Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Why is this discussion still going on?--Pat is being completely up front and has indicated that here are questions regarding this coin--plus it was slabbed by PCGS---what's the problem?
Sigh I thought the right thing would be done but the allusion to original mint packing has me laughing almost hysterically. That coin looking like that never would have made into a rattle holder.
<< <i>Sigh I thought the right thing would be done but the allusion to original mint packing has me laughing almost hysterically. >>
I agree. The coin shouldn't be listed at all. We all know that plenty of bidders will still think it's legit.
What I don't understand is this: Pat knows coins, and is more knowledgable than most about the market - values, what sells, what doesn't. He has the requisite skills to profit legitimately. Why does he insist on engaging in practices that are questionable? And, for those still defending this auction, this is not the first one, but only the latest in a series.
<< <i>What I don't understand is this: Pat knows coins, and is more knowledgable than most about the market - values, what sells, what doesn't. He has the requisite skills to profit legitimately. Why does he insist on engaging in practices that are questionable? And, for those still defending this auction, this is not the first one, but only the latest in a series. Russ, NCNE >>
Thanks Russ for the good words (some of them), I appreciate it. -I purchase coins that I personally find to be attractive and/or unusual. Craig (MOC) doesn't recall ever handling this one and I'd imagine, as he probably didn't handle too many Franklins (mostly just Morgans, right?) I've got to take him at his word. -Like everyone else, I thought this was probably his work too but now have serious doubts and unless anyone can come up with even a mere speculation on how to tone coins within PCGS slabs and leave no tell-tale trace of evidence (the slab is flawless. Not a scratch or a speck on it or in it and it's tight) then I'm going with it possibly being genuine toning, albeit strange.
Either way, if anyone doesn't find it attractive (as I do) then certainly it's unusual? Those are generally the criteria I use to buy coins either for resale or for my personal collection. It's also, generally, the type of coins I offer on eBay.
So we have a forum hosted by PCGS and someone starts a thread about a coin holdered and graded by them that may have a questionable history........so its not our business. Just exactly how did you two come to that conclusion?
<< <i>Craig (MOC) doesn't recall ever handling this one and I'd imagine, as he probably didn't handle too many Franklins (mostly just Morgans, right?) I've got to take him at his word. >>
Craig told you this and you believe him.
<< <i> unless anyone can come up with even a mere speculation on how to tone coins within PCGS slabs and leave no tell-tale trace of evidence (the slab is flawless. Not a scratch or a speck on it or in it and it's tight) then I'm going with it possibly being genuine toning >>
Craig told and showed everyone here he could do this and now, you apparently do not believe him.
I don't think you get to have it both ways.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>So we have a forum hosted by PCGS and someone starts a thread about a coin holdered and graded by them that may have a questionable history........so its not our business. Just exactly how did you two come to that conclusion? >>
If the seller or buyer didnt post the thread then whose business is it? Suppose we all did that?? Is it a forum to discuss coins or to pick people apart? You cant deny that some very harsh words were used for no reason
<< <i>Either way, if anyone doesn't find it attractive (as I do) then certainly it's unusual? Those are generally the criteria I use to buy coins either for resale or for my personal collection. It's also, generally, the type of coins I offer on eBay. >>
Unusual looking coin. Why did you end and re-start the auction?
After a brief exchange of PMs, I told Braddick how I would have disclaimed the coin if it were my auction. He liked it enough to add it verbatim to the auction description. You know the words are all mine by the typoes:
Sean, a good friend over at the PCGS forums (his handle there is seanq) suggested I add the following to the auction description. These are his words, copy and pasted from that message: "The toning on this coin is of a somewhat questionable nature. Earlier this year an eBay seller was found to be artificially toning Morgan Dollars in early generation PCGS holders, coins which were white when encapsulated. This coin is in a PCGS slab of the type this seller was able to tamper with, and the toning pattern bears a close resemblance to some of the Morgan Dollars he sold. I have contacted this seller and while he does not recall owning or aftificially toning this particular coin, please be aware that the possibility still exists that this coin was toned after it was certified." I hope this additonal opinion is not just informative but also helpful in your bidding decision.
Sean Reynolds
Incomplete planchets wanted, especially Lincoln Cents & type coins.
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
1. PCGS changed from the old rattlers because someone (I think I remember the name, but before I post it, I would need to verify it) was replacing the INSERTS of the rattlers with counterfit inserts (ie with a higher grade printed on the counterfit insert). PCGS prosecuted this person and if memory serves me correctly the individual using the counterfit inserts was convicted (or plead guilty) and may have even served jail time for this. But the point is this: To replace the genuine insert with a counterfit one, you had to OPEN the slab, remove the PCGS paper insert and replace it in a manner that the slabb appeared to be "factory" sealed. Instant upgrade & you didn't have to pay another grading fee! Now if an old rattler could be "OPENED" to replace the insert, why couldn't it be opened to remove and tamper with the coin? To counteract this problem, PCGS first put a 2nd plastic frame around the rattler. If you happen to have this type of "framed Rattler" holder, you can actually remove the frame and it would appear at 1st glance that you have a PCGS "Old rattler holder" - The paper insert is different, so someone who knows the progression of the PCGS inserts could tell it was the later generation holder that had its "Frame" removed. As this was preceived to still create a problem of the integrity of the graded coin, PCGS then went to it's current slab which could NOT be separated and allow the coin or the insert to be switched, but could only be cracked open and the slab essentially destroyed in the process. So based on what occurred in the past re tampering with PCGS slabs and the steps that PCGS took to remedy the problem, I would say that it is POSSIBLE to open an OLD PCGS rattler slab and remove and replace either the coin or the insert and then reseal the slab.
2. Everything I said with regard to the coin for sale on ebay, applies to the 2nd one posted here, ostensibly still in an original sealed mint plastic. I have many 1961-64 Proof sets where the seal has separated and the coins can be slid out of the plastic. These 4 years had serious problems with the soft plastic holders from the mint. I've seen many toned coins from these 4 years from the poor plastic holders - but NONE that are half toned like you get from heating the coin at the edge with a heat gun or torch. The neat thing about toning coins with heat is that BOTH sides tone in the same areas from the heat and the reaction with the atmosphere as it cools. There are genuine toned Proof Frankies from those years, but they have a completely different look.
There are many plastic proof set holders from the early 60s where the seal has separated and an AT'd coin can be slipped into the plastic and then photographed. I do not believe that either of these coins (Braddick's ebay offering or the supposed mint sealed example) results from a natural toning process from a long term storage situation.
My opinion is that this coin should be removed from the market as a PCGS holdered coin as in my opinion it is a coin that has been tampered with and AT'd, whether in the holder, or removed and than replaced after an AT job. It's value is bullion only - JMHO
I agree with Russ's post several pages back where he questions whether what Braddick is doing by offering this coin for sale is proper.
Edited to Add: If you do a google search dealing with Counterfit TPG holders, will probably get you info on the incident I referenced above.
I'll add that it really doesn't matter how the thing was cooked, it was cooked. But hey, maybe it was part of some bank promotion out in Salt Lake City, in one of those tidyhouse type holders, and was stored in a gun safe, in the basement. Yeah, that's the ticket. Naw.........that's another story.
<< <i>1. PCGS changed from the old rattlers because someone (I think I remember the name, but before I post it, I would need to verify it) was replacing the INSERTS of the rattlers with counterfit inserts (ie with a higher grade printed on the counterfit insert). PCGS prosecuted this person and if memory serves me correctly the individual using the counterfit inserts was convicted (or plead guilty) and may have even served jail time for this. But the point is this: To replace the genuine insert with a counterfit one, you had to OPEN the slab, remove the PCGS paper insert and replace it in a manner that the slabb appeared to be "factory" sealed. Instant upgrade & you didn't have to pay another grading fee! Now if an old rattler could be "OPENED" to replace the insert, why couldn't it be opened to remove and tamper with the coin?
Edited to Add: If you do a google search dealing with Counterfit TPG holders, will probably get you info on the incident I referenced above. >>
The dealer was Gary Fernandez and I recall he was counterfeiting the holder not opening genuine holders.
<< <i>Pat's rather weak attempt to put a positive spin on this by trying to disguise the whole thing as some sort of charity auction has cast an largely undeserved stank on 'charity auctions' in general. >>
I think it depends on the disclosure and the motivation. A couple of years ago when the ACG lawsuit was in full gear, I auctioned off an item for the legal defense fund for the accused.
I had a 1934-S Peace Dollar which I bought as ACG AU-50 (but paid EF money for it). I could tell when I received it that it was a cleaned coin. I cracked it out of its ACG tomb and sent it to ANACS where it was properly described -- AU details, cleaned, net EF-40.
I used the auction not only as a fund-raiser, but also as an educational tool for people as how NOT to buy coins. Anyway, it raised $200 for the legal defense fund and I only paid about $90 for the coin, so I felt good about that. The thing is, it was made perfectly clear -- both in my description and the ANACS label -- that this was a problem coin. Plus, I would not have sold it in a top-tier TPG slab with obvious problems like this one. In this case, even if it was for charity, I'd crack it out and sell it raw, with full disclosure until your head spun. Either that or I would have dipped it first.
I can't believe Pat's doing this, charity or not, without some unknown altruistic motive. I'm not naive, but I don't *want* to believe otherwise unless there's no question that the motive is otherwise.
Comments
Perhaps, Pat should scratch the itch.
Perhaps, Pat should pay off the snitch.
I have never heard of a nitch!
<< <i>Every collector and/or dealer has a nitch
Perhaps, Pat should scratch the itch.
Perhaps, Pat should pay off the snitch.
I have never heard of a nitch! >>
I feel like I am reading a Dr. Seuss book.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>Sigh I thought the right thing would be done but the allusion to original mint packing has me laughing almost hysterically. >>
I agree. The coin shouldn't be listed at all. We all know that plenty of bidders will still think it's legit.
What I don't understand is this: Pat knows coins, and is more knowledgable than most about the market - values, what sells, what doesn't. He has the requisite skills to profit legitimately. Why does he insist on engaging in practices that are questionable? And, for those still defending this auction, this is not the first one, but only the latest in a series.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>if most people minded their own business most threads like these wouldnt exist. >>
<< <i>if most people minded their own business most threads like these wouldnt exist. >>
If most people minded their own business, this forum would cease to exist.
<< <i>What I don't understand is this: Pat knows coins, and is more knowledgable than most about the market - values, what sells, what doesn't. He has the requisite skills to profit legitimately. Why does he insist on engaging in practices that are questionable? And, for those still defending this auction, this is not the first one, but only the latest in a series. Russ, NCNE >>
Thanks Russ for the good words (some of them), I appreciate it.
-I purchase coins that I personally find to be attractive and/or unusual. Craig (MOC) doesn't recall ever handling this one and I'd imagine, as he probably didn't handle too many Franklins (mostly just Morgans, right?) I've got to take him at his word.
-Like everyone else, I thought this was probably his work too but now have serious doubts and unless anyone can come up with even a mere speculation on how to tone coins within PCGS slabs and leave no tell-tale trace of evidence (the slab is flawless. Not a scratch or a speck on it or in it and it's tight) then I'm going with it possibly being genuine toning, albeit strange.
Either way, if anyone doesn't find it attractive (as I do) then certainly it's unusual? Those are generally the criteria I use to buy coins either for resale or for my personal collection. It's also, generally, the type of coins I offer on eBay.
I think a public auction is everyone's business....
<< <i>if most people minded their own business most threads like these wouldnt exist.
I think a public auction is everyone's business....
How so--unless you choose to bid? Otherwise its just your opinion as to "I didn't bid because... ." I didn't buy Dell 12 years ago--so what?
Well, we're here to talk coins... so what else are we going to talk about??
<< <i>Craig (MOC) doesn't recall ever handling this one and I'd imagine, as he probably didn't handle too many Franklins (mostly just Morgans, right?) I've got to take him at his word. >>
Craig told you this and you believe him.
<< <i> unless anyone can come up with even a mere speculation on how to tone coins within PCGS slabs and leave no tell-tale trace of evidence (the slab is flawless. Not a scratch or a speck on it or in it and it's tight) then I'm going with it possibly being genuine toning >>
Craig told and showed everyone here he could do this and now, you apparently do not believe him.
I don't think you get to have it both ways.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>So we have a forum hosted by PCGS and someone starts a thread about a coin holdered and graded by them that may have a questionable history........so its not our business. Just exactly how did you two come to that conclusion? >>
If the seller or buyer didnt post the thread then whose business is it? Suppose we all did that?? Is it a forum to discuss coins or to pick people apart? You cant deny that some very harsh words were used for no reason
You must be new here
<< <i>Either way, if anyone doesn't find it attractive (as I do) then certainly it's unusual? Those are generally the criteria I use to buy coins either for resale or for my personal collection. It's also, generally, the type of coins I offer on eBay. >>
Unusual looking coin. Why did you end and re-start the auction?
...........alot of good input and alot of crap.............
I think Russ and Keets know what their talking about -
so , take MOC and Pat ; fry them in the pan until crispy .
Smooth talker who seems to have a few people believing the 'un'believable.
<< <i>Why do the ngc guys want that coin so bad?---BigE >>
Because they could probably get it into a star holder
that gets my post of the day vote
It`s Blue Indian People !!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>...If there`s one thing I can`t stand ;
It`s Blue Indian People !!!!!!!!!!
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
This needed repeatin'
<< <i>
pinhole / gased
Sean, a good friend over at the PCGS forums (his handle there is seanq) suggested I add the following to the auction description. These are his words, copy and pasted from that message: "The toning on this coin is of a somewhat questionable nature. Earlier this year an eBay seller was found to be artificially toning Morgan Dollars in early generation PCGS holders, coins which were white when encapsulated. This coin is in a PCGS slab of the type this seller was able to tamper with, and the toning pattern bears a close resemblance to some of the Morgan Dollars he sold. I have contacted this seller and while he does not recall owning or aftificially toning this particular coin, please be aware that the possibility still exists that this coin was toned after it was certified." I hope this additonal opinion is not just informative but also helpful in your bidding decision.
Sean Reynolds
"Keep in mind that most of what passes as numismatic information is no more than tested opinion at best, and marketing blather at worst. However, I try to choose my words carefully, since I know that you guys are always watching." - Joe O'Connor
<< <i>Aren't the two high bidders the blue indian cent people? >>
Seller also.
<< <i>
<< <i>Aren't the two high bidders the blue indian cent people? >>
Seller also.
Are Blue Indians of a specific tribe or is that an abnormallity of birth in any tribe?
1. PCGS changed from the old rattlers because someone (I think I remember the name, but before I post it, I would need to verify it) was replacing the INSERTS of the rattlers with counterfit inserts (ie with a higher grade printed on the counterfit insert). PCGS prosecuted this person and if memory serves me correctly the individual using the counterfit inserts was convicted (or plead guilty) and may have even served jail time for this. But the point is this: To replace the genuine insert with a counterfit one, you had to OPEN the slab, remove the PCGS paper insert and replace it in a manner that the slabb appeared to be "factory" sealed. Instant upgrade & you didn't have to pay another grading fee!
2. Everything I said with regard to the coin for sale on ebay, applies to the 2nd one posted here, ostensibly still in an original sealed mint plastic. I have many 1961-64 Proof sets where the seal has separated and the coins can be slid out of the plastic. These 4 years had serious problems with the soft plastic holders from the mint. I've seen many toned coins from these 4 years from the poor plastic holders - but NONE that are half toned like you get from heating the coin at the edge with a heat gun or torch. The neat thing about toning coins with heat is that BOTH sides tone in the same areas from the heat and the reaction with the atmosphere as it cools. There are genuine toned Proof Frankies from those years, but they have a completely different look.
There are many plastic proof set holders from the early 60s where the seal has separated and an AT'd coin can be slipped into the plastic and then photographed. I do not believe that either of these coins (Braddick's ebay offering or the supposed mint sealed example) results from a natural toning process from a long term storage situation.
My opinion is that this coin should be removed from the market as a PCGS holdered coin as in my opinion it is a coin that has been tampered with and AT'd, whether in the holder, or removed and than replaced after an AT job. It's value is bullion only - JMHO
I agree with Russ's post several pages back where he questions whether what Braddick is doing by offering this coin for sale is proper.
Edited to Add: If you do a google search dealing with Counterfit TPG holders, will probably get you info on the incident I referenced above.
Also, this thread is illuminating
Opening a PCGS Slab Thread
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
I'll add that it really doesn't matter how the thing was cooked, it was cooked. But hey, maybe it was part of some bank promotion out in Salt Lake City, in one of those tidyhouse type holders, and was stored in a gun safe, in the basement. Yeah, that's the ticket. Naw.........that's another story.
<< <i>1. PCGS changed from the old rattlers because someone (I think I remember the name, but before I post it, I would need to verify it) was replacing the INSERTS of the rattlers with counterfit inserts (ie with a higher grade printed on the counterfit insert). PCGS prosecuted this person and if memory serves me correctly the individual using the counterfit inserts was convicted (or plead guilty) and may have even served jail time for this. But the point is this: To replace the genuine insert with a counterfit one, you had to OPEN the slab, remove the PCGS paper insert and replace it in a manner that the slabb appeared to be "factory" sealed. Instant upgrade & you didn't have to pay another grading fee!
Edited to Add: If you do a google search dealing with Counterfit TPG holders, will probably get you info on the incident I referenced above. >>
The dealer was Gary Fernandez and I recall he was counterfeiting the holder not opening genuine holders.
so it could be , since Pat sez the holder is brand new looking and flawless -
that the holder is just that ;....... BRAND NEW !! A fake reproduction of the origional rattler holder
<< <i>Pat's rather weak attempt to put a positive spin on this by trying to disguise the whole thing as some sort of charity auction has cast an largely undeserved stank on 'charity auctions' in general. >>
I think it depends on the disclosure and the motivation. A couple of years ago when the ACG lawsuit was in full gear, I auctioned off an item for the legal defense fund for the accused.
I had a 1934-S Peace Dollar which I bought as ACG AU-50 (but paid EF money for it). I could tell when I received it that it was a cleaned coin. I cracked it out of its ACG tomb and sent it to ANACS where it was properly described -- AU details, cleaned, net EF-40.
I used the auction not only as a fund-raiser, but also as an educational tool for people as how NOT to buy coins. Anyway, it raised $200 for the legal defense fund and I only paid about $90 for the coin, so I felt good about that. The thing is, it was made perfectly clear -- both in my description and the ANACS label -- that this was a problem coin. Plus, I would not have sold it in a top-tier TPG slab with obvious problems like this one. In this case, even if it was for charity, I'd crack it out and sell it raw, with full disclosure until your head spun. Either that or I would have dipped it first.
I can't believe Pat's doing this, charity or not, without some unknown altruistic motive. I'm not naive, but I don't *want* to believe otherwise unless there's no question that the motive is otherwise.
<< <i>The dealer was Gary Fernandez and I recall he was counterfeiting the holder not opening genuine holders >>
That is correct.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>retro Friday bump! >>
Seems to be a lot of these lately.