Please see: http://www.rogerscoins.com/registry.htm. Roger, as you communicate on your site: "As one of our many services, Rogers' Coins offers you a personal portal to the popular PCGS Set Registry" Tell me that's not current.
Roger, you are extremely insulting. And you are not as slick as you think.
1) Yes, Roger, you sound like a 'dealer' to me; 2) If not, what 'services" (one of many services) do you offer to client (ahem) other collectors; 3) Do you have PCGS to deep link attach to their site? 4) Maybe a mistake has been made; have you ever been officially a dealer? (is Roger's Coins listed as a dealer with any state?).
Doug, you've been around a lot longer then me - who inside of PCGS do I forward the string to, or contact directly, to just get this cleaned up - I am sure they don't need this type of public relations. Feel free to forward, if you know.
What do you say to all this. And by the way, I am forwarding to the directors at PCGS, and you can do you fast talking and icon jokes to a new audience.
Duane (speaking on behalf of my fellow collectors).
P.S. If I am mistaken, I will personally and openly apoligize to you. But something about what you are doing does not smell right.
Extremely insulting? My, my, don't get your bloomers in a knot.
No, that's not current. It was placed there almost two years ago. But thanks for pointing it out.
As I said, the site had not been updated in well over a year.
Why does it matter if I was EVER "officially a dealer" (whatever "officially" means)?
Do your homework man. Roger's Coins is a DBA registered in Texas.
So now you're on a witch hunt or crusade (in areas that you have no dog in the hunt for I might add) for any minor infraction from possibly years ago, huh? And some have said that I'm sad.
Duane Blake - secret agent man. Has a nice ring to it. Bet it drives the girls crazy.
AND WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I'M ENTITLED TO HAVE A SET REGISTERED? This has gone WAY off topic IMO.
Believe me; I did my homework on you before I ever asked you a question. My shorts are very comfortable, but thanks for taking such an interest in my well-being. I have forwarded all of your information to the decision makers at PCGS.
Being an attorney myself, I have no problem discussing with PGCS decision makers and their counsel my views on exactly how you have presented yourself to PCGS and its members, and the implications for them. And I will suggest to exactly what I consider to be appropriate action, and if any outside groups should be contacted. What you are doing is very serious, and not a joke, as I tried (as did many other people) to explain that to you many times. You can make a farce of the system, but I do no believe PGCS is going to allow this. And I think the attorney general in Texas may want a word with you, as well.
You can push this as far as you want. But Roger, I really think you should do the right thing before this escalates any further.
Whatever counselor. So now I should be sued and arrested? Why stop there. Perhaps drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, or boiled in oil would be more appropriate.
Your veiled threats notwithstanding, the only farce is the position you are taking.
It never ceases to amaze me how sleazy attorneys can argue anything to bolster their side regardless of how ludicrous or unfair it is.
You were the genius that raised the following non-issue:
"But for other instances, check out Retired Sets "Roger's Coins - 17th" and "Roger's Coins - 6th". The 1913 pictured is the same coin as in Curley's present set, with the identical PGGS. Curley, can you confirm? Geez, Tex, what up? Got any of mine? Let's the detectives go to work."
There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING improper regarding this '13. Don't you think that given YOU were wrong in the clear negatively directed inference and implication that YOU should now apologize? Who's not the man now?
But you must be, because I’ll admit, I'm very impressed at the alacrity by which you seem to have ruined your name in about a week. That was brilliant. But your name isn’t important, is it Roger Barone? If it was, this type of stuff I'm going to outline below would not follow you around. The only apology I owe anyone is not catching on to your act faster – to PCGS, I apologize.
Maybe YOU need to do your ‘homework’ -- Lawyers call it ‘diligence’, but maybe you already know that. Like you arrogantly said to everyone earlier in this very public forum, you have no obligation to tell anyone anything. So, I looked myself. And now everyone else will too (To all who are interested, my sources point out PGGS Registry strings back around Friday July 22, 2005, as well as Google being helpful to start with our good friend Roger – it seems his last name is Barone and he is a FORMER employee at Anaconda - a dealer, I guess, you can read yourself and judge his character issues – Roger Barone is now the registrant of www.rogerscoins.com; but Roger is NOT a dealer – just ask him). Roger, there is nothing veiled about what I am writing to you. Congratulations, as well; I can’t remember the last time anyone referred to me as a “cancer”. You seem to stay in character. So you’re they guy who deserves to be on the Finest Set list, huh? Right!
And by the way, if you want to mock me, my dealer and friend, Brain Wagner (who is an honest man and represents himself AS A DEALER, not collector), and fellow collectors, one of whom who you refer to as "Sherlock", take your best shot – if I didn’t have a ‘dog in the hunt’, you’ve given me one here very quickly. Besides that, truth is, people taking advantage of others don’t get too far in my book.
I don't know if you worry about jail, and frankly don't care, but if you don’t turn this around quickly, I hope you lose your PCGS membership, at the very least. How far do you want to take this? You tell me, and I'll be happy to oblige. Should I call the attorney general?? You know better then me, right?
So, are you going to be smart and do the right thing, and remove that "Finest Inventory" collection and this thing maybe blows over, and the flowers bloom, or do we step it up?
My guess is no. But that’s okay. People like you don’t take too long to be found out and crawl away.
As my 17 year old would say: “You’ve been busted, dude”.
This thread went from interesting to poofworthy very quickly imho. A few simple answers to questions and the forum not jumping to conclusions as we are infamous for doing (myself included) could have answered this thread quickly, saved reputations, and led to what all of us want -- a registry with an actual representation of what's out there and pics of the gorgeous top sets.
A simple answer to this question would have saved a lot of time, name calling, and threatening of eachother imho. Is the 1915 in the Heritage picture the same coin that was in your possession on May 9th and in the same slab as shown in the Heritage pic? If not, why post a picture of a coin not in your set? If it is the same coin I'm just really confused at this point about what happened.
Mark
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!!!
<< <i>So now I should be sued and arrested? Why stop there. Perhaps drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, or boiled in oil would be more appropriate >>
How about keel-hauling? That would give you a chance to prove your innocence. If you're still alive when they pull you out of the water, it means you really didn't do anything wrong after all.
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.
Not only has your speech now risen to the level of inaccurate, libelous, abusive, threatening, harassing, hateful, & false and/or defamatory, you have now clearly defamed me (accusing me of previously working for Anaconda) as well as made public private information of another member (by publishing my name), and DID NOT have my permission to provide a link to my website - all clear violations of the Terms of Membership of these message boards.
