Topic: 2001 small D 1 oz. silver panda is not "genuine" China Mint product

[Mirkkanen]

One question is, are current "small D" owners more concerned with discovering the truth about this coin, or with protecting the value of their investment(s)?

[poconopenn]

Silverstar1,

Please provide information about you successful efforts in obtaining the recognizing of small D from NGC. What type of documents required to convince NGC to recognize the new variety? How long to take NGC  to accept your request? Your help to clarify the process will be very appreciated.

The small D version was discovered in later 2012. Prior to December 2012, they were 13 small D graded as regular D by NGC. They are 2780136-046, -047, 2779181-019 and 2780533-021-030. Based on the Invoice#, they were graded not too long before your 8 coins being graded as small D.

There are clear evidence to suggest that 2001-D gold panda has high D and low D versions in all denominations. Members of CCF had shown data that NGC had graded those varieties as regular 2001 D many years before 2012. The ratio of high D and low D is about 3 to 1. To this date, NGC has not recognized those varieties.

Owners of 2001 small D,

It is time for you to take proactive action. Since both NGC and PCGS have money-back guarantee, you can request both companies to review this coin’s authenticity with a link of this thread. This will force NGC and PCGS to contact the author of this article and resolve the issue. If this coin is not genuine, you will be compensated by NGC or PCGS, or if this coin is genuine, the price will go up in the future.

[Kelvin C]

PCGS Now Grading Modern Coins Year-Round In Mainland China and Adding Reference Numbers
October 30, 2013

PCGS also was the first to certify in China one of the first 200 of the new 2014 China silver Panda coins struck at the Shenzhen Guobao Mint on October 11, 2013. It was presented by mint officials as a gift to Ms. Muriel Eymery, PCGS Vice President of International Business Development, who was present at the striking ceremony. On October 13, less than 48 hours after it was presented, the beautiful coin was certified at the PCGS Shanghai Submission Center as First Strike, PCGS MS 69 Secure.
The designer of the 2014 silver Panda, Mr. Rocky Zhou, met Eymery and PCGS Co-Founder and Collectors Universe, Inc. President, Mr. David Hall, while they were in Beijing.
The important expansion to year-round grading services in China underscores the increasing demand for PCGS-certified coins there, according to Mr. Don Willis, PCGS President.”
Coins conveniently can be submitted in mainland China at the PCGS Submission Centers in Beijing, Guangzhou and Shanghai in person or by mail, or submitted through a network of more than 80 PCGS Authorized Dealers in mainland China (http://www.PCGS.com.cn/dealers).

{Look at this list of 80 Dealers!!} It is staggering. I should have pasted it here but didnt wish it to take away a full page}.
Over 5+ years and not one authorized dealers raised any questions challenging the grading of a coin?

I fully understand the inquiry into this coin and this is to show the contact between Mint and PCGS

[jc888888888]

Apparently we are not reading the previous post! ......  I do not like to speak for Silverstar  but here are the facts Silverstar DID NOT SUBMIT ANY PAPERWORK , he did not  submit the coins to NGC as small D He submitted the coins as large D AND one more time here!   NGC MADE THE DISCOVERY ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT ANYONE PROMPTING THEM TO DO SO, I am sure Peter Anthony can verify this. Again the small D was discovered by NGC  none of the early submitter s had anything to do with it .  The coins that where graded as large D but where in fact small D where the ones I personally submitted bright before silverstar submitted his and the discovery was made .
T

[jc888888888]

Silverstar1,

Please provide information about you successful efforts in obtaining the recognizing of small D from NGC. What type of documents required to convince NGC to recognize the new variety? How long to take NGC  to accept your request? Your help to clarify the process will be very appreciated.

The small D version was discovered in later 2012. Prior to December 2012, they were 13 small D graded as regular D by NGC. They are 2780136-046, -047, 2779181-019 and 2780533-021-030. Based on the Invoice#, they were graded not too long before your 8 coins being graded as small D.

