Lesson #1 Do it to three cheap well-struck sliders and you'll never be fooled again.
Lesson #2 LOL, overdo it and see what bleach can and cannot do to semi-FUBAR silver.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I agree the coin looks like a 58 from the recent photos and it looks like it had a light cleaning, at least on the reverse from the toning on the earlier photos. 61 seems reasonable.
A couple of years ago I purchased a fully original circulated 89-cc Morgan from a dealer who found it in a half-bag he purchased. He graded it 45 and I hoped it would 50. PCGS liked it and graded it 53, but JA would not CAC it. He said it looked "xfey." He said that most dealers would dip this coin to brighten it for resale (which, I believe, would not have violated PNG's coin doctoring definition). Disappointed, I reviewed most auction sales of AU 89-ccs and was surprised to find as few as 1 in 20 that looked original and undipped. I sold it shortly thereafter, but I was still disappointed that JA wold not CAC it, even if it was an old timer's choice xf.
@Justacommeman said:
That holder is doing that poor little coin no favors
m
When is NGC going to give up the white prongs - they look horrible especially on small coins. Not to mention that 1795 white metal pattern that was ruined by those horrible prongs.
But of course, your main point was to hype your coin, so well done.
yeah, we were spammed by a newbie, educated by an old-timer and even had a little nutty snarkieness thrown in for fun..........................what a well rounded thread!!!
@Justacommeman said:
That holder is doing that poor little coin no favors
m
When is NGC going to give up the white prongs - they look horrible especially on small coins. Not to mention that 1795 white metal pattern that was ruined by those horrible prongs.
Its just awful. Fangs eating a nice coin
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
yeah, Mark, let's go back to the days when small coins like this were buried in the white plastic holder, almost always cocked at a dangerous angle and very difficult to photograph. NGC needs to just re-do their holder since this "improvement" isn't really much of one. clear plastic is the way to go.
@keets said: But of course, your main point was to hype your coin, so well done.
yeah, we were spammed by a newbie, educated by an old-timer and even had a little nutty snarkieness thrown in for fun..........................what a well rounded thread!!!
If this was the point, and it may have been, I don't think it met its intended purpose as this can be a tough and, sometimes, astute crowd.
@keets said:
yeah, Mark, let's go back to the days when small coins like this were buried in the white plastic holder, almost always cocked at a dangerous angle and very difficult to photograph. NGC needs to just re-do their holder since this "improvement" isn't really much of one. clear plastic is the way to go.
I loved buying trimes in old thick deep socket NGC holders.
@Justacommeman said:
That holder is doing that poor little coin no favors
m
When is NGC going to give up the white prongs - they look horrible especially on small coins. Not to mention that 1795 white metal pattern that was ruined by those horrible prongs.
What a lot of nasty remarks! Instead of reasoned replies, I have had a torrent of blind abuse, and I would single out the many shrill comments from jmlanzaf in particular. So vitriolic! Could he have been the grader of this coin? Or is he simply closing ranks?
Most coin people know that the angle of lighting makes a big difference. And that Stack's Bowers use the best, but they don't show relief in the way a single source of light does. They 'swamp' the coin, so that it is well lit all over. My old flexible desktop lamp, when directly above the coin, also shows much less detail than it does when angled low to it. And, from above, the toning is less obvious; and that is why I had to write and show just how spectacular it really is. In the hand too, it can be angled to reveal its beauty.
I am attaching the British auctioneers' photos of the coin, and my own photo of the reverse, angled to show its true detail and toning.
The coin is unaltered. It was discovered in a box, consigned to one of the top British auction houses, and handled by them and me with the utmost care. I have been involved with coins for 72 years and know how to.
In this forum, I have had to endure all sorts of accusations. I have read about devious means of enhancing coins which I could not have imagined, let alone used. I am sure there are many knowledgeable numismatists out there. I expected objective replies from them but, with a few exceptions, I was disappointed.
My motive in writing was of course not to 'hype' the coin, as the 'pundits' decided. There is no need to.
I am sure that no-one who would want it would fail to see it on Stack's Bowers online catalog. I wrote to show it as it really is - far better than graded.
I agree the coin looks like a 58 from the recent photos and it looks like it had a light cleaning, at least on the reverse from the toning on the earlier photos. 61 seems reasonable.
