Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="C-B-D, post: 2540801, member: 43130"]Clerical error? Dunno. I think it is a dumb way of documenting. So here's what I think happened:1. Someone sent the coin to NGC and filled out the form "item 1: 1815/2 50C."2. NGC could not read the date, so they determined they could not holder the coin.3. FOR RECORDING PURPOSES, NGC labels "item #1 1815/2" as date not readable. BUT since they leave the date of item number 1 on the sticker, the seller can now sort of claim that it's a 1815/2. Now, first of all, NGC should have easily been able to tell that it was an E/A reverse (and thereby an 1814)... such a bold and easily identifiable die marker. Second of all, by leaving "1815/2" on the label, they are enabling the owner of the coin to still perpetuate the fantasy that it COULD BE a 1815/2.[/QUOTE]