While it is true that there is a box on > My Preferences > Settings > that says "Import TrueView images when adding my new items (Note: Checking this will also import TrueView for existing Items)", this was not available to sets that were retired 5 years ago nor is it available retroactively currently to sets one has already retired.
btw, thanks for the education. I didn't know this even was an option.
p.s. Steve, with all due respect, things you represent that you "KNOW" (apparently for a fact and beyond ANY doubt - even without a shred of first hand knowledge) are simply not as you assert.
Well Roger, it seems that you have told us everything except what you were actually doing. Did you actually own a complete set of MPL's in those grades on May 9?
Is O J's lawyer Johnny Cochran still alive? If the glove does not fit you must aquitte!! You have pus sy footed around the questions long enough. You got caught way sooner than you ever dreamed !!! Man up and be done with it. This thread will die, but as long as you hide behind "phrases" the post will keep coming. You picked the wrong group to make up a set in. These MPL collectors are fanatics!! It is not like you are going to go to prison and have a cell mate named Bubba.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
This appears to be why the collection was removed from Registry:
________________________________________ From: Cosetta Robbins [mailto:CRobbins@collectors.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:53 AM To: 'jwatkins@lge.com' Subject: FW: Lincoln Cents Basic Set, Matte Proof (1909-1916) - Registry Fraud
Hi Jonathan,
I wanted to follow up and let you know that the Matte Proof Lincoln set in question has been removed from the all-time finest until the member provides proof of ownership.
Thank You, Cosetta Robbins Assistant Set Registry Manager Collectors Universe Inc. (800) 325-1121 ext #148 (949) 833-7660 fax
It will be interesting to see what happens. Jonathan
Well, I say congratulations to the MPL Registry set owners. The passion they possess for this coin series is highly evident and quite commendable. These collectors are very knowledgeable, and will not allow any shrewd antics to be successful. If you have a desire to illegally build a Registry set, don't try it in the MPL series.
1. HdHunter: Although I have no problem with the contents of her replies to you, did you get Corsetta's permission to publish her emails to you (which were obviously a reply to your e-mails to her - thus the retention of YOUR original inflamatory subject line)?
2. Did she not have an expectation of privacy when she repied to you?
3. Do you regularly publish people's confidential communications with you?
4. Your speculation "This appears to be why the collection was removed from Registry:" is also not accurate (as I stated in an earlier reply to this thread).
5. This issue is resolved as far as I am concerned (and IMHO to PCGS's satisfaction as well) and as I stated earlier, NO registry rules were broken.
6. That's gonna have to be enough (unless you want to now continue chasing apparitions and simultaneously assail the judgement of PCGS and call into question their competence).
I can agree with Steve on this except for one small item, why is the ttsd set showing again in the "alltime finest retired sets" I thought it was deleted?
Brian Wagner Rare Coins, Specializing in PCGS graded, Shield, Liberty and Buffalo Nickels varieties.
Roger, The set is back up as the #3 all time. The fact that PCGS has confirmed your ownership makes it sound legitimate. I think the people here would like to know how you can post a NEW set last Friday, then RETIRE it immediately. If your proof of ownership dates back awhile it seems like this would be something PCGS would do directly. I don't think the images shown mean anything. What DOES mean something is that you were able to show ownership of 9 specific MPL's cert #'s. I would think that PCGS would have also required you to show they were in your possession all AT THE SAME TIME. Apparently that is factual but I also wonder if those coins were in your possession as an agent for someone else. See, Roger, the issue would have just died out IF your set was NOT restored to #3 all time. Now, all the MPL folks here want to know the facts. Of course, you do not have to give them to us. You could "lock" your set and maybe that is exactly what you should do. You have provided the many variety collectors here with an easy way to check their sets. Why not tell us the whole story? It might make all the difference in the PERCEPTION people have regarding this. I've known you on these boards for as long as I've been here. This issue just won't go away until all the top MPL players including Stewart and Doug know and understand how this set came to be. JMHO. Steve
I wouldn't worry about Brian Wagner keeping up. It's you who ought to "keep up". Some of your comments suggest that you have been defamed or your confidence as been broken in some way.
1) The defense to defamation of character is "the truth"; 2) There is legally no 'expectation of privacy' on a public forum (like this Registry message board).
Go call your attorney and confirm. Then come clean and apologize. Geez.
"It was temporarily removed pending PCGS receiving what they requested."
Obviously both statements were 100% implicitly meant to specifically exclude even the possibility that any additional relavent information existed at the time they were uttered AND are so totally mutually exclusive that AT LEAST one of them MUST be inaccurate.
There's no way that upon first being contacted by PCGS that I would have suggested to just remove the set if that's what they preferred (at the time it hadn't been removed). There's no way that PCGS would have subsequently told me that they thought it best that the set be removed until I provided satisfactory information/documentation to them (at that time it had been removed). There's no way I would have subsequently told them that that was a great idea and had no problem with it (still had not been put back up). There's no way that I ACTUALLY finally complied with their request in a satisfactory and timely manner (thus not reason it was put back up).
You guys are beating a dead horse. No registry rules were violated. Get over it.
"1) The defense to defamation of character is "the truth"; 2) There is legally no 'expectation of privacy' on a public forum (like this Registry message board)."
What do you assert I said that alleges someone defamed me? What "truth" do you think you can prove? When did I allege an expectation of privacy regarding a public forum? I asserted it existed regarding the e-mail Jonathan got from PCGS. Get your facts straight.
The "pure gobblygook" was meant to be pure arcasm but was poorly worded: "There's no way that I ACTUALLY finally complied with their request in a satisfactory and timely manner (the reason it was put back up)."
Now it makes sense: "There's no way that I ACTUALLY finally complied with their request in a satisfactory and timely manner (thus not the reason it was put back up)."
I really don't care what the forum Keystone Cops (operating without a shred of evidence any registry rule was violated) think they know and I really don't care to enlighten (nor do I intend to) the "mob".
Aja: "Are we taking coin hijacking, or just image hijacking? No rules about that. And if that's the case, anyone can list crappy coins then add pictures of PQ coins as theirs!" Steve: "I don't think the images shown mean anything." Yet the majority at least infer registry rules were violated and/or the coins didn't really exist.
