<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. And no one seems to think that's a problem?
I've seen some very long threads where someone takes a coin out of a NCS/ANACs holder, sells it raw on ebay for big money, and gets crucified here. To be honest I can't see the difference. >>
BINGO! Rare or not, PCGS clearly net graded this coin. Send in a damaged (in this same manner) 09-S VDB, and it will come back in their silly 'Genuine' slab. Send in a rarity, and they'll slab it with a wink and a nod to the submitter and market. nice.
Not a great way to try to prove you're providing an unbiased opinion on the coin itself. There are many examples of much older coins than this that are bodybagged for this sort of damage, but I guess PCGS needs these in their population reports to prop itself up.
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
me? dunno, but i can tell from the pics it's scratched and NCS got it right.
for PCGS, it went something like this:
Finalizer (on phone): "hey boss, we've got a damaged rarity here (recites the coin type)" Boss man: "hmmm....looks like i don't have many in the pop reports, do I?" Finalizer: "no sir, doesn't look like it. Wink and a nod on this one?" Boss man: "yup, we need it. net grade it and send it back to the lucky submitter" Finalizer: "will do"
<< <i>A very interesting post......Please allow me to Retort
the coin was bought at auction and sent in just once, grading fine 15 the first time at PCGS it was not sent in by me but I did have a financial interest the coin is definately not burnished After examining the coin it was believed it had a decent to high probability of grading It does have a scratch but its an old scratch that blends nicely into the coin and should not keep the coin from grading PCGS has a policy of trying to grade great rarities unless the damage is significant. This scratch is not significant. Check out some 94 dollars for instance. This is a very special very rare coin. However I also believe had this been a 1795 half cent, from an ncs holder in an economy package the outcome would have been the same and the value would have doubled, similar to this outcome. I believe PCGS net graded the coin for the scratch and I think the details are more like vf20. This was correct in my opinion, and clearly that of PCGS. the coin is exactly as it was. Nothing has been changed. regarding the price. No one knows exactly what a coin like this is worth and since it was essentially upgraded from a no grade to a pcgs holder the value has increased greatly it was a gamble to buy this coin and this one paid off many do not. it may not be worth 175k or it may. I think I probably would be willing to discount it some, but feel the price is a near market value estimate. If there would have been another bidder it would have gone higher this was not the final bid in my book. however the NCS holder did eliminate some bidders and cut down on competition. Some bidders, or buyers will not buy coins that are currently no grades and gamble they might be gradable, so there is less competition and the coins could end up going cheap like this one did. if it had been in the auction in a PCGS holder, as it is now, you can rest assured it would have brought more. this is no different than any coin that gets purchased and then gets upgraded. the value equation is dramtically altered a 1900-0 half dollar in 64 is worth 5-6k but in 65 its worth 12k...... its hard to say if this was a one point upgrade like the previous example but I think the point is fair. Coins are not always in the right holder. sometimes they are overgraded sometimes they are undergraded, its not an exact science This coin belongs in a PCGS holder. I invite anyone to come and see this coin in person at the whitman Phili show. The original description was extremly harsh. Our table numbers are 721 and 723. See for yourself. The coin will be there if it is not sold. I`m open to discussion on the price but its not going to relate to the cost The coin has been re-evaluated in a very positive way.... there are only a handful of these coins in PCGS holders this is the second I have ever handled in almost 30 years and I think its one of the great coins in the US catalog Call me today and I`ll make you a deal or trade on this coin its well worth adding to your little sister collection. some of the best buys I ever made we when someone else was taking a windfall profit HARRY www.hlrc.com harry@hlrc.com 800-869-1869 >>
I think it's fair to say this is all one dealers opinion as well as a clever long winded sales pitch from a dealer with a newly reholdered (and now) $175,000.00 coin for sale.
Interesting thread. I, for one, congratulate Harry on this auction win as it is apparent that he was one of only a very few people who actually looked at the coin and determined that it was not burnished. He made a great buy, partly because the coin was in an NCS holder, and partly because he had the knowledge and instinct to realize that the coin would likely be graded as problem free by PCGS, and also because he had the balls to stick to his convictions on the coin at auction.
TomT-1794
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
I asked the question about how long it would take one to grade this coin because it really seems to raise issues that take longer than 10 seconds to examine and evaluate before even considering a numerical grade.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
When this thread was first posted I commented on it twice without ever even looking at a picture of the coin. I didn't need to because my assertion is that whatever value the coin has gained will not be known until it sells again.
