| Author |
 Replies: 27 / Views: 4,256 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
I just received this coin back from PCGS after having paid for variety attribution. And this seemed so obvious that I did not even waste the time to send it to the CCF forum before getting into PCGS' hands. Can anyone tell me why this coin failed to be an MPD FS-301?  |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3546 Posts |
This may help to clarify things a bit more:  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Email customer service or call for clarification.
I use NGC for my attributions and you do have to make special requests and additional payments for attributions THAT THEY ACKNOWLEDGE.
The first thing to do is to go PCGS and see if the attribution you are looking for is one that PCGS reviews.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
The goal of this thread was to initially get opinions as to if this picture of the object protruding from the neck is indicative of the aforementioned variety number listed in this thread.
Then if I get enough people agreeing that it looks like that particular variation, I will definitely call PCGS.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2023 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Did you pay to have the attribution done, and did you tell them what it was? If you didn't tell them what it was they may not have recognized it. If you didn't pay for the attribution you're not going to get it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
I created this comparison photo because the horizontal yellow line points to a protruding knob on PCGS' example. This same line to points to the same location on my coin that appears not to have this same bump. Does anyone know of any variety attribution denial by a TPG because only part of MDP appeared?  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
Quote:
...because only part of MDP appeared? This should have read '...because only part of an MPD appeared?' My avatar name of MDPmedia caused this thingy to bug out. :) And yes, I already did: * prepay on the initial submission form the required 'Additional Service Level Fee' notated in the 'Fee Calculation' box, *checked the box under the 'Variety Attribution $ 18' column and *printed out 'MPD FS-301' under the 'Variety' column directly to the right of '1875 $ 0.03' I do not know what else I could have done to mess up this process request. |
|
Valued Member
United States
121 Posts |
The only thing we can help with is concur (or not) that the variety is what you think it is. In my case, I agree with you.
What PCGS does is up to PCGS. Only way to find out is to contact customer service. They do make mistakes sometimes.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
I dislike wasting a lot of time on issues like this so I reasoned that the best way to end it with a quick yes or no would be to go to http://www.ha.com and find a PCGS slab of a similar coin. I typed in '1875 3CN MPD FS-301' in the search bar and found a higher graded example: https://coins.ha.com/itm/three-cent...sults-012417This slab shows a coin just like mine also without the presence of that smaller upper knob located above the primary larger node. Armed with this research data I called PCGS to plead my case and finally did receive an answer from customer service shown by the following email excerpt: "Good afternoon Mark, After reaching out to our grading team it does look like it is in fact a Mech Error, so I'm giving the instructions to have it sent in for us to fix it for you. I've attached the return shipping label, The coin you have referenced will fall under a Mechanical Error resubmission. In order to ensure a smooth completion, please follow the steps outlined below. 1) Complete a current submission form. You can download a form by clicking here: http://www.PCGS.com/submissionform/usaform.pdf" I'll post a link to the 'True View' photo when I receive the new slab back. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
Just as a review since I re-submitted this coin to have the corrected variety attribution 1875 3CN MPD FS-301 (FS-006.5) placed on the slab, I also requested that the coin be conserved to remove those spots while it is there.
I wanted to know if the redone coin should be expected to have a different certification # distinct from the current # 35252049 being that two processes were being performed on this second submission?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
I forgot to ask if this Total of 10 in the final column on the following page https://www.PCGS.com/pop/detail/thr...=63&ccid=671means that there are only ten total 1875 3CN MPD FS-301 (FS-006.5) slabbed in existence since apparently it shows on this page that PCGS slabbed just two out of ten total of these including mine? What other TPGs would PCGS recognize in calculating this Total of ten? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2023 Posts |
The "total of 10" represents all those that PCGS has graded -- this includes all grades. If you scroll around, you'll see there's a 15, a 35, four 55s, two 63s and two 65s. This also suggests that the "10" does not include other TPGs.
Also remember that some people crack coins and resubmit for a higher grade, possibly across TPGs. This probably doesn't apply in this case because there are so few, but take the "count" with a grain of salt. Unless graders are tracking the unique details of each coin they receive and share them with each other, we may never know the actual/true count of anything.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
Ok, I've got an update on this coin insofar as the variety designation. PCGS sent me back this coin slabbed with the correct info. for a MPD FS-301: https://www.PCGS.com/cert/35252049This un-slabbed coin went to the TPG but originally came from a Stack's & Bowers plastic Mylar flip marked as an unverified MS62. It obviously came back as an MS63.  I have two questions now and I'd like to receive opinions on them. a.) In light of the fact that the only significant ding is the mark on the reverse left column, what are the opinions out there as to whether or not this coin has a snowball's chance in an 'autoclave'(in compliance with CCF policies) to receive an MS64 grade? This assumes that any restorative process would be successful in eliminating the majority of those unsightly spots on both sides. b.) Do I need to start a new and distinct thread to address this grading query? |
|
Valued Member
United States
121 Posts |
I wouldn't grade it 64. But a more important question is: "Why would you spend the money to find out if PCGS would grade it 64?"
The price difference between 63 and 64 doesn't justify the crap shoot of grading fees. What if it came back 62?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
Quote:
...Why would you spend the money to find out if PCGS would grade it 64?" These are valid questions but my aspirations in this case, however, were more in line with the distinct possibility that a restoration most probably would result in a specimen having a more aesthetically pleasing appearance. My subjective gamble relied predominantly upon two factors: 1) the general tone taken from my 04/08/18 thread labeled, 'conserv/clean: value increased?, TPG costs & historical results': http://goccf.com/t/315942&SearchTerms=1875,3Cand 2) favorable alterations like these (62 to 63 or 63 to 64 etc...) derived from stated and printed rhetoric quoted from proven experts in the field of grading found about half way down the page within a publication entitled "Coin Grading Tutorial" composed by Heritage Auctions, the world's largest numismatic auctioneer: Quote:
It is important to note that Uncirculated and similar terms refer only to the fact that the coin has no wear. The presence or absence of bagmarks, toning (discoloration), or a strong strike does not affect a coin's Uncirculated status, although such things can affect the numerical grade of the coin. https://coins.ha.com/tutorial/coin-grading.s These considerations along with the fact that I had an unused $ 40 credit to burn at PCGS warranted my course of action. |
| |
Replies: 27 / Views: 4,256 |
Posted 03/30/2018 09:54 am
