Interesting use of "Top Pop" and "None Finer"

Zoins

Two things that I've found interesting are:

1. The effect of separating MS, PL and DPL in the pop reports
2. The effect of not separating holed and unholed in the pop reports

These came together in this Joseph Schoeneman Rulau PA-PH-363 token in MS62 which is listed as "Top Pop" and "None Finer at NGC".

The thing is that there's a NGC MS63 DPL that is unholed. Given this, should the MS62 be billed as "Top Pop" and "None Finer at NGC" when there's a specimen that's both graded numerically higher and with a DPL designation? Should the auction house be notified to correct this?

NGC MS63 DPL: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4347779-009/63/ (Pennsylvania Cabinet Collection)

NGC MS62: https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/3691754-004/62/ (Bob Miller Collection)

PeakRarities

They're both business strikes, so in my opinion it is incorrect to call a 62 a "top pop", whether its holed or not. I would say that the auction house should be notified.

jmlanzaf

@DeplorableDan said:
They're both business strikes, so in my opinion it is incorrect to call a 62 a "top pop", whether its holed or not. I would say that the auction house should be notified.

I think it's less about the hole and more about the DPL. The pop reports separate them but they don't separate holed.

PeakRarities

@jmlanzaf said:

@DeplorableDan said:
They're both business strikes, so in my opinion it is incorrect to call a 62 a "top pop", whether its holed or not. I would say that the auction house should be notified.

I think it's less about the hole and more about the DPL. The pop reports separate them but they don't separate holed.

True, however my opinion remains the same.

oldabeintx

Sadly those terms are being abused. I'm buying certain foreign that are very hard to find but not in demand. Few are graded. Those that are tend to be outrageously overpriced and labeled "top pop" or similarly. Some should be labeled "only pop".