Why won't NGC recognize this?

Well, DARN IT, that's what I had thought back in August when I submitted it!

You know, I HAD photos (the side-by-side comparison photo you see in my OP) printed IN COLOR and on paper, and asked the NGC workers if I could submit the photos WITH the form and the coin, and they said no; nothing extra can be attached to the form.

So much for being prepared, huh?

I think I have to call NGC and talk to the person involved in this process to see what they say about it. Right now, I'm thinking ANACS is the way to go...

I have one more Wide Date Spacing 1969 Five-Won in about the same condition that I'd like graded, but THIS time I'd like it to come back with the attribution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Okay, then please explain why NGC attributed this clashed dies error to this 1966 One-Won coin. In 2019, I believe. The recognition of this clashed dies was not the result of mountains of research, or an article, or due to lever pulling by some member of an important clique within U.S. numismatics.



If they can SEE a clashed dies with their own eyes, and then put it on the slab tag(!) and agree with submitter's assertion that it's a clashed dies, ...then why can't they simply check their OWN extensive PHOTO ARCHIVE of 1969 Five-Won coins (more images of this particular coin/date than ANYONE else on the planet), look at the dates, and then look at my coin's date, SEE the difference there, and do the same darn thing?

There is no mountain of research needed. Just EYES.

Are they afraid that there will later emerge a third logotype or fourth logotype etc. for this coin and date?

And don't tell me that they don't recognize things like "wide dates" or other types of coin attributes in world coins.
Look:

 

Yeah. What Lueds said

 

May I suggest contacting the head of the South Korean Mint's Design Team again and asking him to generate a letter on official stationary, not an email, stipulating that the coin you described and provided photos of is indeed a "wide date spacing"--in essence, a Letter of Attribution. If you can acquire such a Letter, it may move the NGC Variety Plus personnel to reconsider your submittal; and if they don't reconsider, I believe ANACS will holder it as that variety, but proving it is a Discovery Coin" when there is no existing database (such as VAMworld) and getting the TPG to put that on the Label may be a stretch. EXAMPLE: I have a 1947-S Roosevelt Dime ERROR COIN that has what appeared to me to be a "misplaced text stop" in the field to the left of the Torch (plus a strike thru) that I had sent to Dr. James Wiles of Variety Vista for analysis and attribution. Dr. Wiles concluded it is a "Die Gouge Dot" ("Dots are scarce, but not generally collected as such") and the ANACS Label states: "...REVERSE "DOT" DIE GOUGE & STRUCK THROUGH DEBRIS. If you have an Attribution Letter from a reputable source--and include it with the coin submission to ANACS--the "variety attribution" or "anomaly description" cost is only $7, instead of the normal $12 if their staff has to perform the research. GOOD LUCK TO YOU @mlov43.

 

Thanks for your helpful suggestions!

Yes, I could ask Mr. Jeon if he could do that, but the Korean Mint is under the authority of the central bank in South Korea, and the Bank of Korea (the central bank) has embargoed the sharing of internal information beyond their latest public publication (2010) explaining Korean currency and coins. Trust me on this point: I've been there before during the research phase of my book! I'd have to FIRST contact the Bank of Korea to obtain such a letter. They, of course, would say no. Mr. Jeon would NOT be allowed to use his official capacity to write such a letter on "official letterhead."

This is their policy ...so far. I am hoping that the publication of my book will create a buzz among numismatists in Korea that will encourage the leadership there to open their archives to future research so that, among other things, such attributions as this one can be explored.

 

As you stated in your previous post, all of the databases for coin varieties are in a constant state of flux. They are adding new varieties all the time. While not advertised, there has to be an internal process that NGC follows for the addition of a variety to their Variety Plus program. All @mlov43 has to do is find out who controls that process and convince that person that he has a new variety that is worthwhile to add to their database. Perhaps as you said, they will require a famous name, at which point he would probably have to have one of the variety organizations agree that he has a significant variety and then have them approach NGC.

Either way, it seems clear that he has a legitimate variety, and unlike your previous student, he has the actual coins to back up his claim, not just photos. The arena of world coinage is constantly expanding, and if NGC wants to remain the top dog in the grading of world coins, it seems to me they will need to be receptive to recognizing new varieties from all foreign countries.

 

Good Lord.....

 

mluv 43, I have notified acquaintances, via a short version explanation, of your overall project and your present (and continuing) quest.

I admire your efforts and accomplishments. You have my support.

I don't think many here know of your reputation and work, and if they were aware, would not assume a lack of understanding on your part.

 

Thanks for explaining it, Doug. ...Their "recognized varieties." Got it now.

I suppose I can understand why they take this conservative approach, ...but when confronted with the obvious evidence of two hubs (of which the coins made from both can be EASILY found), I still have questions about it.

Okay, so:

I guess they do this just so that they don't get caught attributing something that might end up being fake, or that there will later emerge OTHER logotypes of the 1969 date on Five-Won coins and then have to backpedal?

I also detect that they can easily attribute "mint errors," but not "evidence of hub/die differences," right? Any attribute originating further back in the minting process before the striking of the coin in the coining press is a little ...shall we say... controversial?

I wonder why?

However, doubled dies receive sweetheart treatment by the TPGs, don't they? If I had an obvious doubled dies coin (replete with "notching" and the dizziness you get by looking at the coin), they'd jump all over that wouldn't they? NGC already attributed a doubled dies 1968 One-Won.

 

UPDATE: If interested in adding varieties to the "recognized varieties" list, email them, with your explanation, at:

ngcverificationteam@collectiblesgroup.com

Sorry everyone, this email address (above) will not work. However, you can contact customer service at their number.

The customer service guy told me he'd get all my data and pics to the grading team ASAP.

Let's see what they say!

 

Okay its official: NO DICE!

Here's the text of the email NGC gave me:

"I ran this by the NGC Graders.
Currently NGC is not interested in recognizing minor date spacing and placement. Because of this we will not be able to offer you the variety check you requested."

Well, Doug @GDJMSP tried to warn me...
Taken to school again... thanks, Doug.

(⬇This⬇ is not a "recognized variety," everyone)

Thanks for coming along for the ride, y'all.

 

They took you for a ride then threw you under the bus

 

Sorry to hear @mlov43 but you gave it an honest effort.

 

Nah. I don't blame them. I just didn't know how things worked. I was naive.

However, I just can't get over the fact that someone got them to recognize at least one coin (and certainly many others) with "minor date spacing placement:"

 

While reading this thread, I discovered that none of you guys are famous. Really?? What a let down......

 

I can't speak for the others, but I'm a legend in my own mind.

 

Oh, and...



I guess some minor date spacing and placement varieties are more equal than others...