PCGS; a marketplace or an academic grade?

Obviously, this poor soul just needs to be educated in a nice way that only mirror proofs were made this year.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Braydon, you are really barking up the wrong tree on this one. That's a business strike dime.

Why do you think PCGS would alter a coin?

 

You see how in my digital book, the only evidence is between 2 and 3 'o clock of the 8?

The point is; my coin is now countersunk in the area of where the S would of been.

 

There are many more types of proofs than just the few you've listed.

In 1968, all proofs were Brilliant. The first several strikes of a proof die produced a frosted "cameo" effect, and when that wore off the entire coin had a brilliant appearance. Prooflike coins are business strike coins that had the mirrors of a proof coin, but were produced differently (they are not proof coins). Matte proofs were not made in 1968.

All proofs from 1968 should have mirrored surfaces, sharp crisp devices, and sharp, square rims. Your coin exhibits none of these. Compare your coin to the pictures we have posted in this thread.

You seem to think this is some conspiracy against you (the details of which I still don't understand - do you think PCGS altered your coin for some reason?). However, I think it is far more likely that you just did not have what you thought you had.

 

I have cropped 4 different areas from 4 different pictures you provided
#1 - Blurry
#2 - Looks like a Die Chip
#3 - Still a Die Chip
#4 - Blurry again!
That Die chip is nowhere near where the Mint Mark should be

 

Yeah, it's called a change in lighting, older style camera too a newer style, and what was to what is holding it.

 

How are you inferring a mint mark location from that?

 

+1

 

Not for 1968; there are only brilliant proofs with varying (zero to DCAM) levels of cameo contrast on the devices. The coin in this thread is clearly a business strike. There are some proof like specimens for this year, and maybe that confused you? (In fairness, your coin doesn't look PL either.)

 

It hurts to be wrong by 10k...
I once thought I had a $5000 bust half variety. It sucked to be wrong. Happens to the best of us! Shake it off and try again.

 

This is nearly a pointless thread. He's so upset right now, that he won't listen to logic. I know a guy that thinks he knows coins and believes he has a 1958 DDO Lincoln Cent. No matter what I tell him, he still believes it. He tells me that when he looks at it under a microscope, you can see the doubling. I just want to pull my hair out when I talk to him about coins. This is the same thing.

I'm sure he was upset and did this when the business strike dime came back properly graded and not attributed.

 

You are correct, there have been several different types of proofs minted over the years by the US Mint. However, in 1968 only one kind was minted...and that would be the mirrored proofs.

Even if a coin has been circulated a bit and lost it's mirror finish...it will still retain certain proof characteristics. It will still have an excellent strike and have squared rims. This coin doesn't have that. It has all the characteristics of a normal business strike coin.

The are where you are saying there is evidence of the removal of a mint mark (2 o'clock from the 8) is not where the mint mark would be on this coin. The mint mark would be directly above the 8.

Finally, why would PCGS do such a thing? There is no good reason.

 

I've heard stories of TPGs engaging in questionable conduct but the point/punch line of everyone of these stories is that the TPG had something to gain or to coverup by engaging in the purported conduct. I don't really understand the allegation here. Did the TPG have something to gain here or is the assertion that the TPG just blindly screwed the submitter without hope of gain for themselves?

 

One time I submitted a late die state 1864 2 cent piece, clashed with Indian Head Cent, to PCGS. They did not attribute it. When I called they explained that "not enough of the clashing was present" and therefore, they decided not to attribute it. It was a VF30. So they didn't DISAGREE with me, per se, but they required more visible evidence of the clashing in order to attribute it.

So it is possible that a top TPG could choose not to attribute something. (Also, I think @jwitten or someone had to submit a 1911 "weak D" $2.50 gold a few times before a TPG finally attributed it, because they disagreed or couldn't see it the first couple times). Having said that, the OP coin looks exactly like a business strike coin, and most certainly NOT a proof.

 

There's a consistent track record over time of post-truth reality here, and I've no hope of educating the OP, merely preventing others from catching the contagion.

 

I didn't read or follow this thread, but you are correct, I had one I thought was a weak D, and it took about 3 attempts at grading before they agreed. Went from a $250 coin to a $3,000 coin though!

 

Very often the two larger grading services miss well known varieties. It was the rule rather than the exception in the 1980's. Things are greatly improved today. Nevertheless, if they would not certify that clash "because it was not enough" IMO, they were very foolish. I've written before that the top two services are also very reluctant to certify "discovery coins" until another example or ten show up in the market!

Next, any COMPETENT authenticator can certify even a well worn 1911-D weak "D" with no mintmark remaining by the diagnostics present on the coin's obverse. NO need to examine the reverse at all.

 

You mean a $425 coin (after grading fees) to a $3000 coin, right?
But still, the OP coin is a business strike IMO, so it doesn't really matter.

 

Yeah, when I called, that was the explanation I got. Word for word.

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.........