EVERYTHING IN BOLD BELOW, YOU VIOLATED (COUNSELOR):
"Posting Rules and General Rules of Conduct - You agree that you will not use or allow others to use your membership in these Forums to:
Post or transmit any Materials, or links to any Materials, which are knowingly false and/or defamatory, libelous, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented or threatening, which violate the right of privacy or any other right of any person or entity, or which intentionally or unintentionally violate any local, state, federal or international law or regulation. Post or transmit any Materials, or links to any Materials, that infringe any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity or other proprietary rights of any party. You may not post or transmit Materials that are not created or owned by you unless you have previously obtained permission from the owner thereof to post and transmit such Materials in the Forums and to license such Materials to us as set forth above."
It will be I seeking redress with PCGS come Monday.
That said, everyone around here that cared to know, already knew my name was Roger Barone. It's also no secret that my website was Roger's Coins (and as such no revelation that I was the registrant).
More distressingly, you, with reckless disregard for the truth, published a false statement (with depraved indifference I might add) that you either knew or should have known was false at the time you published it.
I will make a formal complaint against you with your state bar association (as well as to your superiors &/or partners to the extent any exist) as soon as I proove you are really an attorney (although I find it hard to believe) and find out where you practice.
If the quality of your "due diligence" thus far is indicative of your prowess as an attorney (don't forget, you COMPLETELY BLEW IT ON CURLY'S '13 ALSO), God help your clients.
As for you allusions to the fact that I have something to hide by continuing to claim you will report me to the Texas attorney general, you can only be doing so to threaten and harass as I'm sure you have no factual basis to make any report that could even be remotely construed as having been made in good faith.
Lastly, if you think dredging up issues that were all amicably resolved in the end from years ago are gonna score you points with the people that have been here a while, you are sadly mistaken. The best you can hope for, (as any lowlife attorney that either can't prove their case as the plaintiff or know they'll lose as a defendant) is to obfiscate the real issues and inject so many tangents so as to confuse and cast dispersion instead of dealing with the real issues head on.
Heck, I've had over 50 speeding tickets in my life. Some in school zones. SURELY a "dangerous criminal" such as myself that recklessly disregarded the lives of all those poor schoolchildren (by going 28 in a 20, e.g.) isn't worthy to have a registry set. What's your next argument counselor?
In short, you are a petty and vengeful, moron. Bring it on.
p.s. if selling coins is both a necessary AND sufficiant determinant of dealer status, than I assert that MANY "collectors" around here are MUCH more the dealer than I (at least since 2/07 when I stopped - in my mind and for all practical purposes - being a "dealer"). The fact that I let the website just sit there basically untouched since then is proof of nothing.
p.p.s. and btw, the ONLY Google hit on my name that is really me (that I found) is THIS ONE that lists me as one of the parish council members my church. Perhaps I can get My Cousin to speak to some people you know about you.
Thank you for finally cutting out the disrespectful icons. That's a start. But threatening me on personal and professional levels though, is not a good idea. But feel free to vent and wiggle as you may; it still does not answer the question you've been asked a dozen times (forgive me, 'roughly' a dozen times).
Do what you think is appropriate with PGCS with your redress. Stating that you worked for Anaconda is not 'slander' or 'libel', it's probably a complement (I like Anaconda). But whatever you may feel about that, all I've asked you to do is be polite and explain what was happening with the posting of the 1915 MPL. And the only one to deep link anything is you (between your site and PGCS site, as I pointed out). That, without permission, is an unauthorized use of the PCGS website, I believe. What is your reason for doing that?? As far as the state bar, I do practice, and we can sit down and show them this string together. If you have acted wrongly, the bar and PCGS will support me. And yes, if you have done anything fraudulent, I will report this string to the Texas attorney general's office, and they can investigate. I was trying to give you a face-saving out. But you are choosing to push. You have insulted my profession, abilities, called me a lowlife attorney, petty, bitter, vengeful, moron and a 'freakin' psycho'.
Yet through all this rhetoric, you still have not directly answered the question: It is this (asked by yet another member collector above: "Mark", and he is clearly not the only one):
"Is the 1915 in the Heritage picture the same coin that was in your possession on May 9th and in the same slab as shown in the Heritage pic? If not, why post a picture of a coin not in your set? If it is the same coin I'm just really confused at this point about what happened"
That's the question which has been asked about a dozen times on this string, and you seem to not answer?? I'm already brought to the attention of PCGS (as have others), and if you have committed deceit, it will be exposed.
You have started a new link now about whether dealers should be about to own and retire sets. That is not the question, and you know it.
The reason I took any interest in the matter at all (if you really like to know, is that you, through word and action, appear to be thumbing your nose at our Registry system, and you appear to be a fast, underhanded operator in posting this great set. I did not like that to begin with, and now with the name calling and all the other ‘smoke’, I just think you're certainly behaving like a jerk, and believe you are hiding something even more. Why not answer the question, and prove me, and the others, wrong?
So, as far a I'm still concerned, unless you remove that set from the All Time Finest list, or answer the question as to whether you had the coin in your possession May 9th, and now, apologize to a whole lot of people, I will work with whom ever I need to get you off the membership roster, at the least.
So did you misrepresent PCGS and it’s members about possession of the 1915 coin you posted, or are you legitimate? What is so hard about that question, if you are legitimate?
"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."
Maybe counselor you are a smart man after all. Tell me (at least hypothetically giving an interpretation you'd give for a client of yours on the one hand and what you would ascribe it meant if uttered by the client of an opposing counsel on the other - as you have done here) what the above says to you?
Also tell me what right you think you have to a more direct answer?
I have NO obligation in ANY regard to ANYONE (nor does anyone on these boards have ANY standing in this issue) regarding images posted to a registry set. If you have any REAL evidence that states otherwise, PLEASE share it.
"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."
Maybe counselor you are a smart man after all. Tell me (at least hypothetically giving an interpretation you'd give for a client of yours on the one hand and what you would ascribe it meant if uttered by the client of an opposing counsel on the other - as you have done here) what the above says to you?
**Thank you, Tex. hypothetically, here is my response to a client or non-client re the above bolded statement:
“Perceptions are important, and hypothetically, I believe that you a) never did intend on posting the images; believe that you were careless in posting them, and made a mistake. But tell me, image or not, was the actual coin in your legal possession when you actually posted the set images and/or retired the set? If you coin(s) were not in your legal possession when you actually posted the set or retired the set, then you may consider the alternatives: a) keep the set in place and cross your fingers that no one notices (that’s a little iffy on the advice end, and I would not advocate that, because it involves what appears to be a deceitful act); b) Remove the set immediately and chalk it up to a mistake (that would be my advice). But, if you actually DID have possession of the coin(s), for perception’s sake, explain to you group what happened, and no harm, no foul”**
Also tell me what right you think you have to a more direct answer?