A couple of years ago I purchased a fully original circulated 89-cc Morgan from a dealer who found it in a half-bag he purchased. He graded it 45 and I hoped it would 50. PCGS liked it and graded it 53, but JA would not CAC it. He said it looked "xfey." He said that most dealers would dip this coin to brighten it for resale (which, I believe, would not have violated PNG's coin doctoring definition). Disappointed, I reviewed most auction sales of AU 89-ccs and was surprised to find as few as 1 in 20 that looked original and undipped. I sold it shortly thereafter, but I was still disappointed that JA wold not CAC it, even if it was an old timer's choice xf.
It was an XF coin that you "hoped it would 50". Then when it 53's, you are disappointed that JA wouldn't CAC it??? By your own assessment, YOU wouldn't CAC it at 53.
I'm honored to have been singled out. I'm doubly honored that you consider my grading so astute that I could be a professional NGC grader! Thank you, kind sir!
My shrill comments consist of my declaring that I would have graded it a 58 but that it is a current market 61. How very shrill of me.
The coin is unaltered. It was discovered in a box, consigned to one of the top British auction houses, and handled by them and me with the utmost care. I have been involved with coins for 72 years and know how to.
The coin is 225 years old. It was quite common to clean silver coins in the 19th century. No one has accused YOU of doing anything to the coin. But the fact that it was "discovered in a box" and "consigned to one of the top British auction houses" has nothing to do with the assessment of some that this coin has been cleaned. It could have been cleaned 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or quite likely 150 years ago when it was very common to do so.
I am attaching the British auctioneers' photos of the coin, and my own photo of the reverse, angled to show its true detail and toning.
What you dislike is that no one agrees with you that this coin is better than a 61. The new photos confirm the original assessment that it is a commercial 61 - a light rub technical 58.
Such an assessment is neither abuse nor insult It is not shrill or unreasoned. It is simply the majority opinion of this board and NGC itself. If Stack's sent it to CAC, it is also the opinion of JA.
If you don't like NGC's opinion, you could have sent it back for reassessment or sent it to PCGS for their assessment. I'm really not sure why your insulting OUR COLLECTIVE expertise is acceptable but our offering our expert opinion is somehow abusive.
'... the assessment of some that this coin has been cleaned. It could have been cleaned 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or quite likely 150 years ago when it was very common to do so.'
What assessment? You need to SEE the coin to make as assessment. No. Only someone with a closed mind or some prejudice does that. No rub on the coin whatever. As graded, mint state; but a far higher mint state than 61.
I dislike your offensive and vindictive persistence in criticising far more than anyone else.
'... the assessment of some that this coin has been cleaned. It could have been cleaned 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or quite likely 150 years ago when it was very common to do so.'
What assessment? You need to SEE the coin to make as assessment. No. Only someone with a closed mind or some prejudice does that. No rub on the coin whatever. As graded, mint state; but a far higher mint state than 61.
I dislike your offensive and vindictive persistence in criticising far more than anyone else.
If we need to see the coin in hand to make an assessment - and I’m not disagreeing with you on that - what is the point of showing us images in order to support your belief that the coin is under-graded?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"If we need to see the coin in hand to make an assessment - and I’m not disagreeing with you on that - what is the point of showing us images in order to support your belief that the coin is under-graded"
Because - as I wrote in my first post - you can see on this photo the breast feathers, the sharpness of the wings, the leaf veins, and the toning (better shown, and as described in the catalog, the apricot touches). The SB photo doesn't show this.
@grivennik said:
"If we need to see the coin in hand to make an assessment - and I’m not disagreeing with you on that - what is the point of showing us images in order to support your belief that the coin is under-graded"
Because - as I wrote in my first post - you can see on this photo the breast feathers, the sharpness of the wings, the leaf veins, and the toning (better shown, and as described in the catalog, the apricot touches). The SB photo doesn't show this.
But you said the coin needs to be seen to be assessed properly. Additionally, many of your posts are focused on strike, which is only one element of grading. I didn’t see anyone criticize the strike in any way - that’s not the reason they disagreed with you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"I’ll be sure to post Laura’s in hand assessment after she lot views in Baltimore".
While I welcome this, the fact that it is now encapsulated may prevent her from seeing the lovely toning (which the cataloguer saw, and described). I hope not.
@grivennik said:
"I’ll be sure to post Laura’s in hand assessment after she lot views in Baltimore".
