An example of buying the plastic.

Russ

Read the description in this auction. It actually got almost up to what I paid for it. One of the board members here eMailed me asking about it, and I told him it was a $10 coin. He listened.

Russ, NCNE

clackamas

THe coin does look good in the scan. Nice to see an honest opinion. I'm starting to like those DCAM Halves.

Russ

<< <i>I'm starting to like those DCAM Halves. >>



I'm rather fond of them myself. Here's a little eye-candy for the JFK fans:



Russ, NCNE

andy007

Nice frost on that 83 Russ. I've found that the 78-89 Kennedy's can come with some incredibly thick frost on them, nice example.

1986-Kennedy Obv. DCAM

1986 Kennedy Rev. DCAM

Edited to add:

Oh yeah, this is one of my recent buys, even though I have an nice example of the 86-S, it's too tough to pass up one of these with DCAM+ frosting and mirrors.

Russ

Yum, yum. I'm getting hungry looking at that '86.



<< <i>even though I have an nice example of the 86-S, it's too tough to pass up one of these with DCAM+ frosting and mirrors. >>



Hehe. Yep, I do the same thing. I've probably upgraded half the coins in set #1 in the same grade just because I found a tastier example.

Russ, NCNE

presleyh

This goes back to the question of ethics. Should the professional graders' opinion, meaning pcgs in this case, relieve the seller of any responsibility of the condition of this coin? So long as it is still not tampered with, it really is a pr69dcam. I guess that's good enough for the guy who bought it. Russ, would you have felt guilty for selling it without the hazing explaination?

Russ

<< <i>Russ, would you have felt guilty for selling it without the hazing explaination? >>



Yes.

Russ, NCNE

presleyh

If you provide no further description than whats on the slab, i think selling the coin as described by pcgs without the haze disclaimer would be completely ethical. Apparently the haze can be construed as white toning. But the whole reasoning behind third party grading is to eliminate the trumping up or in this case the trumping down of the condition of a coin.

Fairlaneman

presleyh:

Your statement is probably quite true.

For myself it just does not pertain though and probably does not hold true for many of the sellers who use the BST forumn here. I expect nice coins with no obvious problems when buying from members and really try to return the same favor when selling to members. Ebay is a little different but basically the same method is used. By stateing grading problems a few dollars has been lost but nothing drastic both here and on Ebay. In both places Truthfulness has created repeat buyers that will buy from you with no questions asked. A reputation will follow you both Good and Bad. Ethically selling the coin by what is stated on the slab would be just fine. Fair play over rides ethics for myself though. Naive.....Yes probably.

Of course we all know the grading services are always correct so why state any problems you might see to a buyer. I now agree with your statement totally.

Ken

PS: This IS Not a flame against you or your statement but just a Opinion.

Russ

<< <i>i think selling the coin as described by pcgs without the haze disclaimer would be completely ethical. >>



The problem with that is that it is based on the assumption that coins never develop problems after they are slabbed. They can, and do. If the haze had existed on the coin when it was graded by PCGS it is unlikely that it would be in a 69DCAM holder.

I've seen four of these 1988's with exactly the same problem. Apparently it is an issue with this year, and my hunch is that it was a problem in the minting process that didn't surface immediately.

In no case did any of the sellers say anything about it in their auction descriptions. In fact, they all said no haze and no spots. Two I was able to return, two I got stuck with. In one case, the seller immediately re-listed my return, still making no mention of the haze, but removing his specific claim of none.

I simply refuse to operate that way.

Russ, NCNE

presleyh

I am still in a learning mode on grading standards. i dont like toning but high marks are often given regardless of toning. I had several proofs severely degraded because of haze. I wondered then why blue is ok but white is not. I didnt consider the possibility that it may have hazed after it was graded. Your honesty is commendable.