**“Good question – Tex, you and I are members of the same Registry group, and we have an obligation to report things that don’t look ‘right’. We are self-policing. I think you would protect the integrity of the Registry, just like any of the members. This is not a personal thing for me against you; I just wanted an answer to a question that had everyone feeling a little bad, to be honest. I do believe everyone IS just hoping that this was a mistake, and we can all do the right thing here, and move on.”**
I have NO obligation in ANY regard to ANYONE (nor does anyone on these boards have ANY standing in this issue) regarding images posted to a registry set.
**”Maybe, maybe not, Tex. Perceptions are important, and hypothetically, when someone asks you a question about an act that appears to be related to deceit and your name, I would think you would welcome the idea of clearing it up. It’s your name. Look at the Registry string, the members are cutting you slack right and left and begging you to stand up and explain”**
If you have any REAL evidence that states otherwise, PLEASE share it.
**”Doug stated it earlier in the string, Tex. There is the spirit of the rules and the rules themselves. The spirit you can decide for yourself. I’ve made myself clear on that point.
On the rule itself, as Doug supplied it to the group himself:
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.”
You may not actually have used the terminology “for sale”. However, the perceived ‘infraction’ of the policy appeared when someone asked you the question (Steve, maybe) as to if you had actual possession of the coin(s) when you posted and retired the set. I think your perceived evasiveness on the response made people suspicious, so we now have a string with over 100 responses that could have been squared very early in the game. That is the difference between the spirit and the technical violation of a rule. You appeared to have broken the spirit, if not the technical rule itself (but I cannot actually tell, because you refuse to answer the direct question, to anyone in the Registry string, as far as I can see”**
Tex, if I am mistaken, just say so, will you? I’ll be the first to apologize. Likewise, if you made a mistake and posted the set without possession of the coin(s), then say so. Who cares? If it’s true, why not tell a group of your colleagues that you did not have possession during the time in question, made a mistake, and want to rectify it, be it technical or ethical error. That’s all I’ve said. I can’t speak for the others, but think the sentiment is shared within our group. Do the right thing, that’s all I’ve said – whatever that may be. You then come out of this appearing to be a bigger man, who did the right thing”**
I practice law all over the United States. I’m not hard to find, Tex, if you want to take your shot.
Roger: Below are receipt and image for my 1915 PR65RD, included in the McCullagh Collection (which I own), whose image you represented as yours for the coin you included in your Registry Set. How can you make the comment?
"I have NO obligation in ANY regard to ANYONE (nor does anyone on these boards have ANY standing in this issue) regarding images posted to a registry set."
You posted the image, representing this was your coin, no one else did. All I know is, you did not own this coin at the time you posted your Registry Set, and for that I raised the flag with PCGS. It would be a real shame if a collection was included in an "All Time Finest" list, that had questionable ownership. Jonathan
"...whose image you represented as yours for the coin you included in your Registry Set..."
You infer &/or assume I made that representation. Are stock photos or photos that represent a coin in a particular grade specifically disallowed? I think not (at this point). Can you proove me wrong here? And just to be hyper-legalistic, unless you took the image I used OR owned the rights to it, you DON'T have any legal standing. I'm sure our resident in house counsel will concur.
Anyway, never had any intention of taking and/or posting pics. Coins were in bank the day I posted them. Never even contemplated taking them out Monday to replace what had already been posted over the weekend.
Only did it for the reason I previously stated (in response to robec and pennyannie) and only to provide some "eye candy" for those that saw it. Never thought anyone would care or be offended. Couldn't find the actual coins in the set in any auction archive (although admittedly, I didn't spend much time searching - thus the lazyness factor). Never owned Jonathan's coin (that I know of). Never claimed to. Cert in set for '15 was CLEARLY not his (but you all know that PCGS already knew that).
I would gladly be a proponent of PCGS removing the images from the set entirely if it is still possible.
Glad I went to church today to remind me that confession is good for the soul. (sorry about the use of the icon here Duane)
p.s. as per a suggestion in another thread, if the same EXACT set gets registered by the (or any future) new owner in the future, I will personally ask PCGS to remove my set so as to not have two identical sets in the all-time list.
Well I can now see what Roger has done. The only thing he is guilty of is using images of MPLs owned by others to represent his MPLs. There is no shortage of this practice done in advertising on a daily basis. I certainly don't see this as a hanging offense. At most, Roger is only guilty of making what appears to be a poor decision. I do applaud the effort and time it took to add those images to your set, but I could have waited a bit longer in order to see the images of the examples that are housed in the Number 3 set of all time.
<< <i>Are stock photos or photos that represent a coin in a particular grade specifically disallowed? I think not . . . >>
I think you're quite right about that, as far as I know, but it also sounds extremely disingenuous to me. I have a couple dozen different PCGS Registry sets. Except for the MPL's, they're mostly all type sets. High quality photography is important to me, and I feel bad when I have empty slots with no pictures, even when it's a common coin that everybody sees every day, like a Washington quarter. I have photographs from different sellers, I've paid for several dozen Trueviews, and I've begun the process of taking photos of my own. I feel conflicted when I have 2 photos to choose from and one is more accurate while the other is more flattering. I feel conflicted when I have a coin with negative eye appeal filling a slot - I'd like to upgrade the coin, but in the meanwhile, would I rather show nothing or a photo of an "ugly" coin? But what NEVER occurs to me is to show a photo ". . . that represents a coin in a particular grade . . ." because I would consider that to be dishonest. Nobody needs or wants someone to show them what a Washington quarter in MS67 "looks" like, but they just might be curious about what I was willing to put into my set. Maybe some will think the coin is ugly, maybe it could use a better photograph, maybe I'd like to replace it with a shiny white MS66, and maybe I'd really just rather not show a photo of the coin at all, but I would never DREAM of using a picture of another coin with the same grade that's NOT in my set because that would be totally misleading and completely dishonest. I think the fact that you religiously parse PCGS's rules so carefully and then are perfectly comfortable displaying a photo ". . . that represents a coin in a particular grade . . ." without any compunction whatsoever is actually quite telling. It goes a long way toward explaining why you're having so much trouble with a lot of individuals on this board.
I have a 1793 Chain Cent in AU53. The obverse of the planchet has so many (mint made) potmarks it looks like it's cratered like the face of the moon. It has unattractive eye appeal but that's what it looks like. It doesn't look like the Coinfacts image. Maybe I should use the Coinfacts image instead, but somehow I don't think so, and not just because the Coinfacts image isn't from an AU53.
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.
Ambro: It's OK as long as the picture wasn't intentionally selected to be an improvement on the original (if so, you might then get it from both sides - although that might not be a bad thing).
Intellectual fodder: I thought that there was a certain fungibility to PCGS graded coins. Is that NOT the premise that the "sight unseen" market and the price guide is built on? Was it so terrible that the concept was extended to images (if only for convenience and perhaps being over eager to please)? Anyone care to make a case for a total lack of fungibility?