There are clear evidence to suggest that 2001-D gold panda has high D and low D versions in all denominations. Members of CCF had shown data that NGC had graded those varieties as regular 2001 D many years before 2012. The ratio of high D and low D is about 3 to 1. To this date, NGC has not recognized those varieties.

Owners of 2001 small D,

It is time for you to take proactive action. Since both NGC and PCGS have money-back guarantee, you can request both companies to review this coin’s authenticity with a link of this thread. This will force NGC and PCGS to contact the author of this article and resolve the issue. If this coin is not genuine, you will be compensated by NGC or PCGS, or if this coin is genuine, the price will go up in the future.

Apparently we are not reading the previous post! ......  I do not like to speak for Silverstar  but here are the facts Silverstar DID NOT SUBMIT ANY PAPERWORK , he did not  submit the coins to NGC as small D He submitted the coins as large D AND one more time here!   NGC MADE THE DISCOVERY ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT ANYONE PROMPTING THEM TO DO SO, I am sure Peter Anthony can verify this. Again the small D was discovered by NGC  none of the early submitter s had anything to do with it .  The coins that where graded as large D but where in fact small D where the ones I personally submitted bright before silverstar submitted his and the discovery was made .

The small D coin is legitimate I have called NGC and they where 100% standing behind the authenticity of this coin ,,,,They in fact implied that the author of that blog or whatever you want to call it "quite possibly has an axe to grind "  Also if you read carefully thru every post  Peter Anthony subliminally suggest the possibility of the same thing

Now here is the big question:)  I have briefly looked at  a whole treasure trove of micro enlarged pictures of sections of the coin posted here they dont remotely even suggest anything IMHO , here is the question that no one WANTS TO ANSWER OR IS INCAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO : all photos of these coins in OMP state UNDENIABLY ARE IN 100% GENUINE SHENZHEN ORIGINAL MINT PACKAGING  ...... so anyone want to take a crack at how these forgerys got into that OMP   ....lets see what we dream up now:)   

[jc888888888]

One question is, are current "small D" owners more concerned with discovering the truth about this coin, or with protecting the value of their investment(s)?

SO , I will only speak for myself  and answer your question sir .....you are a buyer and re seller of coins so you should be able to comprehend this .. I have 4 or 5 graded small D in my collection as I stated before it is a minuscule dollar amount of my total collection .............  FULL DISCLOSURE : I had 2 sheets my cost basis in the coins with grading was somewhere around $100 a coin (they where bought as large d as previously stated)   I sold or traded 14 or so for anywhere between $600 to $1000 per coin . I HAVE NOT SOLD A SMALL d in at least 18 month,s most probably 2 years ..... so as you can see I am not worried at all about these coins...   here is the TRUTH this person who posted something on a blog saying these coins are fakes has not provided ONE shred of evidence ,MY POSITION IN DEFENDING this coin has ZERO to do with money I SIMPLY KNOW FIRST HAND THE TRUE FACTS .. is it some folks on this board like drama ??   Look back on the Badon era of this coin board and remember the damage done here when innuendo ,statements with no factual basis , possible manipulation of the market and the list goes on and on  was taking place .... those where dark days for this forum.... I could flip and pose the same question to you : is someone trying to create a falsehood about a coin for financial gain??   I personally dont think so: but your question is as offensive ...... and the end of the day 2 of the most prestigious coin grading companies say the coin is legitimate and no one can come up with anything that remotely resembles any kind of proof ..it is just annoying to me     

[Mirkkanen]

Fair enough. I guess it is understandable that the holders of this coin are frustrated with this thread since they have skin in the game. Since I do not own any large D or small D coins, I'm simply a bystander who's enjoying the back and forth. I should probably go back and read some of the initial posts in this thread to determine why poconopenn has so much confidence in the guy who wrote this article. Nobody else seems to.

