Wrong Answer? (OK--My Error)
itsnotjustme
Posts: 8,777 ✭✭✭
I noticed a post on the Q&A Forum. It asked about a SMS Jefferson graded 70. DH answered PCGS has never graded a SMS coin 70. I show 8 1994 and 73 1997 coins graded 70 by PCGS. Hope the guy didn't re-sell it for $5.
Give Blood (Red Bags) & Platelets (Yellow Bags)!
0
Comments
<< <i>I noticed a post on the Q&A Forum. It asked about a SMS Jefferson graded 70. DH answered PCGS has never graded a SMS coin 70. I show 8 1994 and 73 1997 coins graded 70 by PCGS. Hope the guy didn't re-sell it for $5. >>
I'm not sure I understand your statement - how does 1994 and 1997 have anything to do with SMS?
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
The 94 Jefferson Set consisting of The nic, the jeff comm. dollar, and the $2 dol. bill. That's the SMS for 94
I THINK there were something in the ballpark of 25,000 matte uncirculated nicks minted for 94
*Added: Special MS versions of these coins were produced these years
<< <i>I show 8 1994 and 73 1997 coins graded 70 by PCGS. >>
He asked about the 1965.
Russ, NCNE
The Lincoln cent store:
http://www.lincolncent.com
My numismatic art work:
http://www.cdaughtrey.com
USAF veteran, 1986-1996 :: support our troops - the American way.
Ole D.H. should check his pop. report: 5- 94 SMS at 70 & 3 -94 SMFS at 70...Either he's wrong or the pop. report's wrong.
<< <i>Ole D.H. should check his pop. report: 5- 94 SMS at 70 & 3 -94 SMFS at 70...Either he's wrong or the pop. report's wrong. >>
One more time. He asked about the 1965.
Russ, NCNE
No mention of 65 in THIS thread initiation. I don't know who asked about a 65. D.H apparently said PCGS has never graded a SMS coin in 70, thus, my reply.
<< <i>No mention of 65 in THIS thread initiation. >>
Yeah, that was conveniently left out by the originator.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Yeah, that was conveniently left out by the originator. >>
OK-I missed the 1965 in the other thread title. Technically, the answer is still wrong, but put in context of 1965 in title, it was correct for the person that asked it.