While I welcome this, the fact that it is now encapsulated may prevent her from seeing the lovely toning (which the cataloguer saw, and described). I hope not.
"But you said the coin needs to be seen to be assessed properly. Additionally, many of your posts are focused on strike, which is only one element of grading. I didn’t see anyone criticize the strike in any way - that’s not the reason they disagreed with you."
I agree.
The cataloger wrote "Satiny in texture with an uncommonly smooth appearance for the assigned grade". His assessment. What I added was a better photo, emphasizing what it showed, simply.
@grivennik said:
"But you said the coin needs to be seen to be assessed properly. Additionally, many of your posts are focused on strike, which is only one element of grading. I didn’t see anyone criticize the strike in any way - that’s not the reason they disagreed with you."
I agree.
The cataloger wrote "Satiny in texture with an uncommonly smooth appearance for the assigned grade". His assessment. What I added was a better photo, emphasizing what it showed, simply.
Uhmmm-that was NOT a better photo
And most catalogers would write such about a coin found on a road in rush hour traffic
Not sure if I want to set foot in these waters, but one thing I can say: if your coin passes muster with folks here, that is a good thing. If not, well, each entitled to their opinion. I can say that I agree with Mr. Feld that it is not exactly logical to ask for a grading assessment based on pictures when you have already stated it must be seen in hand.
BTW, I showed a couple of U.S. coins obtained in British auction houses that were slammed as anything from fake to cleaned to ungradable that came back 55 and 63. So you may be right about "in hand" assessment, but in that case would have to see the opinions of those that come to inspect it at Baltimore.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
See the darkness on the cheek here? Means no luster due to rub. On flowing hair coinage the grade is 63 max with this attribute depending upon the balance of the coin.
See the greyness of the fields here and there? Means either circulation wear or cleaning. Flowing hair coins with this attribute won’t grade above 61/62
@grivennik said:
'... the assessment of some that this coin has been cleaned. It could have been cleaned 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or quite likely 150 years ago when it was very common to do so.'
What assessment? You need to SEE the coin to make as assessment. No. Only someone with a closed mind or some prejudice does that. No rub on the coin whatever. As graded, mint state; but a far higher mint state than 61.
I dislike your offensive and vindictive persistence in criticising far more than anyone else.
First of all, I personally never suggested it had been cleaned. Those that have are entitled to their opinion. And NONE of them have accused you of doing it.
I defy you to find one offensive comment I've made. The worst thing u said was that you were trying to hype your coin.
All grades are net grades. While it’s possible that your coin is under graded, the odds are dramatically against it. What I see in the images leads me to believe it is a well struck, smooth coin with slight impairment due to friction and/or cleaning. 62 on a great day, 58 on a bad one.
In the range of 58-62, the grades and values are pretty interchangeable and fluid.
@tradedollarnut said:
All grades are net grades. While it’s possible that your coin is under graded, the odds are dramatically against it. What I see in the images leads me to believe it is a well struck, smooth coin with slight impairment due to friction and/or cleaning. 62 on a great day, 58 on a bad one.
In the range of 58-62, the grades and values are pretty interchangeable and fluid.
Careful. I said that and was labeled offensive and vindictive
I do hope that the market is not labeled as offensive and vindictive when the coin sells for whatever it sells for!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
Perhaps this is a reasonable translation of the auction catalog "lingo:"
"Satiny in texture [Overall surface uniform in appearance due to continuous hairlines throughout] with an uncommonly smooth [Flat,unoriginal surface with no original luster remaining on those parts of the coin due to bouncing around in a box of coins for several years] appearance for the assigned [Coins formerly graded AU-58 are now found in low MS grade ranges] coin grade."
The oddest thing about this thread is that the OP started by complaining about the grade AND the photo. But this coin still looks best in the Stacks Bowers photos. Second best look is the British catalogue where it looks to have vibrant color though less detail. The coins looks XF polished in the OP's photos which he keeps waving around like some kind of smoking gun.
@grivennik said:
An unnecessary slur on the cataloguer. And on Stack's Bowers.
Young fellow, I should not have expected you to know that the BEST FORM OF HUMOR has some truth to it.
BTW, I do like your coin. As I posted previously, I believe it is correctly graded in the 61-62 range. Let's see what the auction price brings.
PS For the sake of you being more correct than all of us here, I hope it sells for MS-60 money and we see it graded MS-63 several months from now!