I'll leave you with a question to ponder though:
If someone created a set and after agreeing to sell it but prior to the sale actually being consumated decided to register said set for posterity purposes, would that violate registry rules?
I can tell you in advance that the answer is a resounding NO.
I'm not going to further respond to the continued (and continual) unsubstantiated assertions, wild accusations, and the rampant speculations of the MPL posse.
<< <i>Well Roger, it seems that you have told us everything except what you were actually doing. Did you actually own a complete set of MPL's in those grades on May 9? >>
Perhaps you're right (I'm personally still not clear - you made your stand and refuse to back down, so what reaction do you expect?); my only point all along was that you could have avoided all this suspicion by just being upfront and explaining to the group when the issue arose, and then the issue is a non-issue, right?
But on the way out of this 'dialogue', I say to you that if you want to be disrespectful and refer to your fellow members as 'keystone cops', what does that make you? Two sides to every coin...
Not meant as disrespectful (although I'm sure many here have no intention of striving for the same). Actually tongue in cheek and your point about what that makes me is actually quite droll.
My point was merely to provide a contextual cannotation for a "cop" that arrests, tries, and convicts without a shred of any REAL evidence while all the while taking a guilty until proven innocent stance with respect to "the accused".
I'm pretty sure that sort of behavior has been outlawed in this country (but is synonomous with the reference).
<< <i>My point was merely to provide a contextual cannotation for a "cop" that arrests, tries, and convicts without a shred of any REAL evidence while all the while taking a guilty until proven innocent stance with respect to "the accused". >>
Well now, to let you know why I became involved in this guilty, not guilty thread. A while back you did the same thing to a friend of mine. That being Paul "Stooge" Gunsallus, and the disagreement between he and Dimeman. You knew nothing about Paul, but you pronounced him guilty of cheating a fellow forum member. How does it feel now that the mob is after you? "GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY" .....
Almost lost in all this creative use of the English Vocabulary.
Now that all parites are here, would you care to FRANKLY in just plain talk answer the QUESTION? HdHunter New Member
Posts: 8 Joined: Feb 2008 Saturday May 10, 2008 7:36 PM
I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set. I puchased my coin from BWRC, and am sure Brian will confirm. Although the lighting is different on both images, you can see the clear indication on obverse and reverse. What's up??? Jonathan
Paul doesn't seem to feel a need to grind that particualr axe and I'd at least like to think we (Paul & I) were past that.
Frankly, while I see the point you are attempting to make, it's really an apples and oranges analogy as no one has asserted that I stole their money, ripped them off, failed to live up to some fiduciary responsibility regarding disclosure, or cheated them in a business transaction.
In fact, even the person complaining about the images has no real standing unless they assert the image allegedly "ripped off" was in fact taken by them (and was thus their intellectual property).
"I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set." Answer: ttsd is NOT including one of the coins from YOUR registry set in "his" registry set. Simple enough answer?
But feel free to keep ignoring rules and laws as long as you feel it fuels your quest for the "truth".
"I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set." Answer: ttsd is NOT including one of the coins from YOUR registry set in "his" registry set. Simple enough answer?
>>
AGREED Roger. The 1915 PR65RD cent in the ttsd collection has a very specific certification number. It is most likely NOT HdHunter's coin. The IMAGE of the coin with the specific certification number has most likely NEVER been posted here either. This "game" you are playing with your fellow collectors is childish and serves you poorly. You have alot to give to this hobby, especially in the Lincoln variety area, but you just continue to screw it up with things like this. Very sad. Steve
"...most likely..." If you don't think it is WITHOUT A DOUBT DEFINITELY NOT than why even discuss this any further.
As for the "game" aspect, I actually think it is quite amusing to hear the mean spirited comments and ludicrous statements some make and/or see the ridiculous positions others take.
oops.... you forgot to clearly answer this question.
I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set. I puchased my coin from BWRC, and am sure Brian will confirm. Although the lighting is different on both images, you can see the clear indication on obverse and reverse. What's up??? Jonathan
I never originally intended on posting images. The images were only added as a gratuitous afterthought in response to robec and pennyannie's original comments. Sorry if there was any carelessness or lazyness.
1. A group of people summoned by a sheriff to aid in law enforcement. (Nope) 2. A search party. (Nope- well sorta) 3. A gang involved in crimes such as running guns and illegal narcotics trafficking, and questionable PCGS registry listings. (The later!) 4. Slang A group of friends or associates. (Thats US!)
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
HdHunter wondered, "why would someone post a new Registry Set and then retire it within two days?" I wondered about that, too. But then RBinTex posted the following:
"I'll leave you with a question to ponder though:
If someone created a set and after agreeing to sell it but prior to the sale actually being consumated decided to register said set for posterity purposes, would that violate registry rules?
I can tell you in advance that the answer is a resounding NO."
Upon reflection, it occurred to me that RbinTex provided a hypothetical response. He never actually said that's what he really did. And that’s the common thread I see in a lot of his posts. It always seems like a cat and mouse game, where he knows what he really did, and why and when, but he's not offering to share any of the actual, underlying facts with us.
What we have here is a [deliberate?] failure to communicate!
Doug asked, "Well Roger, it seems that you have told us everything except what you were actually doing. Did you actually own a complete set of MPL's in those grades on May 9?"
If he wanted to be forthcoming it would be very easy to state when and how he acquired the coins, without revealing any names or prices. If he wanted to tell us what he did and why, he could do it. If he wanted to answer simple questions directly, using plain, clear language, he could do it. If he has something to hide, or if he prefers playing games, all we'll ever get is "hand waving," which is a descriptive term for the obfuscation you get when someone faces you and speaks, but deliberately waves their hands in front of their mouth so you still can’t make out what they're saying.
I have a basic question and I respectfully request a straight, simple and responsive answer:
If a person met with him on May 9th, could he have shown that person his complete MPL set listed on that date as ttsd, showing that person all of the coins in PCGS holders with grades and ID #'s as listed for the set? This IMO would be the only way the set would be legitimate in the eyes of most individuals on the board. Roger would have to have had all nine of the coins in his possession and be the owner of the coins for the set to be legit. Could he have shown a person this set on May 9th as described above? Yes or no?