[KeyDate1/2ozPandas]

All rare coins genuine, altered, counterfeit have a story and it takes time for the story to be told.  It is has only been 15 years since 2001 were produced and only 5 years since small D was designated.  Some collectors view 5 years as a long time, but reality is we are only in the 1st to 3rd inning of understanding rarity of many of the China mint coins.   For the small D, I would say 1st inning, for 1995 1/2 3rd inning. 

In 2010 I bought a 1988 27g the 15th Winter Olympic Games Commemorative Silver Coin(Matte), it is the last coin on the page at the following link and is believed to be 15-20 pieces.
http://olden.sfu.edu.cn/web/synopsis.aspx?menuObjectId=4B8DB34E-B1EB-4B27-82E6-F180B0E7DFB4&menuCodeTag=10402

I sent it to NGC for grading with pedigree info from german dealer and numismatic research from Huang Ruiyong and it came back with Questionable Authenticity, ouch $10K down the drain.  Then couple years later I sent it to PCGS, a week later PR69 DCAM.  Put in a Stack Auction in August of 2012, sold for $15,535, I netted roughly $14,000.
https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=443&category=9454&lot=440758   

The fact that there was controversy about the coin in China and at NGC during my hold period 2010 to 2012, it was enough for me to want to sell the coin, rather than hold it for 10-20 years as I had initially planned when I bought it.  Also, since the coin was in a PCGS holder and I felt it would eventually degrade or develop white spots so I decided it to sell fast.  Now the challenge was how to sell it, I didn't want to sell it to someone I knew, because of the all risks in the coin and I didn't simply want to pass the risk to less sophisticated owner that could come back to haunt me years later, so instead I gave it to Stacks and they sold for $15,535, I netted $14,000 and was glad to move on.  10-30 years from now it could be $100K pattern coin or $5K as a fantasy coin, time will tell.  NGC still isn't certifying that coin.  https://www.sixbid.com/browse.html?auction=443&category=9454&lot=440758

The point of the story is controversy adds risk to any investment and each person needs to decide what level and type of risk they can sleep well at night.  This thread won't settle any controversy, it is just a seed that will start a debate that will be better understood 10-30 years from now or maybe longer.   

[poconopenn]

Apparently we are not reading the previous post! ......  I do not like to speak for Silverstar  but here are the facts Silverstar DID NOT SUBMIT ANY PAPERWORK , he did not  submit the coins to NGC as small D He submitted the coins as large D AND one more time here!   NGC MADE THE DISCOVERY ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT ANYONE PROMPTING THEM TO DO SO, I am sure Peter Anthony can verify this. Again the small D was discovered by NGC  none of the early submitter s had anything to do with it .  The coins that where graded as large D but where in fact small D where the ones I personally submitted bright before silverstar submitted his and the discovery was made .

The small D coin is legitimate I have called NGC and they where 100% standing behind the authenticity of this coin ,,,,They in fact implied that the author of that blog or whatever you want to call it "quite possibly has an axe to grind "  Also if you read carefully thru every post  Peter Anthony subliminally suggest the possibility of the same thing

Now here is the big question:)  I have briefly looked at  a whole treasure trove of micro enlarged pictures of sections of the coin posted here they dont remotely even suggest anything IMHO , here is the question that no one WANTS TO ANSWER OR IS INCAPABLE OF RESPONDING TO : all photos of these coins in OMP state UNDENIABLY ARE IN 100% GENUINE SHENZHEN ORIGINAL MINT PACKAGING  ...... so anyone want to take a crack at how these forgerys got into that OMP   ....lets see what we dream up now:)   

NGC does not recognize new variety though its own research unless somebody makes request with convincible evidences. Somebody has to made request for small D version. Usually, the person made request will be the first person to receive the new designation label. The old thread at CCF indicted that silverstar’s eight coins were the earliest in NGC population report. Perhaps somebody made request with pictures and submitted coin later. This can happen but will be very unusual.

