Why doesnt Rick Tomaska show more images of the "Monster" franklins he sells? Based on some of the descriptions, they are surely worthy of an image. I'm looking for a nice 49p in 65 fbl
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
I'm not sure what PCGS is looking for. I have seen a few brilliant mint state Walkers over the years that PCGS has graded MS 67, that had marks more obvious than some of the finer MS 66 FBL brilliant Franklins.
My recommendation would be to hold onto your coin, and resubmit it about once a year. As the general quality of the coins being submitted to the services' each year slowly declines, the really nice coins start looking even nicer!
Actually, the PCI grade was accurate - for the standards PCI chose to adopt.
For example, if we rank cameo frost on a 10 point scale with 0 being no frost, and 10 being ultimate DCAM+ frost:
- The PCGS "CAM" standard might start around 5, and their DCAM standard around 8.
- On the other hand, PCI had 3 grades - Cameo, Heavy Cameo, and Deep Cameo. Their Cameo would start around 2 or 3, heavy cameo around 5, and Deep Cameo around 8.
- Similarly, the NGC CAM standard might start around 4, while their Ultra (on 1950-1970 coinage) is very close to PCGS'.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that some of the people selling those PCI coins offered their clients that critical knowledge.
I would have asked him to try to get PCGS to review the coin before the auction commenced, without reholdering the coin.
But perhaps there are other considerations the prospective owner was factoring in his bid, a few of which I tried to address in the Registry forum. >>
Thanks for the heads-up, Rick. I'll be sure to go to the Registry Forum and see your response there. I was hoping you would respond about the coin's grade. Did you inspect the coin, prior to the auction? Do you feel an accurate grade for the coin today is PR-67 DCAM?
Rick, I appreciate your feedback. That's always kind of bugged me the way the did you (and others) wrong. It's too bad PCI didn't adopt YOUR definitition of what CAM and DCAM really is- especially considering your name was on the holder. I believe, had they done that (ie: tightened up what is CAM and DCAM, as you always have done) they'de be a strong competitor in the Grading Service field today. But, they chased after the short term dollar, forgetting the long term and are where they are today.
I have a couple of questions that you have a 110% right to ignore. But, I am interested in how you determine which coins to put on ebay and which to put on your web site? Also, why do you have several different ebay names under which you sell your coins? I hasten to add that there is NOTHING wrong with having different ebay names and my guess is that it's different people in your company selling on ebay. And, I have purchased a coin from you on ebay and I like it a lot--so much so, I likely wil buy more from you. So, I guess I am asking these questions just because I am nosy. And, as I said, you have every right in the world to ignore these questions!! But if you feel like answering, I will surely read the answer.
You are correct. We have 3 different people listing on ebay. Having a unique name for each is the simplest method to track the quality of their work.
Most of the neatest stuff does not initially go on ebay - we offer it to our regular clients first. But I often buy coins I personally like a lot, though I may not have a client for it. These often find their way onto ebay.
I've found that I am often a stronger buyer for some of these coins than ebay shoppers.
The PCI cameo standards were created as an alternative to the standards offered by the other services. PCGS initially toyed with the idea of have 3 cameo designations, but finally decided it would be too complicated.
The PCI "Cameo" designation is a legitimate grade, as long as the buyer understands it will not have the contrast of a PCGS "Cameo", and should therefore be priced accordingly.
I am sure there were, and are, individuals who try equating the two, in order to portray the PCI coin they are offering as a "bargain", compared to the more expensive PCGS coin.
It appears that many of the coins originally encapsulated in the PCI holders have toned considerably.
Comments
I would have asked him to try to get PCGS to review the coin before the auction commenced, without reholdering the coin.
But perhaps there are other considerations the prospective owner was factoring in his bid, a few of which I tried to address in the Registry forum.
The most likely candidate would be a 1950-P.
I'm not sure what PCGS is looking for. I have seen a few brilliant mint state Walkers over the years that PCGS has graded MS 67, that had marks more obvious than some of the finer MS 66 FBL brilliant Franklins.
My recommendation would be to hold onto your coin, and resubmit it about once a year. As the general quality of the coins being submitted to the services' each year slowly declines, the really nice coins start looking even nicer!
Actually, the PCI grade was accurate - for the standards PCI chose to adopt.
For example, if we rank cameo frost on a 10 point scale with 0 being no frost, and 10 being ultimate DCAM+ frost:
- The PCGS "CAM" standard might start around 5, and their DCAM standard around 8.
- On the other hand, PCI had 3 grades - Cameo, Heavy Cameo, and Deep Cameo. Their Cameo would start around 2 or 3, heavy cameo around 5, and Deep Cameo around 8.
- Similarly, the NGC CAM standard might start around 4, while their Ultra (on 1950-1970 coinage) is very close to PCGS'.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that some of the people selling those PCI coins offered their clients that critical knowledge.
We will be getting some images up soon!
<< <i>DCAM Franklin collector -
I would have asked him to try to get PCGS to review the coin before the auction commenced, without reholdering the coin.
But perhaps there are other considerations the prospective owner was factoring in his bid, a few of which I tried to address in the Registry forum.
Thanks for the heads-up, Rick. I'll be sure to go to the Registry Forum and see your response there. I was hoping you would respond about the coin's grade. Did you inspect the coin, prior to the auction? Do you feel an accurate grade for the coin today is PR-67 DCAM?
It's too bad PCI didn't adopt YOUR definitition of what CAM and DCAM really is- especially considering your name was on the holder.
I believe, had they done that (ie: tightened up what is CAM and DCAM, as you always have done) they'de be a strong competitor in the Grading Service field today.
But, they chased after the short term dollar, forgetting the long term and are where they are today.
peacockcoins
I have a couple of questions that you have a 110% right to ignore. But, I am interested in how you determine which coins to put on ebay and which to put on your web site? Also, why do you have several different ebay names under which you sell your coins? I hasten to add that there is NOTHING wrong with having different ebay names and my guess is that it's different people in your company selling on ebay. And, I have purchased a coin from you on ebay and I like it a lot--so much so, I likely wil buy more from you. So, I guess I am asking these questions just because I am nosy. And, as I said, you have every right in the world to ignore these questions!! But if you feel like answering, I will surely read the answer.
Mark
You are correct. We have 3 different people listing on ebay. Having a unique name for each is the simplest method to track the quality of their work.
Most of the neatest stuff does not initially go on ebay - we offer it to our regular clients first. But I often buy coins I personally like a lot, though I may not have a client for it. These often find their way onto ebay.
I've found that I am often a stronger buyer for some of these coins than ebay shoppers.
I don't want there to be a misunderstanding.
The PCI cameo standards were created as an alternative to the standards offered by the other services. PCGS initially toyed with the idea of have 3 cameo designations, but finally decided it would be too complicated.
The PCI "Cameo" designation is a legitimate grade, as long as the buyer understands it will not have the contrast of a PCGS "Cameo", and should therefore be priced accordingly.
I am sure there were, and are, individuals who try equating the two, in order to portray the PCI coin they are offering as a "bargain", compared to the more expensive PCGS coin.
It appears that many of the coins originally encapsulated in the PCI holders have toned considerably.
1963 PR-70 DCAM
Russ says in his post, "I heard that Rick himself stated that the coin would grade no higher than 67 today." Would that be an accurate statement?