That said, I will NEVER do THAT again!!!
I personally oppose the view that argues a non-rule was violated yet find it odd that those holding that view appear willing to do nothing to try to get the rules changed - NOT pointing any fingers here.
As an alternative, and to productively channel the many dissenting opinions, why not request that PCGS consider the addition to the registry set rules the image guidelines (or something similar) outlined below?
If the registrant wishes to post an image(s) to a coin that is registered into one of his or her sets, the image(s):
1. must, IN GOOD FAITH, be of the same exact 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 hand by the registrant himself. For this purpose, the coin and the registrant's face must be in the same picture and must be accompanied by a government issued photo ID, 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 randomly be evaluated as for consistency to the grade indicated and removed if in PCGS's sole opinion the grades are inconsistent.
It's too bad that PCGS might have to make that change about the image. Most reasonable, and honest, folks would already be doing that. Anyone who sells coins, and most who buy/collect them know that what a coin actually looks like is considered important, particulary for non-modern/non-bullion pieces.
For a coin almost 100 years ago, one would think that one should use only a picture of that coin or none (or state very explicitly that it isn't the coin pictured...and that is a stretch).
Does matter if it is done privately, but once you make images/coins "public", an honest/thoughtful person would hopefully realize that.
Quite an interesting thread and just too bad that actions by some are likely to result in what should have been understood, but unwritten, rules now having to be written. Just more work for BJ and Cosetta, it appears. I am sure they are happy about it
<< 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? >>
Absolutely not. Hence all his "dancing with words." Sounds like a politician, or a lawyer trying to confuse the plaintiff(s) or stray from the facts
<<Are stock photos or photos that represent a coin in a particular grade specifically disallowed?>>
Translated - my MPL sets, whether the all time finest, or #3, are a fraud
<<Roger will do whatever doesn't violate the technicalities of rules but doesn't respect the spirit of the rules>>
Bingo
RB was just trying to pump his ego with a set(s) that was more of a fantasy - to try to fit in with "phantom" respect in the MPL world. He is guilty of more than just photo "borrowing". That action in itself is blatent fraud, stealing and lying with regard to the said sets.
I can defame all I want - I am not part of the PCGS registry world!!!
Tex, For what it's worth, you have publically come clean, and your point about church is well-taken. I'm not being a wise guy - I think it takes a big man to stand up. I apologize if I came down like a ton of bricks, but right or wrong, I did feel protective to our group (I'd do the same thing if I perceived someone wronging you, by the way). You made a mistake, and have said as much. What else is there to say? Anybody who keeps pounding at this point is probably being a hypocrite, on some level. But to respect the integrity of the Registry, as we all want to do, do you agree that maybe the set ought to come off the "finest' list. Is that fair, in your opinion, or do you think I'm still attacking you for no reason? Clearly, PGCS will address the issue with new rules, as you have suggested, but in the interim, this sends a strong message to them and our group about where we are coming from. Do you agree with my position?
No harm, no foul, if we fix it proactively, right? We walk away with our self-respect, show PCGS we can honestly maintain ourselves, and tomorrow is another day?
A lot has been said since my last post on Saturday. I said then that the problem is that people here do not believe what Roger says and that is a BIG problem. I still believe that statement is true after reading the last 40 or 50 posts in this tread. I don't believe much more can be said by Roger in his defense and so I will expect the TTSD set will be removed from the all time finest list by the June 30th deadline. Steve
Lloyd: I have invoices and bank statements that correspond to the dates and amounts for each purchase. I have a bill of sale and a bank wire notification for the sale.
Duane: I would be more than happy to ask PCGS to remove my set the sooner that EITHER of the following two events occured:
1. The new owner registered the set (to be fair to everyone so that two identical sets are not in the all-time finest list), or 2. PCGS ammended (appended?) the rules to address what is clearly lacking regarding the rules for posting images in registry sets (as a gesture of goodwill).
Note that #2 above can be done by PCGS in about 5 minutes tomorrow if they chose to.
Steve: at this point I really don't care what PCGS does (or when).
And although it's no one's business, I was into the set for 25% of the cost (plus my expertise) and 50% of the profit. Don't really know if that technically made me an "owner", an "agent", or a hybrid of the two.
I won't reply again to this thread no matter what. Feel free to e-mail or PM me.
It feels like it took forever and was like pulling teeth, but I for one believe that Roger has finally addressed all of the issues, whether one believes him (maybe I'm gullible, but I do) or not.
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is!
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>1. The new owner registered the set (to be fair to everyone so that two identical sets are not in the all-time finest list) >>
I agree, why take down the set? Just take down the images. The registry is supposed (at least i think) to provide an accurate account of what is out there in PCGS holders? As long as the new owner isn't listed as well I say let the set remain without pics...
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!!!
Does this whole run, dodge, and jump effort by RBinTex remind anyone of the way ManOfCoin acted, when caught doctoring the colors on coins he was selling. You think this may end up playing out the same???
<< <i>1. The new owner registered the set (to be fair to everyone so that two identical sets are not in the all-time finest list) >>
I agree, why take down the set? Just take down the images. The registry is supposed (at least i think) to provide an accurate account of what is out there in PCGS holders? As long as the new owner isn't listed as well I say let the set remain without pics... >>
Because he said on this thread that he bought them with the intention of selling them. He also maintains a inventory of coins for the purpose of selling -- not a collection. Registry Sets are for collections, not inventory.
So I feel good that an "inventory" set has been deleted from the "Registry Set." There are some other series where this goes on, and that should be stopped as well. In fact there was a great bogus set assembled from unused from acutions and eBay that were never owned coins .... and it got an award and write up in the PCGS newsletter (before the mag). What a sham!!
There will be no quarter, there will be no surrender, there will be no mercy. Enemies of the Matte Proof Nation consider yourselves warned.
I felt the same surge of blood through my veins while hot on the trail of the would-be culprit.
There is no Matte Proof Lincoln big enough to hide behind when you're a rascal (is that slander?) Rascal is pretty bad, no? Okay, maybe rapscallion. Oh no, a mispell - I'll never live that down. But that does sound 'nicer' and kind of endearing. Ya know, 'endearing;, like someone stealing apple pie, or picking grandmas purse. Or being American. I read in a book somewhere that just being American allows any citizen to take other peoples coins. I know, I thought the same thing. It sounds crazy, right. But I know that I read it somewhere (maybe in this Forum), so is must be true. I hope that my statement does not shock another person's feelings. That would be extremly rude. It would be like, I dunno, maybe wasting the entire collective weekend of every member of your community. Yeah, i think I found the analogy......Of course, these are JUST MY opinions, and ouside of the East coast, may actually be considered to be unconventional, so please understand my differant opinions.
I wonder if i can invoice my standard $450.00 hourly rate for the weekend cleanup job........ Nay- Who would I bill, anyway??
