"altered and Ungradeable" Ebay auction going for $500.00!!

DoubleEagle59

Check it out, with 3 hours left.

I don't know how people can bid up to $500 for this trash.

Ebay

stinkinlincoln

Even though they are altered by way of AT, the 89CC looks to be well worth the price... Im no Morgan guy really, but isnt the 89CC a key date? Even though its ATed, it has some strong detail going on. That coins not worth $400-500?

DoubleEagle59

<< <i>Even though they are altered by way of AT, the 89CC looks to be well worth the price... Im no Morgan guy really, but isnt the 89CC a key date? Even though its ATed, it has some strong detail going on. That coins not worth $400-500? >>



They were sent back from a grading company as both "Altered and Ungradeable".

This would suggest to me that the date and/or the mintmarks have been altered or counterfeited, not just AT'd.

advalorem

Woud anybody ever intentionally a) buy an altered naked coin in a better date & then b) resell the item to an unsuspecting customer for a profit?

LindeDad

I find it very interesting that the close ups do not show the mint marks!!!!!!!

SirAnthonyAC

I'm not sure but, why is it that the seller can show an extreme closeup of the eagle on the reverse but doesn't show a close up of the mint marks?

If the alteration is AT or over cleaning, then honestly, they are worth it at a discount as genuine but if the alteration is a change in mint mark... well... then no.

If the alternation is wizzing or polishing I would think you could always toss the Morgan in a bag of silver dimes and shake it now and again for a few weeks or walk around with it in your pocket with a bunch of dimes for a few months so it wears as coins would normally... I dunno, sure the grade would drop but it might have normal wear at that point and be a Fine or strong VG rare date... just thinking about it.

I wonder what the number was when it was bagged? I thought the PCGS gives a number to tell you what's wrong with the coin. I could be wrong on that one though.

ProofRainbowRoosevelt

None of his other auctions were "private bidders", and this one is. I can only guess there are multiple people wanting the coins, or this is just another case of shill bidding.

MikeInFL

At least the seller is honest.

hammered54

is there not a 14 day return on this/these coin's??... don't like it send it back..just that simple. or do what some here do... bash the $hit out of him and tattle to ebay about something to do with a fraud....

DieClash

If that 1895 is "altered" it must be the Date and not the MM!

GoldenEyeNumismatics

If those sold for under $1000 for the pair, it's an absolute bargain..... assuming the coins are real...

I'm suspicious of their authenticity.

OnlyGoldIsMoney

I sent a question to the seller if the mintmarks were the altered feature. Here is the answer just received:

"Hi, I am not sure but something with the surface or maybe mintmark they said. I was told they were real coins minted from the us mint. I am not the one who sent them in but I bought them from the person who did and that is what he told me. The coins look 100% real to me but I am no expert. Thanks!"

devious

<< <i>At least the seller is honest. >>



I thought the same thing. A case where one should not blame the seller. [unless of course we bring shill bidding into this but then that's just speculative. I see nothing wrong with the auction listing otherwise.]

tmcsr69

If they were fake coins they would have been returned BB'd as "not genuine". Altered coins normally infers they are real but AT or cleaned or tooled in some fashion.

DieClash

<< <i>If they were fake coins they would have been returned BB'd as "not genuine". Altered coins normally infers they are real but AT or cleaned or tooled in some fashion. >>



I thought "AT" would be returned as "questionable toning/color" and not "altered"

commoncents123

I think it may be a Jedi confidence trick scheme type thing... he admits a major negative to cover up an even bigger negative...that they're fake. Besides, no coins come back from PCGS anymore not in a slab unless they're fake, right?

tightbudget

14 day return policy with return shipping to be paid by seller? What's there to lose? I'd temporarily invest $500 just to see if those things are real if not. If those coins are genuine, then it's a steal.

DieClash

<< <i>14 day return policy with return shipping to be paid by seller? What's there to lose? I'd temporarily invest $500 just to see if those things are real if not. If those coins are genuine, then it's a steal. >>



So what's your highest bid?

tightbudget

<< <i>

<< <i>14 day return policy with return shipping to be paid by seller? What's there to lose? I'd temporarily invest $500 just to see if those things are real if not. If those coins are genuine, then it's a steal. >>



So what's your highest bid? >>



Eh, I've got my money tied up in something else right now. But trust me, if I had the money, I'd bite.

DoubleEagle59

the way I see it is the coins are real (not counterfeit) but they have an altered date and/or mintmark.

The seller states this fact but in a not so obvious way.

Borderline call IMO regarding his/her ethics.

EagleEye

I think it may be a Jedi confidence trick scheme type thing... he admits a major negative to cover up an even bigger negative...that they're fake. Besides, no coins come back from PCGS anymore not in a slab unless they're fake, right?

DieClash

Seller bought this item in April....After purchasing one each 1889-CC and 1895-O. I'll try to go back and post those links!


"rainbow toner"

DieClash

1889-CC Purchase March 17th

DieClash

1895-O Morgan March 28th purchase.

Just a coincidence?

I think not.

mrtrek1701

Hmmmm, "Harshly Cleaned." Nothing a little Liver of Sulfur won't tone away

RBinTex

At least they look real.

I think "altered" refers to the color or surfaces not the date/mm.

OnlyGoldIsMoney

<< <i>At least they look real.

I think "altered" refers to the color or surfaces not the date/mm. >>




Here is how the seller answered to my question about the mint mark:

"Hi, I am not sure but something with the surface or maybe mintmark they said. I was told they were real coins minted from the us mint. I am not the one who sent them in but I bought them from the person who did and that is what he told me. The coins look 100% real to me but I am no expert. Thanks!"

edit for spelling

AUandAG

<< <i>1889-CC Purchase March 17th >>



Different coins, same with the 95-o.

bob

DieClash

<< <i>At least they look real.

I think "altered" refers to the color or surfaces not the date/mm. >>



The 1889-CC at least is genuine if the proverbial "circumstancial evidence" is proved true. The 1895-O doesn't look right to me, but it could be genuine as well. The Seller has over $2,700 tied up in these coins, or so it seems. Let's see what the final hammer price is!

DieClash

<< <i>

<< <i>1889-CC Purchase March 17th >>



Different coins, same with the 95-o.

bob >>



If the Seller's doctoring the coins, don't you think he could be doing the same to the photos?

The 1895-O Eagle's breast looks similar in both images. For sure the markers on before/after images don't match. But if the Seller is selling an 1889-CC and 1895-O that he admits he purchased elsewhere as "altered, not gradeable" and he bought both before he purchased the patina/toning agent, it seems to me to not be so coincidental.

Get a couple of keys at low prices and work on 'em to get 'em in a slab an make some real money is a significant motivation factor if you ask me.

Consequently, I remain skeptical.

Kirk

Wolf359

I think both are real, just AT. To be safe, pay with a credit card, so it can be charged back if needed.

DieClash

Stink Bombs?

DoubleEagle59

different coins IMO

DieClash

<< <i>different coins IMO >>



Probably. I found another 1889-CC graded NCS - AU Details "Polished" in his recent purchases. Link

Based on his record of purchases he seems to be purchasing alot of problem coins in slabs. And based on his purchases of patina/toning agent and stink bombs, methinks he's a chemist and is working these pieces for potential profit. JMHO

Goldbully

Seller should have...at the least, had them put in PCGS 'Genuine' slabs.

Would have brought major $$$$$$$$

Where am I wrong??

Current bid :$1725 ....4 minutes yo go.

DieClash

<< <i>Seller should have...at the least, had them put in PCGS 'Genuine' slabs.

Would have brought major $$$$$$$$

Where am I wrong??

Current bid :$1725 ....4 minutes yo go. >>



Is a so-called "altered" coin genuine, even if w/o the alteration it would be considered genuine? For example, "this is a genuine 1896-O Morgan but the date has been altered with an added '5'?

DieClash

Auctioned ended at $1725. I truly hope if the winner posts on these boards that he/she, share the true grades with the rest of us. I'd also like to know if the Seller is a board member!

JupitarCoins

<< <i>Seller should have...at the least, had them put in PCGS 'Genuine' slabs.

Would have brought major $$$$$$$$

Where am I wrong??

Current bid :$1725 ....4 minutes yo go. >>



Its over someone paid approx.$1725

DoubleEagle59

<< <i>

<< <i>Seller should have...at the least, had them put in PCGS 'Genuine' slabs.

Would have brought major $$$$$$$$

Where am I wrong??

Current bid :$1725 ....4 minutes yo go. >>



Its over someone paid approx.$1725 >>



UH-OH!