It is a nice coin! It is an easily identifiable error so slabbing is not needed.
Hey Biokemist.... Thanks for mapping out the fees for slabbing on a coin like this.
That is why some of us think that slabbing is a waste on stuff like this. The fees eat too much away from the value of the coin.
It is also why we sometimes point out to people that suggest slabbing to others without the basic knowledge of the fee schedules that they shouldn't be so quick to reccommend slabbing a coin.
It just isn't cost effective on most errors and die varieties.
I also know of a recent example where a well known die variety was sent out to be slabbed by one of the "major" companies and came back as not being what it was supposed to be.
The guy that had the coin knew exactly what it was. It was the really nice 1994
DDR Lincoln Cent that is in the
CherryPickers' Guide. He had to send it in twice for them to get the coin attributed correctly. It should have been a slam dunk.
Another major authenticator recently had an article published in a major hobby publication that described a 1910 D cent as having an added D. He went into detail about how he could see the way the mintmark was added under a high power microscope. It took yours truly, with the use of a few of my own photos to show the magazine that the coin was an altered 1940 D cent with parts of the 4 removed. The spacing of the digits is completely different on the 1910 vs. the 1910 D coin shown. The spacing of the digits matched perfectly to a 1940 D with the left and right portions of the 4 removed. It was an easy one to pick up on yet the writer of that article was totally wrong. By the way, the reason a 1910 D was faked in the first place is that no 1910 D cents were minted. Anyone with enough
Lincoln Cent experience could see this in a flash.
The moral of the story is that some grading companies miss simple stuff and some graders miss simple stuff, especially in the area of errors and die varieties.
Have Fun,
Bill
First Page
Posted 04/11/2009 2:52 pm
