Interesting. It does look like there's a crack in the "sell" slab that wasn't there before. But it also appears to be the same coin in both slabs - note, for example, the horizontal scratch running along her chin.
What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
While the "sell" slab may have a crack or scratch over the grading label, I believe it is the same slab as the "buy" slab. There appears to be a mark of some kind in the plastic at 5 o'clock on the obverse by the outer ring that appears the same on both.
Look like the same to me. But I suppose anyone can make wild accusations. Wait, there was someone on the grassy knoll! Point has been made, you don’t have to make stuff up or think the boogieman is around every corner.
The more i look the more confusing it becomes---Where is the mint mark on the original coin? It says 1898-O but the coin appears to be a 1898-P while the second photos clearly show an O mintmark..Did the original seller use the incorrect reverse photo? It does look like the same coin. Also is it easy for these coins to move in the slab? The second photo shows the coin in an entirely different position. (sorry lack of knowledge on this)..That crack on the slab is a tell-tale sign of something.
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world.
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world. >>
Well Said!
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world. >>
It is not exactly cheating, I prefer to consider it creative problem solving!!!
<< <i>This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
Apparently, he didn't try hard enough. He made a grand total of $4.88 on the auction in the OP's post. Before fees. He lost money, ruined a nice coin and his reputation. What a mess.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>I don't have an OGH 1st gen slab to examine >>
I've seen rattlers referred to as OGH a few times in the MOC threads over the past few days. They are diiferent. The OGH holders are similar to the current holders with the exception of the hologram and insert being green. The small, 1st gen holders are the "rattlers" beloved by MOC shouldn't be confused with the OGH (Old Green Holders) versions.
Edited for spelling.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
When I read threads like this I think back to the "she's a witch, burn her!" scene in Monty Python's Search For The Holy Grail. That is the same coin in the same slab, no doubt in my mind. It has been toned, but it is the same.
If you are in the Western North Carolina area, please consider visiting our coin shop:
Same coin, same slab, same whopping profit realized. If anyone wants to do some "CSI work" that might benefit someone, go out a new coin doctor. Meanwhile, beware of toned coins in rattlers with faded, discolored labels.
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world. >>
<< <i>Same coin, same slab, same whopping profit realized. If anyone wants to do some "CSI work" that might benefit someone, go out a new coin doctor. Meanwhile, beware of toned coins in rattlers with faded, discolored labels. >>
Please explain the same whopping profit ! Please include facts and figures!
The scratch that you refer to is there in the orignial picture too. I played with the brightness and contrast in Photoshop and can see it a little better with low brightness and contrast.
Szavori, you should edit your thread title and remarks to indicate that your suspicions look to have been unfounded. Regardless of what MOC did, I believe that threads like this are unfair to him AND others.
I agree with Mark. I suppose next you're going to accuse him of hiring illegal immigrants to do the toning, or of having multiple wives. In addition to the story being old, the dead horse having been beaten, and the chickens having laid all their eggs, the topics/accusations are now getting way off track.
I hear that MOC was having the slabs transported in black helicopters and delivered to a secret location where his laboratory was constructed inside a lead lined bomb proof bunker.
If you look at both holders, you can see the insert is slightly tilted (crooked) in both pics. This was a fairly common thing with many of the 1st gen slabs.
As I remember, there was a bit of an issue with those old 1st gen holders when PCGS first started slabbing coins in that some of the holders were not sealed properly and the holder would literally come apart in your hands. This happened to me once on a 4 coin submission back in 1986 where 2 of the holders could just be easily pryed apart with your fingernail.
Also, one sign that the 1st gen holders have been forceably tampered with is the 4 points where the holder is sealed together. When forceably pryed apart the 4 small circles will turn white where the sonic seals were compromised and also show tiny stress cracks in the plastic.
<< <i>[Edit: Based upon CU members observations of the slab(s), it looks as though my assertation of switching slabs is unfounded at this time.]
Time for some CSI work. We've been focusing on the coins, but we may have been overlooking some evidence with the slabs themselves.
Compare these two slabs. In particular, look at the label where the MS64 grade is stated. Definitely not the same slab. On MOC's slab, it looks almost like the plastic has a crack, or as if some crazy glue had accidently been pulled from the edge onto the body of the slab. It's not there on the original slab.
PCGS 5060278 (1898-0 Morgan Dollar "Old RATTLER" Holder PCGS MS64):
Could it be that MOC got a hold of some empty OGH slabs? If so, then all he had to do was crack the coin out of the original slab, AT the coin, and then put it into the empty slab.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still think MOC was removing the coins from the slabs to AT them.
Edited to add: If it's the same slab, then it looks like there was some tampering going on in that area because that crack?/mark was not there before. >>
........I agree with you ; the coin was toned outside the slab .
Comments
But I do believe he should give up the hobby
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
He sure made a killing off this one
is the same slab as the "buy" slab. There appears to be a mark of some kind in the
plastic at 5 o'clock on the obverse by the outer ring that appears the same on both.
Ken
<< <i>could the mark on the top of the slab have something to do with the AT'ing process >>
That, or the slab opening and resealing process.
<< <i>Definitely not the same slab. >>
Look like the same to me. But I suppose anyone can make wild accusations. Wait, there was someone on the grassy knoll! Point has been made, you don’t have to make stuff up or think the boogieman is around every corner.
JMHO
1969s WCLR-001 counterclash
<< <i>
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world.
Well Said!
The name is LEE!
He also left a very sloppy trail of all this. We did not even need Braddick to track these down.
Perhaps MOC should be featured on that "world's dumbest criminals" show!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
Apparently, he didn't try hard enough. He made a grand total of $4.88 on the auction in the OP's post. Before fees. He lost money, ruined a nice coin and his reputation. What a mess.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
<< <i>I don't have an OGH 1st gen slab to examine >>
I've seen rattlers referred to as OGH a few times in the MOC threads over the past few days. They are diiferent. The OGH holders are similar to the current holders with the exception of the hologram and insert being green. The small, 1st gen holders are the "rattlers" beloved by MOC shouldn't be confused with the OGH (Old Green Holders) versions.
Edited for spelling.
My icon IS my coin. It is a gem 1949 FBL Franklin.
WNC Coins, LLC
1987-C Hendersonville Road
Asheville, NC 28803
wnccoins.com
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>What he has being borders on being criminal, or at least absoltely unethical. This person simply and clearly is trying to make a killing off of "toned" coined. Simple as that >>
I hope PCGS looks upon some of what we've found as enough evidence to warrant an investigation on their part and decides to prosecute MOC. >>
You really need to take a deep breath and get in touch with the real world.
<< <i>Same coin, same slab, same whopping profit realized. If anyone wants to do some "CSI work" that might benefit someone, go out a new coin doctor. Meanwhile, beware of toned coins in rattlers with faded, discolored labels. >>
Please explain the same whopping profit ! Please include facts and figures!
<< <i>Please explain the same whopping profit ! Please include facts and figures! >>
Bought the coin for $79 (including postage), sold it for $78.88. I didn't look at all the MOC before and after auctions, but this was typical of many.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Russ, NCNE
As I remember, there was a bit of an issue with those old 1st gen holders when PCGS first started slabbing coins in that some of the holders were not sealed properly and the holder would literally come apart in your hands. This happened to me once on a 4 coin submission back in 1986 where 2 of the holders could just be easily pryed apart with your fingernail.
Also, one sign that the 1st gen holders have been forceably tampered with is the 4 points where the holder is sealed together. When forceably pryed apart the 4 small circles will turn white where the sonic seals were compromised and also show tiny stress cracks in the plastic.
<< <i>[Edit: Based upon CU members observations of the slab(s), it looks as though my assertation of switching slabs is unfounded at this time.]
Time for some CSI work. We've been focusing on the coins, but we may have been overlooking some evidence with the slabs themselves.
Compare these two slabs. In particular, look at the label where the MS64 grade is stated. Definitely not the same slab. On MOC's slab, it looks almost like the plastic has a crack, or as if some crazy glue had accidently been pulled from the edge onto the body of the slab. It's not there on the original slab.
PCGS 5060278 (1898-0 Morgan Dollar "Old RATTLER" Holder PCGS MS64):
MOC buy
MOC sell
Could it be that MOC got a hold of some empty OGH slabs? If so, then all he had to do was crack the coin out of the original slab, AT the coin, and then put it into the empty slab.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I still think MOC was removing the coins from the slabs to AT them.
Edited to add: If it's the same slab, then it looks like there was some tampering going on in that area because that crack?/mark was not there before. >>
........I agree with you ; the coin was toned outside the slab .
who knows how it was done ;
mabey heated to soften a bit ; then sliced thru with a laser or ultra- sonic's
mabey heated to soften a bit ; then sliced thru with a laser or ultra- sonic's >>>
Yeah, that's the ticket......he brought the slab to the Los Alamos lab to have the holder opened with their new Femto Ultra Short-Pulse laser
This is my first post on the subject as I have been sitting back and watching this unfold...
I think MOC's is basically an honest person that got caught up in the moment...
He's certainly not a very good criminal or Doctor, good people do make bad choices sometimes...
I'm not condoning his actions in any way but I'm not going to bash him either...
He's not the one we should be concerned with in my opinion...
Here are three before and after photos from MOC's Ebay Feedback...
MOC's net loss on these three coins is $99.12, not to mention his reputation...
Here are three other MOC's Ebay Auctions that do not have a before picture but certainly have sulfur burns...
One coin by it's self might pass but once you see the coins together a pattern emerges...
A NT coin talks to ya, these are yelling AT in my opinion...
Currently Listed: Nothing
Take Care, Dave