I sense that maybe he owned these coins at one time and they were never registered by anyone else since, so he was able to go back and check to see that they were not in any current Registry Sets and when he found out they were not he chose to register them as a complete set. This might be the flaw in the PCGS system, which is just a guess, so instead of insisting that one owns the coins as one complete group/collection maybe he got by because he once owned them, and then because they never were put in sets after individual sales he was able to pull this off??? Just wondering . . .
I am not kidding,
G99G I collect 20-slab, blue plastic PCGS coin boxes. To me, every empty box is like a beating heart NOT.
People come up sometimes, and ask me, G99G, are you kidding? And I answer them no, I am NOT KIDDING.
<< <i>In order to list your set as current, you must own and have physical possession of the coins you are listing or be an agent with permission to represent a collection. (Possession may include items being held in your safe deposit box or items which you have consigned to auction.) A coin is not considered owned by you if you have sold it to another, regardless of buyback or return policies. Furthermore, this coin should be removed from your inventory and sets. If the same coin should return to your possession and you regain ownership, you then have the option to relist it in the registry. (emphasis in original) >>
Does this mean within a certain time period (only before the auction is completed and before the purchaser has recieved the coin?) or does this include any coin you've ever put up for auction and that isn't currently in another registry set? This seems like the only way that the current scenario could play out, unless TTSD just searched for a pic of a random PF65RD 1915 for an image for his set instead of posting pics of his coin. Which is almost as bad as stealing a certification number imho, I don't buy the 'Collectors wanted pictures so i posted them' excuse. How is this satisfying their requests for pictures of your coins. (I'm not saying this is what TTSD did, but if he did it's a shame but it'd at least explain what caused all the confusion over this set...)
Want to buy an auction catalog for the William Hesslein Sale (December 2, 1926). Thanks to all those who have helped us obtain the others!!!
My prediction. TTSD set will be removed from the all time finest set list in the PCGS Set Registry within the next few weeks. Constant pressure from members here will cause action to be taken by the Set Registry committee to preserve the integrety of the program. June 30th is the end of the current year and that sounds like a good date. It is really sad that Roger plays these games. Steve
"If a person met with him on May 9th, could he have shown that person his complete MPL set listed on that date as ttsd, showing that person all of the coins in PCGS holders with grades and ID #'s as listed for the set?..."
YES
"...This IMO would be the only way the set would be legitimate in the eyes of most individuals on the board. ... Could he have shown a person this set on May 9th as described above? Yes or no?"
YES
I'd suggest you all go back and read the RULES again.
1. NO RULES WERE BROKEN (and not one person has provided even a scintilla of proof that any had been). 2. PROOF OF THIS FACT WAS PROVIDED (thus the set was put back in its proper place). 3. REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT IMAGES - THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES THAT ADDRESSES THEM. 4. IS IT REALLY RIGHT TO TRY TO PUNISH SOMEONE FOR VIOLATIONG A (hopeful/wishful/imagined/assumed/perceived?/implied??) RULE THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST (yet???)? BE FAIR HERE. 5. WHY NOT TRY TO ADVOCATE FOR A CHANGE TO OR ADDENDUM OF THE RULES TO ADDRESS IMAGES.
I could think of a fairly simple yet powerful addition to the rules:
If the registrant wishes to post images to a coin that is registered into one of his sets, the image: 1. must, IN GOOD FAITH, be of the same coin represented by the certification number, and 2. must show the coin residing INSIDE the PCGS slab (PCGS Truviews are NOT sufficient in this regard), and 3. if the image was not taken by the registrant, the registrant must have IN THEIR POSSESSION, written permission from the originator of the image (to protect Collectors Universe from charges of collusion with respect to intellectual property infringement), to post said image, and 4. at any time, and in Collector's Universe's sole discretion, registrant shall provide, upon 48 hours notice, an image of the coin(s) in question showing as clearly being physically held in the by the registrant himself. For this purpose, the coin and the registrant's face must be in the same picture, and 5. if the registrant wishes to show only partial image(s) of the coin registered (e.g. in the example of a closeup of the features of a doubled die) these "closeups" shall first be sent to CSI Miami for a mass spectrometer analysis.
I think it is disingenuous to advocate for what the rules don't call for on the one hand while not simultameously advocating for changing the rules themselves on the other hand. In this case, retroactively advocating aginst a position that was not a violation of the rules at a particular point in time is improper per se.
Roger, My concern is NOT the images you posted. My concern is that you actually owned all nine MPL's that you listed by PCGS cert # on May 9th. If that is TRULY the situation I would gladly apologize for my comments. As I mentioned early in this thread, I believe we are all family here. Why play games with us? It makes YOU look very bad. If you owned these coins (ie) having paid for them, prior to selling them as part of your dealing, then I, for one, could live with letting it sit in the all time list. You did that in 2003 with your Rogers Coins set and that was one you built up. The problem with this whole thing Roger, is that people here do not believe what you say, and that is a BIG problem that YOU need to deal with. Why not tell us the whole story instead of philosophying about it. JMHO. Steve
As per the rules, clearly I was either the legal owner (or the agent of the one that was - or perhaps both if I was only a fractional owner of the set) of all nine coins and had all nine coins in my (or at least my bank's sd box) possession. Period.
I don't really see where EITHER I have an obligation OR you (or anyone) have a right to any further clarification.
Could I simply say that yes, I owned them? Sure. Could I simply say that, no, I didn't own them but was an agent for the one(s) that did? Sure.
Must I clarify further? NO
It's NO ONE'S business but I will say that the set was quietly assembled with the intention to sell it as a full set upon completion.
I honestly like your suggestions on how to plug the loop to make the system better. That is the approach of a reasonable person. I also appreciate that you feel wrongfully attacked and want no obligation to justify yourself in front of your fellow collectors. That's a pretty natural reaction. But remember, you did put your self on the big board, and everyone slapped you on the back and said ‘great job”. Now that the tables have turned, you need to be respectful and address your fellow collectors, in this man’s opinion.
Maybe you did not break any rules at all. But the mass perception here, among people who legitimately care about numismatics, and base our system on honestly and integrity, is that you somehow went over the line. And your 'slippery', and borderline arrogant demeanor and comments, as I perceive them, just fuel that fire. Some people have flat out attacked you, but others have bent over backwards to get a straight answer, or apology, if that's what is needed. Are you a big enough man to admit an error in judgment, or if you are not guilty of any error, do you have enough humility and understanding of people to explain (without defense and sarcasm) what has happened? That is what is going on here, if you cannot see it. On the other hand, if this is some source of amusement to you, I'm not sure you understand the implications of your comedy routine, and I’m sure that life will go on, but the stock in your name is not rising, I assure you (if you care, and I cannot imagine that you don’t).
