Played the crack-out game with MPL and lost...

This is what centsles writes on all of his listings:

BUY THE COIN, NOT THE HOLDER! THERE ARE MANY COIN GRADING SERVICES AND COIN GRADING IS SUBJECTIVE. IF YOU BUY A COIN GRADED BY ONE SERVICE AND YOU ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE OPINION OF A SECOND GRADING SERVICE ON A COIN THAT YOU BOUGHT, THIS IS NOT A VALID REASON FOR RETURNING THE COIN WITH US OR ANY OTHER EBAY SELLER.
_________________________________________________________________

Basically, you buy it your stuck with it! And of course to make things worse he uses intentionally deceptive pictures to lure buyers hoping that the coin will look better in hand. Now I don't think "strike" is really an opinion when it comes to grading coins and I believe a reputable seller would give you a refund, but from my personal experience, I would be shocked if he even answers your messages at this point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I sent him a message, we'll see how it pans out.

Like he says, coin grading is subjective; but proof vs business is not subjective, it is either one or the other. It's essentially a "fake" MPL because it is not an MPL.

 

I feel as though PCGS has made a mistake. I would crack it and try again.

 

I stand somewhat corrected. I forgot this is the exact period where the mint played with matte proofs. The reverse is possible but the obverse does not show evidence of sandblasting on the devices. It is not that I always agree with PCGS, hell they makes mistakes too. they recently stabbed a Confederate Cent as proof and on that I know the coin was never done in proof! NGC just stabbed two Confederate half dollars as proofs and likewise they were not done in proof. Market grading in action!

 

Point well taken, I stand corrected.

 

It may be the lighting, but I wasn't able to find one diagnostic listed for a 1913 MPL.

I was really hoping one would show. I've compared it to my 1913 (for diagnostics), with Albrecht's:

Obverse 1 - die polish from upper left of first 1 in date. die polish and die gouge around IN. Die polish by G in GOD.

Obverse 2 - Early die state: die polish above date, and above T and through Y of LIBERTY. Die polish below LIBERTY and at IN GOD and WE.

Obverse 2 - Late die state: Die polish around base of first 1 in date. Curved die polish above date. Die scratch through G and above OF of GOD.

Reverse A - No diagnostics

Reverse B - Early die state: Die polish through UNUM and C of CENT. Curved die polish to right of N in CENT.

Reverse B - Late die state: Heavy die polish to right of T in CENT.

Courtesy of Matte Proof Lincoln Cents 1909-1917 by Leonard Albrecht

and with the diagnostics Kevin Flynn has listed in his book, "Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs". None are shown on this 1913.

Maybe an alternate photo would bring one out at least one of the diagnostics. Phil does take multiple photos taken during the TrueView session, maybe he still has them.

 

The irony of this thread is amazing because last night within a total time frame of less than 45 minutes, I won, purchased 3 relatively expensive classic identical type Gold U.S. better date/mint-marked coins. All 3 coins were graded identically by the 2 "top tier" TPG. Unusually, I was able to acquire 2 of the better date coins having the same date, mint mark, and grade.

All 3 of the coins were purchased from Centsles to possibly establish relative market pricing disparities.

The intent of this acquisition is to "crack-out" and resubmit these coins, first to the opposing "top tier" TPG, then to the originating TPG, and ultimately to the remaining 2 "top tier" TPG.

The intent is to have the coins submitted separately by differing individuals. It's ultimately believed to establish grading disparities which have been proven in the past by "independent" submissions.

I also believe that many prominent sellers have the identical policy, or one effectually the same as you've shown of Centsles.

I believe C-B-D will substantiate (as I sent a recommendation e-mail copy) that I responded to an advice solicitation by a buyer who had cracked a "replica" coin. Contacting either eBay, or the prominent seller of the coin, established by C-B-D as non-authentic, probably would be an "exercise in futility".

I've personally, after acquiring a fraudulent coin from a prominent seller on eBay, without receiving published protection, had to establish a blind grading agreement by a respected community (CoinTalk), to receive a refund.

I personally haven't had a problem with Centles, as I recognize the differences between TPG, and buy the coin, rather than the holder.

As previously stated in this venue, Mr. Johnson has promptly refunded an appreciable 5 figure amount, unlike the aforementioned "prominent" seller.

Just my publicly documented experience!

 

Unless you are buying in person, you aren't ever "buying the coin", you're buying the holder and the insurance that eBay is protecting you.

There's zero way you're "buying the coin" from scans by centsles. You're assuming the gold in the holder matches the date, mm, and authenticity the label provides.

Anyway, I'll update this if I ever hear back.

 

You gambled, you lost. Take your lumps. Standard operating practices are if you remove it from the sellers holder it is yours and not returnable (Exception is if you get the sellers permission first for closer examination of submission to a TPG. Critical word is FIRST.) Also guarantees of authenticity frequently do NOT extend to methods of manufacture ie: Business strike or proof. As an example of this check out any of the major auction houses terms of sale and you will find they all guarantee authenticity, but they also do NOT guarantee that a stated method of manufacture, proof v business is correct. So if you buy a "proof" and it turns out to be a business strike that does not constitute an authenticity claim.

 

I'm not sure I completely follow your post. Though I believe I get the general idea.

You're going to take 3 coins already graded by NGC and PCGS (same date, MM and grade), crack them out and re-submit and cross submit them, all in a raw state so you can document the descrepancies in grading. Is that correct?

 

So an "S" added to a VDB cent wouldn't negate it's authenticity?

 

It wouldn't negate its authenticity as a coin, merely as a VDB-S. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not an auction company's terms of sale would cover method of manufacture.

 

That's some good info and sort of tells the whole story. What is you gut on this one? It's strange to me, it seems to be graded very tough at MS-62, but I could understand PR-62. Maybe just a mechanical error?

 

It certainly could be a mechanical error. PCGS isn't immune.

It would be easy for Jeremy to find out when he gets the coin back. He only needs to get a good look at both sides of the coin and pick out a couple of diagnostics. Those can rarely be argued with.

I agree, though, if not an MPL a grade of MS62 does seem to be a little harsh. My gut tells me MS only because not one diagnostic can be found. Other than that, the coin definitely has the right look. I'm hoping that the lighting position is obscuring them. I'm going by my viewing of the Maximum sized TrueView photo. The odds are against every diagnostic being hidden though.

 

I'll definitely take a look. I've also had a couple 1916's that had 2 or 3 markers, but were not graded as proof. I suppose those were struck with Proof dies on business planchets.

 

I apologize if my explanation, although believed concise, was confusing.

1. 3 classic Gold coins were purchased in a 45 minute period.
2. They were all "better date" (premium versus "common") of the same "type" and grade.
3. 2 of the coins were virtually identical in grade, date, mint-mark.
4. The 3rd coin was a more scarce date than the other 2, commanding a significantly greater premium.
5. All 3 coins were graded by NGC or PCGS.

It is believed very unusual to find that combination of coins in one short time period, even if you examined all of the sales options for Gold coins.

The "top tier" TPG seemingly utilize "market grading" more liberally with "better dates/MM", thus the expected grading spectrum, and value may be broader than that originally assigned.

It's often argued that retention value is more consistent amongst "top tier" TPG graded products than when similar studies were initiated in the past.

 

I normally agree with your posts sir but in this case do not. Since NNC is not a generally recognized TPG company, I would go back against the seller. If this coin has been certified that its not a proof, I would say its a completely different coin than what the buyer thought he was buying. I am COMPLETELY in agreement that those who buy coins to crack out and resubmit are on their own. If the OP was mad it only graded a 62, or details, or anything else I would agree. But to me a coin sold as a proof coming back as MS is nearly the same as it coming back as a fake. It is NOT what the buyer bought. A proof coin is really a completely different coin than a business strike IMHO, and if the seller sold it as a proof and its not, then the buyer deserves a refund just as if the seller sent him a 1943 instead of a 1913 coin.

 

I absolutely 100% agree, I think PCGS got it wrong. I'm a world coin guy and have never handled any of these early Lincoln proofs, -I do know they weren't struck in cameo back then. But just from the super well-defined rim on the coin, it appears to me that the coin is a special strike of some sort.

 

If you have access to PCGScoinfacts (a 10-day free trial is available), you will see that thier lowest grade PR RB has more definition of the Details--especially the Obverse--and Rim, than does your coin.