<<Just so you understand what I want from PCGS, I would like to have them weigh it and perform a metal analysis and then put the results on the label. I am not looking for them do decipher die marriages because I realize that is unfortunately out of their scope of grading at this time.
If PCGS graded the coin AU details, they are certifying that it is Genuine. I think that asking them to prove that it is Genuine is the issue at question? So, if the you agree that the coin was "cleaned", the best road to value for you is to certify it as a new die variety? Of course, a counterfeit could have a different die pairing, and this may also indicate the coin is counterfeit, or unique.
<< <i><<Just so you understand what I want from PCGS, I would like to have them weigh it and perform a metal analysis and then put the results on the label. I am not looking for them do decipher die marriages because I realize that is unfortunately out of their scope of grading at this time.
If PCGS graded the coin AU details, they are certifying that it is Genuine. I think that asking them to prove that it is Genuine is the issue at question? So, if the you agree that the coin was "cleaned", the best road to value for you is to certify it as a new die variety? Of course, a counterfeit could have a different die pairing, and this may also indicate the coin is counterfeit, or unique.
OINK >>
PCGS (and NGC) both have imperfect track records when it comes to identifying counterfeit Trade Dollars, and I'm sure in many other series as well.
I am looking forward to the supersized images Realone.
The closest reverse I could find based on bad pics is this coin:
Compare yours to this max sized image to see if you can find pickup points. I see a small die chip in one of the berry leaves. Also compare MM location. The C's in the pic look more rounded to me but yeah, it could just be the pic.
A couple of things: it is au details, and that could be au50. It isn't graded UNC details. . >>
I don't go off of the PCGS holder, there is little to no rub on that coin and certainly no high point loss save for the left top wing but that looks like a strike issue which is also troubling as that isn't a common place to have a strike issue of type 1 rev.
That isn't the same Rev Dan. kind of similar but it isn't.
<< <i>If one discovered a new die marriage for a Trade Dollar how would you go out and prove it to the Trade Dollar Community? >>
If one has discovered a possible new die marriage, it will be the experts in the series that will prove it for the collectors of the series. In hand coin inspection with the team of experts will be required to authenticate and attribute the coin. That has been my experience in participating in the authentication and attribution of last three pre-1837 half dollar die marriage discoveries. Good photographic overlays to known varieties of the obverse, reverse, and edge (with an edge mirror) should be done. Dentil counts and reed counts are needed.
With the half dollar die marriage discoveries (1807 O.115, 1806 O.129, 1806 O.130), the TPG's were only involved after the authentication and attribution were proven. The TPG's are not the experts in a series, and are not the ones who should be proving a new die marriage.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Very interesting, educational discussion here. My initial reaction was along those of TDN's: I would have never bought that coin with those pics. My gut reaction looking at those pics was: easily fake. But... if it comes back twice from our hosts as "absolutely genuine" perhaps my gut instinct was wrong. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I agree - excellent and positive discussion of a complicated and essential question. Especially encouraging to see you folks working together (the way it's supposed to be) after past difficulties.
And looking forward to further analysis of the question when the improved photos are posted.
I think you should take the coin to the LSCC meeting at the summer ANA show in Chicago. You'll likely find nearly all the TD experts there. Reach out to Coinosaurus to have this placed on the meeting agenda. Also, talk to him about getting this into either the GJ or the e-G publications.
By doing the above, you'll be able to leverage the expertise of a wide range of experts.
No matter how this plays out, this is already a good story. Getting the story into the GJ or e-G will be nice.
I would honestly crack it out and try PCGS one more time. I think logical but admittedly with no evidence that it is a different issue to submit a coin in Plastic asking that you think it is fake which would institute a warranty claim VS a raw coin with the same list of reservations that could be looked at without bias by an expert. If you are not worried about a claim, I would crack it out and ask a 3rd time maybe to NGC this time.
