Thanks for the replies. I saw this coin at Walt Ankerman's table at the Chicago/ANA show last year.
It has the look I very much like for Barbers, it appeared under graded by NGC at VF20, and I am a fan of the 95-P as an under rated date. Icing on the cake was Walt accepted my low (especially considering the undergrade) offer.
A bit later as I was admiring I noticed what looked to be a very weak O mint mark. Being unfamiliar with the variety, I walked the coin over to Larry Briggs' table, donated to his Young Numismatists fund, and asked him to have look. He confirmed and rewarded me with a "good eye" comment.
Definitely a bit unsettling to me that NGC likely semi-botched something like this. Of course applying St. Feldini's razor tells me it could be just a mechanical error
FF I submitted the coin raw to PCGS (as a 95-O ) and it came back like this:
The difference in value between a mid grade 95-P and 95-O is small, but it is surprising to me that both of the top TPG's (especially PCGS who had the correct info on the submission form) would fail this way.
Interesting that they (PCGS and NGC) failed to note the mintmark. If you submit to CAC they might decline to give it a sticker because of the certificate omission. I realize these are not exactly the same thing, but I once submitted a very nice PCGS EF40 Seated Liberty half dollar that was labeled as a Reeded Edge half dollar and CAC kicked the coin back to me (without charge) and noted that they did not sticker coins with label errors.
Comments
It has the look I very much like for Barbers, it appeared under graded by NGC at VF20, and I am a fan of the 95-P as an under rated date. Icing on the cake was Walt accepted my low (especially considering the undergrade) offer.
A bit later as I was admiring I noticed what looked to be a very weak O mint mark. Being unfamiliar with the variety, I walked the coin over to Larry Briggs' table, donated to his Young Numismatists fund, and asked him to have look. He confirmed and rewarded me with a "good eye" comment.
Definitely a bit unsettling to me that NGC likely semi-botched something like this. Of course applying St. Feldini's razor tells me it could be just a mechanical error
FF I submitted the coin raw to PCGS (as a 95-O ) and it came back like this:
The difference in value between a mid grade 95-P and 95-O is small, but it is surprising to me that both of the top TPG's (especially PCGS who had the correct info on the submission form) would fail this way.