Here we go...Coin World October 17th, 2005 issue... A couple of months back, ICG certified the only known (outside of the Smithsonian) 1974 Aluminum Cent graded as AU58. The story has it that then U.S. Capital Police Officer Albert Toven saw a US House Representative drop this cent in the basement of the Rayburn Office Building in late 1973. Picking it up, he ran after the representative to return what he thought was a dime, but was reportedly told by the representative to keep it. The 1974 Aluminum Cents were struck as an experimental pieces due to the increasing price of copper. 1,571,167 went struck through two production runs, 14 trial pieces were given to committee leaders so they could see how the coin would look and feel. 9 were given to House committee members and five went to Senate committee members. Other pieces were distrubuted among Mint and Treasury officials. Now after this experimental cent went no where, Mint officials asked for all of these cents back and some members claimed they lost theirs. Opps... So...30 years later, one of these pieces ends up with relatives of the late officer Toven and ICG grades it as AU58. Here's a coin that was held with other loose change and ends up bouncing around a basement floor. Wait...let's crack it out and give PCGS a swing at it. They grade it as MS62!?! Not AU55 or MS60, but a 4 point swing!?! Now, my experience with circulated coins graded by ICG is that they are tough. They may not be tough on moderns and those coins above MS68, but if you look at their circulated grades, they are very conservative. PCGS takes this coin and ups it 4 points!?!?! I would like to know how after all of the press 2 months when ICG first went public PCGS got their hands on this coin and why the 4 point swing?? Constructive comments?
I read about this....so Midas...does that change your mind about PCGS....from the photos I saw of the coin it had wear...maybe not much but it didn't have the good looks of a MS.... Speedy
Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then. Until the day I see consistent higher prices realized for one TPG over PCGS, I will have to stick with PCGS. Why submit coins to an another service when, all things being equal, I will net MORE for my submitted coins in the event I have to liquidate them. So if I submit coins, I use PCGS because I like to net more when I sell my coins. When I buy, I am equal opportunity all over. Many times I will purchase a coin from another TPG, break them out, submit them to PCGS and even after purchase costs and submission fees, I net MORE with the coin in a PCGS holder when I sell. Oh, I forgot...your PR66 Franklin in a NGC holder that you paid more for than one in a PCGS holder. That's one. I look at 100's of Heritage and Teletrade completed auctions and hands down, if I want more for my raw coins, they are going in a PCGS holder. The market has spoken. You will learn about this when you take Economics 101.
The problem doesn't lie in higher prices for same coin but instead, the grading consistency. What is very worrying is how sometimes coins are being overgraded so that they could be sold at a higher price. And it is happening even with major slabbing companies. Soon, you will be flooded with crappy coins that are priced way too ridicious and no one will be able to trust such numerical gradings any longer. Wouldn't that cause chaos over pricing once this happens?
Is that a risky fence to sit on? What happens when the market does shift? Will you crack all your unsold coins out of the PCGS holders and re-submit them to the "now popular" TPG? I agree with you that current PCGS slabbed coins command higher premiums in today's market, but then I think of all those who had their coins slabbed in the the older style PCGS holders back in the day. (I often see this PCGS style holder command less). I also think back and I remember when ANACS commanded comparably higher premiums. You are right in that you can find the lower demand TPG slabbed coins for a "bargain" as compared to a similar PCGS slabbed coin. I guess if your looking for profit it makes sense, but not if you are collecting the coins. Just my thoughts!
Feel sorry for the sucker who had it graded AND let it get into a magazine. Technically, its just as illegal to own this particular coin as a 1933 double eagle. If the Feds haven't taken it back already, they will soon. As for the grading company war.....might as well talk about your favorite sports team being better than an other. Both teams are in the Pro Leagues, have records, both are made up of people who age, make mistakes, change teams, etc etc etc.
True....I was just wondering.... I hadn't seen you here in awhile was wondering what happened! Speedy
My suspicions are that PCGS persuaded the owner to do the crossover. Whether or not someone from PCGS examined the coin first and voiced the opinion to the owner that it might grade higher - I cannot say. But I have read that David Hall ordered a Presidential Review for this particular coin when it was graded. For those that don't know - what that means is that David Hall, the President of PCGS, walks the coin through the grading process personally. Does that have an effect on the determination of the final grade ? There are those who say it does From the reports I've read about the aluminum cent that surfaced at a coin show on the east coast a couple years ago, PCGS just about begged on bended knee for the opportunity to slab the coin. But the owner of that coin wouldn't go for it because he was afraid of the publicity it would generate and that his coin might be confiscated as a result. It is my opinion that PCGS wants to have all the rarities in their slab - they consider it a feather in their cap. Of course I have little doubt that any grading company would feel any different.
There is no way to value a coin like this - until it is sold on the open market several times. But I think you could say it is in 6 figures.
I could be wrong, but I think this was debated when the coin surfaced, and it was deremined that it was legal. Anyone else remember?
I've been through Title 18, U.S. Code (the Federal Criminal Code), from end to end, and can't find any statute that gives the Secret Service the right to declare what is, or isn't, legal to own. Can you give me a citation? Their expert decision on whether a given note or coin is counterfeit (contraband) or genuine is not the exercise of a right to determine legality of ownership. Contraband is contraband, and the SS determination that something was in that category would be reviewable by a federal court if it were seriously disputed. Besides, the legal burden of proof is on the party claiming that something is counterfeit - the owner doesn't have to prove it's legality in the first instance. IMHO if the story line cited in the Coin World story is accurate, there is no legal theory that would support confiscation of the aluminum cent, or charging the possessor with a crime. Whether or not a particular chunk of metal was ever officially monetized has very little relevance to the question of whether it's possession is legal. This piece of aluminum was deliberately given by mint officials to an individual, who then abandoned his rights in it to the current owner's ancestor. The mint's subsequent request for return of it's gift had just about the same legal effect as my demand that my grandson give back the chess set I gave him for his birthday would have. (I'm assuming that there was no written agreement between the mint and the Congressman that the piece was being loaned to him on condition that he promised to return it on demand, because if such an agreement existed the mint would have excercised its rights a long time ago.)
Personally I agree with ya Roy - but I live the real world, and it's not the world I'd like it to be. So if they take even half a notion that they want that coin - they'll have it. It's just that simple. After that - it'll be up to the courts to decide what's legal to own and what isn't.