I personally think the only thing keeping it from obvious fake is the PCGS approval but esp if you see the bumps and color and what not which I all agree with, it is clearly a fake. Here are a few more things to look at. When a transfer die is made sometimes the have to go do touch ups to details that didn't cross over correctly and sometimes widths and edges don't make it across. Also some of the edges of the devices become rounded as they are impressed into the soon to be die as opposed to struck up and with high tonnage metal flow. On your coin the Rev letters look all wrong to these eyes. Some are fatter, missing little bits, not perfectly straight or uniform in width and some appear to be retouched. Take the N in UNITED on the Rev. If you look at the similar coin (true View) Dan Posted the bottom of the N is Flat where yours comes to a point and it looks like it isn't uniform in its middle width, there are a few little tells like that that I see. I think any story should be written from the avenue is more "trust ones gut first and foremost".
If you send me some good images, I'll be happy to render an opinion. I've been looking microscopically at TD dies for the last 12 months (12 more months to go) and think that I'm adequately versed in most die and striking characteristics/diagnostics.
Based solely on the images, I would hazard fake. However, bad images can make any coin look poor. The elements that strike me as questionable is the overall strike strength....may of the features look rounded (which is not the same as worn). I would suggest that one look at the devices (where a feature transitions into the field) and see how tight it is. These look soft but too hard to tell.
I think that I've seen this type of date/mm before and likely dismissed it. I am always happy to admit that I'm wrong.
While better than avg, it looks completely fake to me. Dozens of strike irregularities, improperly formed/defined letters, stars, grass around libs foot and the rim issues and the olive branch looks wrong too with a lack a detail and the futherest right olive looks to be blobs. I wouldn't have any intrest in that coin at any price.
<< <i>Just to be clear, I put this in my counterfeit collection but my dealer said I was insane, he said that if pcgs thought it was fine and fine twice and considering my letter to them and their note to me and his originally weighing it and also thinking it was real....well he thought I was a flippin paranoid psycho to call it fake and file it away and not discuss finding a new die marriage. It is only when I come on here do I get the discussion that I expect and want, where most of the experts here agree with my craziness, so once again this site is the king for our hobby! >>
I have seen on some fake 76-cc's a small curved bit of metal inside the O of OF on the reverse; I think it is a forger's mark and I think I see it on this one.
100% agreed with crypto, no chance that coin is genuine. The face and the berries and poorly formed letters on the reverse are the biggest red flags for me.
Also, the lettering on the reverse is puffy looking, sort of rounded, and there are some odd striations on the rim. I would like to see inside the edge reeding as most fakes do not have vertical striations in the grooves which were imparted by the reeding collar. My opinion is that it is an above average forgery at this point (and that 's all it is, an opinion) Kudos to M. Goodman for stellar detailed images. Couldn't tell squat from the seller's pix.
<< <i>No Trueview I negated to ask for one. But I would like to convince PCGS that it is a fake so I can get reimbursed and keep it for my fake Trade Dollar collection. >>
If it's fake would they not pay you full market value and keep it?
<< <i>No Trueview I negated to ask for one. But I would like to convince PCGS that it is a fake so I can get reimbursed and keep it for my fake Trade Dollar collection. >>
If it's fake would they not pay you full market value and keep it? >>
I'm also curious.
Why would they send it back to you?
-D
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned. Lance.
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned. Lance. >>
When I purchased the coin, I was uncomfortable with it but thought there was a chance it would be a new die marriage if proved to be real. The sellers images were awful so the seller allowed me at my expense to send it to PCGS, if real then a deal if fake it would be returned and I would get my monies returned. It came back real from PCGS, however I contacted the seller and told him I still thought it may be a fake and that PCGS may have made an error, so the seller allowed me to resend it to PCGS, again it came back genuine and thus it was a deal, there was no turning back after two submissions ie I owned the T$1, and I can't blame the seller. >>
You could blame your self though, even you said in your gut knew. That said PCGS is kind of an insurance policy and when they put their plastic on a coin they are basically issuing a policy even if it was a mistake.
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned. Lance. >>
When I purchased the coin, I was uncomfortable with it but thought there was a chance it would be a new die marriage if proved to be real. The sellers images were awful so the seller allowed me at my expense to send it to PCGS, if real then a deal if fake it would be returned and I would get my monies returned. It came back real from PCGS, however I contacted the seller and told him I still thought it may be a fake and that PCGS may have made an error, so the seller allowed me to resend it to PCGS, again it came back genuine and thus it was a deal, there was no turning back after two submissions ie I owned the T$1, and I can't blame the seller. >>
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned. Lance. >>
That's really interesting to me that they send the coin back instead of buying the coin for FMV and keeping it. I'm not familiar with the process personally.