@grivennik
Welcome to the Forum and here's a hint from a retired TPG grader and top-level dealer.
I, and quite a few others, know a lot more about coins than most here.
Some of them know a lot more than I do in their specialties (and out).
Some people who know very little of what I know have vast knowledge in other areas.
Based on your experiences, you may have much to share.
Do you want to be right? Do you want to make money? Do you want to learn from others who know more?
Do you want to show off? And share too?
Everyone here has at least two motives.
NOT late-breaking news
No particular compliment , but an objective evaluation: @jmlanzaf is more down-to-earth than many others in his general take on current markets.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Comments
Lesson #1 Do it to three cheap well-struck sliders and you'll never be fooled again.
Lesson #2 LOL, overdo it and see what bleach can and cannot do to semi-FUBAR silver.
I see the topic has shifted, and think I have made my point.
I want to thank everyone for their contributions to my thread.
If your point was that NGC got it right - you've made your point. If your point was the coin is undergraded, you've failed to make your point.
But of course, your main point was to hype your coin, so well done.
Darn right!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Thank you for the candor El Colonel!
I agree the coin looks like a 58 from the recent photos and it looks like it had a light cleaning, at least on the reverse from the toning on the earlier photos. 61 seems reasonable.
A couple of years ago I purchased a fully original circulated 89-cc Morgan from a dealer who found it in a half-bag he purchased. He graded it 45 and I hoped it would 50. PCGS liked it and graded it 53, but JA would not CAC it. He said it looked "xfey." He said that most dealers would dip this coin to brighten it for resale (which, I believe, would not have violated PNG's coin doctoring definition). Disappointed, I reviewed most auction sales of AU 89-ccs and was surprised to find as few as 1 in 20 that looked original and undipped. I sold it shortly thereafter, but I was still disappointed that JA wold not CAC it, even if it was an old timer's choice xf.
Tom
When is NGC going to give up the white prongs - they look horrible especially on small coins. Not to mention that 1795 white metal pattern that was ruined by those horrible prongs.
But of course, your main point was to hype your coin, so well done.
yeah, we were spammed by a newbie, educated by an old-timer and even had a little nutty snarkieness thrown in for fun..........................what a well rounded thread!!!
I don't think anyone has commented...might it not bring more as a 58? King of the Everyman set and/or upgrade/chasers, or are those days over?
Its just awful. Fangs eating a nice coin
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
yeah, Mark, let's go back to the days when small coins like this were buried in the white plastic holder, almost always cocked at a dangerous angle and very difficult to photograph. NGC needs to just re-do their holder since this "improvement" isn't really much of one. clear plastic is the way to go.
If this was the point, and it may have been, I don't think it met its intended purpose as this can be a tough and, sometimes, astute crowd.
Tom
I loved buying trimes in old thick deep socket NGC holders.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Exactly!
What a lot of nasty remarks! Instead of reasoned replies, I have had a torrent of blind abuse, and I would single out the many shrill comments from jmlanzaf in particular. So vitriolic! Could he have been the grader of this coin? Or is he simply closing ranks?
Most coin people know that the angle of lighting makes a big difference. And that Stack's Bowers use the best, but they don't show relief in the way a single source of light does. They 'swamp' the coin, so that it is well lit all over. My old flexible desktop lamp, when directly above the coin, also shows much less detail than it does when angled low to it. And, from above, the toning is less obvious; and that is why I had to write and show just how spectacular it really is. In the hand too, it can be angled to reveal its beauty.
I am attaching the British auctioneers' photos of the coin, and my own photo of the reverse, angled to show its true detail and toning.
The coin is unaltered. It was discovered in a box, consigned to one of the top British auction houses, and handled by them and me with the utmost care. I have been involved with coins for 72 years and know how to.
In this forum, I have had to endure all sorts of accusations. I have read about devious means of enhancing coins which I could not have imagined, let alone used. I am sure there are many knowledgeable numismatists out there. I expected objective replies from them but, with a few exceptions, I was disappointed.
My motive in writing was of course not to 'hype' the coin, as the 'pundits' decided. There is no need to.
I am sure that no-one who would want it would fail to see it on Stack's Bowers online catalog. I wrote to show it as it really is - far better than graded.
It was an XF coin that you "hoped it would 50". Then when it 53's, you are disappointed that JA wouldn't CAC it??? By your own assessment, YOU wouldn't CAC it at 53.
