From $50, to $40k and Back Again...

Anyone else see this?

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ebay-still-a-cherrypickers-paradise-2017.290909/

Long story short, some one bought a 1909 VDB Lincoln Cent on eBay and sent it to PCGS to be graded. PCGS, either the graders themselves or simply the person who inputs the final grade, slipped up big time by grading it a PR-65, though it was a regular circulation strike.

Fun read for many reasons. Go have a look if you'd like to learn about proof Lincolns - specifically '09 VDBs, hate TPGs, or just want a good chuckle.

That's quite a thread! Always sad to read things like this and watch the OP dig in his heels even in the face of very straightforward evidence. But it's understandable, if I believed I had lucked into $40K I would be reluctant to let go of that belief, as well.

It's a beautiful coin regardless. Is that "soap bubble" toning natural? I'm usually suspicious of that kind of bright pink/purple toning that spreads across the whole coin rather than near the rim.

Yes, he seemed to eventually come around to reality, but for a while he just plugged his ears to the advice of those much more knowledgeable than he. Damn straight, I'd be rightly peeved myself if two little letters meant the difference between $50 and $40k and the "experts" mistakenly used them.

As for the toning, that's what I thought as well, it looked very obviously artificially toned. Even disregarding that unnatural toning, it doesn't look like a 65 to me.

One of the replies late in the thread mentions that the Mint wrapped these coins (or at least the proof coins) in paper with a high sulfur content, leading to rainbow toning on many of them, so that's a potential explanation for why the whole coin would tone rather than just around the edge.

I'm honestly surprised that PCGS could claim "data entry error" for this, though. While I think that actually is the most likely explanation since the markers for the matte proof are so well-established and obvious, I would have thought that PCGS would have systems that would send alarm bells ringing throughout the building when a raw coin comes in and gets graded at $40,000+ value. One would think the slab would be triple-checked by an escalating series of expert eyes before it got mailed back out.

Well, that's how *I* would do it, anyway...

What an unedifying read! Nobody seems to emerge from this sorry tale with any credit.

I was already aware that the TPG pirates had small print which attempts to absolve them of any responsibility for accuracy, which in a sane world would be the death of their business model. But even more alarming was the discovery that not only do they refuse to stand behind their product, they actually shift the responsibility onto their customers. If they screw up and some poor scmuck loses out by buying a $50 coin for $40,000 because he trusted the slab, the original submitter is on the hook, not the pirates.

The OP seems to be an unlovely gentleman although you can understand his umbrage given the obvious delight taken in bursting his 40k bubble by many of the respondents. It's quite a dismaying glimpse into current day ethics that many of those responding could see nothing wrong in publicly admitting that they would have been rushing to find a buyer before the error was corrected. How do such people sleep at night?

I think it's time for a dinosaur type of extinction event and let the cockroaches take over.

I agree, Phil, although I thought there was an insightful post late in the thread (this one: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ebay-still-a-cherrypickers-paradise-2017.290909/page-9#post-2648653) that pointed out that people who have actually paid $40,000 for a 1909 VDB proof have a significant financial interest in making sure that the credibility and legitimacy of a PCGS certification is not compromised. So I can see their side as well, and understand why they would be aggressive in wanting to make sure this is dealt with swiftly.