As I recall, the owner Fully Disclosed the fact that PCGS assigned the wrong coin number (3287 instead of 3285) to the coin and that it was in fact a PCGS glitch.
That said, do you also believe anyone wanting to acquire that "mistake" (more than they would want one that was numbered properly) is "scum" as well?
I think you're being WAY too harsh but I'm sure you disagree.
<< <i>PCGS doesn't give a crap about these mistakes.
Russ, NCNE >>
Somehow that doesn't suprise me ... have a couple of DMPL Morgans that show as DMPL in the cert verification, but do not carry the 9XXXX number series on the holder or in the database. Will probably take them to the Central States show in May to get them reholdered and the number corrected.
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
PCGS is slow on the uptake ... I have pointed out, more than once, that there are two Jeff proof registry sets with PR-69 1957s, yet the pop still is listed at 1/0...
Must be a mistake.
Comments
That said, do you also believe anyone wanting to acquire that "mistake" (more than they would want one that was numbered properly) is "scum" as well?
I think you're being WAY too harsh but I'm sure you disagree.
They've been told numerous times about the coin in this set.
And have never done a thing about it.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>PCGS doesn't give a crap about these mistakes.
Russ, NCNE >>
Somehow that doesn't suprise me ... have a couple of DMPL Morgans that show as DMPL in the cert verification, but do not carry the 9XXXX number series on the holder or in the database. Will probably take them to the Central States show in May to get them reholdered and the number corrected.
Steve
Happy Rock Wrens
You're having delusions of grandeur again. - Susan Ivanova
Well, if you're gonna have delusions, may as well go for the really satisfying ones. - Marcus Cole
The Ludlow Brilliant Collection (1938-64)