However, the arguments which ensued regarding whether or not the coin deserved to be in a "No Problems" holder piqued my interest so I finally went to take a look at Heritage's images of the coin in question. The coin looks fine to me, but I don't grade by PCGS or NGC standards. I also share the opinion that the coin is net graded with details which are certainly closer to VF20 than they are to F12. And, for the sake of my response I'd like to throw the issue of whether or not the piece was burnished out the window. NGC called the surfaces burnished. Heritage called them glossy owing to minor surface manipulation. And, PCGS called them "no problem". Fine. The coin is a terrific rarity and I for one would have no problems owning it sans plastic.
Yet I am struck dumb by the people I see clamoring to the defense of PCGS's decision to put the coin in a "No Problem" holder, praising the current owners brilliant purchase, and bashing the stupidity of NGC and the former owner. Even the current owner clearly states PCGS net graded this coin due to scratches. But, here I sit and read posts from people who regularly bash coin doctors or feign disgust at people who crack coins out of "Problem Holders" and sell them raw, which praise the purchase and subsequent markup of this coin as the gutsy act of a really smart operator.
Frankly, were I the current owner of this coin I'd far prefer this thread didn't exist at all vs. seeing the continued arguments regarding what holder the coin belonged in and who is right as all it does is breed doubt. But as I find some of the comments I've seen hurled towards peoples differing opinion of what remains a wholly subjective system of grading repugnant I feel the need to point out the following:
While I for one wouldn't expect anyone to spend $75,000 on a coin the didn't see in person, let alone $175,000 I do find it interesting that Heritage marketed this coin on the Internet using these pictures and description:
<<Important 1796 C-1 No Pole Half Cent, Fine Details
1796 1/2 C No Pole--Scratched, Burnished--NCS. Fine Details. C-1, B-1, R.6. Still Rarity-6 after all these years, there are approximately 20 known examples of the 1796 No Pole rarity in existence. The grade distribution is interesting, as the 20 or so survivors include four pieces that are more or less Mint State, followed by five or six middle grade Fine to VF examples, and eight to 10 lower grade pieces. The following abbreviated census is certainly incomplete but it provides an idea of known coins:
1. MS65 Red and Brown Eliasberg, lot 407; 2. MS64 Brown Whitney, lot 1705; 3. MS62 Brown McGuigan Collection; 4. MS60 or finer Missouri Cabinet; 5. XF Details Corroded Heritage (5/2007), lot 56; 6. VF Details Robison, lot 313; 7. Fine 15 Norweb, lot 22; 8. Fine 15 Heritage (2/2000), lot 5281; 9. Fine Details Lester Merkin (3/1969), lot 596; 10. VG, porous 1997 ANA, lot 8087; 11. VG Davis Graves, lot 87; 12. VG. Dr. Charles Ruby, Part I, lot 202; 13. VG 1976 ANA, lot 142; 14. James A. Stack (Stack's, 11/1989), lot 31; 15. AG Bowers and Merena (9/1992), lot 1022; 16. Damaged Dr. Charles Ruby, Part I, lot 203.
In addition to those 16 pieces, there are eight other auction records that are unmatched to the above coins, and the present piece is an entirely new specimen that has never previously been auctioned, to the best of our knowledge. In fact, it has an accompanying brown envelope that indicates a grade of Fine, and a purchase price of $250. The price dates the transaction to sometime in the 1930s. The present specimen has been off the market for several decades, and it is clearly a new example to the present generation of collectors. What an exciting opportunity. We highly recommend that serious bidders give higher consideration to the coin than to the adjectives on the holder. The surfaces are deeply toned, about the color of a black olive. Most of the scratches are found at the center of the reverse, with the obverse having an exceptionally clean appearance. There is a single old scratch across the hair curls, but it is so well blended with the surrounding surfaces that most collectors will give it little attention. The surfaces are slightly glossy, a result of minor surface manipulation that NCS describes as burnishing. This piece probably ranks about 10th finest of those we know of. EAC 8.>>
---
The new owner is marketing the same coin via the Internet using these pictures and description:
<<Without question the rarest and most desirable date and Redbook variety in this popular obsolete denomination. The details on this one are much closer to 20 with some net grading due to old scratches that blend in nicely. A darker but still chocolatecolor with full sharp date and liberty give this extremely scarce issue pleasing overall appeal. Truly a centerpiece of any half cent or U.S. collection of any design. A very important coin virtually never seen on any private list. >>
. . .
Its the same coin. But it is now owned by someone who has a different opinion of it and was fortunate enough to have the coin blessed with a holder that doesn't mention any scratching.
Personally I find it odd that Heritage wouldn't have submitted a coin of this magnitude to both PCGS and NGC in the first place, but I guess that didn't happen.