Grasshopper- I thought you were one of those high powered lawyers but see you represent the poor instead at 450 dollars an hour You will have to take on some of those 40 percent malpractice jobs to up your registry set, or get some of that Melespenoma (sp) action they are always trying to drum up on those TV commericals. lol
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
It's nice to know that my feelings about the "ttsd" MPL set were also felt by most of us on this forum. The excitment we enjoy in owning and/or craving MPL's cause us to feel very strongly that only true collections be included in the PCGS set registry for Matte Proof Lincoln cents. This is particularly true for the listing of "All Time Finest". To put the ttsd set up there with Stewart and Doug just NEVER seemed right to me. Hopefully, this issue is closed. I want to thank everyone who by their comments on this thread or by personal communication caused PCGS to do the right thing. Steve
Comments
Please see: http://www.rogerscoins.com/registry.htm. Roger, as you communicate on your site: "As one of our many services, Rogers' Coins offers you a personal portal to the popular PCGS Set Registry" Tell me that's not current.
Roger, you are extremely insulting. And you are not as slick as you think.
1) Yes, Roger, you sound like a 'dealer' to me;
2) If not, what 'services" (one of many services) do you offer to client (ahem) other collectors;
3) Do you have PCGS to deep link attach to their site?
4) Maybe a mistake has been made; have you ever been officially a dealer? (is Roger's Coins listed as a dealer with any state?).
Doug, you've been around a lot longer then me - who inside of PCGS do I forward the string to, or contact directly, to just get this cleaned up - I am sure they don't need this type of public relations. Feel free to forward, if you know.
What do you say to all this. And by the way, I am forwarding to the directors at PCGS, and you can do you fast talking and icon jokes to a new audience.
Duane (speaking on behalf of my fellow collectors).
P.S. If I am mistaken, I will personally and openly apoligize to you. But something about what you are doing does not smell right.
No, that's not current. It was placed there almost two years ago. But thanks for pointing it out.
As I said, the site had not been updated in well over a year.
Why does it matter if I was EVER "officially a dealer" (whatever "officially" means)?
Do your homework man. Roger's Coins is a DBA registered in Texas.
So now you're on a witch hunt or crusade (in areas that you have no dog in the hunt for I might add) for any minor infraction from possibly years ago, huh? And some have said that I'm sad.
Duane Blake - secret agent man. Has a nice ring to it. Bet it drives the girls crazy.
AND WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT I'M ENTITLED TO HAVE A SET REGISTERED? This has gone WAY off topic IMO.
Well - you might want to remove this deep link if you do not have PCGS permission, don't you think. Would you like a definition of "permission"?
Cosetta, what are thoughts on this? I beleive that Roger is abusing this system, but you run this up the ladder and let your inside counsel decide.
Sincerely,
Duane Blake
Oh, young grasshopper, has sensei been informed of your extracurricular sleuthing activities.
Believe me; I did my homework on you before I ever asked you a question. My shorts are very comfortable, but thanks for taking such an interest in my well-being. I have forwarded all of your information to the decision makers at PCGS.
Being an attorney myself, I have no problem discussing with PGCS decision makers and their counsel my views on exactly how you have presented yourself to PCGS and its members, and the implications for them. And I will suggest to exactly what I consider to be appropriate action, and if any outside groups should be contacted. What you are doing is very serious, and not a joke, as I tried (as did many other people) to explain that to you many times. You can make a farce of the system, but I do no believe PGCS is going to allow this. And I think the attorney general in Texas may want a word with you, as well.
You can push this as far as you want. But Roger, I really think you should do the right thing before this escalates any further.
Again, take it for what it is worth.
Duane Blake
Your veiled threats notwithstanding, the only farce is the position you are taking.
It never ceases to amaze me how sleazy attorneys can argue anything to bolster their side regardless of how ludicrous or unfair it is.
You were the genius that raised the following non-issue:
"But for other instances, check out Retired Sets "Roger's Coins - 17th" and "Roger's Coins - 6th". The 1913 pictured is the same coin as in Curley's present set, with the identical PGGS.
Curley, can you confirm? Geez, Tex, what up? Got any of mine? Let's the detectives go to work."
There was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING improper regarding this '13. Don't you think that given YOU were wrong in the clear negatively directed inference and implication that YOU should now apologize?
Who's not the man now?
But you must be, because I’ll admit, I'm very impressed at the alacrity by which you seem to have ruined your name in about a week. That was brilliant. But your name isn’t important, is it Roger Barone? If it was, this type of stuff I'm going to outline below would not follow you around. The only apology I owe anyone is not catching on to your act faster – to PCGS, I apologize.
Maybe YOU need to do your ‘homework’ -- Lawyers call it ‘diligence’, but maybe you already know that. Like you arrogantly said to everyone earlier in this very public forum, you have no obligation to tell anyone anything. So, I looked myself. And now everyone else will too (To all who are interested, my sources point out PGGS Registry strings back around Friday July 22, 2005, as well as Google being helpful to start with our good friend Roger – it seems his last name is Barone and he is a FORMER employee at Anaconda - a dealer, I guess, you can read yourself and judge his character issues – Roger Barone is now the registrant of www.rogerscoins.com; but Roger is NOT a dealer – just ask him). Roger, there is nothing veiled about what I am writing to you. Congratulations, as well; I can’t remember the last time anyone referred to me as a “cancer”. You seem to stay in character. So you’re they guy who deserves to be on the Finest Set list, huh? Right!
And by the way, if you want to mock me, my dealer and friend, Brain Wagner (who is an honest man and represents himself AS A DEALER, not collector), and fellow collectors, one of whom who you refer to as "Sherlock", take your best shot – if I didn’t have a ‘dog in the hunt’, you’ve given me one here very quickly. Besides that, truth is, people taking advantage of others don’t get too far in my book.
I don't know if you worry about jail, and frankly don't care, but if you don’t turn this around quickly, I hope you lose your PCGS membership, at the very least. How far do you want to take this? You tell me, and I'll be happy to oblige. Should I call the attorney general?? You know better then me, right?
So, are you going to be smart and do the right thing, and remove that "Finest Inventory" collection and this thing maybe blows over, and the flowers bloom, or do we step it up?
My guess is no. But that’s okay. People like you don’t take too long to be found out and crawl away.
As my 17 year old would say: “You’ve been busted, dude”.
Your move.
Duane Blake
A simple answer to this question would have saved a lot of time, name calling, and threatening of eachother imho. Is the 1915 in the Heritage picture the same coin that was in your possession on May 9th and in the same slab as shown in the Heritage pic? If not, why post a picture of a coin not in your set? If it is the same coin I'm just really confused at this point about what happened.
Mark
I knew I had remembered RBinTex from somewhere. I think I agree with irishMike on page 6.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>So now I should be sued and arrested? Why stop there. Perhaps drawn and quartered, tarred and feathered, or boiled in oil would be more appropriate >>
How about keel-hauling? That would give you a chance to prove your innocence. If you're still alive when they pull you out of the water, it means you really didn't do anything wrong after all.
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!
Not only has your speech now risen to the level of inaccurate, libelous, abusive, threatening, harassing, hateful, & false and/or defamatory, you have now clearly defamed me (accusing me of previously working for Anaconda) as well as made public private information of another member (by publishing my name), and DID NOT have my permission to provide a link to my website - all clear violations of the Terms of Membership of these message boards.
EVERYTHING IN BOLD BELOW, YOU VIOLATED (COUNSELOR):
"Posting Rules and General Rules of Conduct - You agree that you will not use or allow others to use your membership in these Forums to:
Post or transmit any Materials, or links to any Materials, which are knowingly false and/or defamatory, libelous, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented or threatening, which violate the right of privacy or any other right of any person or entity, or which intentionally or unintentionally violate any local, state, federal or international law or regulation.
Post or transmit any Materials, or links to any Materials, that infringe any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, right of publicity or other proprietary rights of any party. You may not post or transmit Materials that are not created or owned by you unless you have previously obtained permission from the owner thereof to post and transmit such Materials in the Forums and to license such Materials to us as set forth above."
It will be I seeking redress with PCGS come Monday.
That said, everyone around here that cared to know, already knew my name was Roger Barone. It's also no secret that my website was Roger's Coins (and as such no revelation that I was the registrant).
More distressingly, you, with reckless disregard for the truth, published a false statement (with depraved indifference I might add) that you either knew or should have known was false at the time you published it.
I will make a formal complaint against you with your state bar association (as well as to your superiors &/or partners to the extent any exist) as soon as I proove you are really an attorney (although I find it hard to believe) and find out where you practice.
If the quality of your "due diligence" thus far is indicative of your prowess as an attorney (don't forget, you COMPLETELY BLEW IT ON CURLY'S '13 ALSO), God help your clients.
As for you allusions to the fact that I have something to hide by continuing to claim you will report me to the Texas attorney general, you can only be doing so to threaten and harass as I'm sure you have no factual basis to make any report that could even be remotely construed as having been made in good faith.
Lastly, if you think dredging up issues that were all amicably resolved in the end from years ago are gonna score you points with the people that have been here a while, you are sadly mistaken. The best you can hope for, (as any lowlife attorney that either can't prove their case as the plaintiff or know they'll lose as a defendant) is to obfiscate the real issues and inject so many tangents so as to confuse and cast dispersion instead of dealing with the real issues head on.
Heck, I've had over 50 speeding tickets in my life. Some in school zones. SURELY a "dangerous criminal" such as myself that recklessly disregarded the lives of all those poor schoolchildren (by going 28 in a 20, e.g.) isn't worthy to have a registry set. What's your next argument counselor?
In short, you are a petty and vengeful, moron. Bring it on.
p.s. if selling coins is both a necessary AND sufficiant determinant of dealer status, than I assert that MANY "collectors" around here are MUCH more the dealer than I (at least since 2/07 when I stopped - in my mind and for all practical purposes - being a "dealer"). The fact that I let the website just sit there basically untouched since then is proof of nothing.
p.p.s. and btw, the ONLY Google hit on my name that is really me (that I found) is THIS ONE that lists me as one of the parish council members my church. Perhaps I can get My Cousin to speak to some people you know about you.
Thank you for finally cutting out the disrespectful icons. That's a start. But threatening me on personal and professional levels though, is not a good idea. But feel free to vent and wiggle as you may; it still does not answer the question you've been asked a dozen times (forgive me, 'roughly' a dozen times).
Do what you think is appropriate with PGCS with your redress. Stating that you worked for Anaconda is not 'slander' or 'libel', it's probably a complement (I like Anaconda). But whatever you may feel about that, all I've asked you to do is be polite and explain what was happening with the posting of the 1915 MPL. And the only one to deep link anything is you (between your site and PGCS site, as I pointed out). That, without permission, is an unauthorized use of the PCGS website, I believe. What is your reason for doing that?? As far as the state bar, I do practice, and we can sit down and show them this string together. If you have acted wrongly, the bar and PCGS will support me. And yes, if you have done anything fraudulent, I will report this string to the Texas attorney general's office, and they can investigate. I was trying to give you a face-saving out. But you are choosing to push. You have insulted my profession, abilities, called me a lowlife attorney, petty, bitter, vengeful, moron and a 'freakin' psycho'.
Yet through all this rhetoric, you still have not directly answered the question: It is this (asked by yet another member collector above: "Mark", and he is clearly not the only one):
"Is the 1915 in the Heritage picture the same coin that was in your possession on May 9th and in the same slab as shown in the Heritage pic? If not, why post a picture of a coin not in your set? If it is the same coin I'm just really confused at this point about what happened"
That's the question which has been asked about a dozen times on this string, and you seem to not answer?? I'm already brought to the attention of PCGS (as have others), and if you have committed deceit, it will be exposed.
You have started a new link now about whether dealers should be about to own and retire sets. That is not the question, and you know it.
The reason I took any interest in the matter at all (if you really like to know, is that you, through word and action, appear to be thumbing your nose at our Registry system, and you appear to be a fast, underhanded operator in posting this great set. I did not like that to begin with, and now with the name calling and all the other ‘smoke’, I just think you're certainly behaving like a jerk, and believe you are hiding something even more. Why not answer the question, and prove me, and the others, wrong?
So, as far a I'm still concerned, unless you remove that set from the All Time Finest list, or answer the question as to whether you had the coin in your possession May 9th, and now, apologize to a whole lot of people, I will work with whom ever I need to get you off the membership roster, at the least.
So did you misrepresent PCGS and it’s members about possession of the 1915 coin you posted, or are you legitimate? What is so hard about that question, if you are legitimate?
Duane Blake
Maybe counselor you are a smart man after all. Tell me (at least hypothetically giving an interpretation you'd give for a client of yours on the one hand and what you would ascribe it meant if uttered by the client of an opposing counsel on the other - as you have done here) what the above says to you?
Also tell me what right you think you have to a more direct answer?
I have NO obligation in ANY regard to ANYONE (nor does anyone on these boards have ANY standing in this issue) regarding images posted to a registry set.
If you have any REAL evidence that states otherwise, PLEASE share it.
So where do you practice law?
Off to church now. I'll say a prayer for you.
Maybe counselor you are a smart man after all. Tell me (at least hypothetically giving an interpretation you'd give for a client of yours on the one hand and what you would ascribe it meant if uttered by the client of an opposing counsel on the other - as you have done here) what the above says to you?
