PCGS Knows All.... Apparently

Oh my gosh. There is no outrage. There is no conspiracy.

There is nothing to argue about here. That is until you show up. Then it turns into a debate. Im just asking a question. Does PCGS know something? Or did they just put the lable in the wrong slab? Or do they have some secret time machine where they can go back and see when the coin was made?

Funny how if PCGS is made fun of a bit or they screw up, there is always someone on this forum to come and defend them. Like a million dollar corporation cant defend themselves. Doesnt mean I dislike them. People make fun of WalMart yet still spend money there, right?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Doesn’t sound like it with nonsense like this you stated “This isn't meant to bash the seller just PCGS”

There’s plenty of these threads that get old fast we all get it there’s mechinacal errors sometimes and then people pile on and it gets dumb fast

Just ask a question next time if that was the intention

 

My original intentions were to leave the seller out of the problem. Thats it.

Maybe "bash" was the wrong term, but seriously, PCGS isnt going anywhere just beacuse I think their quality control is sub-par.

You do defend them a lot though

 

Great thread. But it's spelled LABEL.

 

If it came out of a sealed mint bag, that bage would have had to have remained sealed bag until it reached PCGS. I think a mint sealed bag of 10,000 1916 dimes turning up would have been worth a press release.

 

Putting the wrong date/mintmark/type/denomination on the label is a mechanical error. Mistakes happen, especially with the volume of coins they go through. People claiming that these mistakes show the unreliability of TPG’s are completely wrong.

Certifying a BU early Lincoln cent as a matte proof, or a 1942 D dime with MD as a 1942/1, or a normal 1964 Proof Kennedy as an Accented Hair, or putting a date and FB designation on this off-center dime are NOT mechanical errors. Claiming that they are is just PCGS’s way of saying “we are not liable for not looking closely enough and verifying the coin before slabbing it.”

And my examples are actual examples. The MPL mistake was a 1909 VDB posted here, the 1942/1 D mistake was posted on CCF, and the accented hair mistake was a story told by @Conder101. PCGS even posted in the 1909 VDB thread saying it was a “mechanical error” and not a goof-up of their experts.

 

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ebay-still-a-cherrypickers-paradise-2017.290909/

https://www.coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=229687

 

It's the PCGS new predictive technology. If it had bands, they'd be there!

 

I bet the submitter was hoping for a "D".

 

I bet they'd have put a D on the slab for the right price.

 

The 1916 Mercury Dime was a "high relief" coin that was struck on a different planchet, causing depth or fins that are distinctive from the rest of the series. PCGS may have attributed the coin as a 1916 based on this. I have heard that a few 1917 coins were struck on this planchet as well, so...

As far as full bands, that's a tough one.

 

I'm not going to call this a mechanical error. 1916 and FB? That's, well, interesting.

No offense intended @baseball21 , but you always are constantly defending PCGS even when they are incorrect. I must agree with many of the members that state this isn't your average mechanical error.

 

Why shouldn't errors be graded?

The FB is a labeling error, I'm not a merc expert so I don't know if knowing the date is possible or not or what evidence they had for a 1916. The date could be an error as well as someone selected that instead of the generic just Mercury Dime code for the label, or they could have had good reason to call it a 1916 I don't know but it's obvious the FB is a simple label error

A label error is them being incorrect on the final product. Just like @Insider I'm just sick of people trying to turn simple label errors into more than it is

 

Really, a mint bag of 1916 Dimes?

I'd expect that it may have some die diagnostics same as a particular 1916 die, so that would explain how they determined it to be 1916.

 

And FB as well?

 

A couple reasons why.

1. It was found in a previously sealed roll of 1916 dimes.

2. It was found in a previously sealed bank bag of 1916 dimes.

3. PCGS forgot to include the rest of the date range and should state (1916-1945)

It is possible to have a definite, specific date for an unstruck planchet or blank, or an off-center missing an entire date. For example, if you submitted an unstruck $1 manganese planchet in the year 2000, since it was the first year they were in circulation, it could ONLY be from 2000, and thus an exact date attributed. Also, a zinc-coated steel cent planchet would only be from 1943 (despite a few struck by 1944 dies).

I have a label with a date range that is incorrect. This proof unstruck IKE planchet is clad, yet the date range is for the silver ones.

 

I now have an an idea for my next thread

Post your PCGS errors & mistakes !!!!

So baseball can dance around and make excuses for each and every inexcusable error in one of their slabs
Maybe HE IS the guy printing off those labels
????

 

Evan8, posted: "Yes im really grinding an axe here... infact they might just close their doors because of this thread. I have seen errors on a lable before. Im not saying it doesnt happen. But come on. They gave it a date and a FB designation. And neither are visible in the 5% of the design you see."

TypeCoin971793, posted: "Putting the wrong date/mintmark/type/denomination on the label is a mechanical error. Mistakes happen, especially with the volume of coins they go through. People claiming that these mistakes show the unreliability of TPG’s are completely wrong.

Certifying a BU early Lincoln cent as a matte proof, or a 1942 D dime with MD as a 1942/1, or a normal 1964 Proof Kennedy as an Accented Hair, or putting a date and FB designation on this off-center dime are NOT mechanical errors. Claiming that they are is just PCGS’s way of saying “we are not liable for not looking closely enough and verifying the coin before slabbing it.”

I wish you guys would grow up. IMO, there is not one of US that could get hired at PCGS. Additionally, ALL OF US make mistakes. While it is disappointing, some as this are actually funny.

This is NOT a true "mechanical error" but that's what it is called. Get over it. This is a combination of errors.

1. The person who input the coin: 1916 FB or 1916 FB 95% O/C (if it was already in the database).

2. The first grader: He graded the coin as is, OR graded the coin and added 95% O/C without changing the initial entry (1916 FB).

3. Then, EVERYONE who saw the coin including the QC guy missed the MISTAKE.

It is additionally funny when forum members jump on these obvious mistakes in a self-righteous manner.

Here is the thing, it's our job to police every coin for grade and authenticity that is certified by the grading services.

It keeps stuff like this off the market. See it, report it; but it gets really "old" reading the rest of this nonsense. The other fool here is the idiot who is selling it.

 

"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. Business is business and if "mechanical errors" were costing business, we wouldn't see them as much.