Awesome 50c Kennedy Error! Look what Happened Inside this PCGS slab!

One of the errors I collect includes detached clad layers (specifically, a high grade example for each modern clad denomination, both an obverse and a reverse, and if at a good price, a partially unplated for each as well; if possible, a genuine one missing both sides would be awesome). This one WAS a clam shell error (which I DO NOT collect), but notice the outer clad shell came off inside the slab, and is now detached.

This is neat for two reasons. First, the detached layer is a 40% silver-clad layer, which I have never seen at shows or on recent auctions, nor do I own one until now. Second, I might send this in to have it re-slabbed as a mated pair - the coin missing the clad layer (which will become Coin #1), and the EXACT shell which came off of it (coin #2).

But I have one question for y'all. I am considering three options. which is the best one in your opinion?

a. Resubmit it to PCGS as a mated pair, but in separate holders.
b. Resubmit it to PCGS as a mated pair, but in a larger single holder.
c. DO not resubmit it at all; it is much more cool left as is.

I am leaning toward choice A. What do you guys think?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd call PCGS, get these pictures to them, and see what they suggest.

 

Or maybe @Fred Weinberg would have an opinion as to how to proceed.

 

2 separate slabs would be cool. But the attribution would not be Mated Pair.. that's something totally different. They would just call it
Slab #1 Detached Clamshell
Slab #2 Kennedy missing Clamshell Layer

 

I would want to keep them together. A larger slab would be ideal. Invariably down the road they would become separated if in different slabs and that would be a shame for future generations.

 

Very convincing point.

 

Yes. Good point. Which ever I do, keep them, together either in a larger single or leave it alone. I think i might leave it as-is.

 

That slab ain't broke, I wouldn't fix it. Cool error as is!!

 

I'd leave as is. That is way neater than anything that can be done. One of the best errors I've ever seen stabbed.

 

You don't lose the provenance by keeping it in the current slab.
Once you take it out, there will be doubt it's the same coin.

 

Yes, why spend the money to get something special made, when this is as great an example as you can have.

 

Choice C gets my vote.

 

As long as the detached piece isn't moving around, I would keep it as is. If it moves, then you may want to evaluate the possibility of damage to the pieces

 

Ok. I am calling PCGS to see what can be done if the clad layer is moving around inside.

If it is not moving around, I will keep it as is.

Thanks to Kurt, Paddyman98, and everyone else for the thoughts and suggestions, and I am glad so many enjoy this amazing collection I am building of different error types. I am constantly reading and learning.
I also joined CONECA a couple months ago and the ANA this week. I enjoy this hobby very much and the nice people on CoinTalk who all have something to add to my knowledge base.

 

If you're coming to Philly, I need to buy you the adult beverage of your choice.

 

This one of mine sits in a PCGS double slab:

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/12282172
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/12282173

 

That is pretty neat.

 

SPP ... Does PCGS show anything on the label to verify that they all came from the same coin?

 

It was originally slabbed before it became separated