Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true!
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Good catch! You're right, this one could be headed for trouble.
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Are they Amark?
'These are not the same sets as the Choice BU sets offered on Ebay for delivery in 6-8 weeks. These are GEM not Choice BU "
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Are they Amark?
'These are not the same sets as the Choice BU sets offered on Ebay for delivery in 6-8 weeks. These are GEM not Choice BU " >>
Guess I need to learn how to read a listing. These do not appear to be Amark.
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Are they Amark?
'These are not the same sets as the Choice BU sets offered on Ebay for delivery in 6-8 weeks. These are GEM not Choice BU " >>
I understand the bulk submission from Amark to get them slabbed/shipped for a low prearranged price with no grade, but why would someone with a few sets that wants to flip them pay to get them slabbed and not graded. Would he send instructions with the coins that if they do not grade at say 67 or greater, just slab them with no grade?
<< <i> Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
I dunno...I'm not surprised. They don't have any hard evidence in hand--that would require an audit. They're being careful to avoid libelous statements, probably. Pretty lame fed-talk BS statement though. Maybe the subtle wink to the reporter didn't make it to print. >>
I meant that they have plenty of evidence that should lead to an audit. Such action would not take long and would likely lead to rapid findings of gross violations of the agreement. >>
I was probably being nitpicky. Maybe the USM hasn't come up with a strategy yet or is not ready to publicly acknowledge that there is a strategy. Or perhaps there will be no strategy. If there is a strategy, it'd be better for them not to announce it. At least not yet, and probably not until they start knocking on some AP doors.
Mind games. I guess we'll see if the bluff clouds from the APs and the bluff cloud from the Mint amount to anything.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
Ok I'm not good with recognizing the difference between doubling but have any been reported? Specifically with the Yellowstone, the one I'm looking at has doubling in the word Yellowstone but I'm not sure if mechanical or just the regular nothing???
So my A-Mark set was on the way to me as of yesterday...I live in north San Diego county, so it's just down the road. The coins arrived at the local Fed Ex destination in Carlsbad early this morning...and sat...the status now reads "At local Fed Ex facility" with notes that say "Package not due for delivery". I called Fed Ex and they said that the service paid for was not overnight service, so they are going to hold them until Monday. What an absolute crock of $hit!!!
<< <i>Ok I'm not good with recognizing the difference between doubling but have any been reported? Specifically with the Yellowstone, the one I'm looking at has doubling in the word Yellowstone but I'm not sure if mechanical or just the regular nothing??? >>
There was a report, its mechanical doubling, it was mentioned in this thread, but then again what has not been.
Jeez, hope i did this right, been a long time since I posted a pic...Yellowstone close up of W & S...Thx, most of the other letters have the same doubling but my pic ability sux at the moment.
<< <i>Ok I'm not good with recognizing the difference between doubling but have any been reported? Specifically with the Yellowstone, the one I'm looking at has doubling in the word Yellowstone but I'm not sure if mechanical or just the regular nothing??? >>
There was a report, its mechanical doubling, it was mentioned in this thread, but then again what has not been. >>
Thanks, I thought I read something but this threads too big...
I've noticed what seem to be some die polish lines (at least I hope thst's what they are) on the obverse on a few of these pucks. Does that necessarily mean I have later die states? Or does the mint polish their dies early on?
Question - What's the story on Fidelitrade ship dates? Anyone know? Is Fidelitrade holding personal checks for a pre-determined amount of time before shipping like MTB?
I received order confirmation from Ftrade 1/20 + my personal check cashed 1/21. It's now 1/29 and no further word from the Ftrade operation.
The order acceptance email I received from Ftrade is dated 1/21 and it says shipment is "Please allow up to four weeks for your coins to arrive." which puts ATB set delivery no later than Feb. 18 - 22?
Is there a Fidelitrade hold time on personal check orders for ATB sets? If so, how long?
I got a set from mtb...Im not overly excited about the gradeability. First of all, hot springs has several tick marks and a couple of tiny scratches. The obverse really has a lot of tiny lines maybe die polish. Lots. Another one has a scratch on it. One looks pretty good except for the pictured issues below. Anyone know how this would affect grade? I don't know if its strike-through or if the planchet was damages or what. It seems to run under the letters, so its not just a scuff. Lots of doubling on the reverse of this one. I see doubling on the reverse of 3 of these...mostly on the park name itself.