-D
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned. Lance. >>
When I purchased the coin, I was uncomfortable with it but thought there was a chance it would be a new die marriage if proved to be real. The sellers images were awful so the seller allowed me at my expense to send it to PCGS, if real then a deal if fake it would be returned and I would get my monies returned. It came back real from PCGS, however I contacted the seller and told him I still thought it may be a fake and that PCGS may have made an error, so the seller allowed me to resend it to PCGS, again it came back genuine and thus it was a deal, there was no turning back after two submissions ie I owned the T$1, and I can't blame the seller. >>
You could blame your self though, even you said in your gut knew. That said PCGS is kind of an insurance policy and when they put their plastic on a coin they are basically issuing a policy even if it was a mistake. >>
Please leave your personal feeling for me out of this. I purchased a coin with a return policy that was agreed on by me and the seller. I could not see the sellers photo clearly so I was covered by the return policy. I could see it was a new die marriage which doesn't make a coin fake. I sent the coin into PCGS for the purposes of determining genuineness even though my dealer thought it to be real, the seller thought it to be real and PCGS thought it to be real as well as the head honcho at PCGS. Why should I take it in the shorts.........just so you get your little satisfaction of I told you so? >>
Encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their actions isn't taking it personal. Also you are acting like you bought it off an established dealer instead of a marginal eBay seller with mutiple fake coins, not really the type to offer long drawn out return policies. Are you sure you aren't trying to guilt people into feeling sorry by dramatizing the chain of events? Maybe I am wrong
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned. Lance. >>
That's really interesting to me that they send the coin back instead of buying the coin for FMV and keeping it. I'm not familiar with the process personally.
-D >>
This is an unusual situation. If you were to submit a raw coin that PCGS felt was fake, it would be returned with "questionable authenticity". If it were a grade review of a genuine coin, and PCGS downgraded it, you would be offered cash and the coin at its lower level or more cash and PCGS would keep it.
My only experience with a coin already slabbed as genuine that turned out to be fake involved NGC. They reimbursed me for the price I paid and kept the coin.
So you may be correct, D, and I am wrong. PCGS might just pay Realone for what he paid and not return it. Lance. (edit typo)
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned. Lance. >>
That's really interesting to me that they send the coin back instead of buying the coin for FMV and keeping it. I'm not familiar with the process personally.
-D >>
This is an unusual situation. If you were to submit a raw coin that PCGS felt was fake, it would be returned with "questionable authenticity". If it were a grade review of a genuine coin, and PCGS downgraded it, you would be offered cash and the coin at its lower level or more cash and PCGS would keep it.
My only experience with a coin already slabbed as genuine that turned out to be fake involved NGC. They reimbursed me for the price I paid and kept the coin.
So you may be correct, D, and I am wrong. PCGS might just pay Realone for what he paid and not return it. Lance. (edit typo) >>
Yeah, in cases like this it seems like a never-ending hoodwinking. If someone gets the coin back, submits it, it's graded, FMV/Guarantee, sent back to owner, submitted, FMV/Guarantee, sent back to owner, submitted...PCGS is forever hornswoggled.
-D
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
You guys have a tendency to get into a fight over nothing. I am seeing: - crypto79 makes a fair comment, but it might look negative if you don't read it carefully and objectively. - Realone takes it negatively, and feels he needs to defend himself Then it escalates.
You guys should get a grip. If you think someone is unfairly insulting you, you don't need to defend. Just let other people read what they wrote, and other people will defend you if they think you were attacked. You guys have much constructive to say. If you would think twice about reacting to what the other guy writes, it would help keep us from reading these dumb fights. It's sad to see this going south again, sorry.
Whats scary is this graded twice, not because its a good counterfeit cause it looks fake to me in many aspects already pointed out let alone the unknown die marriage not being a reason to look a little harder at this coin. No the fact graders would grade it as genuine twice, I think the expertise is starting to lack, to many coins being graded and I bet everyone who works there if a self proclaimed coin expert even at 20 years old with most silver eagles and morgans graded under there belt. Not to say they don't employ experts cause I know they do but I also think a lot of coins are seen by whoever gets them put in their stack.
