@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
Well, considering there is a 1934 Texas Commem posted in the thread that was CAC'd as a 1935-S Texas Commem, I'm not sure I can agree that CAC is a fool-proof check against this. It seems CAC made the same mistake? It's possible there is another explanation admittedly, but that seems to be the most likely / apparent answer.
If CAC starts a department to proof read slab inserts to get the date correct, I want that job. I think CAC may only be interested in verifying grade and not typos made by TPG.
"May the silver waves that bear you heavenward be filled with love’s whisperings"
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
Well, considering there is a 1934 Texas Commem posted in the thread that was CAC'd as a 1935-S Texas Commem, I'm not sure I can agree that CAC is a fool-proof check against this. It seems CAC made the same mistake? It's possible there is another explanation admittedly, but that seems to be the most likely / apparent answer.
CAC is not a verifier of dates or mintmarks. No need to be, particularly on a silver commem.
@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
Well, considering there is a 1934 Texas Commem posted in the thread that was CAC'd as a 1935-S Texas Commem, I'm not sure I can agree that CAC is a fool-proof check against this. It seems CAC made the same mistake? It's possible there is another explanation admittedly, but that seems to be the most likely / apparent answer.
CAC is not a verifier of dates or mintmarks. No need to be, particularly on a silver commem.
True, but if it's a mechanical error where two different coins had their slab labels swapped, then the grade might not apply either.
@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
Well, considering there is a 1934 Texas Commem posted in the thread that was CAC'd as a 1935-S Texas Commem, I'm not sure I can agree that CAC is a fool-proof check against this. It seems CAC made the same mistake? It's possible there is another explanation admittedly, but that seems to be the most likely / apparent answer.
CAC is not a verifier of dates or mintmarks. No need to be, particularly on a silver commem.
I don't completely disagree - that isn't their purpose - but I also believe that it doesn't support the idea that CAC protects against any mislabeling errors or that it is fool-proof to buy a CAC coin. You should know your series.
@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
Well, considering there is a 1934 Texas Commem posted in the thread that was CAC'd as a 1935-S Texas Commem, I'm not sure I can agree that CAC is a fool-proof check against this. It seems CAC made the same mistake? It's possible there is another explanation admittedly, but that seems to be the most likely / apparent answer.
CAC is not a verifier of dates or mintmarks. No need to be, particularly on a silver commem.
So they just confirm that the right grade was given to the wrong coin? They should have just returned it with a note to have the error corrected.
@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
It would be amusing if the owner submits it to CAC and it beans!
If this coin had not been exposed as a MS and was sold as a proof for 40k and then lets say 10 yrs later the children of the person who paid 40k find out its only worth $56.........will PCGS pay them out or claim its a error?
I hope PCGS would pay out because that would be like me buying a picasso and then years down the line I find out that christies mistakenly sold me a fake picasso.
Successful Buying and Selling transactions with:
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
Well, considering there is a 1934 Texas Commem posted in the thread that was CAC'd as a 1935-S Texas Commem, I'm not sure I can agree that CAC is a fool-proof check against this. It seems CAC made the same mistake? It's possible there is another explanation admittedly, but that seems to be the most likely / apparent answer.
CAC is not a verifier of dates or mintmarks. No need to be, particularly on a silver commem.
So they just confirm that the right grade was given to the wrong coin? They should have just returned it with a note to have the error corrected.
The evaluator confirms the grade vs the coin. If the clerk who entered the date/mintmark had noticed a discrepency I am sure it would have been returned.
If this coin had not been exposed as a MS and was sold as a proof for 40k and then lets say 10 yrs later the children of the person who paid 40k find out its only worth $56.........will PCGS pay them out or claim its a error?
I hope PCGS would pay out because that would be like me buying a picasso and then years down the line I find out that christies mistakenly sold me a fake picasso.
Yes. PCGS would not pay anything as the coin is a mechanical error excepted from the guarantee.
@bestday said:
Damages ,lawyers and on .. where it counts and will hurt is in the opinion of collectors ,dealers and buyers of PCGS graded coins . Loss of confidence in PCGS graded coins is the biggie
How many other graded coins are out with faulty grades ? When the coin media latches on to this story any damage to the brand will be out in the open
Say it again .. CAC does do the industry good
Well, considering there is a 1934 Texas Commem posted in the thread that was CAC'd as a 1935-S Texas Commem, I'm not sure I can agree that CAC is a fool-proof check against this. It seems CAC made the same mistake? It's possible there is another explanation admittedly, but that seems to be the most likely / apparent answer.