Great BST experiences: abitofthisabitofthat, silvercoinsdude, gerard, coinfame, mikescoins, wondercoin
<< <i>I just read the cover story in CW with the pic of the line at GC where the only actual "public" who got coins from him waited. It kills me how he is always portrayed in a positive light by CW and NN - such the victim, just trying to sell to the public -when he is clearly the worst of the APs in terms of bulk sale violations to date.
Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
US Mint Contact Info: Gordon Hume- 202-354-7222
Michael White- m.white@usmint.treas.gov >>
Just FYI, that number is for the Office of Public Affairs, not his personal extension. R-
<< <i>Question: What is a definition for PL (Proof-Like) from NGC?
Can you spot it by the naked eye? Let say you got a set from A-mark of 5 coins - could you look at them all and guess if any of one of them could be a candidate for PL?
Thanks! >>
Despite comparing many PL and non-PL UHRs side by side, I could not tell ANY difference when the labels were covered - NONE.
Edited: I see that ManorC. can. He likely has a lot more experience than I so I defer to him.
<< <i> Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
I dunno...I'm not surprised. They don't have any hard evidence in hand--that would require an audit. They're being careful to avoid libelous statements, probably. Pretty lame fed-talk BS statement though. Maybe the subtle wink to the reporter didn't make it to print. >>
I meant that they have plenty of evidence that should lead to an audit. Such action would not take long and would likely lead to rapid findings of gross violations of the agreement. >>
I was probably being nitpicky. Maybe the USM hasn't come up with a strategy yet or is not ready to publicly acknowledge that there is a strategy. Or perhaps there will be no strategy. If there is a strategy, it'd be better for them not to announce it. At least not yet, and probably not until they start knocking on some AP doors.
Mind games. I guess we'll see if the bluff clouds from the APs and the bluff cloud from the Mint amount to anything. >>
I would think that an audit of the worst offenders like GC would yield quick and definitive results and quick action to show that the USM is serious and to serve as a warning to the other APs.
<< <i>I got a set from mtb...Im not overly excited about the gradeability. First of all, hot springs has several tick marks and a couple of tiny scratches. The obverse really has a lot of tiny lines maybe die polish. Lots. Another one has a scratch on it. One looks pretty good except for the pictured issues below. Anyone know how this would affect grade? I don't know if its strike-through or if the planchet was damages or what. It seems to run under the letters, so its not just a scuff. Lots of doubling on the reverse of this one. I see doubling on the reverse of 3 of these...mostly on the park name itself.
>>
Fantastic photos!! What equipment did you use to take them?
<< <i> Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
I dunno...I'm not surprised. They don't have any hard evidence in hand--that would require an audit. They're being careful to avoid libelous statements, probably. Pretty lame fed-talk BS statement though. Maybe the subtle wink to the reporter didn't make it to print. >>
I meant that they have plenty of evidence that should lead to an audit. Such action would not take long and would likely lead to rapid findings of gross violations of the agreement. >>
I was probably being nitpicky. Maybe the USM hasn't come up with a strategy yet or is not ready to publicly acknowledge that there is a strategy. Or perhaps there will be no strategy. If there is a strategy, it'd be better for them not to announce it. At least not yet, and probably not until they start knocking on some AP doors.
Mind games. I guess we'll see if the bluff clouds from the APs and the bluff cloud from the Mint amount to anything. >>
I would think that an audit of the worst offenders like GC would yield quick and definitive results and quick action to show that the USM is serious and to serve as a warning to the other APs. >>
There is certainly enough of a case for an audit. They need to quit the bluffgame, and put some folks on a plane to Springfield. It would show the APs they are serious, and it would show the public, the taxpayers, that they are looking into their best interest. Seems like a win-win for the general public to me.
Successful transactions with keepdachange, tizofthe, adriana, wondercoin
Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins?
Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins? >>
<< <i>Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins? >>
That's why they're called A Mark. It's their trademark mark. At least you know in advance you're out of the running for a grade of 70.
Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins? >>
Is that a mark or a gouge on the die? >>
It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge.