Spare us the "I'm a victim; I'm really a good guy" comments... If you really want to rise above the mudslinging, then please just stick to the TD issues.
EVP
PS Good luck with your TD issue; I'd like to see it resolved properly and officially. Maybe you can point PCGS at this thread and say that a bunch of TD fanatics seriously question that coin's authenticity. Or, just send DW a PM about this matter. The latest blow up pics really hurt the coin's claim for legitimacy.
Comments
If PCGS graded the coin AU details, they are certifying that it is Genuine. I think that asking them to prove that it is Genuine is the issue at question? So, if the you agree that the coin was "cleaned", the best road to value for you is to certify it as a new die variety? Of course, a counterfeit could have a different die pairing, and this may also indicate the coin is counterfeit, or unique.
OINK
<< <i><<Just so you understand what I want from PCGS, I would like to have them weigh it and perform a metal analysis and then put the results on the label. I am not looking for them do decipher die marriages because I realize that is unfortunately out of their scope of grading at this time.
If PCGS graded the coin AU details, they are certifying that it is Genuine. I think that asking them to prove that it is Genuine is the issue at question? So, if the you agree that the coin was "cleaned", the best road to value for you is to certify it as a new die variety? Of course, a counterfeit could have a different die pairing, and this may also indicate the coin is counterfeit, or unique.
OINK >>
PCGS (and NGC) both have imperfect track records when it comes to identifying counterfeit Trade Dollars, and I'm sure in many other series as well.
I am looking forward to the supersized images Realone.
Compare yours to this max sized image to see if you can find pickup points. I see a small die chip in one of the berry leaves. Also compare MM location. The C's in the pic look more rounded to me but yeah, it could just be the pic.
<< <i>[
A couple of things:
it is au details, and that could be au50. It isn't graded UNC details.
. >>
I don't go off of the PCGS holder, there is little to no rub on that coin and certainly no high point loss save for the left top wing but that looks like a strike issue which is also troubling as that isn't a common place to have a strike issue of type 1 rev.
That isn't the same Rev Dan. kind of similar but it isn't.
<< <i>If one discovered a new die marriage for a Trade Dollar how would you go out and prove it to the Trade Dollar Community? >>
If one has discovered a possible new die marriage, it will be the experts in the series that will prove it for the collectors of the series. In hand coin inspection with the team of experts will be required to authenticate and attribute the coin. That has been my experience in participating in the authentication and attribution of last three pre-1837 half dollar die marriage discoveries. Good photographic overlays to known varieties of the obverse, reverse, and edge (with an edge mirror) should be done. Dentil counts and reed counts are needed.
With the half dollar die marriage discoveries (1807 O.115, 1806 O.129, 1806 O.130), the TPG's were only involved after the authentication and attribution were proven. The TPG's are not the experts in a series, and are not the ones who should be proving a new die marriage.
<< <i> I matched it to the obv of my 1876-cc I/I Non DDR Wide CC and they are exactly similar in all respects. >>
No they aren't, one is real and the other isn't. Big difference.
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
Especially encouraging to see you folks working together (the way it's supposed to be) after past difficulties.
And looking forward to further analysis of the question when the improved photos are posted.
I think you should take the coin to the LSCC meeting at the summer ANA show in Chicago. You'll likely find nearly all the TD experts there. Reach out to Coinosaurus to have this placed on the meeting agenda. Also, talk to him about getting this into either the GJ or the e-G publications.
By doing the above, you'll be able to leverage the expertise of a wide range of experts.
No matter how this plays out, this is already a good story. Getting the story into the GJ or e-G will be nice.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I personally think the only thing keeping it from obvious fake is the PCGS approval but esp if you see the bumps and color and what not which I all agree with, it is clearly a fake. Here are a few more things to look at. When a transfer die is made sometimes the have to go do touch ups to details that didn't cross over correctly and sometimes widths and edges don't make it across. Also some of the edges of the devices become rounded as they are impressed into the soon to be die as opposed to struck up and with high tonnage metal flow. On your coin the Rev letters look all wrong to these eyes. Some are fatter, missing little bits, not perfectly straight or uniform in width and some appear to be retouched. Take the N in UNITED on the Rev. If you look at the similar coin (true View) Dan Posted the bottom of the N is Flat where yours comes to a point and it looks like it isn't uniform in its middle width, there are a few little tells like that that I see. I think any story should be written from the avenue is more "trust ones gut first and foremost".
<< <i>
<< <i>I also think the eagles right leg is off in distatance to the olive leaves >>
Once again the photo inaccurately portrays it due to blurriness. >>
I'm sure this is the answer for the neck as well. Will wait for the better photos as trying to be definitive off of these is a waste of time.
Based solely on the images, I would hazard fake. However, bad images can make any coin look poor. The elements that strike me as questionable is the overall strike strength....may of the features look rounded (which is not the same as worn). I would suggest that one look at the devices (where a feature transitions into the field) and see how tight it is. These look soft but too hard to tell.
I think that I've seen this type of date/mm before and likely dismissed it. I am always happy to admit that I'm wrong.
keoj
<< <i>Just to be clear, I put this in my counterfeit collection but my dealer said I was insane, he said that if pcgs thought it was fine and fine twice and considering my letter to them and their note to me and his originally weighing it and also thinking it was real....well he thought I was a flippin paranoid psycho to call it fake and file it away and not discuss finding a new die marriage. It is only when I come on here do I get the discussion that I expect and want, where most of the experts here agree with my craziness, so once again this site is the king for our hobby!
Presidential Review?
Kudos to M. Goodman for stellar detailed images. Couldn't tell squat from the seller's pix.
<< <i>Is there a TrueView image of this? >>
Just curious as to why you would ask this.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
<< <i>No Trueview I negated to ask for one. But I would like to convince PCGS that it is a fake so I can get reimbursed and keep it for my fake Trade Dollar collection. >>
If it's fake would they not pay you full market value and keep it?
<< <i>
<< <i>Is there a TrueView image of this? >>
Just curious as to why you would ask this. >>
They are taken raw, come in very large sizes and have a lot of detail. And it's always nice to have official PCGS images.
<< <i>
<< <i>No Trueview I negated to ask for one. But I would like to convince PCGS that it is a fake so I can get reimbursed and keep it for my fake Trade Dollar collection. >>
If it's fake would they not pay you full market value and keep it? >>
I'm also curious.
Why would they send it back to you?
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned.
Lance.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned.
Lance. >>
When I purchased the coin, I was uncomfortable with it but thought there was a chance it would be a new die marriage if proved to be real. The sellers images were awful so the seller allowed me at my expense to send it to PCGS, if real then a deal if fake it would be returned and I would get my monies returned. It came back real from PCGS, however I contacted the seller and told him I still thought it may be a fake and that PCGS may have made an error, so the seller allowed me to resend it to PCGS, again it came back genuine and thus it was a deal, there was no turning back after two submissions ie I owned the T$1, and I can't blame the seller. >>
You could blame your self though, even you said in your gut knew. That said PCGS is kind of an insurance policy and when they put their plastic on a coin they are basically issuing a policy even if it was a mistake.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned.
Lance. >>
When I purchased the coin, I was uncomfortable with it but thought there was a chance it would be a new die marriage if proved to be real. The sellers images were awful so the seller allowed me at my expense to send it to PCGS, if real then a deal if fake it would be returned and I would get my monies returned. It came back real from PCGS, however I contacted the seller and told him I still thought it may be a fake and that PCGS may have made an error, so the seller allowed me to resend it to PCGS, again it came back genuine and thus it was a deal, there was no turning back after two submissions ie I owned the T$1, and I can't blame the seller. >>
That sounds like a really nice seller.
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned.
Lance. >>
That's really interesting to me that they send the coin back instead of buying the coin for FMV and keeping it. I'm not familiar with the process personally.
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned.
