Re: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Retracting favorable opinion of a coin--
- The question on this NGC 1999(P) Lincoln cent that was an actual magician's coin was the holder that it was in. The seam between the hollowed out coin and the disc coin that fit into the hallow was painfully noticeable and almost did not need magnification to be seen. We did have a NGC grader visit the show, but this was after the coin left the building, so no verification of the holder could be made. It was not the owner who presented the coin to the other grading company for examination and the owner was not at the coin show so we could not tell the reaction to this discovery.I have a feeling that it was the NGC holder that was a counterfeit, but that is just my personal felling.As for damage in the holder after a coin has been encapsulated, copper coins are NOT covered and I have a feeling that with the mint's statement concerning spotting on silver coins that soon the TPG's will not warranty spotting that occurs on silver coins after they have been encapsulatedIn a message dated 4/8/2013 10:29:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
PCGS (and NGC) will compensate theowner
of an error coin that's been damaged/altered,
and holdered/certified by mistake.
They will ask experts in the field for their estimate
of value, and come up with a (I've found) very fair
If they loose a coin, the same applies: PCGS just
finished compensating a submitter for a coin that
PCGS lost in their care.
The coin was insured on the invoice for $1,000 -
the owner said it was rare and worth $5,000++ and
When asked, I told PCGS that I thought the coin was
worth substanially less than $1K, and they thought
that paying the declared value would be fair. The
submitter didn't think so, and although I don't know
the exact outcome in dollars, I believe PCGS paid
$1,000, or maybe $1,250 to keep the submitter happy.
--- In email@example.com, "Mike Diamond" <mdia1@...> wrote:
> You might be able to find out the information you seek on the companies' respective websites. I think once they admit they're wrong they'd be willing to compensate the purchaser. The trick is to get that admission.
> More problematic are those fakes whose fraudulent nature can only be determined once the coin is out of the slab. Once you crack it out, you're stuck with it. However, I don't think you'll ever have a problem with a fake error coin mistakenly slabbed for PCGS by Fred Weinberg. He's a straight shooter who willingly 'fesses up to any mistakes.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Steve Mills" <millsteven@> wrote:
> > Does anyone know what liability the grading firms have for authenticating
> > obviously altered coins? I'm not talking about misdiagnosis or
> > misattribution, but cases like the one in point which are unequivocally
> > wrong and caused the purchaser to lose money by relying on the grading
> > company's implicit (actually explicit I guess) certification of
> > authenticity.
> > From: email@example.com
> > [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Mike
> > Diamond
> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 7:48 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: [Error Coin Information Exchange] Re: Retracting favorable opinion
> > of a coin'...
> > Such egregious mistakes no longer surprise me. What was the collector's
> > reaction?
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org
> > <mailto:errorcoininformationexchange%40yahoogroups.com> , innff@ wrote:
> > >
> > > A coin laugh for the day. We had a chance to examine a slabbed NGC 1999(P)
> > > Lincoln cent with wide AM and rotated die at the CFCC coin show. That was
> > > what the NGC label said. A casual examination showed it to be a
> > > "magician's" coin with a hallowed out obverse and fitted reverse. Another
> > TPG
> > > hilarious and obvious error.
- I saw the coin as well. It was so obvious . even a caveman could see it:-)
--- In email@example.com, innff@... wrote:
> A coin laugh for the day. We had a chance to examine a slabbed NGC 1999(P)
> Lincoln cent with wide AM and rotated die at the CFCC coin show. That was
> what the NGC label said. A causal examination showed it to be a
> "magician's" coin with a hallowed out obverse and fitted reverse. Another TPG
> hilarious and obvious error.
> In a message dated 4/6/2013 4:53:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> mdia1@... writes:
> I occasionally need to confess a mistake in declaring an error to be
> authentic. Here's today's confession:
> It concerns a Polk dollar coin with a tiny incuse T on the edge derived
> from a corresponding peripheral obverse letter. Ken Potter declared it a
> genuine dropped letter impression. At the time I couldn't see how it could be a
> contact mark, as the tiny letters are too closely-spaced on the obverse
> face to permit an isolated impression to form. I couldn't think at the time
> how this could have been fabricated outside the Mint and I couldn't see any
> signs of post-strike alteration, so I went along with Potter's opinion.
> Since then I've come across isolated incuse letters clearly produced by
> cutting out a piece of a coin, mounting it on a post, and the then impressing
> it into another coin. And I've seen a few too many of these incuse
> "dropped fillings" on the edge of dollar coins to be comfortable with the
> As a result, I'm demoting this coin to the "uncertain authenticity"
> category. I no longer think it's possible to authenticate these isolated incuse
> letters that have been pressed into the soft copper core of dollar coins.