Did PCGS make a mistake?

I wouldn't be hesitant at all considering there is no 1921-S mercury dime.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

PCGS to my knowledge employs humans. Humans are not perfect and can make mistakes. It's a D mark. The grader could have had a brain fart when making and printing the label, forgetting to add the D mint mark on the slab label info or they have interns that print them up and well, we all know how interns can goof things up. But like one poster said, buy the coin, not the slab.

 

If memory serves me correctly, each coin is looked at for about 5 seconds by a TPGer whose primary duty is about the GRADE and secondarily the CONDITION. A second 5 second confirmation with the same primary objectives follows.

I would trust my own eyes looking at a picture for several minutes over the TPGer for identification in a second. I trust them with GRADE, not attribution.

There are TWO choices for a 1921. No mint mark or D. I see an unidentifiable mint mark, which in any year with two or more mint marks would make it unattributable. For 1921, it IS identifiable as 1921-D. I would send it back and ask for a re-identification which will make it worth about 75% more to those who buy the slab.

It wouldn't make any difference to me since I don't trust TPGers for identification anyway. Perhaps it is a Copperhead bias.

 

So, if you submit a 1928-S Peace dollar with the reverse rim worn down enough to obscure the mint mark, it'll get slabbed as a 1928?

If it's impossible to determine a mint mark (or lack thereof), I'd think the coin should be explicitly marked as "mint indeterminate". Since I don't think the big TPGs do that, I'd expect a body-bag. If they say "We can't be sure that's a mint mark, so we'll attribute it as P", that seems like a quick way to upgrade your 28-S dollars, 21-S halves, 94-O dollars...

 

Yes sir, I was just saying in generalities. I have seen many a 1916s's bought, (and even sold as), 1916d's because the buyer wanted to see a D instead. To me this one is easy, though you wish to see it in hand. It appears a raised mark in the field exactly where a D is on other examples, and they only made a D that year. If they HAD made an S, that is when I would trust the TPG on whether it was a D or S unless firm, definitive proof was offered the TPG was wrong. Since it can only be a D that year, and placement looks correct, and it appears raised, I would be very comfortable buying that coin as a 21d.

 

The angle of the hole inside the pseudo D looks wrong ... it's just post mint damage ... not a mint mark

 

Raised PMD? How can that occur? On close up, (better to see in person of course), it appears to be a D with a scrape on it. Most of these D's are filled in in that condition. You have to admit the top serif of the D is correct, heck of a coincidence for PMD.

IDK, I would still be willing to buy that coin as a D. I have gone through I don't know how many mercuries in that condition in my life pulling out better coins from junk piles, and that sure looks like a D on a AG mercury if I ever saw one.

Edit: Btw what Doug and Jeff discussed would be best, if the TPG would simply grade it, certify genuine, but declare "Mint Undeterminable". I would be ok with that, but with so much to say it could be a D I think labeling the coin as a Philadelphia specimen is misleading. Like Jeff said, I would bet if it were a 28 Peace and the exact same amount of a mm were left, they would most likely label it a 28s. CYA is not the best baseline for collectors for TPG to be running on.

 

But they sure labeled it quickly a P even though there were might be and could be going both ways. Again, would they on a 28 Peace dollar? Is "assume its the lowest market value coin today" really the best basis to decide? I go back to the earlier suggestion that "mint unattributable" would be preferable.

Just my opinion, not trying to be argumentative.

 

+1

 

I understand sir, but in fact they did label it. They didn't label it 1921 (unknown), they labeled it 1921 (philadelphia). I simply do not think they have enough information to be conclusive either way, so I object to them definitively stating its a Philadelphia issue. Again, would they make the exact same call on a 1921 half, or any other year in which a Philadelphia specimen is more expensive than a mintmarked example? If so, then I would retract my objection, if they would handle those cases identically. Labeling a coin that it has an absence of a mintmark is just as determinative as labeling it as having one to me.

Chris

Btw how do they handle a coin where the date cannot be completely read? Say it could be 1798 or 1799 large cent, and the variety is not determinable so no way to determine the date that way. Would they label it a 1799? A 98? Or simply slab it 179?.

 

Yeah you are right Kryptonite, (and Doug). The more I discuss this coin, I don't have a right to second guess the TPG without the coin in hand. I will drop the issue for this specific coin, but the general discussion about the issue I think is still valid.

 

Ok, further down that path. A 1916 mercury, and the mintmark is there, but worn enough to not be able to tell if a D or S. Would be labeled a (p), d, s, or not be able to be slabbed at all?

Or, a 1928S Peace dollar. TPG is unable to tell is it is an S mintmark or a die chip. Does it get slabbed (p), s, or not slabbed at all?

I just think its a slippery slope.

 

????

I am confused. Go ahead and tell me if I am just being dense, (wouldn't be the first time). If I see a slab labelled 1928 Peace dollar, I am not thinking to myself, "Oh ok, a Peace dollar dated 1928 but they aren't sure where its minted", I think to myself, "Oh, a Philadelphia mint 1928 Peace dollar, that coin is scarce, I should check it out". Since ALL coins they are positive are minted in Phildelphia is not designated with a (P), but rather no mention of a mintmark, I thought it was assumed if a mintmark was not listed on the slab, the coin was minted in Philadelphia.

That is what I was taught years ago anyway.

 

Technically speaking, if there is not an identifiable mint mark it should be ND. I can see why it gets confusing with P mint coins though.