Lance. >>
When I purchased the coin, I was uncomfortable with it but thought there was a chance it would be a new die marriage if proved to be real. The sellers images were awful so the seller allowed me at my expense to send it to PCGS, if real then a deal if fake it would be returned and I would get my monies returned. It came back real from PCGS, however I contacted the seller and told him I still thought it may be a fake and that PCGS may have made an error, so the seller allowed me to resend it to PCGS, again it came back genuine and thus it was a deal, there was no turning back after two submissions ie I owned the T$1, and I can't blame the seller. >>
You could blame your self though, even you said in your gut knew. That said PCGS is kind of an insurance policy and when they put their plastic on a coin they are basically issuing a policy even if it was a mistake. >>
Please leave your personal feeling for me out of this. I purchased a coin with a return policy that was agreed on by me and the seller. I could not see the sellers photo clearly so I was covered by the return policy. I could see it was a new die marriage which doesn't make a coin fake. I sent the coin into PCGS for the purposes of determining genuineness even though my dealer thought it to be real, the seller thought it to be real and PCGS thought it to be real as well as the head honcho at PCGS. Why should I take it in the shorts.........just so you get your little satisfaction of I told you so? >>
Encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their actions isn't taking it personal. Also you are acting like you bought it off an established dealer instead of a marginal eBay seller with mutiple fake coins, not really the type to offer long drawn out return policies. Are you sure you aren't trying to guilt people into feeling sorry by dramatizing the chain of events? Maybe I am wrong
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned.
Lance. >>
That's really interesting to me that they send the coin back instead of buying the coin for FMV and keeping it. I'm not familiar with the process personally.
-D >>
This is an unusual situation. If you were to submit a raw coin that PCGS felt was fake, it would be returned with "questionable authenticity". If it were a grade review of a genuine coin, and PCGS downgraded it, you would be offered cash and the coin at its lower level or more cash and PCGS would keep it.
My only experience with a coin already slabbed as genuine that turned out to be fake involved NGC. They reimbursed me for the price I paid and kept the coin.
So you may be correct, D, and I am wrong. PCGS might just pay Realone for what he paid and not return it.
Lance.
(edit typo)
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS doesn't normally declare coins fake. As DW previously said, this is on advice of counsel. Saying a coin is of "questionable authenticity" allows them to skirt the Secret Service and return the coin to the owner. Much tidier.
I think if PCGS found this T$ to be fake it would be returned.
Lance. >>
That's really interesting to me that they send the coin back instead of buying the coin for FMV and keeping it. I'm not familiar with the process personally.
-D >>
This is an unusual situation. If you were to submit a raw coin that PCGS felt was fake, it would be returned with "questionable authenticity". If it were a grade review of a genuine coin, and PCGS downgraded it, you would be offered cash and the coin at its lower level or more cash and PCGS would keep it.
My only experience with a coin already slabbed as genuine that turned out to be fake involved NGC. They reimbursed me for the price I paid and kept the coin.
So you may be correct, D, and I am wrong. PCGS might just pay Realone for what he paid and not return it.
Lance.
(edit typo) >>
Yeah, in cases like this it seems like a never-ending hoodwinking. If someone gets the coin back, submits it, it's graded, FMV/Guarantee, sent back to owner, submitted, FMV/Guarantee, sent back to owner, submitted...PCGS is forever hornswoggled.
-D
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
You guys have a tendency to get into a fight over nothing.
I am seeing:
- crypto79 makes a fair comment, but it might look negative if you don't read it carefully and objectively.
- Realone takes it negatively, and feels he needs to defend himself
Then it escalates.
You guys should get a grip.
If you think someone is unfairly insulting you, you don't need to defend.
Just let other people read what they wrote, and other people will defend you if they think you were attacked.
You guys have much constructive to say.
If you would think twice about reacting to what the other guy writes, it would help keep us from reading these dumb fights.
It's sad to see this going south again, sorry.
type2,CCHunter.
Spare us the "I'm a victim; I'm really a good guy" comments... If you really want to rise above the mudslinging, then please just stick to the TD issues.
EVP
PS Good luck with your TD issue; I'd like to see it resolved properly and officially. Maybe you can point PCGS at this thread and say that a bunch of TD fanatics seriously question that coin's authenticity. Or, just send DW a PM about this matter. The latest blow up pics really hurt the coin's claim for legitimacy.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com