Clearly NGC has not done a good job in authenticating. Thirteen small D in three separated submissions slipped through its authenticity process. Those coins, if it had done properly, they should be returned as “questionable authenticity”, since they did not match the design of regular D version and no small D designation had been recognized yet. Furthermore, NGC has graded many high D and low D 2001 D gold pandas during last 10 years. Clearly, no single grader has noticed the design differences since nobody has requested new variety designation yet.  IMO, the authenticating procedure at NGC needs a major revamp immediately.

By the way, Shenzhen Mint has been sealed coins for a fee since 2010 with a minimum submission of 30 coins.  Shanghai Mint does the same.

[poconopenn]

Disclosure: I do not own 2001 small D and have no interesting to be the referee between Mr. Zhao and NGC/PCGS. I do not know Mr. Zhao personally and have never met him nor have any communication with him in the past. I do have his books, read his articles and watch video which he discusses with other experts about MCC on TV.

Here are links of his recent article and video.

http://www.jibi.net/News/qbdjbd/19393350.html  (Chinese Numismatics, Vol 5, 2016, Review of authenticating and grading companies inside China, covers 6 foreign and 17 domestic companies)

http://www.coin001.com/read.php?tid=123580  (Discussion MCC with Mr. Sun, the most knowledgeable expert in circulated MCC)

My interesting in detecting counterfeit started in 1990s. During 1990s, I collected Morgan dollars. The market was flooded with high quality fake at that time. Chinese counterfeiter made high quality 1889 CC by stamping CC on 1889 (Philadelphia Mint) made from a transfer die. The valuation of 1889 CC was about 1000% higher than 1889. There were many US coins being counterfeited this way. Fortunately, the stamped CC had wrong size, font and position. Since Morgan dollar was more than 100 year old coin and all varieties had been identified long time ago, the chance of discovery a new variety for Morgan dollar after 100 years was very limited. Therefore, it is not difficult to spot the fake by comparing a genuine coin. MCC are relatively new. Many varieties were discovered recently. It is a prime target and excellent time for counterfeiter to produce a high quality new variety during discovery stage of MCC.

Mr. Zhao stated small D as not genuine based on two claims. First, only one master hub was made based on the Mint staff and documents. Second, the coins were distributed from an exclusive source. I will address these two claims in the future, based on my findings and understanding the production process at Mint.

[1668Chris]

NGC does not recognize new variety though its own research unless somebody makes request with convincible evidences. Somebody has to made request for small D version. Usually, the person made request will be the first person to receive the new designation label. The old thread at CCF indicted that silverstar’s eight coins were the earliest in NGC population report. Perhaps somebody made request with pictures and submitted coin later. This can happen but will be very unusual.

Clearly NGC has not done a good job in authenticating. Thirteen small D in three separated submissions slipped through its authenticity process. Those coins, if it had done properly, they should be returned as “questionable authenticity”, since they did not match the design of regular D version and no small D designation had been recognized yet. Furthermore, NGC has graded many high D and low D 2001 D gold pandas during last 10 years. Clearly, no single grader has noticed the design differences since nobody has requested new variety designation yet.  IMO, the authenticating procedure at NGC needs a major revamp immediately.

By the way, Shenzhen Mint has been sealed coins for a fee since 2010 with a minimum submission of 30 coins.  Shanghai Mint does the same.

This is not true.  NGC has a mind of their own when it comes to recognizing new varieties.  NGC has for the past couple of years written articles recognizing new MCC varieties.  Yet when you look in the pop reports not one coin exists.  I find the exact variety several months later and then submit the coin designation.  My coin then becomes pop #1.  Additionally I originally submitted the 1994 silver proof unicorn to NGC for variety designation with all three examples.  Their original response was that the variety was not significant enough to recognize separately.  I then went to PCGS who agreed to recognize. NGC decided to recognize some time later maybe a year or two.