Forgot the "All Time Best List" for a second. That is almost a moot point at this time.
If you truly care about your standing in this particular community, and how people will view your name and credibility in the future, you should (in my opinion) not be so flippant with you comments and attitude, and show a little respect for the people in this group. That's the one element that seems to have been missing in from the very beginning, and continues. All these comments in defense of your position, and attached "Emotion Icons" are truly making you look terrible within your own group of fellow collectors. I believe it will have implications on your ability to deal with this group in the future. I can speak for myself: I will not deal with you in any way, if I don't see a real person behind this facade make some kind of real statement. That may or may not matter to you, but that's your decision. This is not about coins, it's about perception. This is my last email in the string, and I suggest you think about it.
You are, as the old saying goes: "shooting yourself in the foot".
Can't you just approach this matter seriously, honestly, openly and take care of it so it goes away. Right now you're leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and that is going to follow you around.
You may not like it, but this IS your responsibility to clean up. You can get cute and antagonize everyone through each new message (maybe you think you can afford that), but don’t be surprised if you get ostracized for the manner in which you are handling yourself right now.
There are no free rides were I come from. And I sense the group will second that. PCGS can handle any way they see fit, but you are creating and responsible for your own image within this group.
Duane -- you made a mistake -- Roger is a dealer, not a collector. Also, I think this statement is as close as you are going to get to the truth:
...but I will say that the set was quietly assembled with the intention to sell it as a full set upon completion.
You see Roger will do whatever doesn't violate the technicalities of rules, but doesn't respect the spirit of the rules. It's a matter of ethics.
To me, the rule and FAQ below are why so many are offended by what he is doing (and it ain't the first time).
Read them and ask yourself if a dealer has a "collection" or an "inventory?"
Buying and Selling Policy
The PCGS Set Registry is to be used to list collections of coins. By the sheer nature of the Registry, items listed are invariably bought and sold. However, using terminology such as "for sale or trade," "auction0207," or listing an item with a price is not permitted. The Registry is self-policing. Should you see an infraction of this policy, please report it to setregistry@pcgs.com.
What is the intent of the Set Registry?
Under "Frequently Asked Questions," the first is
What is the PCGS Set Registry and what do I have to do to register? The interactive PCGS Set Registry was established in 2001. The Registry lets collectors compare their collections to other current and all-time great collections, ranking sets in order of grade point average, completion and overall rating. There are no fees to participate. Simply create an account and begin adding your inventory. Click here to begin.
So it all comes down to the definitions of "collections of coins", "collectors" and "their collections" and how broad or narrow these definitions should be?
If everyone registry participant that bought a coin with the intention of including it in a registry set had the foresight to know at the time of the purchase that they would at some future time most likely sell it - or even had every intention of one day selling it - (and as a result were explicitly precluded from participating in the registry) the registry would not only have many fewer sets, but the absence of the (cumulative) commensurate demand the prospective inclusion into the registry itself created in the first place would in and of itself have a severe dampering effect on the prices of (PCGS graded) coins in general (IMHO).
How then as a practical matter would you suggest people's intentions be policed?
Although, maybe that would be a good thing to those seeking to be buyers.
Thank you for that relevant fact that seems to have been unarticulated until now. For those like me, who are new, the game is now very clear.
That distinction on the dealer/collector status is something Roger must have assumed everyone knew, and relied on the fact that the line is blurred. Otherwise, the actions he took not only appear to be outside of the registry rule book (in spirit, or course), but outside of some bigger rule books as well. Maybe in spirit, and maybe more. On the other point, of course, the letter and spirit of a rule or law can be very different. The spirit at the very least here as been broken, if not the outright rule. That was exactly my point in the last communiqué to Roger. And that is why legitimate collectors are so PO'ed. I wouldn't want to personally (or professionally) take that chance Roger has apparently taken. Has anyone considered asking a consumer protection expert like Scott Travers as to his position on this issue?
And on the dealer/collector distinction, at best maybe Roger should be considered for the "All Time Finest *Inventory*" list. But I think he may have a little trouble on that based on some of the inventories I've seen in the last few months. Why not put the Smithsonian or Heritage on the "All Time Finest".
Thanks for the explanation. Just think of the 'collection' Brian Wagner would have had playing if he did this sort of 'collecting'?
I agree with you, Doug. That 'collection' of Roger's really ought to be pulled. It does not belong there. And I'm not sure this group is going to let this slide. And PCGS should ask for outside counsel on the issue to protect themselves and the integrity they have worked so hard to develop, I think.
People tried to help this fellow save face, but he is really are not getting the message.
I said it earlier: Roger might want to "Take it for what it's worth".
"...but I will say that the set was quietly assembled with the intention to sell it as a full set upon completion."
And since you have every intnetion of skewing things for the uninformed, this couldn't possibly mean to sell it once the challenge was accomplished (as I had done with almost every other retired set I've had).
Of course, then, the definition of just what a "dealer" is would then necessarily come into play.
Simplest rule: any PCGS authorized dealer may not have any registry sets (I know of several that do and none that would be proponents of such a rule).
Murkier (with lots of shades of grey): if not a PCGS authorized dealer, exactly what metric should determine (for registry participation eligibility) dealer status? More than 50% of one's income from the profits (if any) derived from buying and selling coins? Would tax returns be required? If you bought and sold lots of coins but never made a profit would you really be a dealer? If you sold just one coin and made more on it than your salary would you be a delaer? If your coin buying/selling were not able to provide a level of income so as not to have to supplement your income form other sources would you be a dealer? Who exactly should make these determinations?
Who would define and evaluate claims one way or another? At what cost? At what peril (as to the potentiality of possible sensitive personal/business info being mishandled)?
And just to address Doug's uninformed assertion, I AM NOT a dealer - certainly not by any of the above metrics. I consider myself, first and foremost, a collector.
By what metric (and evidence) does one assert otherwise? Have I (in any reasonable definition of recently) continuously spammed these boards or the BST boards with offers to either buy or sell (as some here have done)? Have I offered to buy or sell anything for anyone here lately? Please, post my recent "dealer activity" evidence. Maybe there is a rogue division of one of my companies I'm not aware of.
Specializing predominantly in PCGS graded Flying Eagle, Indian, & Lincoln cent varieties, as well a varied denominational assortment of ALL Varieties (Doubled Dies, VAMS, etc.) as well as an eclectic mix of other interesting hard to find coins.
Call 214-597-7055 Anytime 24/7 (& ask for Roger). - THANX
See Other Coins For Sale Here On Our Site (if no price, take 5% off ANY of our Buy-It-Nows).
Comments
While it is true that there is a box on > My Preferences > Settings > that says "Import TrueView images when adding my new items (Note: Checking this will also import TrueView for existing Items)", this was not available to sets that were retired 5 years ago nor is it available retroactively currently to sets one has already retired.
btw, thanks for the education. I didn't know this even was an option.
p.s. Steve, with all due respect, things you represent that you "KNOW" (apparently for a fact and beyond ANY doubt - even without a shred of first hand knowledge) are simply not as you assert.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
________________________________________
From: Cosetta Robbins [mailto:CRobbins@collectors.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 10:53 AM
To: 'jwatkins@lge.com'
Subject: FW: Lincoln Cents Basic Set, Matte Proof (1909-1916) - Registry Fraud
Hi Jonathan,
I wanted to follow up and let you know that the Matte Proof Lincoln set in question has been removed from the all-time finest until the member provides proof of ownership.
Thank You,
Cosetta Robbins
Assistant Set Registry Manager
Collectors Universe Inc.
(800) 325-1121 ext #148
(949) 833-7660 fax
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Jonathan
<< <i>.....all this thread is lacking is a spinning maple leaf. >>
And... here it is!
Check my ebay BIN or Make Offers!!
RegistryNut
2. Did she not have an expectation of privacy when she repied to you?
3. Do you regularly publish people's confidential communications with you?
4. Your speculation "This appears to be why the collection was removed from Registry:" is also not accurate (as I stated in an earlier reply to this thread).
5. This issue is resolved as far as I am concerned (and IMHO to PCGS's satisfaction as well) and as I stated earlier, NO registry rules were broken.
6. That's gonna have to be enough (unless you want to now continue chasing apparitions and simultaneously assail the judgement of PCGS and call into question their competence).
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>IMHO, Let it go!
Steve
I can agree with Steve on this except for one small item, why is the ttsd set showing again in the "alltime finest retired sets" I thought it was deleted?
Keep up. It was temporarily removed pending PCGS receiving what they requested.
Are we taking coin hijacking, or just image hijacking?
Sounds to me like the cert # is different, but the image is the same.
No rules about that. And if that's the case, anyone can list crappy coins then add pictures of PQ coins as theirs!
Next we'll take a page from eBay & have to show the coin in the slab w/cert showing!
The set is back up as the #3 all time. The fact that PCGS has confirmed your ownership makes it sound legitimate. I think the people here would like to know how you can post a NEW set last Friday, then RETIRE it immediately. If your proof of ownership dates back awhile it seems like this would be something PCGS would do directly. I don't think the images shown mean anything. What DOES mean something is that you were able to show ownership of 9 specific MPL's cert #'s. I would think that PCGS would have also required you to show they were in your possession all AT THE SAME TIME. Apparently that is factual but I also wonder if those coins were in your possession as an agent for someone else. See, Roger, the issue would have just died out IF your set was NOT restored to #3 all time. Now, all the MPL folks here want to know the facts. Of course, you do not have to give them to us. You could "lock" your set and maybe that is exactly what you should do. You have provided the many variety collectors here with an easy way to check their sets. Why not tell us the whole story? It might make all the difference in the PERCEPTION people have regarding this. I've known you on these boards for as long as I've been here. This issue just won't go away until all the top MPL players including Stewart and Doug know and understand how this set came to be. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>Keep up. It was temporarily removed pending PCGS receiving what they requested. >>
Funny, in an earlier post you said, I quote...
"It was removed as per my request."
I wouldn't worry about Brian Wagner keeping up. It's you who ought to "keep up". Some of your comments suggest that you have been defamed or your confidence as been broken in some way.
1) The defense to defamation of character is "the truth";
2) There is legally no 'expectation of privacy' on a public forum (like this Registry message board).
Go call your attorney and confirm. Then come clean and apologize. Geez.
Duane
This sounds like a Tall Texas Tale told by a grade schooler.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
"It was temporarily removed pending PCGS receiving what they requested."
Obviously both statements were 100% implicitly meant to specifically exclude even the possibility that any additional relavent information existed at the time they were uttered AND are so totally mutually exclusive that AT LEAST one of them MUST be inaccurate.
There's no way that upon first being contacted by PCGS that I would have suggested to just remove the set if that's what they preferred (at the time it hadn't been removed).
There's no way that PCGS would have subsequently told me that they thought it best that the set be removed until I provided satisfactory information/documentation to them (at that time it had been removed).
There's no way I would have subsequently told them that that was a great idea and had no problem with it (still had not been put back up).
There's no way that I ACTUALLY finally complied with their request in a satisfactory and timely manner (thus not reason it was put back up).
You guys are beating a dead horse. No registry rules were violated. Get over it.
"1) The defense to defamation of character is "the truth";
2) There is legally no 'expectation of privacy' on a public forum (like this Registry message board)."
What do you assert I said that alleges someone defamed me?
What "truth" do you think you can prove?
When did I allege an expectation of privacy regarding a public forum? I asserted it existed regarding the e-mail Jonathan got from PCGS.
Get your facts straight.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>
There's no way that I ACTUALLY finally complied with their request in a satisfactory and timely manner (the reason it was put back up).
>>
Roger, the above quote by you in your last post tells me everything. It is plain gobblygook!
Unfortunately for you, this issue will not die until the set is removed from the all time finest list. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The "pure gobblygook" was meant to be pure arcasm but was poorly worded: "There's no way that I ACTUALLY finally complied with their request in a satisfactory and timely manner (the reason it was put back up)."
Now it makes sense: "There's no way that I ACTUALLY finally complied with their request in a satisfactory and timely manner (thus not the reason it was put back up)."
I really don't care what the forum Keystone Cops (operating without a shred of evidence any registry rule was violated) think they know and I really don't care to enlighten (nor do I intend to) the "mob".
Aja: "Are we taking coin hijacking, or just image hijacking? No rules about that. And if that's the case, anyone can list crappy coins then add pictures of PQ coins as theirs!"
Steve: "I don't think the images shown mean anything."
Yet the majority at least infer registry rules were violated and/or the coins didn't really exist.
I'll leave you with a question to ponder though:
If someone created a set and after agreeing to sell it but prior to the sale actually being consumated decided to register said set for posterity purposes, would that violate registry rules?
I can tell you in advance that the answer is a resounding NO.
I'm not going to further respond to the continued (and continual) unsubstantiated assertions, wild accusations, and the rampant speculations of the MPL posse.
<< <i>Well Roger, it seems that you have told us everything except what you were actually doing. Did you actually own a complete set of MPL's in those grades on May 9? >>
But on the way out of this 'dialogue', I say to you that if you want to be disrespectful and refer to your fellow members as 'keystone cops', what does that make you? Two sides to every coin...
My point was merely to provide a contextual cannotation for a "cop" that arrests, tries, and convicts without a shred of any REAL evidence while all the while taking a guilty until proven innocent stance with respect to "the accused".
I'm pretty sure that sort of behavior has been outlawed in this country (but is synonomous with the reference).
Perhaps "lynch mob" was a better analogy?
But under the slippery rhetoric, our positions are clear.
<< <i>My point was merely to provide a contextual cannotation for a "cop" that arrests, tries, and convicts without a shred of any REAL evidence while all the while taking a guilty until proven innocent stance with respect to "the accused". >>
Well now, to let you know why I became involved in this guilty, not guilty thread.
A while back you did the same thing to a friend of mine.
That being Paul "Stooge" Gunsallus, and the disagreement between he and Dimeman.
You knew nothing about Paul, but you pronounced him guilty of cheating a fellow forum member.
How does it feel now that the mob is after you? "GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY" .....
Now that all parites are here, would you care to FRANKLY in just plain talk answer the QUESTION?
HdHunter
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Feb 2008
Saturday May 10, 2008 7:36 PM
I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set. I puchased my coin from BWRC, and am sure Brian will confirm. Although the lighting is different on both images, you can see the clear indication on obverse and reverse. What's up???
Jonathan
Later, Paul.
Paul doesn't seem to feel a need to grind that particualr axe and I'd at least like to think we (Paul & I) were past that.
Frankly, while I see the point you are attempting to make, it's really an apples and oranges analogy as no one has asserted that I stole their money, ripped them off, failed to live up to some fiduciary responsibility regarding disclosure, or cheated them in a business transaction.
In fact, even the person complaining about the images has no real standing unless they assert the image allegedly "ripped off" was in fact taken by them (and was thus their intellectual property).
"I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set."
Answer: ttsd is NOT including one of the coins from YOUR registry set in "his" registry set. Simple enough answer?
But feel free to keep ignoring rules and laws as long as you feel it fuels your quest for the "truth".
<< <i>
"I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set."
Answer: ttsd is NOT including one of the coins from YOUR registry set in "his" registry set. Simple enough answer?
>>
AGREED Roger. The 1915 PR65RD cent in the ttsd collection has a very specific certification number. It is most likely NOT HdHunter's coin. The IMAGE of the coin with the specific certification number has most likely NEVER been posted here either. This "game" you are playing with your fellow collectors is childish and serves you poorly. You have alot to give to this hobby, especially in the Lincoln variety area, but you just continue to screw it up with things like this. Very sad. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
As for the "game" aspect, I actually think it is quite amusing to hear the mean spirited comments and ludicrous statements some make and/or see the ridiculous positions others take.
I have a question. Why is ttsd including one of the coins from my Registry Set (McCullagh Collection), the 1915 PR65RD in his Registry Set. I puchased my coin from BWRC, and am sure Brian will confirm. Although the lighting is different on both images, you can see the clear indication on obverse and reverse. What's up???
Jonathan
1. A group of people summoned by a sheriff to aid in law enforcement. (Nope)
2. A search party. (Nope- well sorta)
3. A gang involved in crimes such as running guns and illegal narcotics
trafficking, and questionable PCGS registry listings. (The later!)
4. Slang A group of friends or associates. (Thats US!)
"I'll leave you with a question to ponder though:
If someone created a set and after agreeing to sell it but prior to the sale actually being consumated decided to register said set for posterity purposes, would that violate registry rules?
I can tell you in advance that the answer is a resounding NO."
Upon reflection, it occurred to me that RbinTex provided a hypothetical response. He never actually said that's what he really did. And that’s the common thread I see in a lot of his posts. It always seems like a cat and mouse game, where he knows what he really did, and why and when, but he's not offering to share any of the actual, underlying facts with us.
What we have here is a [deliberate?] failure to communicate!
Doug asked, "Well Roger, it seems that you have told us everything except what you were actually doing. Did you actually own a complete set of MPL's in those grades on May 9?"
If he wanted to be forthcoming it would be very easy to state when and how he acquired the coins, without revealing any names or prices. If he wanted to tell us what he did and why, he could do it. If he wanted to answer simple questions directly, using plain, clear language, he could do it. If he has something to hide, or if he prefers playing games, all we'll ever get is "hand waving," which is a descriptive term for the obfuscation you get when someone faces you and speaks, but deliberately waves their hands in front of their mouth so you still can’t make out what they're saying.
I have a basic question and I respectfully request a straight, simple and responsive answer:
If a person met with him on May 9th, could he have shown that person his complete MPL set listed on that date as ttsd, showing that person all of the coins in PCGS holders with grades and ID #'s as listed for the set? This IMO would be the only way the set would be legitimate in the eyes of most individuals on the board. Roger would have to have had all nine of the coins in his possession and be the owner of the coins for the set to be legit. Could he have shown a person this set on May 9th as described above? Yes or no?
I sense that maybe he owned these coins at one time and they were never registered by anyone else since, so he was able to go back and check to see that they were not in any current Registry Sets and when he found out they were not he chose to register them as a complete set. This might be the flaw in the PCGS system, which is just a guess, so instead of insisting that one owns the coins as one complete group/collection maybe he got by because he once owned them, and then because they never were put in sets after individual sales he was able to pull this off??? Just wondering . . .
I am not kidding,
G99G
I collect 20-slab, blue plastic PCGS coin boxes. To me, every empty box is like a beating heart
People come up sometimes, and ask me, G99G, are you kidding? And I answer them no, I am NOT KIDDING.
Every empty box?
C'mon!
<< <i>In order to list your set as current, you must own and have physical possession of the coins you are listing or be an agent with permission to represent a collection. (Possession may include items being held in your safe deposit box or items which you have consigned to auction.) A coin is not considered owned by you if you have sold it to another, regardless of buyback or return policies. Furthermore, this coin should be removed from your inventory and sets. If the same coin should return to your possession and you regain ownership, you then have the option to relist it in the registry. (emphasis in original) >>
Does this mean within a certain time period (only before the auction is completed and before the purchaser has recieved the coin?) or does this include any coin you've ever put up for auction and that isn't currently in another registry set? This seems like the only way that the current scenario could play out, unless TTSD just searched for a pic of a random PF65RD 1915 for an image for his set instead of posting pics of his coin. Which is almost as bad as stealing a certification number imho, I don't buy the 'Collectors wanted pictures so i posted them' excuse. How is this satisfying their requests for pictures of your coins. (I'm not saying this is what TTSD did, but if he did it's a shame but it'd at least explain what caused all the confusion over this set...)
TTSD set will be removed from the all time finest set list in the PCGS Set Registry within the next few weeks. Constant pressure from members here will cause action to be taken by the Set Registry committee to preserve the integrety of the program. June 30th is the end of the current year and that sounds like a good date. It is really sad that Roger plays these games. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
YES
"...This IMO would be the only way the set would be legitimate in the eyes of most individuals on the board. ... Could he have shown a person this set on May 9th as described above? Yes or no?"
YES
I'd suggest you all go back and read the RULES again.
1. NO RULES WERE BROKEN (and not one person has provided even a scintilla of proof that any had been).
2. PROOF OF THIS FACT WAS PROVIDED (thus the set was put back in its proper place).
3. REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT IMAGES - THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULES THAT ADDRESSES THEM.
4. IS IT REALLY RIGHT TO TRY TO PUNISH SOMEONE FOR VIOLATIONG A (hopeful/wishful/imagined/assumed/perceived?/implied??) RULE THAT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST (yet???)? BE FAIR HERE.
5. WHY NOT TRY TO ADVOCATE FOR A CHANGE TO OR ADDENDUM OF THE RULES TO ADDRESS IMAGES.
I could think of a fairly simple yet powerful addition to the rules:
If the registrant wishes to post images to a coin that is registered into one of his sets, the image:
1. must, IN GOOD FAITH, be of the same coin represented by the certification number, and
2. must show the coin residing INSIDE the PCGS slab (PCGS Truviews are NOT sufficient in this regard), and
3. if the image was not taken by the registrant, the registrant must have IN THEIR POSSESSION, written permission from the originator of the image (to protect Collectors Universe from charges of collusion with respect to intellectual property infringement), to post said image, and
4. at any time, and in Collector's Universe's sole discretion, registrant shall provide, upon 48 hours notice, an image of the coin(s) in question showing as clearly being physically held in the by the registrant himself. For this purpose, the coin and the registrant's face must be in the same picture, and
5. if the registrant wishes to show only partial image(s) of the coin registered (e.g. in the example of a closeup of the features of a doubled die) these "closeups" shall first be sent to CSI Miami for a mass spectrometer analysis.
I think it is disingenuous to advocate for what the rules don't call for on the one hand while not simultameously advocating for changing the rules themselves on the other hand.
In this case, retroactively advocating aginst a position that was not a violation of the rules at a particular point in time is improper per se.
My concern is NOT the images you posted. My concern is that you actually owned all nine MPL's that you listed by PCGS cert # on May 9th. If that is TRULY the situation I would gladly apologize for my comments. As I mentioned early in this thread, I believe we are all family here. Why play games with us? It makes YOU look very bad. If you owned these coins (ie) having paid for them, prior to selling them as part of your dealing, then I, for one, could live with letting it sit in the all time list. You did that in 2003 with your Rogers Coins set and that was one you built up. The problem with this whole thing Roger, is that people here do not believe what you say, and that is a BIG problem that YOU need to deal with. Why not tell us the whole story instead of philosophying about it. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I don't really see where EITHER I have an obligation OR you (or anyone) have a right to any further clarification.
Could I simply say that yes, I owned them? Sure.
Could I simply say that, no, I didn't own them but was an agent for the one(s) that did? Sure.
Must I clarify further? NO
It's NO ONE'S business but I will say that the set was quietly assembled with the intention to sell it as a full set upon completion.
Beating a Dead Horse
I honestly like your suggestions on how to plug the loop to make the system better. That is the approach of a reasonable person. I also appreciate that you feel wrongfully attacked and want no obligation to justify yourself in front of your fellow collectors. That's a pretty natural reaction. But remember, you did put your self on the big board, and everyone slapped you on the back and said ‘great job”. Now that the tables have turned, you need to be respectful and address your fellow collectors, in this man’s opinion.
Maybe you did not break any rules at all. But the mass perception here, among people who legitimately care about numismatics, and base our system on honestly and integrity, is that you somehow went over the line. And your 'slippery', and borderline arrogant demeanor and comments, as I perceive them, just fuel that fire. Some people have flat out attacked you, but others have bent over backwards to get a straight answer, or apology, if that's what is needed. Are you a big enough man to admit an error in judgment, or if you are not guilty of any error, do you have enough humility and understanding of people to explain (without defense and sarcasm) what has happened? That is what is going on here, if you cannot see it. On the other hand, if this is some source of amusement to you, I'm not sure you understand the implications of your comedy routine, and I’m sure that life will go on, but the stock in your name is not rising, I assure you (if you care, and I cannot imagine that you don’t).
Forgot the "All Time Best List" for a second. That is almost a moot point at this time.
If you truly care about your standing in this particular community, and how people will view your name and credibility in the future, you should (in my opinion) not be so flippant with you comments and attitude, and show a little respect for the people in this group. That's the one element that seems to have been missing in from the very beginning, and continues. All these comments in defense of your position, and attached "Emotion Icons" are truly making you look terrible within your own group of fellow collectors. I believe it will have implications on your ability to deal with this group in the future. I can speak for myself: I will not deal with you in any way, if I don't see a real person behind this facade make some kind of real statement. That may or may not matter to you, but that's your decision. This is not about coins, it's about perception. This is my last email in the string, and I suggest you think about it.
You are, as the old saying goes: "shooting yourself in the foot".
Can't you just approach this matter seriously, honestly, openly and take care of it so it goes away. Right now you're leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and that is going to follow you around.
You may not like it, but this IS your responsibility to clean up. You can get cute and antagonize everyone through each new message (maybe you think you can afford that), but don’t be surprised if you get ostracized for the manner in which you are handling yourself right now.
There are no free rides were I come from. And I sense the group will second that. PCGS can handle any way they see fit, but you are creating and responsible for your own image within this group.
Take it for what it's worth.
Duane Blake
...but I will say that the set was quietly assembled with the intention to sell it as a full set upon completion.
You see Roger will do whatever doesn't violate the technicalities of rules, but doesn't respect the spirit of the rules. It's a matter of ethics.
To me, the rule and FAQ below are why so many are offended by what he is doing (and it ain't the first time).
Read them and ask yourself if a dealer has a "collection" or an "inventory?"
Buying and Selling Policy
The PCGS Set Registry is to be used to list collections of coins. By the sheer nature of the Registry, items listed are invariably bought and sold. However, using terminology such as "for sale or trade," "auction0207," or listing an item with a price is not permitted. The Registry is self-policing. Should you see an infraction of this policy, please report it to setregistry@pcgs.com.
What is the intent of the Set Registry?
Under "Frequently Asked Questions," the first is
What is the PCGS Set Registry and what do I have to do to register? The interactive PCGS Set Registry was established in 2001. The Registry lets collectors compare their collections to other current and all-time great collections, ranking sets in order of grade point average, completion and overall rating. There are no fees to participate. Simply create an account and begin adding your inventory. Click here to begin.
If everyone registry participant that bought a coin with the intention of including it in a registry set had the foresight to know at the time of the purchase that they would at some future time most likely sell it - or even had every intention of one day selling it - (and as a result were explicitly precluded from participating in the registry) the registry would not only have many fewer sets, but the absence of the (cumulative) commensurate demand the prospective inclusion into the registry itself created in the first place would in and of itself have a severe dampering effect on the prices of (PCGS graded) coins in general (IMHO).
How then as a practical matter would you suggest people's intentions be policed?
Although, maybe that would be a good thing to those seeking to be buyers.
Thank you for that relevant fact that seems to have been unarticulated until now. For those like me, who are new, the game is now very clear.
That distinction on the dealer/collector status is something Roger must have assumed everyone knew, and relied on the fact that the line is blurred. Otherwise, the actions he took not only appear to be outside of the registry rule book (in spirit, or course), but outside of some bigger rule books as well. Maybe in spirit, and maybe more. On the other point, of course, the letter and spirit of a rule or law can be very different. The spirit at the very least here as been broken, if not the outright rule. That was exactly my point in the last communiqué to Roger. And that is why legitimate collectors are so PO'ed. I wouldn't want to personally (or professionally) take that chance Roger has apparently taken. Has anyone considered asking a consumer protection expert like Scott Travers as to his position on this issue?
And on the dealer/collector distinction, at best maybe Roger should be considered for the "All Time Finest *Inventory*" list. But I think he may have a little trouble on that based on some of the inventories I've seen in the last few months. Why not put the Smithsonian or Heritage on the "All Time Finest".
Thanks for the explanation. Just think of the 'collection' Brian Wagner would have had playing if he did this sort of 'collecting'?
I agree with you, Doug. That 'collection' of Roger's really ought to be pulled. It does not belong there. And I'm not sure this group is going to let this slide. And PCGS should ask for outside counsel on the issue to protect themselves and the integrity they have worked so hard to develop, I think.
People tried to help this fellow save face, but he is really are not getting the message.
I said it earlier: Roger might want to "Take it for what it's worth".
Duane
And since you have every intnetion of skewing things for the uninformed, this couldn't possibly mean to sell it once the challenge was accomplished (as I had done with almost every other retired set I've had).
Of course, then, the definition of just what a "dealer" is would then necessarily come into play.
Simplest rule: any PCGS authorized dealer may not have any registry sets (I know of several that do and none that would be proponents of such a rule).
Murkier (with lots of shades of grey): if not a PCGS authorized dealer, exactly what metric should determine (for registry participation eligibility) dealer status? More than 50% of one's income from the profits (if any) derived from buying and selling coins? Would tax returns be required? If you bought and sold lots of coins but never made a profit would you really be a dealer? If you sold just one coin and made more on it than your salary would you be a delaer? If your coin buying/selling were not able to provide a level of income so as not to have to supplement your income form other sources would you be a dealer? Who exactly should make these determinations?
Who would define and evaluate claims one way or another? At what cost? At what peril (as to the potentiality of possible sensitive personal/business info being mishandled)?
And just to address Doug's uninformed assertion, I AM NOT a dealer - certainly not by any of the above metrics. I consider myself, first and foremost, a collector.
By what metric (and evidence) does one assert otherwise? Have I (in any reasonable definition of recently) continuously spammed these boards or the BST boards with offers to either buy or sell (as some here have done)?
Have I offered to buy or sell anything for anyone here lately? Please, post my recent "dealer activity" evidence. Maybe there is a rogue division of one of my companies I'm not aware of.
Click here for Roger's store, which says:
Welcome To Roger's Coins
Specializing predominantly in PCGS graded Flying Eagle, Indian, & Lincoln cent varieties, as well a varied denominational assortment of ALL Varieties (Doubled Dies, VAMS, etc.) as well as an eclectic mix of other interesting hard to find coins.
Call 214-597-7055 Anytime 24/7 (& ask for Roger). - THANX
See Other Coins For Sale Here On Our Site (if no price, take 5% off ANY of our Buy-It-Nows).
Click HERE to see what we currently have on eBay.
Sounds like a dealer to me.
p.s. 100