CAC is not a verifier of dates or mintmarks. No need to be, particularly on a silver commem.
So they just confirm that the right grade was given to the wrong coin? They should have just returned it with a note to have the error corrected.
The evaluator confirms the grade vs the coin. If the clerk who entered the date/mintmark had noticed a discrepency I am sure it would have been returned.
Notsofastmyfriend! So one or two graders at CAC plus JA missed the fact that the coin in the holder was not what the label says it is? So they graded the coin as a 65, BUT their database shows the coin not as a 1934 Texas ms65 CAC but as a 1935-S Texas ms65 CAC which per earlier in the thread is a coin that doesn't exist. CAC should have returned it to the submitter unverified with the suggestion that they return it to PCGS to have the error corrected.
@lkeigwin said:
I agree that CAC should simply return mechanical errors to get fixed before stickering.
But it seems that's not their policy. They judge the coin and then use the cert# assigned as the only way to ID the coin.
Lance.
CAC does not purchase coins and self sticker; thus, CAC would not be the owner of the coin when a stickering determination is made. CAC has no right to return any mechanical error to PCGS without the permission of the owner of the coin.
@lkeigwin said:
Forgive me...I should have said that better. CAC should return the mechanical errors to owners so that they can be corrected before stickering.
Lance.
Yes. If they catch the error then I am sure they would. If CAC graders confirm the coin/grade and a clerk enters the slab info it's easy to see how this could occur. Of course MS/PR/AU etc are part of the coin/grade. Does anybody have an example of an MS coin stickered as a PR?
@lkeigwin said:
Forgive me...I should have said that better. CAC should return the mechanical errors to owners so that they can be corrected before stickering.
Lance.
PCGS can't seem to get many of my variety submissions attributed correctly lately, it's about time there was a wake up call.
They lead the industry in many ways, I want them to succeed but to this point my feedback has fallen on deaf ears. I hope this shakes things up in a positive way, going forward.
@OriginalDan said:
PCGS can't seem to get many of my variety submissions attributed correctly lately, it's about time there was a wake up call.
You have the option of taking your varieties to another source for attribution. Can't you just attribute them yourself since you probably know how to do that just as well? I would think that most hard core EAC, VAM, and Overton collectors don't care what a TPG has to say about their coins, and they trade back and forth between them just fine. They don't need a TPG to enjoy and prosper in their niche.
@lkeigwin said:
Forgive me...I should have said that better. CAC should return the mechanical errors to owners so that they can be corrected before stickering.
Lance.
I said the same thing.
You said it first. I was agreeing.
I don't know if that's CAC's policy (if so we see exceptions here) but it ought to be.
Lance.
I have bought two or three coins from them that slabbed out as no problem coins, but then again, I think I have figured out how to "read" their images.....maybe??
@OriginalDan said:
PCGS can't seem to get many of my variety submissions attributed correctly lately, it's about time there was a wake up call.
You have the option of taking your varieties to another source for attribution. Can't you just attribute them yourself since you probably know how to do that just as well? I would think that most hard core EAC, VAM, and Overton collectors don't care what a TPG has to say about their coins, and they trade back and forth between them just fine. They don't need a TPG to enjoy and prosper in their niche.
Some people must see the designation on the label to believe it. Few people seemingly look at the coin itself anymore.
@OriginalDan said:
PCGS can't seem to get many of my variety submissions attributed correctly lately, it's about time there was a wake up call.
You have the option of taking your varieties to another source for attribution. Can't you just attribute them yourself since you probably know how to do that just as well? I would think that most hard core EAC, VAM, and Overton collectors don't care what a TPG has to say about their coins, and they trade back and forth between them just fine. They don't need a TPG to enjoy and prosper in their niche.
Some people must see the designation on the label to believe it. Few people seemingly look at the coin itself anymore.
There's a few reasons to get a variety attributed (registry, resale value, subtle variety) but that's not the point. If the folks at PCGS messed up the coin in the OP, and at least one attribution in each of my last 5 submissions, there's a problem that needs fixing.
Is it just me or is this more of a recent problem, within the last year or two?
Personally I think it's a haunted coin that plays mischief with anyone that comes in contact with it.
Aside from that. How much would it be worth as it is, from the angle of being in strongly mislabeled holder that has reached internet lore. Not as a PR65 but as an internet curiosity. Like a piece of bread that looks like Jesus or something.
