PCGS Knows All.... Apparently

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I work in an industry where we keep track of EVERY customer reported mistake that leaves the facility. Granted, most of these are simple labeling errors, but the question remains, if your process allows labeling mistakes to get out, what other mistakes are getting out.

Having said that, I don’t think it’s a big deal in numismatics. However, as was pointed out, for this coin to get to the customer, a number of systems had to break down. This wasn’t one person, but a whole series mistakes. IMO, the important takeaway is how PCGS reacts to this. Do they make an effort to get this back and reholder it, or do they just let it out in the marketplace? Do they conduct root cause correction action investigations and improve their processes, or do they just ignore it? Since we aren’t part of PCGS, we may never know but in order for TPGs to keep some credibility, they need to reholder any labeling mistakes at no cost (including shipping). Maybe @Insider or other members who have experienced this can provide some insight on how TPGs deal with reholdering internal errors.

Finally, I don’t think there is much of a problem with pointing out amusing TPG errors (I liked the predictive grading comment). But, I don’t think it’s right to get all hot and bothered because they made this mistake. If you paid for a submission, were sent a mislabeled coin, and then had to pay more to get it corrected, then IMO, you can get upset.

 

BooksB4Coins, posted: "Mechanical error" is nothing but an excuse for a poor execution on a TPG's part. Still, perhaps the greater problem is widespread collector acceptance of it and simply because it's an avoidable issue. [There is nothing a collector can do about it except quit using the service] Business is business and if "mechanical errors" were costing business, we wouldn't see them as much."

AMEN

Oldhoopster, posted: "Maybe Insider or other members who have experienced this can provide some insight on how TPGs deal with reholdering internal errors.

Guess what? In the last half hour, I had to make a "mechanical error" correction. So far the first this month. We sent out an Attucks dollar labeled as Robert Kennedy! It was in an original order of almost 100 coins. The dealer sent it back. We made the change, wrote a thank you, and are sending him coupons for two free submissions to cover his cost to return the coin. In order to stop these errors we added another QC checker a while back. Nevertheless...

 

Pcgs will fix it for free including shipping to and from them as they will with any label mistake. They’ll generate a shipping label for you as part of the process to return it.

That was struck at the mint even if it was just barely caught. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with having those authenticated and many people who enjoy errors like them like that a lot more than they like 5 or 10 percent off center.

The mindset comment you made if far more fitting for you than me

 

Already been done before

I have nothing to do with them as a company, I would defend NGC as well for these simple label mistakes. That said generally when people make a mountain out of a mole hill it’s directed at PCGS. Anyone who thinks the other TPGs don’t put out labeling errors as well is kidding themselves.

 

And the fee for "PCGS Standard Prediction" is $75.00 plus 4% of Fair Market Value ($25 minimum). "Prediction Expedite" is $50 extra per coin...

 

How about this one? I just won it on GC. I bought it because the value of the coin inside is the same as that listed on the label. I like it for it's interest value and because it's a holder that I like. Mistakes happen and this one is pretty predictable as to how it happened.

I didn't pay a premium for it nor would I. There are "mechanical errors" that happen such as below. Then there are mistakes, some time egregious such as the 1909 VDB MPL, or the 1941/2-D listed earlier in the thread. To call those last 2 simple mechanical errors to cover your butt for a potential financial punishment is pure BS. All it takes is for a victim to be taken advantage of and the doors are open. The blame however can also be given to the person who then attempts to take advantage of the situation.

 

1. As I said earlier PCGS would have to be the one to open the roll, and even then how do you prove it was an original bank wrapped roll and not something put together.

2. Same comments as #1. Now if it was a sealed Mint bag that might be different. But still PCGS would have to be the ones to open the sealed bag.

3. That seems to be the most likely possibility.

 

I disagree adamantly about all your theories.

1. There are NO ORIGINAL BU ROLLS OF 1916 DIMES IN EXISTENCE
2. There are NO ORIGINAL MINT BAGS OF 1916 DIMES IN EXISTENCE
3. The most likely possibility is there are markers on the coin that match a 1916 die so that this error can be definitively identified as a 1916.

And finally, the FB designation is a pure fantasy or error in marking. Since there are no bands, it cannot be determined they are full.

 

Or the grader was just dyslexic lol

 

That's what I was thinking. The data entry person transposed the numbers in the date.

 

Would they actually go looking for such markers? Doubtful.

 

Yes they would. The same way they look on low balls. Saying they wouldn’t bother is incorrect at best

 

rmpsrpms, posted: "I disagree adamantly about all your theories."

It's highly likely that you are correct on this. I would think so myself; however, I've had occasion to open a bank wrapped roll containing between 14 and 17 Gem BU 1942/1 dimes. The coins were so amazing that at first I thought they must be counterfeits! After realizing the coins were genuine, I had the chance to "map-the-die-markers." That's where the diagonal die polish on the reverse was discovered as up to then low grade coins were all we had seen.

Remember, at one time the 1903-O Morgan dollar was a "key" coin.

 

I could break you down like a 4-10 shotgun for making this comment.

 

I am absolutely correct that I disagree adamantly about all your theories

Seems the point you're making is that because bank-wrapped rolls of 1942 Dimes are still available (which indeed they still are) that this means bank-wrapped rolls of 1916 Dimes are also still available?

 

Hate to break it to you guys, but this coin wouldn't fit into a bank wrapped roll. It isn't round.

 

Honestly, if I had 2k to spend on a coin, I'd buy it. Although the lable is helping dictate the sellers price. Without that lable saying what it says, I don't think you could ask that much. Heck as it sits now I dont think it will sell.

If I could buy it I would and for kicks I would go for the trifecta and see if it would get a green bean. Although CAC, I don't think does errors

 

So quick question. Has anyone figured out if there are any die markers to determine a 1916 P mercury dime? And if in the 5% of the design that shows, if a marker only present on a 1916 is in fact, present.... I tried google-ing it but all anyone ever talks about is the 1916 D and it's markers. And according to PCGS this "1916" merc isn't a D..... but with that lable who knows