**Thank you, Tex. hypothetically, here is my response to a client or non-client re the above bolded statement:
“Perceptions are important, and hypothetically, I believe that you a) never did intend on posting the images; believe that you were careless in posting them, and made a mistake. But tell me, image or not, was the actual coin in your legal possession when you actually posted the set images and/or retired the set? If you coin(s) were not in your legal possession when you actually posted the set or retired the set, then you may consider the alternatives: a) keep the set in place and cross your fingers that no one notices (that’s a little iffy on the advice end, and I would not advocate that, because it involves what appears to be a deceitful act); b) Remove the set immediately and chalk it up to a mistake (that would be my advice). But, if you actually DID have possession of the coin(s), for perception’s sake, explain to you group what happened, and no harm, no foul”**
Also tell me what right you think you have to a more direct answer?
**“Good question – Tex, you and I are members of the same Registry group, and we have an obligation to report things that don’t look ‘right’. We are self-policing. I think you would protect the integrity of the Registry, just like any of the members. This is not a personal thing for me against you; I just wanted an answer to a question that had everyone feeling a little bad, to be honest. I do believe everyone IS just hoping that this was a mistake, and we can all do the right thing here, and move on.”**
I have NO obligation in ANY regard to ANYONE (nor does anyone on these boards have ANY standing in this issue) regarding images posted to a registry set.
**”Maybe, maybe not, Tex. Perceptions are important, and hypothetically, when someone asks you a question about an act that appears to be related to deceit and your name, I would think you would welcome the idea of clearing it up. It’s your name. Look at the Registry string, the members are cutting you slack right and left and begging you to stand up and explain”**
If you have any REAL evidence that states otherwise, PLEASE share it.
**”Doug stated it earlier in the string, Tex. There is the spirit of the rules and the rules themselves. The spirit you can decide for yourself. I’ve made myself clear on that point.
On the rule itself, as Doug supplied it to the group himself:
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.”
You may not actually have used the terminology “for sale”. However, the perceived ‘infraction’ of the policy appeared when someone asked you the question (Steve, maybe) as to if you had actual possession of the coin(s) when you posted and retired the set. I think your perceived evasiveness on the response made people suspicious, so we now have a string with over 100 responses that could have been squared very early in the game. That is the difference between the spirit and the technical violation of a rule. You appeared to have broken the spirit, if not the technical rule itself (but I cannot actually tell, because you refuse to answer the direct question, to anyone in the Registry string, as far as I can see”**
Tex, if I am mistaken, just say so, will you? I’ll be the first to apologize. Likewise, if you made a mistake and posted the set without possession of the coin(s), then say so. Who cares? If it’s true, why not tell a group of your colleagues that you did not have possession during the time in question, made a mistake, and want to rectify it, be it technical or ethical error. That’s all I’ve said. I can’t speak for the others, but think the sentiment is shared within our group. Do the right thing, that’s all I’ve said – whatever that may be. You then come out of this appearing to be a bigger man, who did the right thing”**
I practice law all over the United States. I’m not hard to find, Tex, if you want to take your shot.
Prayers are always welcome. Thank you.
Below are receipt and image for my 1915 PR65RD, included in the McCullagh Collection (which I own), whose image you represented as yours for the coin you included in your Registry Set. How can you make the comment?
"I have NO obligation in ANY regard to ANYONE (nor does anyone on these boards have ANY standing in this issue) regarding images posted to a registry set."
You posted the image, representing this was your coin, no one else did. All I know is, you did not own this coin at the time you posted your Registry Set, and for that I raised the flag with PCGS. It would be a real shame if a collection was included in an "All Time Finest" list, that had questionable ownership.
Jonathan
You infer &/or assume I made that representation. Are stock photos or photos that represent a coin in a particular grade specifically disallowed? I think not (at this point). Can you proove me wrong here?
And just to be hyper-legalistic, unless you took the image I used OR owned the rights to it, you DON'T have any legal standing. I'm sure our resident in house counsel will concur.
Anyway, never had any intention of taking and/or posting pics. Coins were in bank the day I posted them. Never even contemplated taking them out Monday to replace what had already been posted over the weekend.
Only did it for the reason I previously stated (in response to robec and pennyannie) and only to provide some "eye candy" for those that saw it. Never thought anyone would care or be offended. Couldn't find the actual coins in the set in any auction archive (although admittedly, I didn't spend much time searching - thus the lazyness factor). Never owned Jonathan's coin (that I know of). Never claimed to. Cert in set for '15 was CLEARLY not his (but you all know that PCGS already knew that).
I would gladly be a proponent of PCGS removing the images from the set entirely if it is still possible.
Glad I went to church today to remind me that confession is good for the soul.
p.s. as per a suggestion in another thread, if the same EXACT set gets registered by the (or any future) new owner in the future, I will personally ask PCGS to remove my set so as to not have two identical sets in the all-time list.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>Are stock photos or photos that represent a coin in a particular grade specifically disallowed? I think not . . . >>
I think you're quite right about that, as far as I know, but it also sounds extremely disingenuous to me.
I have a couple dozen different PCGS Registry sets. Except for the MPL's, they're mostly all type sets. High quality photography is important to me, and I feel bad when I have empty slots with no pictures, even when it's a common coin that everybody sees every day, like a Washington quarter. I have photographs from different sellers, I've paid for several dozen Trueviews, and I've begun the process of taking photos of my own. I feel conflicted when I have 2 photos to choose from and one is more accurate while the other is more flattering. I feel conflicted when I have a coin with negative eye appeal filling a slot - I'd like to upgrade the coin, but in the meanwhile, would I rather show nothing or a photo of an "ugly" coin? But what NEVER occurs to me is to show a photo ". . . that represents a coin in a particular grade . . ." because I would consider that to be dishonest. Nobody needs or wants someone to show them what a Washington quarter in MS67 "looks" like, but they just might be curious about what I was willing to put into my set. Maybe some will think the coin is ugly, maybe it could use a better photograph, maybe I'd like to replace it with a shiny white MS66, and maybe I'd really just rather not show a photo of the coin at all, but I would never DREAM of using a picture of another coin with the same grade that's NOT in my set because that would be totally misleading and completely dishonest. I think the fact that you religiously parse PCGS's rules so carefully and then are perfectly comfortable displaying a photo ". . . that represents a coin in a particular grade . . ." without any compunction whatsoever is actually quite telling. It goes a long way toward explaining why you're having so much trouble with a lot of individuals on this board.
I have a 1793 Chain Cent in AU53. The obverse of the planchet has so many (mint made) potmarks it looks like it's cratered like the face of the moon. It has unattractive eye appeal but that's what it looks like. It doesn't look like the Coinfacts image. Maybe I should use the Coinfacts image instead, but somehow I don't think so, and not just because the Coinfacts image isn't from an AU53.
