[Appraisal] BTCC 0.5 Coin w/ Error?

[tothemoonsands]

This may be a one-of-a-kind error from the historic BTCC Mint. Or perhaps it is an insignificant mishap. Please give your thoughts below.

My 0.5 BTC coin comes with an error specifically in the packaging materials. The QR code provided in the provenance booklet does not correctly match to the coin, yet the long-form address is listed correctly. This rare error (or insignificant mishap) was acknowledged by Tendai, and was corrected with a properly formatted booklet.

Does this type of error command any additional premium given that it is not on the coin itself? How would you value it?

Note: This thread is intended for subjective (professional) input only. The coin is not for sale.

[1714809569]

1714809569

[1714809569]

1714809569

[wheelz1200]

I dont know if that constitutes an error.  Id say it was just a mispackaging.  For me the coin needs to be struck/engraved/etc different than the general circulation of coins but thats just me.  I know others like the different packageing/display /paperwork mishaps.  Either way these btcc coins are very nice.

[tothemoonsands]

I dont know if that constitutes an error.  Id say it was just a mispackaging.  For me the coin needs to be struck/engraved/etc different than the general circulation of coins but thats just me.  I know others like the different packageing/display /paperwork mishaps.  Either way these btcc coins are very nice.

Thank you wheelz! I think this is going to be the general consensus too. That is a fair distinction to say the error should be on the coin itself. Packaging seems like that grey area. Will be interested to hear others' input, but this very well may sum it all up. Definitely agree on BTCC coins being nice too! Hoping they have some more in 2018 if it pans out.

[tothemoonsands]

For the sake of discussion, I'll throw out a counterpoint to Wheelz: The packaging material is individually marked to the coin sold, and is issued 1:1 with these coins.

[wheelz1200]

I dont know if that constitutes an error.  Id say it was just a mispackaging.  For me the coin needs to be struck/engraved/etc different than the general circulation of coins but thats just me.  I know others like the different packageing/display /paperwork mishaps.  Either way these btcc coins are very nice.

Thank you wheelz! I think this is going to be the general consensus too. That is a fair distinction to say the error should be on the coin itself. Packaging seems like that grey area. Will be interested to hear others' input, but this very well may sum it all up. Definitely agree on BTCC coins being nice too! Hoping they have some more in 2018 if it pans out.

I hope they do too.  The clean btcc bitcoins are one of my favorites.  It would be a she if they stopped production.  Have you heard anything on the production front from them since they shut the exchange doors down?

[tothemoonsands]

Man, would be an absolute shame! I haven't heard a single word about any future releases. Between the crackdown on mining and exchanges, it may be likely that there will never be any more coins issued. Especially considering their high standard of "Newly minted" BTC straight from block reward. But....perhaps BTCC will relocate (although the name BTCC may have to be rebranded unless it is an homage). I know the store.btcc.com was completely offline at one point, but at least it is back on for now - a great reference for their collection if nothing else.

[ChiBitCTy]

I’ve followed the US Mint blog for some time now and many collectors would go nuts for anything like this. However that’s the US Mint which has significant history as we all know. Cryptocurrency Coin making doesn’t have nearly enough history or support behind it yet for this to be a premium booster. All that IMO of course.

[BG4]

So then.....  Is this an Error?   2 different 1K BTCC chips  under a UV light

[tothemoonsands]

So them.....  Is this an Error   2 different 1K BTCC chips  under a UV light

Is it just my eyes...I am not seeing it, what are you referring to?  I think that would be treated differently than the error I am asking people to comment on, personally.

[buckrogers]

So them.....  Is this an Error   2 different 1K BTCC chips  under a UV light

Is it just my eyes...I am not seeing it, what are you referring to?  I think that would be treated differently than the error I am asking people to comment on, personally.

look at the funding amount, and unless that was done on purpose id have to say yes on this being an error 


Thanks!

[tothemoonsands]

So them.....  Is this an Error   2 different 1K BTCC chips  under a UV light

Is it just my eyes...I am not seeing it, what are you referring to?  I think that would be treated differently than the error I am asking people to comment on, personally.

look at the funding amount, and unless that was done on purpose id have to say yes on this being an error  


Thanks!

I think it is just .001 but either the photo has too much noise (due to low light) or maybe you are right. It would be interesting to see how many exist in the wild with this condition. Still though, there could be doubt on something like that (i.e. is it caused by a scratch? camera angle/lighting? etc etc), whereas the QR code is more adamantly wrong...Check First-bits, match with long-form address, test against improper QR, not to mention BTCC employee recognition to resolve issue, which they indicated as a first (though who knows how many are out there with this problem!)

[buckrogers]

So them.....  Is this an Error   2 different 1K BTCC chips  under a UV light

Is it just my eyes...I am not seeing it, what are you referring to?  I think that would be treated differently than the error I am asking people to comment on, personally.

look at the funding amount, and unless that was done on purpose id have to say yes on this being an error  


Thanks!

I think it is just .001 but either the photo has too much noise (due to low light) or maybe you are right. It would be interesting to see how many exist in the wild with this condition. Still though, there could be doubt on something like that (i.e. is it caused by a scratch? camera angle/lighting? etc etc), whereas the QR code is more adamantly wrong...Check First-bits, match with long-form address, test against improper QR, not to mention BTCC employee recognition to resolve issue, which they indicated as a first.

I'm not discarding or discrediting your coin and QR code, my reply was solely in reference to the chip pic under UV light, there are a few differences between the 2 , 1 is the amount, another is the Kerning of the characters etc..

thanks!

[tothemoonsands]

I'm not discarding or discrediting your coin and QR code, my reply was solely in reference to the chip pic under UV light, there are a few differences between the 2 , 1 is the amount, another is the Kerning of the characters etc..

thanks!

Ah yeah no worries man, I didn't think you were   Also, the colors of the two are very different. If it is clearly marked .091 then   but I think a lot more testing would have to be done to confirm that. A larger sample of coins, equal position / lighting, etc.

If you both don't mind, I'd love to get this thread back on the original topic for the QR error. Thanks!