White Ger. Shep. Lover, posted: "Sure looks like a 1917 to me." Conder101, posted: "And from what I see in the OP image, it's a 17." Hey, ICG is looking to hire an "expert authenticator" like either of you two who can determine the variety of a coin such as this from an image such as this! All TPGS's make mistakes! The OP should post the slab # and I'll look it up on Monday. If @Conder101 sees something - he may be right! These coins are EXTREMELY EASY to authenticate with that amount of wear.
That's neat, now I kind of want a set of 1818, 1919 and 2020 US coins too, lol. It is funny how some folks say, "the only thing that matters is the coin" but then sneer at anything that isn't in a PCGS/NGC case. They remind me of snobby high school girls assessing girls they deem beneath them across the auditorium - "That's not even a real Chanel purse!..." (because my daddy didn't buy me one). ICG describes their grading process (2 experts assess each coin) and identifies their exceptionally qualified lead staff on their website - that's why most collectors trust them - even the folks who break them out to make them marketable to the PCGS crowd by putting them in the right "outfit".
Is it okay to post the serial number here? I notice most folks seem to block those out, I suppose it could be used by a potential counterfeiter to falsely claim provenance. I will message it to you, I already looked it up because that post got under my skin more than it should have, it's just an odd hatred for ICG IMO from some of these PCGS obsessed folks. Of course my photography skills aren't helping, but really I don't think the reality matters - it's all about the PCGS case. I've been collecting off and on for 40 years when I got my first 1982 D Washington silver half dollar and started picking up Buffalo nickels and wheat pennies. I've picked up a couple dozen dateless type 1s in the last couple years building up my SLQ collection, and this one was different under the loupe. That difference of course being the difference between a 1916 and a 1917. I didn't submit any of the dateless 1917s for grading, lol.
Congratulations and welcome finally to the fold @MIGuy. I feel your joy in the discovery and acknowledgment in your believe it could be a 1916. Sort of a shame your post turned into a 4 page debacle of grading companies and doubts. Reading between the lines, I believe you intend on just keeping your collection, not selling it or any part of it, so having the satisfaction of ICG slabbing it as a 1916 made your day. I wish you good luck on your other collections.
man thats a great letter. could you hear the excitement in his words. i think he was just as excited writing the letter as he was finding out that coin was a 1916. i don't know about the rest of you but that letter got me excited for him. great job MIGUY, cant wait to read your next letter
There are several reasons folks prefer PCGS. I believe the main one is that coins in a PCGS slab often bring more money and are easy to sell. Nevertheless, each TPGS has a very strong customer base - also for several reasons. All four TPGS put out a good product. That said, each service has many "horror stories" (both true and untrue) circulating around the numismatic community.
I found the old post! I made a new post about a coin i found. I believe it is a 1917 in a 1916 pcgs slab. Who is right and who is wrong now?
This would be a great thread all on its own. I'm guessing you'll get much more feedback and input if you start your own thread. Interesting disparities.
I did in the US coins forum. I just wanted to find and recap this one to make sure people who commented here saw this one.
This is another excellent example of why you shouldn’t blindly trust any TPG… none of them are infallible. Now all we need is an NGC and an ANACS slab calling a 1917 a 1916, and this thread will be complete!