Thanks! I was looking for an article like that and my goolefu failed me. Yes something like that.
I'm pretty sure to a few people out there a $60 coin in a $40K holder with the story this one has behind it is worth way more than $60. Especially with the true story behind it.
Yup. Good for you. Glad it worked out. I know you have always jumped in threads here, and other places, to support them and their model.
However, when I looked at some of their auctions, on my own, previously, I saw enough red flags to not even bother. Do I maybe miss a diamond in the rough? Sure. Do I avoid returns and potential unpleasantness? ABSOLUTELY!
If you had a friend, who wasn't an expert, and they wanted to go on ebay to buy some coins, would you tell them to go to town on GSC auctions? If so, I doubt he would be your friend for long.
It's definitely buyer beware. Just because a couple people did well, or got what was promised, out of a ton of sales, doesn't mean one should discount many many others that get the problem coins.
Cute. But I would be surprised if any money actually changed hands. Unpaid winning auction is simply a strike against someone's feedback record. It could even be a friend of the seller who never had any intention of paying.
Now if they really pay for the auction, THAT would be a crazy story!
As far as this coin goes, once the certification is caput, any extrinsic value it might have goes down quickly over time. In a week it is just a business strike VDB in a worthless holder. Unless of course, under a loupe you can see the Virgin Mary...
@Bochiman said:
Yup. Good for you. Glad it worked out. I know you have always jumped in threads here, and other places, to support them and their model.
However, when I looked at some of their auctions, on my own, previously, I saw enough red flags to not even bother. Do I maybe miss a diamond in the rough? Sure. Do I avoid returns and potential unpleasantness? ABSOLUTELY!
If you had a friend, who wasn't an expert, and they wanted to go on ebay to buy some coins, would you tell them to go to town on GSC auctions? If so, I doubt he would be your friend for long.
It's definitely buyer beware. Just because a couple people did well, or got what was promised, out of a ton of sales, doesn't mean one should discount many many others that get the problem coins.
@Bochiman said:
So, I think it's almost unanimous now, to the question posed by the OP...."And people say you shouldn't buy from Great Southern...."
Ayup...no change....for the vast majority of people, they probably shouldn't bother trying to buy from GSC.
Got this beauty from them:
Honestly I find them no better or worse than other dealers, or just browsing any coins on ebay period. They basically buy in bulk and sell in bulk. Sure, there are some lemons, but not all coins are great. I generally find them to list a coin as cleaned if it appears to be cleaned, etc. You could tell your friend to avoid all raw coins if they don't know what they are doing. That's generally the best advice.
@mannie gray said:
The rims on above coin look like proof rims.
I think I see diagnostic die scrs. in front of nose though can't see reverse markers.
Here's an image Robec posted of the die scratches by the nose, their not the same as the coin I posted and pay close attention to the lips, their not the same either .
@mannie gray said:
The rims on above coin look like proof rims.
I think I see diagnostic die scrs. in front of nose though can't see reverse markers.
Here's an image Robec posted of the die scratches by the nose, their not the same as the coin I posted and pay close attention to the lips, their not the same either .
If you straighten the second image I posted, scratches don't match what so ever ...
@mannie gray said:
The rims on above coin look like proof rims.
I think I see diagnostic die scrs. in front of nose though can't see reverse markers.
Here's an image Robec posted of the die scratches by the nose, their not the same as the coin I posted and pay close attention to the lips, their not the same either .
If you straighten the second image I posted, scratches don't match what so ever ...
Rick, you should start a new thread on this coin. No need to make this thread more confusing. From all the images posted over there, the coin you posted has a great chance of being called a proof.
@mannie gray said:
The rims on above coin look like proof rims.
I think I see diagnostic die scrs. in front of nose though can't see reverse markers.
Here's an image Robec posted of the die scratches by the nose, their not the same as the coin I posted and pay close attention to the lips, their not the same either .
If you straighten the second image I posted, scratches don't match what so ever ...
Rick, you should start a new thread on this coin. No need to make this thread more confusing. From all the images posted over there, the coin you posted has a great chance of being called a proof.
Do you actually think I would of posted it here, or anywhere else, if he would of showed what Pcgs said ?
@mannie gray said:
The rims on above coin look like proof rims.
I think I see diagnostic die scrs. in front of nose though can't see reverse markers.
Here's an image Robec posted of the die scratches by the nose, their not the same as the coin I posted and pay close attention to the lips, their not the same either .