<< <i>Personally I find it odd that Heritage wouldn't have submitted a coin of this magnitude to both PCGS and NGC in the first place, but I guess that didn't happen. >>
I have to agree here a bit, but that is not for heritage to decide. They could have informed the seller and he decided not to risk it.
<< <i>Personally I find it odd that Heritage wouldn't have submitted a coin of this magnitude to both PCGS and NGC in the first place, but I guess that didn't happen. >>
I have to agree here a bit, but that is not for heritage to decide. They could have informed the seller and he decided not to risk it. >>
Or they might have submitted it and it came back "genuine".
I have to agree here a bit, but that is not for heritage to decide. They could have informed the seller and he decided not to risk it.
What risk? It was already "hammered" as burnished and scratched. The only thing lower is counterfeit, which in this situation seems very unlikely. Heritage can bid on coins in its auctions, esp. if they feel something goes too cheap. Do we know if HLRC is the sole owner of this coin or were there other sharpies that recognized the potential upside and became partial owners of the coin before it was auctioned?
<< <i>Do we know if HLRC is the sole owner of this coin or were there other sharpies that recognized the potential upside and became partial owners of the coin before it was auctioned?
roadrunner >>
it was not sent in by me but I did have a financial interest
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S >>
Can you please post pictures of all of them? >>
no. can you?
K S >>
DK---Your post makes no sense whatsoever. It's obvious CCU doesn't believe there are any or very few burnished copper in PCGS slabs and yet you expect him to produce pics? This is a claim that the you are making so why not show us a few pics?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S >>
Can you please post pictures of all of them? >>
no. can you?
K S >>
I'm not the guy who made the claim that there were many. Obviously you've must have seen them somewhere. Right?
Comments
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. And no one seems to think that's a problem?
I've seen some very long threads where someone takes a coin out of a NCS/ANACs holder, sells it raw on ebay for big money, and gets crucified here. To be honest I can't see the difference. >>
BINGO! Rare or not, PCGS clearly net graded this coin. Send in a damaged (in this same manner) 09-S VDB, and it will come back in their silly 'Genuine' slab. Send in a rarity, and they'll slab it with a wink and a nod to the submitter and market. nice.
Not a great way to try to prove you're providing an unbiased opinion on the coin itself. There are many examples of much older coins than this that are bodybagged for this sort of damage, but I guess PCGS needs these in their population reports to prop itself up.
<< <i>
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S
Lets have some real fun with this thread.
How long would it take you to grade this coin?
I am just waiting for the 10 second answer
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Okay...
Lets have some real fun with this thread.
How long would it take you to grade this coin?
I am just waiting for the 10 second answer
me? dunno, but i can tell from the pics it's scratched and NCS got it right.
for PCGS, it went something like this:
Finalizer (on phone): "hey boss, we've got a damaged rarity here (recites the coin type)"
Boss man: "hmmm....looks like i don't have many in the pop reports, do I?"
Finalizer: "no sir, doesn't look like it. Wink and a nod on this one?"
Boss man: "yup, we need it. net grade it and send it back to the lucky submitter"
Finalizer: "will do"
<< <i>
<< <i> why is this a issue before the coin even actually sells???
Why would it be any more of an issue after it sells? Two consenting adults, and all that. >>
cuz WE DON'T KNOW YET WHAT IT'LL ACTUALLY SELL FOR!
what if someone offers 82738.92 & it is accepted?
& he does deal.
K S >>
OK I offer $82738.92. I don't think it will be accepted.
<< <i>A very interesting post......Please allow me to Retort
the coin was bought at auction and sent in just once, grading fine 15 the first time at PCGS
it was not sent in by me but I did have a financial interest
the coin is definately not burnished
After examining the coin it was believed it had a decent to high probability of grading
It does have a scratch but its an old scratch that blends nicely into the coin and should not keep the coin from grading
PCGS has a policy of trying to grade great rarities unless the damage is significant. This scratch is not significant.
Check out some 94 dollars for instance. This is a very special very rare coin. However I also believe had this been a 1795 half cent, from an ncs holder in an economy package the outcome would have been the same and the value would have doubled, similar to this outcome.
I believe PCGS net graded the coin for the scratch and I think the details are more like vf20.
This was correct in my opinion, and clearly that of PCGS.
the coin is exactly as it was. Nothing has been changed.
regarding the price. No one knows exactly what a coin like this is worth and since it was essentially upgraded from a no grade to a pcgs holder
the value has increased greatly
it was a gamble to buy this coin and this one paid off
many do not.
it may not be worth 175k or it may. I think I probably would be willing to discount it some,
but feel the price is a near market value estimate.
