The florin coin pictured below is up for auction by Galleria in Japan. It’s part of series of beautiful patterns designed by Wyon and produced in 1848 by the Royal Mint. Coins in the series typically go for high 4-figures and up. With various combinations of obverses and reverses, there are 27 coins in the series. The design accepted for production was essentially the same as the famous gothic proof crown of 1847 (also by Wyon). And no, I don’t own any of these florin patterns. This coin appears to have flan crack visible on the obverse. Yet it was straight graded. However, I’ve noticed other coins with flan cracks that straight graded. An example is pictured below. This is a Morgan pattern in the famous Snowden series which has edge lettering. This example is made of aluminum. So, is there a point at which a flan crack is so bad that a coin will get a details grade or be considered an error coin or not be gradable? Cal
It was made that way. I do not understand what the issue would be. I do not agree that straight grading would not be applicable. Patterns...again Patterns.
My surmise is that as long as the TPG can, with reasonable confidence, certify that the crack or other minting issue is actually "as struck", then the only hard limit to providing a straight grade might be if the coin is in two pieces. At that point, they may not be able to certify that the two halves are both genuine parts of the original whole. Or, they may not be able or willing to try to holder such a coin. Now, there is probably a gray area in the case of extremely rare/valuable/notable coins where the TPG is willing to go the extra mile to determine whatever they need to determine and to provide a unique and custom holder. In such cases, they might decide that the marketing/PR value is worth any risk they take on by certifying such a coin.
Just noticed that the Morgan pattern is up for auction by Heritage, April 3, lot 3175. Go ahead and bid; I won't be competing. Cal
It's entirely subjective, apparently. PCGS says "small, unobtrusive" ones are acceptable, "large, obvious, poorly placed or distracting" are not. NGC doesn't give any details (oops pun) about it, just "planchet defect." From what I can see on Heritage archives, ANACS appears to straight grade them and note planchet flaw on the label.
I suggest you send a strongly worded letter to Heritage, outlining your reasons for not bidding. I am certain Heritage will then remove the Listing.
Just because the third party grader didn't mark the problem on the holder doesn't mean that some buyers, such as I, are going to ignore it. It does not matter if the problem is mint caused. When you give a coin a PR-64 and especially PR-65, I'm not going pay as much for the problem coin as I would that does not have the issue. In fact, I'll pass on it unless it's a rare issue which has been on my want list for a long time.
Agree completely. I would never buy either of the two coins I posted even if I wanted those issues and could come up with the price. And NGC and PCGS should have at least noted the planchet cracks on the labels or classified them as mint errors. Rare, expensive issues sometimes get a pass. Classic example is the Dexter 1804 dollar. Ole Dex stamped a “D” on the reverse. But instead of a details graffiti grade, it’s PR65. If I bought a 2025 ASE and stamped my initial on the reverse, would my coin get the same consideration? Cal