My guess is there are many many varieties that exist but NGC will only recognize on their timetable.

Regarding the small "d"....if this private mint stamped a d on a non d 2001 panda it should be relatively easy to identify similar die marks on the small d with a regular non d.   If this can be proven then I think you may have your answer.

[jc888888888]

NGC does not recognize new variety though its own research unless somebody makes request with convincible evidences. Somebody has to made request for small D version. Usually, the person made request will be the first person to receive the new designation label. The old thread at CCF indicted that silverstar’s eight coins were the earliest in NGC population report. Perhaps somebody made request with pictures and submitted coin later. This can happen but will be very unusual.

Clearly NGC has not done a good job in authenticating. Thirteen small D in three separated submissions slipped through its authenticity process. Those coins, if it had done properly, they should be returned as “questionable authenticity”, since they did not match the design of regular D version and no small D designation had been recognized yet. Furthermore, NGC has graded many high D and low D 2001 D gold pandas during last 10 years. Clearly, no single grader has noticed the design differences since nobody has requested new variety designation yet.  IMO, the authenticating procedure at NGC needs a major revamp immediately.

By the way, Shenzhen Mint has been sealed coins for a fee since 2010 with a minimum submission of 30 coins.  Shanghai Mint does the same.


total hogwash ..Ngc recognizes new variety's on their own all the time ....  Zhao is mistaken and as anyone knows and realizes mint records are far from accurate look at all the revisions to publish mintage numbers are proof of that . And mints are not putting coins in their OMP that they didnt produce .. AND ONCE again since I directly bought my coins from a person who owed them and held them in a safe since 2003  this is an undisputable fact  and the dealer that sold them to silverstar got his from the same source and pretty much all the coins graded at and around the time of discovery where from that same safe .....     

[jc888888888]

NGC does not recognize new variety though its own research unless somebody makes request with convincible evidences. Somebody has to made request for small D version. Usually, the person made request will be the first person to receive the new designation label. The old thread at CCF indicted that silverstar’s eight coins were the earliest in NGC population report. Perhaps somebody made request with pictures and submitted coin later. This can happen but will be very unusual.

Clearly NGC has not done a good job in authenticating. Thirteen small D in three separated submissions slipped through its authenticity process. Those coins, if it had done properly, they should be returned as “questionable authenticity”, since they did not match the design of regular D version and no small D designation had been recognized yet. Furthermore, NGC has graded many high D and low D 2001 D gold pandas during last 10 years. Clearly, no single grader has noticed the design differences since nobody has requested new variety designation yet.  IMO, the authenticating procedure at NGC needs a major revamp immediately.

By the way, Shenzhen Mint has been sealed coins for a fee since 2010 with a minimum submission of 30 coins.  Shanghai Mint does the same.

total hogwash ..Ngc recognizes new variety's on their own all the time ....  Zhao is mistaken and as anyone knows and realizes mint records are far from accurate look at all the revisions to publish mintage numbers are proof of that . And mints are not putting coins in their OMP that they didnt produce .. AND ONCE again since I directly bought my coins from a person who owed them and held them in a safe since 2003  this is an undisputable fact  and the dealer that sold them to silverstar got his from the same source and pretty much all the coins graded at and around the time of discovery where from that same safe .....     

[Kelvin C]

[By the way, Shenzhen Mint has been sealed coins for a fee since 2010 with a minimum submission of 30 coins.  Shanghai Mint does the same.]

Does this imply that it’s possible hundreds of the 2001 small D coins were re-sealed at the Mint and No official or employee noticed that they were small D???

[wittu]

total hogwash .. 

Hi,
would you please cool down a bit. I am just following this discussion at the sideline (NO financial interests in this topic). poconopenn is highly respected for his knowledge ---> HIGHLY respected. He never is emotional, but super helpful. Your words are not respectful.

Greetings,
wittu