...You cannot return just a Kennedy Half from a Proof set. You must return the entire set.
The package that the item comes in must not be compromised.If I order something,and the something is uniquely packaged,to make a return I must not compromise the package that contains the item and possibly other items.
So,removing the Kennedy Half in a proof set for return is not allowed.The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>...You cannot return just a Kennedy Half from a Proof set. You must return the entire set.
The package that the item comes in must not be compromised.If I order something,and the something is uniquely packaged,to make a return I must not compromise the package that contains the item and possibly other items.
So,removing the Kennedy Half in a proof set for return is not allowed.The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns.
>>
for starters, when returning defective product, the Mint should make it easier to get your Postage back.. they DO pay for return Postage, but only after you pay for it yourself, then call them and ask them to refund it.. then they generate a US Treasury check and mail it to you, instead of just crediting it back to your plastic with which you bought whatever it was in the first place.. what a screwball system..
i ordered a pair of 2007 Mint sets.. whoever designed the new plastic "lenses" should have his pants pulled down and spanked in public on network teevee.. they used a VERY brittle form of plastic for the backing.. on one of the sets, one of the lenses' red plastic was cracked and broken and splitting apart with the coins peeking out.. whichever is the red one.. Philly? Denver? i forget.. anyway, i had to return both lenses of that set, pay for return Postage, put Insurance and Delivery confirmation on it, wait until i got confirmation that they got it, then call them up and ask them to refund my Postage (as well as send me a replacement set).. a couple of weeks later i got a US Treasury check for a few bucks that i carried around in my wallet until i had some other banking business to do.. and that was back when gasoline was "cheap" a little over three bucks a gallon.. with gasoline topping four bucks a gallon, (saw a teevee news report that said it was, on average, going up 1c per day across the country).. i combine trips every chance i get (oil went over $122.00/bbl today!)..
instead of using that new, brittle plastic backing on the Mint sets, they should've used something more pliable, flexible, thicker, or just stuck with the good old cellophane packs they've been using since the Titanic sank.. but at the very least, they could put in a business return "no Postage necessary" sticker so the customer wouldn't have to go through this ridiculous re-pack, pay Postage, mail, wait till they get it, call, wait for a check, put the money back in the bank process.. could they make it any screwier than that?.. probably..
oh.. Happy Birthday, Gary Cooper..
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on.. I don't do these things to other people.. I require the same of them.." - John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
<< <i>You can return a box of 96 just as easily as a box of 100.
Try returning that 96 Coin Box, with only 93 Coins in it; a partial return.
Not allowed. You have to scrounge up 3 regular 2008 W's to take the place of the cherry picks. Many novices ordering to get a 'prize' don't realize your stuck with the rest of the load. They would need to order more and hope the replacements get in before the 30 day period. >>
This is not true - I have returned dozens of partial returns including silver eagles - in fact just returned 96 out of a box of 99 two weeks ago and got the credit.
<< <i>The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns. >>
Define "defective"?
Big scratch? Little Scratch? Planchet Flaw? (Cracked or Split) Clip? (Big bucks for an error) Foggy finish? Glossy Finish on Satin Finish Coin? Hit? Nick - Big or Little? Gouge - big or little? Hair Lines? Reverse of 2007 when it should have been Reverse of 2008?
What?
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.
Easy.Defective is the condition where the item,to include its packaging,is considered to be in a truly "unforgiving" state to a reasonable person.hrlaser gave a good example.We're talking about tendencies to eyesore conditions for items here.
An error coin would not normally be considered by the reasonable collector to be in an "unforgiving" state,would it?
Example:Returning coins to the mint because they are not "70's" or don't have the "hot" reverse is unethical,in my opinion. May not be illegal but definitely unethical.
Want to gamble and try to get some of the "hot" reverse pieces? Fine.Just don't be a crybaby when you don't get any.Be a man and accept what has happened.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns. >>
Define "defective"?
Big scratch? Little Scratch? Planchet Flaw? (Cracked or Split) Clip? (Big bucks for an error) Foggy finish? Glossy Finish on Satin Finish Coin? Hit? Nick - Big or Little? Gouge - big or little? Hair Lines? Reverse of 2007 when it should have been Reverse of 2008?
What? >>
If it is not an ms70 or pf70 then it is defective. By the way I received some today with NO 07/08's. Starting to really thin out it seems.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
I did see the wink.My guess is that you are not joking. >>
Well I was trying to be a bit "playful" because I figured some would take exception to that comment but there is a serious point there though. Who gets to define what defective is? I would think that is a word that is loaded with many definitions.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>Who gets to define what defective is? I would think that is a word that is loaded with many definitions.
I don't disagree with this statement.I think the definition I provided would be good for starters,however. >>
I had missed your earlier statement. "Unforgiving state to a reasonable person"? I suppose now we need a judge to sort that out. Why not just let the mint change the policy if they don't like it and not worry about what people do within the bounds of that policy? That is my position.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met. "form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade.
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met. "form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
Yes I totally agree with the function part, but I am not so sure I agree with the form part of the argument (I am almost there so my mind can be changed). So what would be considered perfect form as apposed to imperfect form in the context of a silver eagle? To me perfect form would be a blemish free "silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight" and a defective or imperfect form would be a "silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight" with blemishes.
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met. "form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade? Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine.
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz.
If I collected to admire the design and degree of "niceness" of the bullion piece, I wouldn't be good with the gouges.The form and function definition of what makes for "defective" given does not apply very well here.After all, we're talking about artistic qualities,design differences and condition states for these ASE's.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
The whole point I was making in asking for a definition of "defective" is that each individual has their own definition of what defective is or isn't!
And those individual definitions can be interpreted differently by others that like to pass judgement on those who do not agree with their specific definition.
If someone wants to return an item to the US Mint for whatever reason, then that is their business. After all, the mint does offer "The Item Arrived Too Late" and "Changed My Mind" options for returning the products.
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>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met. "form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade? Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine. >>
So you would return a Mint purchase that did not technically meet the Websters definition of defective (At lease how you interpret the definition). You say I think that anywhere from 68 to 70 is ok. Fine, but isn't that kind of an arbitrary personal choice you make?
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
OK, so how on earth do you know that? I don't see the links to the orders on mine until after they arrive, which seems pointless to me, no kidding it arrived.
I currently have 48 of them sitting on my living room floor waiting for me to look at them. In this case, I may keep all of them regardless of their form
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
OK, so how on earth do you know that? I don't see the links to the orders on mine until after they arrive, which seems pointless to me, no kidding it arrived. >>
1. Go to your US Mint Account and copy your order number 2. go to fedex.com and choose "track by reference" 3. fill in the appropriate stuff (your order number should be pasted into the reference number section) and badda bing badda boom you get info faster than the Mint can post it to your account!!!
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met. "form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade? Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine. >>
So you would return a Mint purchase that did not technically meet the Websters definition of defective (At lease how you interpret the definition). You say I think that anywhere from 68 to 70 is ok. Fine, but isn't that kind of an arbitrary personal choice you make? >>
Ok...you are stuck in 1 track in the mud, so I will respond 1 more time, then stop..... IMHO, a gouge does not make a piece defective. It does affect the eye appeal, and likely, greatly. I would return it as I would find it unnaccepable. What you won't find is me returning something because it is not MS/PR70.
You also are erroneous in reading what I wrote. I said that what I have received from the mint, regarding the SAEs, seem to have been 68-70 in the grade. You rewrote it as saying that I think anywhere from 68-70 is fine. I never said that. I have a MS67 that is fine (I bought outside of the mint, already slabbed). You really should try to have better reading comprehension when you want to get into pissy details
Now, I am done as, though this isn't argumentative, you don't seem to understand what is written, and seem to have an agenda.
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met. "form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade? Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine. >>
So you would return a Mint purchase that did not technically meet the Websters definition of defective (At lease how you interpret the definition). You say I think that anywhere from 68 to 70 is ok. Fine, but isn't that kind of an arbitrary personal choice you make? >>
Ok...you are stuck in 1 track in the mud, so I will respond 1 more time, then stop..... IMHO, a gouge does not make a piece defective. It does affect the eye appeal, and likely, greatly. I would return it as I would find it unnaccepable. What you won't find is me returning something because it is not MS/PR70.
You also are erroneous in reading what I wrote. I said that what I have received from the mint, regarding the SAEs, seem to have been 68-70 in the grade. You rewrote it as saying that I think anywhere from 68-70 is fine. I never said that. I have a MS67 that is fine (I bought outside of the mint, already slabbed). You really should try to have better reading comprehension when you want to get into pissy details
Now, I am done as, though this isn't argumentative, you don't seem to understand what is written, and seem to have an agenda. >>
Well, I didn't want to get in a testy arguement with anyone just wanted to make a counter point. When it starts getting personal it is time to go on. Have a good day.
