Options
How did this blatant AT straight grade?
Skrill90
Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
Its pretty blatant, I'm wondering how it got past the graders... and sold for $400 yikes!
5
This discussion has been closed.
Skrill90
Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
Skrill90
Posts: 264 ✭✭✭
Comments
But it's got a QA sticker.
Yikes thats a shame. I bet you it goes for more then that next time with hertiage ETC
Looks like it turned in the holder as well.
Current pics certainly look worse than the TV....
Caveat emptor.
U.S. Type Set
AT or not like a few others have said, it looks like it has continued to tone in the holder since it was slabbed.
it looks like they juiced the pics, even the TruView
Oh My............and I get nice coins back with questionable color! ARGH!
The TrueView shows a lot of rainbow color for a 1964-D Kennedy, even pastel-like.
At least the seller provided slab photos showing the current condition. I hope the winner enjoys it for $439.95.
Is it in a Gen 6.0 holder? The feet aren't fully in the photo but they look thick like on the 6.0s.
Hmmmm. I’m somewhere between QT and blatant AT on this one. I’m willing to consider the possibility that it looked better when graded or that the photos are making it look worse than it does in-hand. In any case, not one I’d be looking to buy.
Looks ugly to me, no matter which set of pictures are used, imho
I have seen a lot of these along with ASE's sold at high prices lately, and would not pay above bullion for these.
Simple solution. Don’t buy it. As Skyman said caveat emptor
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Looks as if it continued to degenerate in the slab....Cheers, RickO
It will be the ugliest $440 brown Kennedy soon
we all see what we see.
to me the color looks legitimate and the difference in the pictures is explainable: the TV images were done with lighting which doesn't show the ugly spotting in the sellers pictures. the light is more intense and the coin/light is angled slightly. if you look at the two sets of images and compare them it is easy to see the shapes of the ugly brown in the TV's, just not the "real" color. also, in the sellers pictures the color seems muted, or to put it another way, the TV images seem to be the ones which are adjusted to the coin's advantage.
to my way of thinking it is the "ugliness" we all see in the sellers picture which makes the coin NT in my mind. just as it is impossible to "fake" the haze on Proof coins it is probably impossible to fake the dramatic colors with the brown splotchiness. I also don't see it as a coin which is "turning" in the holder.
I've often wondered if the seal on the plastic slabs is water tight. Cars that have sustained water damage from hurricanes or flooding are sometimes sold to unsuspecting buyers... I wonder what happens to coins from those same disasters. If the seal gets compromised. ... just thinking out loud.... if this could contribute to toning while in the holder after the coin gets dried out...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
@lkenefic
This is a screen capture from a video PCGS did to introduce their new slab. They emphasized that these are waterproof and did some extensive environmental testing before releasing it:
Many of the older slabs are certainly not waterproof.
I dunno. That odd pastel type toning on silver coins is usually a no-go for me.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Ugly,ugly,ugly.
That's just terrible
The interesting thing with these photos is that where the toning is really dark in the slab photos, you can often see specs on the TrueView, like around the L, T, and Y in LIBERTY.
The coin looks NT to me. The TruView is juiced. I have multiple wild toned coins that look very different than the TV. Simply look at the color flow and the inside of the letters. Looks fine.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Even if NT, I don't find those colors appealing.
My YouTube Channel
What is the QA sticker? never seen it before. Is it something the owner put on the slab?
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
The True View image also looks> @BUFFNIXX said:
It's James Segos version of CAC for moderns.
QA maintains a searchable database like CAC that can be used to verify whether or not they really stickered that thang, but I cant seem to get their Cert/Verify function on the QA website to work...
and FWIW I think it is AT. Surprised Sego thinks is is MA!
AT and turned in the holder. They are straight grading thousands of them for edynamicmarketing. I have cert #'s to prove it.
This is why PCGS should be photographing every toned modern that they holder, whether requested or not. If I'm submitting knowingly AT'ed coins, I wouldn't want a "before" picture available of my handiwork after it turned.
The "after" picture looks less AT then the TV, actually.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
Heather asked for proof so if you have it, send it to her.
looks good
It must be costing edynamicmarketing tens of thousands of dollars
why does everyone keep insisting it "turned" in the holder?? the difference in appearance is due to lighting.
I have brought it to their attention and heard nothing back. Three years ago they were in the listening mode and promptly shut down a well known doctor in Sandy, Utah.
Their current eBay presence is huge, not to mention their offshoot business, mothernaturesshowroom.
I agree with keets, I do not think it turned in the holder, it is a matter of how it was imaged by pcgs and by the other party that ends up with images that are different. I have imaged 1000s of coins and can say that there are all kinds of ways to avoid highlighting detracting features on a coin when imaging them. A TV is there to bring out the best in the coin and they know how to do it, less experienced folks may not be able to hide detracting features.
Best, SH
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
$439? Oh man the world is off it's rocker. I'd of paid $5.50 and done an immediate crack and dip. That thing will be black in another 2-3 years. lol
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Once it's in the holder it ain't no longer AT
Except that you wouldn’t have gotten it for $5.50, it might not be AT and even if it is, that doesn’t mean it will necessarily turn black in 2-3 years.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
No, it just means it's market acceptable, which means it doesn't matter whether or not it's AT.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
It doesn’t even mean that. It just means it’s acceptable to whichever company graded it. 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
We have openly called for proof regarding this seller and received no reply. I am shutting this thread down as it violates our posted rules.
Heather Boyd
PCGS Senior Director of Marketing