Not to change the subject too much, but i just sent in my 1794 1c that, IMO, looks in better condition than that coin.....wonder if mine will be a no problem coin? Actually, I don't wonder.
I wasn't expecting a $369000 coin to sell on eBay, although eBay might be used as a way to advertise the coin... the FVF on a coin like that would be thousands of dollars.
<< <i>I am in the camp who believes that a great rarity should be cut a little slack. >>
I was too, at least until the "genuine" holder came along, because a coin of this magnitude still needs authentication. Now that the services will authenticate and slab problem coins, the main justification for "cutting them slack" seems to vanish, at least in my mind.
<< <i>I am in the camp who believes that a great rarity should be cut a little slack. >>
I was too, at least until the "genuine" holder came along, because a coin of this magnitude still needs authentication. Now that the services will authenticate and slab problem coins, the main justification for "cutting them slack" seems to vanish, at least in my mind. >>
Excellent point!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I think all coins within a given series should be graded using the same standards. >>
Fundamentally I agree with you, but within any given series you can't be 100% black and white, how do you handle some dates that come poorly struck? >>
Poorly struck is a mint made condition, and should be considered on the final grade (assuming the coin is problem free and deserves to "grade"). For damaged, corroded, cleaned, etc. coins that are post mint, then they should be slabbed in the genuine holders no matter what they are.
I think if you are going to attempt to sell a coin with that type of value attached to it you may want to try spell check and get some help with grammar.
Am I the only one on this board that can see that this is a bogus ad? You guys are talking about the coin not the fact that is not a REAL PCGS slab nor that the ad is poorly worded and an obvious fraud.
<< <i>Am I the only one on this board that can see that this is a bogus ad? You guys are talking about the coin not the fact that is not a REAL PCGS slab nor that the ad is poorly worded and an obvious fraud. >>
Actually, it isn't a bogus ad, and that isn't a bogus slab.
I'll take your word CCU. I know the slabs have recently changed, and another well known seller can't spell spit but this sure smells like a Hong Kong Hoi.
<< <i>I think if you are going to attempt to sell a coin with that type of value attached to it you may want to try spell check and get some help with grammar. >>
It's been shown conclusively that there is zero correlation there...
<< <i>I'll take your word CCU. I know the slabs have recently changed, and another well known seller can't spell spit but this sure smells like a Hong Kong Hoi. >>
<< <i>I can't believe I missed this one. The shipping was only $600! >>
They'll probably lose money on the plane ticket they buy to deliver it.
As for the plastic, the more expensive a coin is the less important the plastic. This is consistent with the concept that a TPG opinion make a coins more saleable without in hand inspection or expertise in the series. The more expensive a coin is the more you should have it inspected in hand by an expert. --Jerry
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes. Grading is all about consistency. Otherwise, what's the point? >>
When you have a coin where there's 4 known, grading doesn't mean a thing. All that matters is first, second, third and fourth finest. Mega-rarities get a lot of slack in grading, but their rank remains the same, and that's all that most people pay attention to.
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes, if grading is to be consistent across the board.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes, if grading is to be consistent across the board. >>
I believe the grading of all the Strawberry Leaves is consistent. >>
Grading of all large cents should be consistent, IMHO.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
Yes it is a true piece of numismatic history. So if one is purchasing based on that, I guess it's what someone is willing to pay. Now being that I, like many others, enjoy looking at coins for the beauty they portray, in my opinion, that is one ugly coin..
Positive BST Transactions:
coinsarefun, marmac, LindeDad, andree, robkool, TwoSides2aCoin, waterzooey, agentjim007 All were A++++ Transactions- Thank you !
When you have a coin where there's 4 known, grading doesn't mean a thing. All that matters is first, second, third and fourth finest. Mega-rarities get a lot of slack in grading, but their rank remains the same, and that's all that most people pay attention to.
Then why send it to PCGS? It seems obvious that this is a problem coin. Pre-"Genuine', send it off to ANACS to gt net graded; post 'Genuine' the coin should have garnered that designation.
