it as a 1928(P). Instead, they would not encapsulate it and would comment that the date/mintmark could not be determined.
     
    Mark Feld, Nov 30, 2011
    #47 + Quote Reply
  9. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Having said that sir, I would be curious what you think of the OP's coin. It is labelled a 1921 Mercury Dime. I understand you are at the airport and maybe cannot get to it for a while, but I would be curious on what you think of that coin after Doug and my discussion.

    Chris
     
    medoraman, Nov 30, 2011
    #48 + Quote Reply
Page 3 of 3
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page