If you straighten the second image I posted, scratches don't match what so ever ...
Rick, you should start a new thread on this coin. No need to make this thread more confusing. From all the images posted over there, the coin you posted has a great chance of being called a proof.
Do you actually think I would of posted it here, or anywhere else, if he would of showed what Pcgs said ?
It's not his coin. The owner of the coin is pulling the strings. The owner will show it at the proper time.
Actually they do match. Compare where the scratch in the circle among all three coins. They are all in the same place. Plus the fact that this coin has other visible markers.
Comments
I'm more surprised they didn't poof the thread.
It is still the weekend. (On the other hand 10,000+ views has brought a lot of eyes to the overall website.)
If CAC starts a department to proof read slab inserts to get the date correct, I want that job. I think CAC may only be interested in verifying grade and not typos made by TPG.
"A dog breaks your heart only one time and that is when they pass on". Unknown
I'm sure the mother ship will release the death ray on this thread at some point today.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
CAC is not a verifier of dates or mintmarks. No need to be, particularly on a silver commem.
Ground control to Major Tom.
True, but if it's a mechanical error where two different coins had their slab labels swapped, then the grade might not apply either.
I don't completely disagree - that isn't their purpose - but I also believe that it doesn't support the idea that CAC protects against any mislabeling errors or that it is fool-proof to buy a CAC coin. You should know your series.
If I listened to what everyone else said, I couldn't hear myself thinking.
So they just confirm that the right grade was given to the wrong coin? They should have just returned it with a note to have the error corrected.
Or crosses to NGC !
cant believe I havent seen this here yet...
Did anyone ever explain this:
If this coin had not been exposed as a MS and was sold as a proof for 40k and then lets say 10 yrs later the children of the person who paid 40k find out its only worth $56.........will PCGS pay them out or claim its a error?
I hope PCGS would pay out because that would be like me buying a picasso and then years down the line I find out that christies mistakenly sold me a fake picasso.
Many members on this forum that now it cannot fit in my signature. Please ask for entire list.
The evaluator confirms the grade vs the coin. If the clerk who entered the date/mintmark had noticed a discrepency I am sure it would have been returned.
Yes. PCGS would not pay anything as the coin is a mechanical error excepted from the guarantee.
Notsofastmyfriend! So one or two graders at CAC plus JA missed the fact that the coin in the holder was not what the label says it is? So they graded the coin as a 65, BUT their database shows the coin not as a 1934 Texas ms65 CAC but as a 1935-S Texas ms65 CAC which per earlier in the thread is a coin that doesn't exist. CAC should have returned it to the submitter unverified with the suggestion that they return it to PCGS to have the error corrected.
I agree that CAC should simply return mechanical errors to get fixed before stickering.
But it seems that's not their policy. They judge the coin and then use the cert# assigned as the only way to ID the coin.
Lance.
CAC does not purchase coins and self sticker; thus, CAC would not be the owner of the coin when a stickering determination is made. CAC has no right to return any mechanical error to PCGS without the permission of the owner of the coin.
Forgive me...I should have said that better. CAC should return the mechanical errors to owners so that they can be corrected before stickering.
Lance.
Yes. If they catch the error then I am sure they would. If CAC graders confirm the coin/grade and a clerk enters the slab info it's easy to see how this could occur. Of course MS/PR/AU etc are part of the coin/grade. Does anybody have an example of an MS coin stickered as a PR?
I said the same thing.
PCGS can't seem to get many of my variety submissions attributed correctly lately, it's about time there was a wake up call.
They lead the industry in many ways, I want them to succeed but to this point my feedback has fallen on deaf ears. I hope this shakes things up in a positive way, going forward.
You have the option of taking your varieties to another source for attribution. Can't you just attribute them yourself since you probably know how to do that just as well? I would think that most hard core EAC, VAM, and Overton collectors don't care what a TPG has to say about their coins, and they trade back and forth between them just fine. They don't need a TPG to enjoy and prosper in their niche.
Lance, that coin is SWEET!
You said it first. I was agreeing.
I don't know if that's CAC's policy (if so we see exceptions here) but it ought to be.
Lance.
Got this beauty from them:
I have bought two or three coins from them that slabbed out as no problem coins, but then again, I think I have figured out how to "read" their images.....maybe??