To those that say it does not matter with ultra rarities, it feels to me like you're saying rules don't apply when your 'special'. Is that 'really' what you're saying, because the part about "grading doesn't mean a thing" opens the question, why grade at all? If collectors of the ultra-rarities know #1, #2, etc. what's the point in grading?
I'm just a little guy here, but it sure feels like slap in the face when I'm basically told I play by one set of rules & all my early coins will come back 'Genuine' because of problems, while those with deep pockets will be excused the indignity of getting such grades because of the rarity. Heaven forbid coins get preferred gradings because of the submitter.
All I ask is for fairness, across the board, whether it be a person or a coin. But maybe fairness is too much to ask?
Lambeau
Posts: 481
Comments
Spring National Battlefield Coin Show is April 12-13, 2024 at the Eisenhower Hotel in Gettysburg, PA. WWW.AmericasCoinShows.com
That is one ugly coin for a third of a million dollars.
I will never fully comprehend the upper end of the coin market. It is because I have to work hard to earn money. I thus assign a high value to money.
Actually, I don't wonder.
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter?
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
To those who wish PCGS would be consistent and not give the benefit of the doubt to rarer coins, yes.
To those who buy coins not slabs, no.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
To those who wish PCGS would be consistent and not give the benefit of the doubt to rarer coins, yes.
To those who buy coins not slabs, no.
I am in the camp who believes that a great rarity should be cut a little slack.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
To those who wish PCGS would be consistent and not give the benefit of the doubt to rarer coins, yes.
To those who buy coins not slabs, no.
I am in the camp who believes that a great rarity should be cut a little slack. >>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
To those who wish PCGS would be consistent and not give the benefit of the doubt to rarer coins, yes.
To those who buy coins not slabs, no.
I am in the camp who believes that a great rarity should be cut a little slack. >>
(I just wanted to see how others felt about this, and the only way I saw how was to interject criticism)
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I am in the camp who believes that a great rarity should be cut a little slack. >>
I was too, at least until the "genuine" holder came along, because a coin of this magnitude still needs authentication. Now that the services will authenticate and slab problem coins, the main justification for "cutting them slack" seems to vanish, at least in my mind.
<< <i>
<< <i>I am in the camp who believes that a great rarity should be cut a little slack. >>
I was too, at least until the "genuine" holder came along, because a coin of this magnitude still needs authentication. Now that the services will authenticate and slab problem coins, the main justification for "cutting them slack" seems to vanish, at least in my mind. >>
Excellent point!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
No, not at all. In fact, send me the coin and I'll crack it out and resubmit. What'd ya think, does it matter?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
<< <i>I think all coins within a given series should be graded using the same standards. >>
Bingo.
<< <i>I think all coins within a given series should be graded using the same standards. >>
Fundamentally I agree with you, but within any given series you can't be 100% black and white, how do you handle some dates that come poorly struck?
<< <i>Is the seller actually trying to sell this coin on eBay or is he just using eBay to advertise his coin so he can sell it off eBay? >>
I think there is one person on the planet who can answer that question.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think all coins within a given series should be graded using the same standards. >>
Fundamentally I agree with you, but within any given series you can't be 100% black and white, how do you handle some dates that come poorly struck? >>
Poorly struck is a mint made condition, and should be considered on the final grade (assuming the coin is problem free and deserves to "grade"). For damaged, corroded, cleaned, etc. coins that are post mint, then they should be slabbed in the genuine holders no matter what they are.
<< <i>I think all coins within a given series should be graded using the same standards. >>
Variety, it is the very spice of life.
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes. Grading is all about consistency. Otherwise, what's the point?
I think if you are going to attempt to sell a coin with that type of value attached to it you may want to try spell check and get some help with grammar.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes. Grading is all about consistency. Otherwise, what's the point? >>
I think the point is that this is a commercial venture, not a democratic exercise in coin grading.
<< <i>Did anyone notice that he also had a PCGSFR-02 specimen for sale at a higher price?
That's becausse the lower grade piece is a rarer variety than the G-4!
<< <i>
<< <i>Did anyone notice that he also had a PCGSFR-02 specimen for sale at a higher price?
That's becausse the lower grade piece is a rarer variety than the G-4! >>
I thought it was because it's more desirable in a lowball set!
You guys are talking about the coin not the fact that is not a REAL PCGS slab nor that the ad is poorly worded and an obvious fraud.
<< <i>Am I the only one on this board that can see that this is a bogus ad?
You guys are talking about the coin not the fact that is not a REAL PCGS slab nor that the ad is poorly worded and an obvious fraud. >>
Actually, it isn't a bogus ad, and that isn't a bogus slab.
<< <i>I think if you are going to attempt to sell a coin with that type of value attached to it you may want to try spell check and get some help with grammar. >>
It's been shown conclusively that there is zero correlation there...
<< <i>I'll take your word CCU. I know the slabs have recently changed, and another well known seller can't spell spit but this sure smells like a Hong Kong Hoi. >>
It is perhaps good feedback for the seller!
My Ebay
1934-1958 RB Lincoln Short Set
<< <i>I was going to place a bid, but I couldn't swing the $600 shipping fee
Yeah, I know -- talk about fee avoidance with inflated shipping....
<< <i>I can't believe I missed this one. The shipping was only $600! >>
They'll probably lose money on the plane ticket they buy to deliver it.
As for the plastic, the more expensive a coin is the less important the plastic. This is consistent with the concept that a TPG opinion make a coins more saleable without in hand inspection or expertise in the series. The more expensive a coin is the more you should have it inspected in hand by an expert. --Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes. Grading is all about consistency. Otherwise, what's the point? >>
When you have a coin where there's 4 known, grading doesn't mean a thing. All that matters is first, second, third and fourth finest. Mega-rarities get a lot of slack in grading, but their rank remains the same, and that's all that most people pay attention to.
Who's Dan Holmes anyway?
<< <i>Sure is one ugly coin, at double the price of my home, I'll pass.
Who's Dan Holmes anyway? >>
He was until recently, the president of EAC.
<< <i>Is the seller actually trying to sell this coin on eBay or is he just using eBay to advertise his coin so he can sell it off eBay? >>
The latter, IMHO
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes, if grading is to be consistent across the board.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes, if grading is to be consistent across the board. >>
I believe the grading of all the Strawberry Leaves is consistent.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>A coin that should, 100%, be sitting in a GENUINE holder! >>
Does it really matter? >>
Yes, if grading is to be consistent across the board. >>
I believe the grading of all the Strawberry Leaves is consistent. >>
Grading of all large cents should be consistent, IMHO.
willing to pay. Now being that I, like many others, enjoy looking at coins for the beauty they portray, in my opinion, that is one ugly coin..
coinsarefun, marmac, LindeDad, andree, robkool, TwoSides2aCoin, waterzooey, agentjim007
All were A++++ Transactions- Thank you !
Then why send it to PCGS?
It seems obvious that this is a problem coin.
Pre-"Genuine', send it off to ANACS to gt net graded; post 'Genuine' the coin should have garnered that designation.
To those that say it does not matter with ultra rarities, it feels to me like you're saying rules don't apply when your 'special'.
Is that 'really' what you're saying, because the part about "grading doesn't mean a thing" opens the question, why grade at all?
If collectors of the ultra-rarities know #1, #2, etc. what's the point in grading?
I'm just a little guy here, but it sure feels like slap in the face when I'm basically told I play by one set of rules & all my early coins will come back 'Genuine' because of problems, while those with deep pockets will be excused the indignity of getting such grades because of the rarity. Heaven forbid coins get preferred gradings because of the submitter.
All I ask is for fairness, across the board, whether it be a person or a coin.
But maybe fairness is too much to ask?
Keep an open mind, or get financially repressed -Zoltan Pozsar
<< <i>It's a strawberry. Does it really matter what holder it is in? >>
If it doesn't matter, why not put it in a genuine holder where it belongs?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.