1888 Morgan PCGS cert vertification mismatch

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by felinfoel, Nov 5, 2009.

  1. felinfoel

    felinfoel Junior Member

    I have a suspicious 1888 Morgan MS64, PCGS graded in a rattler holder. The issue is the certification number is 5022582, looking that up at PCGS lists a 1939 dime.

    http://www.pcgs.com/Cert/5022582.html

    It's a 'common' MS64 Morgan (lists for $65 on PCGS' guide). Bought off Ebay for $53.99 with shipping. That price is inline for other common ms-64 Morgans, though low for a rattler (which should have been a clue).

    I'm assuming it's probably counterfeit. Seller has 10+ years and perfect feedback. If this is counterfeit, I am sure he had no idea. My mistake was not checking the cert first. If that becomes a $53.99 lesson for me, then I'm fine with that. It could be a lot worse.

    I compared vs a legit MS 64 Morgan in a rattler holder, and can see no difference. Not sure if they made counterfeited common Morgans in rattler holders.

    PCGS does say "Data entry errors occasionally may occur causing the information on the coin holder to differ from the PCGS database."

    Any thoughts on whether it could be a mistake? I attached scans of the coin.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Art

    Art Numismatist?

    I'd send scans to PCGS and see what they can make of it. I guess it could be counterfeit but I'd also guess that it could just as easily be an accounting error. Good luck with it either way.
     
  4. Dymo

    Dymo Junior Member

    1888 morgan

    That sounds incredible! This is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing.
     
  5. desertgem

    desertgem MODERATOR Senior Errer Collecktor Moderator

    Few do show up and most are real. The rattlers were about 20 years ago. What database software was running then for small companies?Not very good ones! I was running Borland Paradox I think. Eventually over the years, with more "lookups" and relational tables rather than flat files, I suspect they have changed databases several times. I am surprised, they even have info on slabs that far back, and also not surprised it is incorrect.

    JIm
     
  6. felinfoel

    felinfoel Junior Member

    Thanks for the feedback, folks. Much appreciated.

    I emailed PCGS the scans, will let you know what they say.

    I suppose I could also resubmit it for grading, to be sure.
     
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    It looks like a fake slab to me.
     
  8. felinfoel

    felinfoel Junior Member

    PCGS answered my email:

    "[FONT=&quot]This coin will have to be sent in as a mechanical error for correction. Please fill out a submission form, mark "Other" as the service level, write in "Mechanical Error" and include a short note on the form describing the error. There is no charge or return shipping fees for the correction."
    [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
    [/FONT]I am shipping it today, will keep you posted.
     
  9. Treashunt

    Treashunt The Other Frank

    Doug
    How can you say that?
    It is an old rattler slab, and the pictures are too blurry to see anything.
     
  10. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    My bet is that it's merely a database error.
     
  11. Treashunt

    Treashunt The Other Frank

    and not a fake slab?

    :)
     
  12. Mark Feld

    Mark Feld Rare coin dealer

    Correct. The images are poor, but I'm going with the odds here
     
  13. Treashunt

    Treashunt The Other Frank

    J/K.

    I agree with you.
     
  14. Collect89

    Collect89 Coin Collector

    If it were a fake slab, then it would make a great educational display to demonstrate a deceiving fake slab. You display it with a sign that says: "This slab is not for sale, do you know why?". (Worth more as a fake than the $60 generic slab which PCGS is going to return if it is real :smile).
     
  15. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I know that. But even the rattlers had raised pieces on the corners that allowed the slabs to stack together. That one does not.

    Reckon we'll see what PCGS says when they get it.
     
  16. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

    Look here and show me the raised pieces for stacking on the first 4 slabs. http://sampleslabs.com/pcgs.html

    And, here is a picture of my non-stacking slab. Are you saying it is also fake? BTW, its number checks out.
     

    Attached Files:

  17. Treashunt

    Treashunt The Other Frank

    I also have a non-stacking PCGS slab, somewhere.

    Probably slid off my desk, without the corners to hold it down.

    .........it must be down here somewhere!
     
  18. Duke Kavanaugh

    Duke Kavanaugh The Big Coin Hunter

    I see nothing to make me think it's fake and do believe they made more accounting errors back then while still getting a system down.

    But time will tell...
    PCGS will lets us know soon enough it sounds.

    And from what I remember OGH's did not have stackable corners at all. But I'll have to get to the safty box to check.
     
  19. borgovan

    borgovan Supporter**

    Just my two cents: I don't see anything about the coin or the slab that bothers me.
     
  20. 900fine

    900fine doggone it people like me

    I had a non-stacking rattler once. My first $10 libbie (MS63, got it off of E-bay). Sent it in to PCGS, upgraded to MS64.
     
  21. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    You guys might be right. I just can't remember any PCGS slab that did not stack.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page