NGC Gaffs badly on obvious flip over dbl strike

They probably just tossed a poorly struck planchet back into the bin for another go around.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm talking about the term overstrike being on the submission.

These coins get treated differently then your typical US error coin. No one has any clue the intentions of the coiner when striking your coin.

Is it possible it was struck, then circulated a bit maybe damaged, then found it's way back and was struck again at a different time within the same year? That would be called an overstrike, not a double strike. I wouldn't say common but coins were definitely overstruck during these times.

 

Well, having provided an image of a correct coin, and challenged but suffcient photos here, it is clear that is not "damage" from ciruclation. You can see the reverse ghosted all around the edge of the obverse with the date at the top being the most glaring.

I appreciate that people here want to defend NGC, but fact remains, it is a flip over double strike, and no, that was never the intention of the mint who coined it.

If you note the many other error coins I have posted today are all ANACS. That is not by coincidence. I will never ever ever ever send NGC a coin again as long as I live, and will tell others this story and not to trust the people they have doing this stuff.

 

Hmm, I said the same thing about ANACS, maybe said one more "ever" though cause I really meant it lol.


I don't defend TPGs. I just like to know both sides of the story before a public lynching.


Do what I have done. If you don't like what they put on the label, crack it out and send it to the next company, ANACS loves handing out Details labels, so I'm sure they will love this coin.

 

How is it the date is the only thing (for the most part) that was produced by the 2nd strike?

 

I don't buy it. I'm sure @paddyman98 doesn't, either, since he has submitted so many errors to NGC. Who in their right mind is going to throw their copy of the submission form away, especially when they are questioning the TPG results? Why should anyone take your word for it?

Chris

 

Not on my phone sized screen in the sun! I'll look closer when on the pc.

 

Why when I look at the area of the 1720 mentioned by Toughcoins, it is only the rim I see as D/S? when there is plenty of metal in the obverse bust to show some nice image of the reverse crest and crown? Was the date/rim area added by a punch device like on older US coins which might not support the thesis? I admit I know some about the US coins minting, but none of foreign. Jim

 

Flip over double struck and there is more than just the 1720 doubled.

Maybe I should just crack it out and send it in again. Trust me when I tell you, I sent this coin in at the same time I sent another French Error coin in. I had to send that one back for regrading, but they would not take this one back, I tried.

See this thread?

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an-interesting-set-of-occurances.334246/

That is the coin I had to send back. I had to bitch cry and moan that they would not recoginse the Obverse brockage. They sent it back to me at first as flip over double strike. I was like WHAT IS THAT BIG LINE on the obverse if it is not a brockage? On the second time they got it right..

That is why I say, dont use them. They for whatever reason, dont want to recognize what is clearly in front of their face.

 

If so then it is at least struck twice or something... right?

No mention of anything odd at all? BS.... Something odd went on.

 

It definitly looks like a flip over double strike to me.

 

Thanks Condor. I am willing to accept the idea that may it was "re struck" or "struck over" if not a flip over double strike, but either way, NGC ought to be able to call it what it clearly is and clearly they did not....

I have no idea what they were thinking to just ignore what is clearly and obviously present and only focus on "hairlines"....