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!
Intellectual fodder: I thought that there was a certain fungibility to PCGS graded coins. Is that NOT the premise that the "sight unseen" market and the price guide is built on?
Was it so terrible that the concept was extended to images (if only for convenience and perhaps being over eager to please)? Anyone care to make a case for a total lack of fungibility?
That said, I will NEVER do THAT again!!!
I personally oppose the view that argues a non-rule was violated yet find it odd that those holding that view appear willing to do nothing to try to get the rules changed - NOT pointing any fingers here.
As an alternative, and to productively channel the many dissenting opinions, why not request that PCGS consider the addition to the registry set rules the image guidelines (or something similar) outlined below?
If the registrant wishes to post an image(s) to a coin that is registered into one of his or her sets, the image(s):
1. must, IN GOOD FAITH, be of the same exact 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 hand by the registrant himself. For this purpose, the coin and the registrant's face must be in the same picture and must be accompanied by a government issued photo ID, 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 randomly be evaluated as for consistency to the grade indicated and removed if in PCGS's sole opinion the grades are inconsistent.
Most reasonable, and honest, folks would already be doing that. Anyone who sells coins, and most who buy/collect them know that what a coin actually looks like is considered important, particulary for non-modern/non-bullion pieces.
For a coin almost 100 years ago, one would think that one should use only a picture of that coin or none (or state very explicitly that it isn't the coin pictured...and that is a stretch).
Does matter if it is done privately, but once you make images/coins "public", an honest/thoughtful person would hopefully realize that.
Quite an interesting thread and just too bad that actions by some are likely to result in what should have been understood, but unwritten, rules now having to be written. Just more work for BJ and Cosetta, it appears. I am sure they are happy about it
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
Almost as much fun as watching survivorman reruns.
And yes a rule change regarding photographs should be instituted.
Now I see why some big time registry owners choose NOT to post images (My apologies)
Roger never get a job with the Israeli Government writing Bomb Defusing Training Manuals.
Hannah has not baked a cake yet.....there is more to this story.
Absolutely not. Hence all his "dancing with words." Sounds like a politician, or a lawyer trying to confuse the plaintiff(s) or stray from the facts
<<Are stock photos or photos that represent a coin in a particular grade specifically disallowed?>>
Translated - my MPL sets, whether the all time finest, or #3, are a fraud
<<Roger will do whatever doesn't violate the technicalities of rules but doesn't respect the spirit of the rules>>
Bingo
RB was just trying to pump his ego with a set(s) that was more of a fantasy - to try to fit in with "phantom" respect in the MPL world. He is guilty of more than just photo "borrowing". That action in itself is blatent fraud, stealing and lying with regard to the said sets.
I can defame all I want - I am not part of the PCGS registry world!!!
Tex, For what it's worth, you have publically come clean, and your point about church is well-taken. I'm not being a wise guy - I think it takes a big man to stand up. I apologize if I came down like a ton of bricks, but right or wrong, I did feel protective to our group (I'd do the same thing if I perceived someone wronging you, by the way). You made a mistake, and have said as much. What else is there to say? Anybody who keeps pounding at this point is probably being a hypocrite, on some level. But to respect the integrity of the Registry, as we all want to do, do you agree that maybe the set ought to come off the "finest' list. Is that fair, in your opinion, or do you think I'm still attacking you for no reason? Clearly, PGCS will address the issue with new rules, as you have suggested, but in the interim, this sends a strong message to them and our group about where we are coming from. Do you agree with my position?
No harm, no foul, if we fix it proactively, right? We walk away with our self-respect, show PCGS we can honestly maintain ourselves, and tomorrow is another day?
Fair?
Duane
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Duane: I would be more than happy to ask PCGS to remove my set the sooner that EITHER of the following two events occured:
1. The new owner registered the set (to be fair to everyone so that two identical sets are not in the all-time finest list), or
2. PCGS ammended (appended?) the rules to address what is clearly lacking regarding the rules for posting images in registry sets (as a gesture of goodwill).
Note that #2 above can be done by PCGS in about 5 minutes tomorrow if they chose to.
Steve: at this point I really don't care what PCGS does (or when).
And although it's no one's business, I was into the set for 25% of the cost (plus my expertise) and 50% of the profit. Don't really know if that technically made me an "owner", an "agent", or a hybrid of the two.
I won't reply again to this thread no matter what. Feel free to e-mail or PM me.
Take Care,
Roger
That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is!
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 can now report that the "ttsd set" has been removed from the "Alltime finest MPL" ranking.
<< <i>1. The new owner registered the set (to be fair to everyone so that two identical sets are not in the all-time finest list) >>
I agree, why take down the set? Just take down the images. The registry is supposed (at least i think) to provide an accurate account of what is out there in PCGS holders? As long as the new owner isn't listed as well I say let the set remain without pics...
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
You think this may end up playing out the same???
<< <i>
<< <i>1. The new owner registered the set (to be fair to everyone so that two identical sets are not in the all-time finest list) >>
I agree, why take down the set? Just take down the images. The registry is supposed (at least i think) to provide an accurate account of what is out there in PCGS holders? As long as the new owner isn't listed as well I say let the set remain without pics... >>
Because he said on this thread that he bought them with the intention of selling them. He also maintains a inventory of coins for the purpose of selling -- not a collection. Registry Sets are for collections, not inventory.
So I feel good that an "inventory" set has been deleted from the "Registry Set." There are some other series where this goes on, and that should be stopped as well. In fact there was a great bogus set assembled from unused from acutions and eBay that were never owned coins .... and it got an award and write up in the PCGS newsletter (before the mag). What a sham!!
There will be no quarter, there will be no surrender, there will be no mercy. Enemies of the Matte Proof Nation consider yourselves warned.
I felt the same surge of blood through my veins while hot on the trail of the would-be culprit.
There is no Matte Proof Lincoln big enough to hide behind when you're a rascal (is that slander?) Rascal is pretty bad, no? Okay, maybe rapscallion. Oh no, a mispell - I'll never live that down. But that does sound 'nicer' and kind of endearing. Ya know, 'endearing;, like someone stealing apple pie, or picking grandmas purse. Or being American. I read in a book somewhere that just being American allows any citizen to take other peoples coins. I know, I thought the same thing. It sounds crazy, right. But I know that I read it somewhere (maybe in this Forum), so is must be true. I hope that my statement does not shock another person's feelings. That would be extremly rude. It would be like, I dunno, maybe wasting the entire collective weekend of every member of your community. Yeah, i think I found the analogy......Of course, these are JUST MY opinions, and ouside of the East coast, may actually be considered to be unconventional, so please understand my differant opinions.
I wonder if i can invoice my standard $450.00 hourly rate for the weekend cleanup job........ Nay- Who would I bill, anyway??
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry