| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,411 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
131 Posts |
Interesting error on this NGC slab on both the date and the assayer. Goes up for auction in a couple of weeks - I'm curious to see how Heritage describes this one.  |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
25409 Posts |
They should pull it and have it reslabbed.
Inordinately fascinated by bits of metal with strange markings and figures
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1156 Posts |
There are several levels of effort that go into slabbing a coin. Unfortunately, the level that is involved in typing the text that goes onto the label is not the same as the level that assigns the grade.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
No excuse for this as the MZ assayer is 100% clear, yet 1811 was assayer RM (as the slab says). Plus, of course, if you know the series at all the style is completely different.
1811 Durango is a very rare date... Would it be cynical of me to think that every time something like this occurs, it seems to be in the more expensive direction?
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
131 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
131 Posts |
I looked again today and to NGC's credit they have corrected the slab.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
In a bit under a month, Heritage sent it back to NGC, NGC corrected it, sent it back to Heritage, who already has the listing fully corrected.
Amazing how things get done when you're a frequent customer :->
The cert lookup shows the corrected info as well, and it was apparently removed from the census, as there now looks to be zero NGC 1811 Durango 8R.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5362 Posts |
The coin is clearly dated 1817 not 1811. I wonder if the coin was submitted as the rare 1811 coin - hoping no one would notice?
Even if the coin was described by the owner incorrectly, there is no excuse for this error. The finalizer should have caught this before it was mailed back to the owner. There needs to be zero tolerance for this particular error.
Grade has become overly important to NGC. However, correct attribution (part of authenticity verification) is or should be EQUALLY important. Who cares about the assigned grade if the coin is incorrectly identified.
The necessity for correction can be seen in a cursory 10 second review of this one.
NGC should return the original cost of this encapsulation just for public relations purposes along with all costs of the reholdering including shipping costs BOTH ways. They can deduct those costs from the wages of the finalizer if they wish. They need a new finalizer anyway.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
131 Posts |
To add to the discussion of mistakes... this lot was originally in Stack's recent auction, I couldn't resist taking a screenshot as I figured it would get pulled. It was PCGS-certified but I didn't catch a picture of the slab.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
131 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1962 Posts |
Not super well-versed on all the War of Ind. stamps so wasnt getting exactly what you were getting at... but yeah, for that 1811-13 dating, the design/assayer of the host coin is obviously too late. Good catch.
Edited by realeswatcher
11/06/2023 12:49 pm
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,411 |
|
Posted 09/16/2023 02:30 am