"There is certainly enough of a case for an audit. They need to quit the bluffgame, and put some folks on a plane to Springfield. It would show the APs they are serious, and it would show the public, the taxpayers, that they are looking into their best interest. Seems like a win-win for the general public to me. "
Quite a few of the other APs are sitting on the coins.... including Apmex.... (assuming they still have them), and it is my belief that they are doing so to see if the Mint really means business or not. If not, the remaining APs can hold the coins indefinitely, or cherrypick, or manipulate however they see fit.
<< <i>I got a set from mtb...Im not overly excited about the gradeability. First of all, hot springs has several tick marks and a couple of tiny scratches. The obverse really has a lot of tiny lines maybe die polish. Lots. Another one has a scratch on it. One looks pretty good except for the pictured issues below. Anyone know how this would affect grade? I don't know if its strike-through or if the planchet was damages or what. It seems to run under the letters, so its not just a scuff. Lots of doubling on the reverse of this one. I see doubling on the reverse of 3 of these...mostly on the park name itself.
>>
Can't quite tell from the photos.... but it does look like that doubling may have notching.... which would indicate a doubled die. Almost looks like a tripled die.
Can't quite tell from the photos.... but it does look like that doubling may have notching.... which would indicate a doubled die. Almost looks like a tripled die.
<< <i>It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge. >>
I don't know that's necessarily true...isn't that an incuse element? In that case it could just be a "hit".
Also I believe many pages back (or in another post) there was an indication that the pseudo-doubling was indeed machine doubling but appears to be notched because it was an incused design element.
Edit to add: Still waiting for any shipping word from AMark for order #4xx. (I had spoken to them a few days ago and they indicated no problem with my order, but just not yet shipped.)
<< <i>It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge. >>
I don't know that's necessarily true...isn't that an incuse element? In that case it could just be a "hit".
Also I believe many pages back (or in another post) there was an indication that the pseudo-doubling was indeed machine doubling but appears to be notched because it was an incused design element.
Edit to add: Still waiting for any shipping word from AMark for order #4xx. (I had spoken to them a few days ago and they indicated no problem with my order, but just not yet shipped.) >>
Thanks for the opinions. I have to look up a view terms now, like die gouge etc. BTW, my order from AMark was 3xx, soo yours should be on the way soon.
<< <i>It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge. >>
I don't know that's necessarily true...isn't that an incuse element? In that case it could just be a "hit".
Also I believe many pages back (or in another post) there was an indication that the pseudo-doubling was indeed machine doubling but appears to be notched because it was an incused design element.
Edit to add: Still waiting for any shipping word from AMark for order #4xx. (I had spoken to them a few days ago and they indicated no problem with my order, but just not yet shipped.) >>
Thanks for the opinions. I have to look up a view terms now, like die gouge etc. BTW, my order from AMark was 3xx, soo yours should be on the way soon. >>
they are not shipping in order, I am in the 900's and shipped Thursday. and someone called and Amark confirmed that.
Yesterday, 3 ebay auctions for a Grand Canyon puck ended within hours of each other. All were graded MS69. The 2 NGC's sold for $799 and $810. The PCGS sold for $2601. All 3 sellers were seasoned dealers.
<< <i>Can't quite tell from the photos.... but it does look like that doubling may have notching.... which would indicate a doubled die. Almost looks like a tripled die.
>>
Can someone explain what is meant by notching? I've been informed the doubling seen in this picture is mechanical. What are the little horizontal ridges/serations shown called and what causes this?Thanks Cass
Comments
I remember when 100 was a big deal.
Link
<< <i>Fairly strong money for Amark in-hand.
Link >>
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true!
<< <i>
<< <i>Fairly strong money for Amark in-hand.
Link >>
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Good catch! You're right, this one could be headed for trouble.
<< <i>
<< <i>Fairly strong money for Amark in-hand.
Link >>
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Are they Amark?
'These are not the same sets as the Choice BU sets offered on Ebay for delivery in 6-8 weeks. These are GEM not Choice BU "
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Fairly strong money for Amark in-hand.
Link >>
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Are they Amark?
'These are not the same sets as the Choice BU sets offered on Ebay for delivery in 6-8 weeks. These are GEM not Choice BU " >>
Guess I need to learn how to read a listing. These do not appear to be Amark.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Fairly strong money for Amark in-hand.
Link >>
Look at the "Item Specifics" box, it says PCGS 69, then down below he corrects that. Why is it that people routinely list these with mistakes in the listing. This is another one once again that could have a return or paypal claim brought up. Probably not a good indicator as to the value if some of the buyers were misled, although I hope its true! >>
Are they Amark?
'These are not the same sets as the Choice BU sets offered on Ebay for delivery in 6-8 weeks. These are GEM not Choice BU " >>
I understand the bulk submission from Amark to get them slabbed/shipped for a low prearranged price with no grade, but why would someone with a few sets that wants to flip them pay to get them slabbed and not graded. Would he send instructions with the coins that if they do not grade at say 67 or greater, just slab them with no grade?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
I dunno...I'm not surprised. They don't have any hard evidence in hand--that would require an audit. They're being careful to avoid libelous statements, probably. Pretty lame fed-talk BS statement though. Maybe the subtle wink to the reporter didn't make it to print. >>
I meant that they have plenty of evidence that should lead to an audit. Such action would not take long and would likely lead to rapid findings of gross violations of the agreement. >>
I was probably being nitpicky. Maybe the USM hasn't come up with a strategy yet or is not ready to publicly acknowledge that there is a strategy. Or perhaps there will be no strategy. If there is a strategy, it'd be better for them not to announce it. At least not yet, and probably not until they start knocking on some AP doors.
Mind games. I guess we'll see if the bluff clouds from the APs and the bluff cloud from the Mint amount to anything.
mbogoman
https://pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/classic-issues-colonials-through-1964/zambezi-collection-trade-dollars/7345Asesabi Lutho
<< <i>Ok I'm not good with recognizing the difference between doubling but have any been reported? Specifically with the Yellowstone, the one I'm looking at has doubling in the word Yellowstone but I'm not sure if mechanical or just the regular nothing??? >>
There was a report, its mechanical doubling, it was mentioned in this thread, but then again what has not been.
[URL=http://s304.photobucket.com/albums/nn168/casmancasman/?action=view¤t=IMG_5711.jpg]
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok I'm not good with recognizing the difference between doubling but have any been reported? Specifically with the Yellowstone, the one I'm looking at has doubling in the word Yellowstone but I'm not sure if mechanical or just the regular nothing??? >>
There was a report, its mechanical doubling, it was mentioned in this thread, but then again what has not been. >>
Thanks, I thought I read something but this threads too big...
<< <i>just checked the pcgs pop report on these, as they dont show any totals at all, where are these pop reports coming from here?-----------BigE >>
You have to do them individually by coin #.
this one: 7216.
wow.
oh yeah, WTF! no evidence? They audit them and maybe they get the evidence. Are they really that lame?
<< <i>I saw those die polish lines on several today and they really looked wiped. They had to be die polish...right? >>
Some of the obverses were made from "harshly" polished dies
<< <i>I saw those die polish lines on several today and they really looked wiped. They had to be die polish...right? >>
Hope so. They got slabbed, but on one of my pucks the die polish lines are extreme.
I received order confirmation from Ftrade 1/20 + my personal check cashed 1/21. It's now 1/29 and no further word from the Ftrade operation.
The order acceptance email I received from Ftrade is dated 1/21 and it says shipment is "Please allow up to four weeks for your coins to arrive." which puts ATB set delivery no later than Feb. 18 - 22?
Is there a Fidelitrade hold time on personal check orders for ATB sets? If so, how long?
First of all, hot springs has several tick marks and a couple of tiny scratches. The obverse really has a lot of tiny lines maybe die polish. Lots.
Another one has a scratch on it.
One looks pretty good except for the pictured issues below. Anyone know how this would affect grade? I don't know if its strike-through or if the planchet was damages or what. It seems to run under the letters, so its not just a scuff. Lots of doubling on the reverse of this one. I see doubling on the reverse of 3 of these...mostly on the park name itself.
33K instead of 100K isn't enough, you want an error too!
<< <i>
<< <i>I just read the cover story in CW with the pic of the line at GC where the only actual "public" who got coins from him waited. It kills me how he is always portrayed in a positive light by CW and NN - such the victim, just trying to sell to the public -when he is clearly the worst of the APs in terms of bulk sale violations to date.
Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
US Mint Contact Info:
Gordon Hume- 202-354-7222
Michael White- m.white@usmint.treas.gov >>
Just FYI, that number is for the Office of Public Affairs, not his personal extension. R-
<< <i>
<< <i>
Grand Canyon: MS69
Hot Springs: MS68
Mt. Hood: MS67
Yellowstone: MS69
Yosemite: MS69PL !!!!! >>
More evidence NGC isn't putting MS69 on every coin. >>
Certainly true, but 3/5 isn't bad. The 69PL is killer. You could get BIG $ for that one right now.
<< <i>Question: What is a definition for PL (Proof-Like) from NGC?
Can you spot it by the naked eye? Let say you got a set from A-mark of 5 coins - could you look at them all and guess if any of one of them could be a candidate for PL?
Thanks! >>
Despite comparing many PL and non-PL UHRs side by side, I could not tell ANY difference when the labels were covered - NONE.
Edited: I see that ManorC. can. He likely has a lot more experience than I so I defer to him.
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
I dunno...I'm not surprised. They don't have any hard evidence in hand--that would require an audit. They're being careful to avoid libelous statements, probably. Pretty lame fed-talk BS statement though. Maybe the subtle wink to the reporter didn't make it to print. >>
I meant that they have plenty of evidence that should lead to an audit. Such action would not take long and would likely lead to rapid findings of gross violations of the agreement. >>
I was probably being nitpicky. Maybe the USM hasn't come up with a strategy yet or is not ready to publicly acknowledge that there is a strategy. Or perhaps there will be no strategy. If there is a strategy, it'd be better for them not to announce it. At least not yet, and probably not until they start knocking on some AP doors.
Mind games. I guess we'll see if the bluff clouds from the APs and the bluff cloud from the Mint amount to anything. >>
I would think that an audit of the worst offenders like GC would yield quick and definitive results and quick action to show that the USM is serious and to serve as a warning to the other APs.
<< <i>I got a set from mtb...Im not overly excited about the gradeability.
First of all, hot springs has several tick marks and a couple of tiny scratches. The obverse really has a lot of tiny lines maybe die polish. Lots.
Another one has a scratch on it.
One looks pretty good except for the pictured issues below. Anyone know how this would affect grade? I don't know if its strike-through or if the planchet was damages or what. It seems to run under the letters, so its not just a scuff. Lots of doubling on the reverse of this one. I see doubling on the reverse of 3 of these...mostly on the park name itself.
Fantastic photos!! What equipment did you use to take them?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Second, I just love this from p.62 under the section "Policy Violations?": "Coin World contacted the Mint for comment on the situation. Gordon Hume, the Mint's deputy director of public affairs, stated, "The United States Mint has no evidence that the Authorized Purchasers are violating the terms and conditions of the program."
HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE??? HOW INCOMPETENT can they be??? HOW many folks have emailed/called/faxed info regarding GC bulk sales?? Just amazing. Only the Govt. >>
I dunno...I'm not surprised. They don't have any hard evidence in hand--that would require an audit. They're being careful to avoid libelous statements, probably. Pretty lame fed-talk BS statement though. Maybe the subtle wink to the reporter didn't make it to print. >>
I meant that they have plenty of evidence that should lead to an audit. Such action would not take long and would likely lead to rapid findings of gross violations of the agreement. >>
I was probably being nitpicky. Maybe the USM hasn't come up with a strategy yet or is not ready to publicly acknowledge that there is a strategy. Or perhaps there will be no strategy. If there is a strategy, it'd be better for them not to announce it. At least not yet, and probably not until they start knocking on some AP doors.
Mind games. I guess we'll see if the bluff clouds from the APs and the bluff cloud from the Mint amount to anything. >>
I would think that an audit of the worst offenders like GC would yield quick and definitive results and quick action to show that the USM is serious and to serve as a warning to the other APs. >>
There is certainly enough of a case for an audit. They need to quit the bluffgame, and put some folks on a plane to Springfield. It would show the APs they are serious, and it would show the public, the taxpayers, that they are looking into their best interest. Seems like a win-win for the general public to me.
<< <i>It wouldn't surprise me if the mint intentionally threw in an error to help spice up sales of these. >>
they didn't need to spice it up. look at what you have to go through to buy a set.
Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins?
<< <i>
Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins? >>
Is that a mark or a gouge on the die?
<< <i>Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins? >>
That's why they're called A Mark. It's their trademark mark. At least you know in advance you're out of the running for a grade of 70.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Got my set yesterday from A-Mark. The only obvious marking/flaw that I saw was this on Mt. Hood. For those who are familiar with grading, how would something like this be evaluated? Is there a certain amount of leeway for bullion coins? >>
Is that a mark or a gouge on the die? >>
It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge.
-Paul
Quite a few of the other APs are sitting on the coins.... including Apmex.... (assuming they still have them), and it is my belief that they are doing so to see if the Mint really means business or not. If not, the remaining APs can hold the coins indefinitely, or cherrypick, or manipulate however they see fit.
<< <i>I got a set from mtb...Im not overly excited about the gradeability.
First of all, hot springs has several tick marks and a couple of tiny scratches. The obverse really has a lot of tiny lines maybe die polish. Lots.
Another one has a scratch on it.
One looks pretty good except for the pictured issues below. Anyone know how this would affect grade? I don't know if its strike-through or if the planchet was damages or what. It seems to run under the letters, so its not just a scuff. Lots of doubling on the reverse of this one. I see doubling on the reverse of 3 of these...mostly on the park name itself.
Can't quite tell from the photos.... but it does look like that doubling may have notching.... which would indicate a doubled die. Almost looks like a tripled die.
Can't quite tell from the photos.... but it does look like that doubling may have notching.... which would indicate a doubled die. Almost looks like a tripled die.
<< <i>It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge. >>
I don't know that's necessarily true...isn't that an incuse element? In that case it could just be a "hit".
Also I believe many pages back (or in another post) there was an indication that the pseudo-doubling was indeed machine doubling but appears to be notched because it was an incused design element.
Edit to add: Still waiting for any shipping word from AMark for order #4xx.
<< <i>
<< <i>It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge. >>
I don't know that's necessarily true...isn't that an incuse element? In that case it could just be a "hit".
Also I believe many pages back (or in another post) there was an indication that the pseudo-doubling was indeed machine doubling but appears to be notched because it was an incused design element.
Edit to add: Still waiting for any shipping word from AMark for order #4xx.
Thanks for the opinions. I have to look up a view terms now, like die gouge etc. BTW, my order from AMark was 3xx, soo yours should be on the way soon.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It's look to be underneath the 0! Definitley a die gouge. >>
I don't know that's necessarily true...isn't that an incuse element? In that case it could just be a "hit".
Also I believe many pages back (or in another post) there was an indication that the pseudo-doubling was indeed machine doubling but appears to be notched because it was an incused design element.
Edit to add: Still waiting for any shipping word from AMark for order #4xx.
Thanks for the opinions. I have to look up a view terms now, like die gouge etc. BTW, my order from AMark was 3xx, soo yours should be on the way soon. >>
they are not shipping in order, I am in the 900's and shipped Thursday. and someone called and Amark confirmed that.
<< <i>Spiked Zero!!!!! >>
Sounds like a good selling point on the bay -
RARE! PCGS FS BU Mt Hood Spiked Zero Puck
Buy me now!
<< <i>
<< <i>Spiked Zero!!!!! >>
Sounds like a good selling point on the bay -
RARE! PCGS FS BU Mt Hood Spiked Zero Puck
Buy me now! >>
I just may do that! Any offers - this is considered a private pre-sale.
Yesterday, 3 ebay auctions for a Grand Canyon puck ended within hours of each other. All were graded MS69. The 2 NGC's sold for $799 and $810. The PCGS sold for $2601. All 3 sellers were seasoned dealers.
NGC MS69 $799
NGC MS69 $810
PCGS MS69 $2601
How can a PCGS label possibly be worth TRIPLE???
Can the recently announced NGC PL grade have anything to do with this price disparity??
"The only place success comes before work is in the dictionary."
~ Vince Lombardi
<< <i>Can't quite tell from the photos.... but it does look like that doubling may have notching.... which would indicate a doubled die. Almost looks like a tripled die.
Can someone explain what is meant by notching? I've been informed the doubling seen in this picture is mechanical. What are the little horizontal ridges/serations shown called and what causes this?Thanks Cass
[URL=http://s304.photobucket.com/albums/nn168/casmancasman/?action=view¤t=IMG_5711-1.jpg]