If there would have been another bidder it would have gone higher
this was not the final bid in my book.
however the NCS holder did eliminate some bidders and cut down on competition.
Some bidders, or buyers will not buy coins that are currently no grades and gamble they might be gradable,
so there is less competition and the coins could end up going cheap like this one did.
if it had been in the auction in a PCGS holder, as it is now, you can rest assured it would have brought more.
this is no different than any coin that gets purchased and then gets upgraded.
the value equation is dramtically altered
a 1900-0 half dollar in 64 is worth 5-6k but in 65 its worth 12k......
its hard to say if this was a one point upgrade like the previous example but I think the point is fair.
Coins are not always in the right holder.
sometimes they are overgraded
sometimes they are undergraded, its not an exact science
This coin belongs in a PCGS holder.
I invite anyone to come and see this coin in person at the whitman Phili show. The original description was extremly harsh.
Our table numbers are 721 and 723. See for yourself.
The coin will be there if it is not sold.
I`m open to discussion on the price but its not going to relate to the cost
The coin has been re-evaluated in a very positive way....
there are only a handful of these coins in PCGS holders
this is the second I have ever handled in almost 30 years and I think its one of the great coins in the US catalog
Call me today and I`ll make you a deal or trade on this coin
its well worth adding to your little sister collection.
some of the best buys I ever made we when someone else was taking a windfall profit
HARRY
www.hlrc.com
harry@hlrc.com
800-869-1869 >>
I think it's fair to say this is all one dealers opinion as well as a clever long winded sales pitch from a dealer with a newly reholdered (and now) $175,000.00 coin for sale.
<< <i>Okay...
Lets have some real fun with this thread.
How long would it take you to grade this coin?
I am just waiting for the 10 second answer
my 1-second answer/guess is eac 5
K S
Check out some of my 1794 Large Cents on www.coingallery.org
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S >>
Can you please post pictures of all of them?
No more of an idiot than every collector and dealer that viewed the auction and did not outbid Harry.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>The original submitter must be an idiot to let a coin like that go into an NCS holder and not question it or resubmit it.
No more of an idiot than every collector and dealer that viewed the auction and did not outbid Harry. >>
I am sure a good few passed this coin right over when they seen NCS beside it. I know some dealers want nothing to do with problem coins at all.
However, the arguments which ensued regarding whether or not the coin deserved to be in a "No Problems" holder piqued my interest so I finally went to take a look at Heritage's images of the coin in question. The coin looks fine to me, but I don't grade by PCGS or NGC standards. I also share the opinion that the coin is net graded with details which are certainly closer to VF20 than they are to F12. And, for the sake of my response I'd like to throw the issue of whether or not the piece was burnished out the window. NGC called the surfaces burnished. Heritage called them glossy owing to minor surface manipulation. And, PCGS called them "no problem". Fine. The coin is a terrific rarity and I for one would have no problems owning it sans plastic.
Yet I am struck dumb by the people I see clamoring to the defense of PCGS's decision to put the coin in a "No Problem" holder, praising the current owners brilliant purchase, and bashing the stupidity of NGC and the former owner. Even the current owner clearly states PCGS net graded this coin due to scratches. But, here I sit and read posts from people who regularly bash coin doctors or feign disgust at people who crack coins out of "Problem Holders" and sell them raw, which praise the purchase and subsequent markup of this coin as the gutsy act of a really smart operator.
Frankly, were I the current owner of this coin I'd far prefer this thread didn't exist at all vs. seeing the continued arguments regarding what holder the coin belonged in and who is right as all it does is breed doubt. But as I find some of the comments I've seen hurled towards peoples differing opinion of what remains a wholly subjective system of grading repugnant I feel the need to point out the following:
While I for one wouldn't expect anyone to spend $75,000 on a coin the didn't see in person, let alone $175,000 I do find it interesting that Heritage marketed this coin on the Internet using these pictures and description:
<<Important 1796 C-1 No Pole Half Cent, Fine Details
1796 1/2 C No Pole--Scratched, Burnished--NCS. Fine Details. C-1, B-1, R.6. Still Rarity-6 after all these years, there are approximately 20 known examples of the 1796 No Pole rarity in existence. The grade distribution is interesting, as the 20 or so survivors include four pieces that are more or less Mint State, followed by five or six middle grade Fine to VF examples, and eight to 10 lower grade pieces. The following abbreviated census is certainly incomplete but it provides an idea of known coins:
1. MS65 Red and Brown Eliasberg, lot 407; 2. MS64 Brown Whitney, lot 1705; 3. MS62 Brown McGuigan Collection; 4. MS60 or finer Missouri Cabinet; 5. XF Details Corroded Heritage (5/2007), lot 56; 6. VF Details Robison, lot 313; 7. Fine 15 Norweb, lot 22; 8. Fine 15 Heritage (2/2000), lot 5281; 9. Fine Details Lester Merkin (3/1969), lot 596; 10. VG, porous 1997 ANA, lot 8087; 11. VG Davis Graves, lot 87; 12. VG. Dr. Charles Ruby, Part I, lot 202; 13. VG 1976 ANA, lot 142; 14. James A. Stack (Stack's, 11/1989), lot 31; 15. AG Bowers and Merena (9/1992), lot 1022; 16. Damaged Dr. Charles Ruby, Part I, lot 203.
In addition to those 16 pieces, there are eight other auction records that are unmatched to the above coins, and the present piece is an entirely new specimen that has never previously been auctioned, to the best of our knowledge. In fact, it has an accompanying brown envelope that indicates a grade of Fine, and a purchase price of $250. The price dates the transaction to sometime in the 1930s.
The present specimen has been off the market for several decades, and it is clearly a new example to the present generation of collectors. What an exciting opportunity. We highly recommend that serious bidders give higher consideration to the coin than to the adjectives on the holder. The surfaces are deeply toned, about the color of a black olive. Most of the scratches are found at the center of the reverse, with the obverse having an exceptionally clean appearance. There is a single old scratch across the hair curls, but it is so well blended with the surrounding surfaces that most collectors will give it little attention. The surfaces are slightly glossy, a result of minor surface manipulation that NCS describes as burnishing. This piece probably ranks about 10th finest of those we know of. EAC 8.>>
---
The new owner is marketing the same coin via the Internet using these pictures and description:
<<Without question the rarest and most desirable date and Redbook variety in this popular obsolete denomination. The details on this one are much closer to 20 with some net grading due to old scratches that blend in nicely. A darker but still chocolatecolor with full sharp date and liberty give this extremely scarce issue pleasing overall appeal. Truly a centerpiece of any half cent or U.S. collection of any design. A very important coin virtually never seen on any private list. >>
.
.
.
Its the same coin. But it is now owned by someone who has a different opinion of it and was fortunate enough to have the coin blessed with a holder that doesn't mention any scratching.
Personally I find it odd that Heritage wouldn't have submitted a coin of this magnitude to both PCGS and NGC in the first place, but I guess that didn't happen.
<< <i>Personally I find it odd that Heritage wouldn't have submitted a coin of this magnitude to both PCGS and NGC in the first place, but I guess that didn't happen. >>
I have to agree here a bit, but that is not for heritage to decide. They could have informed the seller and he decided not to risk it.
<< <i>
<< <i>Personally I find it odd that Heritage wouldn't have submitted a coin of this magnitude to both PCGS and NGC in the first place, but I guess that didn't happen. >>
I have to agree here a bit, but that is not for heritage to decide. They could have informed the seller and he decided not to risk it. >>
Or they might have submitted it and it came back "genuine".
What risk? It was already "hammered" as burnished and scratched. The only thing lower is counterfeit, which in this situation seems very unlikely. Heritage can bid on coins in its auctions, esp. if they feel something goes too cheap. Do we know if HLRC is the sole owner of this coin or were there other sharpies that recognized the potential upside and became partial owners of the coin before it was auctioned?
roadrunner
<< <i>Do we know if HLRC is the sole owner of this coin or were there other sharpies that recognized the potential upside and became partial owners of the coin before it was auctioned?
roadrunner >>
it was not sent in by me but I did have a financial interest
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S >>
Can you please post pictures of all of them? >>
no. can you?
K S
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S >>
Can you please post pictures of all of them? >>
no. can you?
K S >>
DK---Your post makes no sense whatsoever. It's obvious CCU doesn't believe there are any or very few burnished copper in PCGS slabs and yet you expect him to produce pics? This is a claim that the you are making so why not show us a few pics?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S >>
Can you please post pictures of all of them? >>
no. can you?
K S >>
I can row a boat. Canoe?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>So everyone seems to be saying that PCGS will take a coin out of a problem holder and put it in one of their problem-free holders just to get a rare coin in their slab. >>
No, not everyone is saying that. Some people who actually looked at the coin thought that it was not burnished and therefore should have been 'gradeable'. >>
there has been many burnished coppers put into pcgs holders
K S >>
Can you please post pictures of all of them? >>
no. can you?
K S >>
I'm not the guy who made the claim that there were many. Obviously you've must have seen them somewhere. Right?