Gold and silver are valuable but wisdom is priceless.
The NGC MS70's seem to be rising in prices recently but ofcourse the PCGS MS70's is KING right now with $1,000 at least as the starting price at Ebay. Do you think NGC MS70's prices catch up with PCGS's MS70"s at a later date? Would like to hear your thoughts.
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
OK, so how on earth do you know that? I don't see the links to the orders on mine until after they arrive, which seems pointless to me, no kidding it arrived. >>
1. Go to your US Mint Account and copy your order number 2. go to fedex.com and choose "track by reference" 3. fill in the appropriate stuff (your order number should be pasted into the reference number section) and badda bing badda boom you get info faster than the Mint can post it to your account!!!
<< <i>The NGC MS70's seem to be rising in prices recently but ofcourse the PCGS MS70's is KING right now with $1,000 at least as the starting price at Ebay. Do you think NGC MS70's prices catch up with PCGS's MS70"s at a later date? Would like to hear your thoughts. >>
Grading company's are not necessarily created equal. This is quite obvious in the realized prcies for the MS70's ERs vs. First Strike. Will they ever catch up? Who's to say that maybe the real price of the MS70's shouldn't be the other way around and the PCGS prices are overpriced right now. Time will tell.
"What we are never changes, but who we are ... never stops changing."
received a package from JMRC just now.. with quantity x of NGC 08/07s in it.. for which i paid $x.. (meaning the lips are zipped).. each slab in a cute little ZipLok bag.. hmm.. were does one find those bags?.. i think someone already asked that question 239203928098203981 postings ago but i'm not going to go hunting for it..
sequentially-numbered, very fast service from one side of the USA to another, professional all the way.. i hereby retract whatever it was i said earlier after my ugly experience trying to get a call-back when the advertised price was "call".. and replace it with "highly recommended.. class act, true to his word, kept his promise, a real pro" and hey John, thanks for throwing in the High Relief Saint as a surprise bonus.. i appreciate it.. and will gladly toot your horn from here forward.. {{toot}}.. some business people know what it takes to set things right when they go wrong.. John Maben is one.. if you're at the upcoming Long Beach show, John, and i decide to go, i'll glady thank you in person..
Thanks Harv
oh, wait a minute..
<-- apply to one clause above, where obvious.. children under 12, use half of adult dosage..
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on.. I don't do these things to other people.. I require the same of them.." - John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on.. I don't do these things to other people.. I require the same of them.." - John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
Do I own one of the first spotted 08 rev of 07 that has been posted here? I just received this from Gainesville coins. It has the brown chalky type of toning.
<< <i>Do I own one of the first spotted 08 rev of 07 that has been posted here? I just received this from Gainesville coins. It has the brown chalky type of toning.
>>
looks like "Close Encounters of the Coin Kind".. yeah yeah i know it's the lights.. just struck me funny..
"The greatest writer of the Renaissance was William Shakespeare. He was born in the year 1564, supposedly on his birthday. He never made much money and is famous only because of his plays. He wrote tragedies, comedies, and hysterectomies, all in Islamic pentameter."
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on.. I don't do these things to other people.. I require the same of them.." - John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
<< <i>Do I own one of the first spotted 08 rev of 07 that has been posted here? I just received this from Gainesville coins. It has the brown chalky type of toning.
Comments
The package that the item comes in must not be compromised.If I order something,and the something is uniquely packaged,to make a return I must not compromise the package that contains the item and possibly other items.
So,removing the Kennedy Half in a proof set for return is not allowed.The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Have any any of these errors been found for the bullion (no mint mark) coins? >>
Zero, AFAWK
<< <i>...You cannot return just a Kennedy Half from a Proof set. You must return the entire set.
The package that the item comes in must not be compromised.If I order something,and the something is uniquely packaged,to make a return I must not compromise the package that contains the item and possibly other items.
So,removing the Kennedy Half in a proof set for return is not allowed.The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns.
for starters, when returning defective product, the Mint should make it easier to get your Postage back.. they DO pay for return Postage, but only after you pay for it yourself, then call them and ask them to refund it.. then they generate a US Treasury check and mail it to you, instead of just crediting it back to your plastic with which you bought whatever it was in the first place.. what a screwball system..
i ordered a pair of 2007 Mint sets.. whoever designed the new plastic "lenses" should have his pants pulled down and spanked in public on network teevee.. they used a VERY brittle form of plastic for the backing.. on one of the sets, one of the lenses' red plastic was cracked and broken and splitting apart with the coins peeking out.. whichever is the red one.. Philly? Denver? i forget.. anyway, i had to return both lenses of that set, pay for return Postage, put Insurance and Delivery confirmation on it, wait until i got confirmation that they got it, then call them up and ask them to refund my Postage (as well as send me a replacement set).. a couple of weeks later i got a US Treasury check for a few bucks that i carried around in my wallet until i had some other banking business to do.. and that was back when gasoline was "cheap" a little over three bucks a gallon.. with gasoline topping four bucks a gallon, (saw a teevee news report that said it was, on average, going up 1c per day across the country).. i combine trips every chance i get (oil went over $122.00/bbl today!)..
instead of using that new, brittle plastic backing on the Mint sets, they should've used something more pliable, flexible, thicker, or just stuck with the good old cellophane packs they've been using since the Titanic sank.. but at the very least, they could put in a business return "no Postage necessary" sticker so the customer wouldn't have to go through this ridiculous re-pack, pay Postage, mail, wait till they get it, call, wait for a check, put the money back in the bank process.. could they make it any screwier than that?.. probably..
oh.. Happy Birthday, Gary Cooper..
- John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
<< <i>You can return a box of 96 just as easily as a box of 100.
Try returning that 96 Coin Box, with only 93 Coins in it; a partial return.
Not allowed. You have to scrounge up 3 regular 2008 W's to take the place of the cherry picks. Many novices ordering to get a 'prize' don't realize your stuck with the rest of the load. They would need to order more and hope the replacements get in before the 30 day period. >>
This is not true - I have returned dozens of partial returns including silver eagles - in fact just returned 96 out of a box of 99 two weeks ago and got the credit.
Jeff
<< <i>The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns.
Define "defective"?
Big scratch?
Little Scratch?
Planchet Flaw? (Cracked or Split)
Clip? (Big bucks for an error)
Foggy finish?
Glossy Finish on Satin Finish Coin?
Hit?
Nick - Big or Little?
Gouge - big or little?
Hair Lines?
Reverse of 2007 when it should have been Reverse of 2008?
What?
The name is LEE!
Easy.Defective is the condition where the item,to include its packaging,is considered to be in a truly "unforgiving" state to a reasonable person.hrlaser gave a good example.We're talking about tendencies to eyesore conditions for items here.
An error coin would not normally be considered by the reasonable collector to be in an "unforgiving" state,would it?
Example:Returning coins to the mint because they are not "70's" or don't have the "hot" reverse is unethical,in my opinion. May not be illegal but definitely unethical.
Want to gamble and try to get some of the "hot" reverse pieces? Fine.Just don't be a crybaby when you don't get any.Be a man and accept what has happened.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>The mint should only make returns if the product is defective.Cherry picking should not be permitted.If I was the mint director policy would be a lot different on returns.
Define "defective"?
Big scratch?
Little Scratch?
Planchet Flaw? (Cracked or Split)
Clip? (Big bucks for an error)
Foggy finish?
Glossy Finish on Satin Finish Coin?
Hit?
Nick - Big or Little?
Gouge - big or little?
Hair Lines?
Reverse of 2007 when it should have been Reverse of 2008?
What?
If it is not an ms70 or pf70 then it is defective.
Please tell me you are joking.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>If it is not an ms70 or pf70 then it is defective.
Please tell me you are joking. >>
Did you see the wink? You guess.
I did see the wink.My guess is that you are not joking.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>Did you see the wink? You guess.
I did see the wink.My guess is that you are not joking.
Well I was trying to be a bit "playful" because I figured some would take exception to that comment but there is a serious point there though. Who gets to define what defective is? I would think that is a word that is loaded with many definitions.
I don't disagree with this statement.I think the definition I provided would be good for starters,however.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff
<< <i>Who gets to define what defective is? I would think that is a word that is loaded with many definitions.
I don't disagree with this statement.I think the definition I provided would be good for starters,however. >>
I had missed your earlier statement. "Unforgiving state to a reasonable person"? I suppose now we need a judge to sort that out. Why not just let the mint change the policy if they don't like it and not worry about what people do within the bounds of that policy? That is my position.
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met.
"form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met.
"form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return.
I was just using face value common sense with the Mint's wording on returns!
That was my first mistake!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met.
"form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade?
Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
If I collected to admire the design and degree of "niceness" of the bullion piece, I wouldn't be good with the gouges.The form and function definition of what makes for "defective" given does not apply very well here.After all, we're talking about artistic qualities,design differences and condition states for these ASE's.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
And those individual definitions can be interpreted differently by others that like to pass judgement on those who do not agree with their specific definition.
If someone wants to return an item to the US Mint for whatever reason, then that is their business. After all, the mint does offer "The Item Arrived Too Late" and "Changed My Mind" options for returning the products.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met.
"form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade?
Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine. >>
So you would return a Mint purchase that did not technically meet the Websters definition of defective (At lease how you interpret the definition). You say I think that anywhere from 68 to 70 is ok. Fine, but isn't that kind of an arbitrary personal choice you make?
Yep,changed my mind on these.Can you send me some more?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
<< <i>..."Changed My Mind" options for returning the products.
Yep,changed my mind on these.Can you send me some more?
Good Humor is good for the soul!
The name is LEE!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some.
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
OK, so how on earth do you know that? I don't see the links to the orders on mine until after they arrive, which seems pointless to me, no kidding it arrived.
Jeff
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
I got some today. Nada por mi. Hope you do better.
<< <i>
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
OK, so how on earth do you know that? I don't see the links to the orders on mine until after they arrive, which seems pointless to me, no kidding it arrived. >>
1. Go to your US Mint Account and copy your order number
2. go to fedex.com and choose "track by reference"
3. fill in the appropriate stuff (your order number should be pasted into the reference number section) and badda bing badda boom you get info faster than the Mint can post it to your account!!!
Jeff
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met.
"form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade?
Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine. >>
So you would return a Mint purchase that did not technically meet the Websters definition of defective (At lease how you interpret the definition). You say I think that anywhere from 68 to 70 is ok. Fine, but isn't that kind of an arbitrary personal choice you make? >>
Ok...you are stuck in 1 track in the mud, so I will respond 1 more time, then stop.....
IMHO, a gouge does not make a piece defective. It does affect the eye appeal, and likely, greatly. I would return it as I would find it unnaccepable.
What you won't find is me returning something because it is not MS/PR70.
You also are erroneous in reading what I wrote. I said that what I have received from the mint, regarding the SAEs, seem to have been 68-70 in the grade. You rewrote it as saying that I think anywhere from 68-70 is fine. I never said that. I have a MS67 that is fine (I bought outside of the mint, already slabbed).
You really should try to have better reading comprehension when you want to get into pissy details
Now, I am done as, though this isn't argumentative, you don't seem to understand what is written, and seem to have an agenda.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
Dang! And it was going so well!
Be sure to post the results of your order as these are showing up with less frequency.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting that Merriam Webster defines defective as:
1 a: imperfect in form or function
Since a MS70 is presumably perfection and MS69 is not - wouldn't the grading scale itself justify using defective as describing an MS69?
Jeff >>
No. Taking that definition literally, I would read it as "function=to be used as 1oz of collectible bullion with a $1 monetary amount". Met.
"form=silver 1 ounce in round form meeting certain parameters of size/weight". Met.
Extra ticks/marks/blemishes affect neither form nor function but will affect grade. >>
So you would be good with multiple big ugly gouges across the face of that still functional silver bullion with the $1 monetary amount? It still weighs 1 oz. Heck, I think that would meet even mr1874's standard of return. >>
You are trying to split hairs. Did you not read the part where I said it would affect the grade?
Even with a big ugly gouge across the face, it isn't defective, by that definition, imho. I wouldn't be good with it though. I am ok with tiny nicks, etc, and that is what I seem to get from the Mint....68-70 in the grades. I haven't returned a SAE yet, btw.
Btw...a huge gouge, where you describe it, would definitely be noticeable and take it out of the area of enjoyment for me, and likely many. I don't think that someone returning for that reason would be MS/PR-70 fishing and I think that type of return is fine. >>
So you would return a Mint purchase that did not technically meet the Websters definition of defective (At lease how you interpret the definition). You say I think that anywhere from 68 to 70 is ok. Fine, but isn't that kind of an arbitrary personal choice you make? >>
Ok...you are stuck in 1 track in the mud, so I will respond 1 more time, then stop.....
IMHO, a gouge does not make a piece defective. It does affect the eye appeal, and likely, greatly. I would return it as I would find it unnaccepable.
What you won't find is me returning something because it is not MS/PR70.
You also are erroneous in reading what I wrote. I said that what I have received from the mint, regarding the SAEs, seem to have been 68-70 in the grade. You rewrote it as saying that I think anywhere from 68-70 is fine. I never said that. I have a MS67 that is fine (I bought outside of the mint, already slabbed).
You really should try to have better reading comprehension when you want to get into pissy details
Now, I am done as, though this isn't argumentative, you don't seem to understand what is written, and seem to have an agenda. >>
Well, I didn't want to get in a testy arguement with anyone just wanted to make a counter point. When it starts getting personal it is time to go on. Have a good day.
The NGC MS70's seem to be rising in prices recently but ofcourse the PCGS MS70's is KING right now with $1,000 at least as the starting price at Ebay. Do you think NGC MS70's prices catch up with PCGS's MS70"s at a later date? Would like to hear your thoughts.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Not to break up your little chit chat, but I've got REAL news, Fedex says my coins from the Mint will be here tomorrow, Thursday !!!
I suspect others who have been waiting will get their coins also.
Hope I/we get some. >>
OK, so how on earth do you know that? I don't see the links to the orders on mine until after they arrive, which seems pointless to me, no kidding it arrived. >>
1. Go to your US Mint Account and copy your order number
2. go to fedex.com and choose "track by reference"
3. fill in the appropriate stuff (your order number should be pasted into the reference number section) and badda bing badda boom you get info faster than the Mint can post it to your account!!!
Jeff >>
Link to fedex
<< <i>The NGC MS70's seem to be rising in prices recently but ofcourse the PCGS MS70's is KING right now with $1,000 at least as the starting price at Ebay. Do you think NGC MS70's prices catch up with PCGS's MS70"s at a later date? Would like to hear your thoughts.
Grading company's are not necessarily created equal. This is quite obvious in the realized prcies for the MS70's ERs vs. First Strike. Will they ever catch up? Who's to say that maybe the real price of the MS70's shouldn't be the other way around and the PCGS prices are overpriced right now. Time will tell.
Ship date
May 7, 2008
Estimated delivery
May 8, 2008 by 10:30 AM
Destination
SEEKONK, MA
Service type
Priority Overnight - Adult Signature Required
Weight
3.0 lbs.
Status
Package data transmitted to FedEx
Dang that works just fine!!!! I've got 2 packages (12 & 15) coming in the AM....Fingers crossed but I think the 07/08's are all dispersed
sequentially-numbered, very fast service from one side of the USA to another, professional all the way.. i hereby retract whatever it was i said earlier after my ugly experience trying to get a call-back when the advertised price was "call".. and replace it with "highly recommended.. class act, true to his word, kept his promise, a real pro" and hey John, thanks for throwing in the High Relief Saint as a surprise bonus.. i appreciate it.. and will gladly toot your horn from here forward.. {{toot}}.. some business people know what it takes to set things right when they go wrong.. John Maben is one.. if you're at the upcoming Long Beach show, John, and i decide to go, i'll glady thank you in person..
Thanks
Harv
oh, wait a minute..
- John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
i have 9 raw
4 MS70 ER won't ever pay for PCGS 70..those who have bought or had slabbed more power to ya (honest)
3 NGC ER 69's (thnkx Coinboy)
all were bought after~market
oh and i have 5 08/08 KEEPERS!
- John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
<< <i>FWIW if anyone is keeping track .....
i have 9 raw
4 MS70 ER won't ever pay for PCGS 70..those who have bought or had slabbed more power to ya (honest)
3 NGC ER 69's (thnkx Coinboy)
all were bought after~market
oh and i have 5 08/08 KEEPERS! >>
I have a few also
Have a good one!!!
<< <i>Do I own one of the first spotted 08 rev of 07 that has been posted here? I just received this from Gainesville coins. It has the brown chalky type of toning.
>>
looks like "Close Encounters of the Coin Kind"..
yeah yeah i know it's the lights.. just struck me funny..
"The greatest writer of the Renaissance was William Shakespeare. He was born
in the year 1564, supposedly on his birthday. He never made much money and
is famous only because of his plays. He wrote tragedies, comedies, and
hysterectomies, all in Islamic pentameter."
- John Wayne, "The Shootist" (1976.. his final film)..
<< <i>Do I own one of the first spotted 08 rev of 07 that has been posted here? I just received this from Gainesville coins. It has the brown chalky type of toning.
Strange ?
<< <i>I have 15 coming tomorrow...will post what I get. >>
Good luck!!!
Have a good one!!!