Asked a couple of B&Ms if thet got any calls from their customers , after hearing about the graded proof penny that wasn't. just 1 call
Always when a statement is made ,someone shows in 1 particular case, in an attempt to disprove opinion of many
I have not bought from Southern , but know of many who have , including posters here
Some people must see the designation on the label to believe it. Few people seemingly look at the coin itself anymore.
There's a few reasons to get a variety attributed (registry, resale value, subtle variety) but that's not the point. If the folks at PCGS messed up the coin in the OP, and at least one attribution in each of my last 5 submissions, there's a problem that needs fixing.
Is it just me or is this more of a recent problem, within the last year or two?
Personally I think it's a haunted coin that plays mischief with anyone that comes in contact with it.
Aside from that. How much would it be worth as it is, from the angle of being in strongly mislabeled holder that has reached internet lore. Not as a PR65 but as an internet curiosity. Like a piece of bread that looks like Jesus or something.
edited: in Keeping with getting WAY OT" Like a piece of bread that looks like Jesus or something" Or the Cheetos that just sold on eBay for $100,000 that looked like a gorilla, yeah really, a 100 grand!!
cnbc.com/2017/02/07/harambe-shaped-cheeto-sold-for-almost-100000.html
eBay ID-bruceshort978
Successful BST:here and ATS, bumanchu, wdrob, hashtag, KeeNoooo, mikej61, Yonico, Meltdown, BAJJERFAN, Excaliber, lordmarcovan, cucamongacoin, robkool, bradyc, tonedcointrader, mumu, Windycity, astrotrain, tizofthe, overdate, rwyarmch, mkman123, Timbuk3,GBurger717, airplanenut, coinkid855 ,illini420, michaeldixon, Weiss, Morpheus, Deepcoin, Collectorcoins, AUandAG, D.Schwager.
Thanks! I was looking for an article like that and my goolefu failed me. Yes something like that.
I'm pretty sure to a few people out there a $60 coin in a $40K holder with the story this one has behind it is worth way more than $60. Especially with the true story behind it.
Yup. Good for you. Glad it worked out. I know you have always jumped in threads here, and other places, to support them and their model.
However, when I looked at some of their auctions, on my own, previously, I saw enough red flags to not even bother. Do I maybe miss a diamond in the rough? Sure. Do I avoid returns and potential unpleasantness? ABSOLUTELY!
If you had a friend, who wasn't an expert, and they wanted to go on ebay to buy some coins, would you tell them to go to town on GSC auctions? If so, I doubt he would be your friend for long.
It's definitely buyer beware. Just because a couple people did well, or got what was promised, out of a ton of sales, doesn't mean one should discount many many others that get the problem coins.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Cute. But I would be surprised if any money actually changed hands. Unpaid winning auction is simply a strike against someone's feedback record. It could even be a friend of the seller who never had any intention of paying.
Now if they really pay for the auction, THAT would be a crazy story!
As far as this coin goes, once the certification is caput, any extrinsic value it might have goes down quickly over time. In a week it is just a business strike VDB in a worthless holder. Unless of course, under a loupe you can see the Virgin Mary...
Honestly I find them no better or worse than other dealers, or just browsing any coins on ebay period. They basically buy in bulk and sell in bulk. Sure, there are some lemons, but not all coins are great. I generally find them to list a coin as cleaned if it appears to be cleaned, etc. You could tell your friend to avoid all raw coins if they don't know what they are doing. That's generally the best advice.
400! (??)
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Here's one that was posted on cointalk and he say it's a matte proof, but won't show us what Pcgs said . I say he's full of BS ..
Probably because they said au58.
what's the news on PCGS actions with the faux proof penny ?
That one looks totally legit to me. PR64RB and maybe up to PR65RD.
The rims on above coin look like proof rims.
I think I see diagnostic die scrs. in front of nose though can't see reverse markers.
Here's an image Robec posted of the die scratches by the nose, their not the same as the coin I posted and pay close attention to the lips, their not the same either .
If you straighten the second image I posted, scratches don't match what so ever ...
Rick, you should start a new thread on this coin. No need to make this thread more confusing. From all the images posted over there, the coin you posted has a great chance of being called a proof.
Do you actually think I would of posted it here, or anywhere else, if he would of showed what Pcgs said ?
It's not his coin. The owner of the coin is pulling the strings. The owner will show it at the proper time.
That is a sweet Quarter Eagle!
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
Actually they do match. Compare where the scratch in the circle among all three coins. They are all in the same place. Plus the fact that this coin has other visible markers.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts