Would your Smithsonian view change if the TPGs certified that they would not holder a subsequently a

Longacre

This is a follow up question to this thread: Smithsonian Thread The general viewpoint is that as soon as the 1822 $5 hits the light of day, the new owner will whip out his Jewel Luster and dip the snot out of the coin, in an attempt to get the highest possible grade on the slab. There is always the risk that a subsequent owner will give it a nice putty job and slip it by the TPGs.

Would your viewpoint change, regarding the Smithsonian selling this coin, if all of the TPGs entered into an iron-clad agreement that they would not holder the coin if it was subsequently altered from the point that it was first sold. For example, the first owner would invite all TPGs to inspect the coin, take pictures, etc., etc. and get an agreement that the coin is in "X" condition and originality. Then the owner would select one TPG to certify and holder the coin. If the coin is then cracked out by a later owner and messed with, and then gets sent to the same or different TPG for holdering, the TPGs would have a record of what the coin looked like originally. If it differed in any way, the TPGs would refuse to holder it, and the owner would be stuck with a worthless, unslabbed 1822 half eagle. ( )

Do you think this tactic by the TPGs would prevent the coin from being messed with and if so, would it change your viewpoint that the Smithsonian should be holding a tag sale for its duplicates?

Steve27

"...if all of the TPGs entered into an iron-clad agreement that they would not holder the coin if it was subsequently altered from the point that it was first sold."

If they did that then they would all be subject to a law suit.

Longacre

<< <i>"...if all of the TPGs entered into an iron-clad agreement that they would not holder the coin if it was subsequently altered from the point that it was first sold."

If they did that then they would all be subject to a law suit. >>




Very interesting point that I did not think of. Under what provision would this fall under (I am not sure if every coin has a right to be holdered). What were you thinking?

dan8402

If it was a part of standing rules of the company to not holder altered coins, I do not think a lawsuit would prove to be effective.

tradedollarnut

Would anybody really consider dipping the only available specimen of a coin in order to maximize the holder? Why would the value change at all?

lloydmincy

You guys must be really bored. Must be running out of questions/hypotheticals to think of. Sorry - this one's ridiculous.

Dog97

<<<the new owner will whip out his Jewel Luster and dip the snot out of the coin, in an attempt to get the highest possible grade on the slab>>>
It would be his coin so he could dip it, drill a hole in it and wear it around his neck, or whatever he wanted to do with it. It would be a numismatic shame to alter it if it is indeed "original." I've never seen the coin, is it really original or like many museum coins been cleaned & polished over the years? It might just be an ANACS red tag coin.
What you're proposing is turning the hobby into a police state, with the tpg as the gestapho.

RWB

There are NNC coins that would not "grade" due to damage or cleaning. Many of the the Chase Manhattan Money Museum coins were harshly cleaned or damaged. Although NCS did a lot of preservation work, they couldn't fix the piece that had been cleaned with silver polish, etc.

Aegis3

<< <i>Would anybody really consider dipping the only available specimen of a coin in order to maximize the holder? Why would the value change at all? >>



Why reholder and crossover the King of Siam proof set a total of three times at ever increasing grades?

ABC123

Business as Usual !