There was a thread about this over on the NGC boards, and the members there were extremely critical. It is an interesting read, for anyone curious.
Sorry about that. I do think that the nail was an assisted error. I am going between discussions on this and the Proof Nickel/Dime Mule struck on an oversized planchet somewhere else, which I believe in the expertise of those who have examined it in hand and call it a die trial strike. Sorry for jumbling things together like that.
Interviewer: "So is this a knowledgeable collector who bought this coin?" Dealer: "This is somebody that had a $102,000."
The dealer mentions that NGC wouldn't slab it. They won't put it in a Genuine holder, Polished Details, Altered Surface, etc? Why?? Was NGC unable to verify the coin's authenticity due to too much alteration?
Forrest Gump summed this guy up when he said "Stupid is as stupid does". I'd give him melt value and not a cent more.
I don't get it either. No one on any forum has been able to come up with an answer from following the threads. I certainly have some questions
Yeah, I get the other post from earlier in this thread that maybe it's bad publicity, but I kind of see it the other way around. If NGC makes it clear that they dislike the coin and bashes at it with a low, even too low, a Details grade (maybe put more than one or two issues listed out on the label), then wouldn't it be good for business? People tend to talk more about negative stories than positive ones, so if NGC made an example out of this coin, then wouldn't it be seen as a job well done by NGC - a praise for putting such treatment to a coin to shame?
All I know is I probably wouldn't slab it if I owned a certification company, either. That polishing job has erased every die marker you could possibly use to establish its authenticity, and I wouldn't want my label anywhere near that piece of junk.
If they couldn't authenticate it that is one thing and a whole new set of issues with the listing. But the it would be bad publicity angle from earlier is nonsense, it would be far worse publicity if it came out they don't slab things they think they're "above"
I once had a PCGS Holed/repaired vf details draped bust quarter. The repair included massive amounts of tooling and affected about 1/4 of the coins surface. I cracked it and sent it to NGC in hopes of a XF details, and they refused to holder it. Somewhere in their fine print, it reads (paraphrasing): "A coin that has been altered or damaged to a large extent and makes the coin's authenticuty difficult to determine may be refused by NGC." I have also had them reject 2 1877 Indian cents that were beat up and damaged badly for this very reason. My guess on the 1850 is that the weight has been drastically changed due to the "work" done to it.
Authenticity is certainly a legitimate reason to keep things out of a slab. Would that kind of polishing take that much weigh off though? I could certainly buy that angle. But then that raises another question. If it has been altered to the point authenticity can be questioned, how can we possibly know it used to be the 64 PL version?
I kind of doubt the weight was reduced more than 0.1 grams or so. Polishing moves more metal than it removes.
This is one coin where the more "answers" we get the more questions are raised. Nothing really makes sense with this situation to me.
That coin looks more than polished. We don't know what was done to it and how many different things the owner did to alter it. Also, how could it possibly be identified as the same coin as the 64 PL? I doubt there's a single bag mark or identifying mark, die crack, or anything left to connect it to it's original state of MS64 PL.