I'm honored to have been singled out. I'm doubly honored that you consider my grading so astute that I could be a professional NGC grader! Thank you, kind sir!
My shrill comments consist of my declaring that I would have graded it a 58 but that it is a current market 61. How very shrill of me.
The coin is 225 years old. It was quite common to clean silver coins in the 19th century. No one has accused YOU of doing anything to the coin. But the fact that it was "discovered in a box" and "consigned to one of the top British auction houses" has nothing to do with the assessment of some that this coin has been cleaned. It could have been cleaned 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or quite likely 150 years ago when it was very common to do so.
What you dislike is that no one agrees with you that this coin is better than a 61. The new photos confirm the original assessment that it is a commercial 61 - a light rub technical 58.
Such an assessment is neither abuse nor insult It is not shrill or unreasoned. It is simply the majority opinion of this board and NGC itself. If Stack's sent it to CAC, it is also the opinion of JA.
If you don't like NGC's opinion, you could have sent it back for reassessment or sent it to PCGS for their assessment. I'm really not sure why your insulting OUR COLLECTIVE expertise is acceptable but our offering our expert opinion is somehow abusive.
'... the assessment of some that this coin has been cleaned. It could have been cleaned 20 years ago, 50 years ago, or quite likely 150 years ago when it was very common to do so.'
What assessment? You need to SEE the coin to make as assessment. No. Only someone with a closed mind or some prejudice does that. No rub on the coin whatever. As graded, mint state; but a far higher mint state than 61.
I dislike your offensive and vindictive persistence in criticising far more than anyone else.
.> @grivennik said:
If we need to see the coin in hand to make an assessment - and I’m not disagreeing with you on that - what is the point of showing us images in order to support your belief that the coin is under-graded?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’ll be sure to post Laura’s in hand assessment after she lot views in Baltimore
Part of the issue is it’s ngc with no CAC. For market value, it’s hard to get a worse combination
"If we need to see the coin in hand to make an assessment - and I’m not disagreeing with you on that - what is the point of showing us images in order to support your belief that the coin is under-graded"
Because - as I wrote in my first post - you can see on this photo the breast feathers, the sharpness of the wings, the leaf veins, and the toning (better shown, and as described in the catalog, the apricot touches). The SB photo doesn't show this.
But you said the coin needs to be seen to be assessed properly. Additionally, many of your posts are focused on strike, which is only one element of grading. I didn’t see anyone criticize the strike in any way - that’s not the reason they disagreed with you.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
"I’ll be sure to post Laura’s in hand assessment after she lot views in Baltimore".
While I welcome this, the fact that it is now encapsulated may prevent her from seeing the lovely toning (which the cataloguer saw, and described). I hope not.
I’m sure she’ll manage
"But you said the coin needs to be seen to be assessed properly. Additionally, many of your posts are focused on strike, which is only one element of grading. I didn’t see anyone criticize the strike in any way - that’s not the reason they disagreed with you."
I agree.
The cataloger wrote "Satiny in texture with an uncommonly smooth appearance for the assigned grade". His assessment. What I added was a better photo, emphasizing what it showed, simply.
Uhmmm-that was NOT a better photo
And most catalogers would write such about a coin found on a road in rush hour traffic
Not sure if I want to set foot in these waters, but one thing I can say: if your coin passes muster with folks here, that is a good thing. If not, well, each entitled to their opinion. I can say that I agree with Mr. Feld that it is not exactly logical to ask for a grading assessment based on pictures when you have already stated it must be seen in hand.
BTW, I showed a couple of U.S. coins obtained in British auction houses that were slammed as anything from fake to cleaned to ungradable that came back 55 and 63. So you may be right about "in hand" assessment, but in that case would have to see the opinions of those that come to inspect it at Baltimore.
Well, just Love coins, period.
You are right! I take lousy photos. But it shows things the SB photo doesn't.
See the darkness on the cheek here? Means no luster due to rub. On flowing hair coinage the grade is 63 max with this attribute depending upon the balance of the coin.
See the greyness of the fields here and there? Means either circulation wear or cleaning. Flowing hair coins with this attribute won’t grade above 61/62
First of all, I personally never suggested it had been cleaned. Those that have are entitled to their opinion. And NONE of them have accused you of doing it.
I defy you to find one offensive comment I've made. The worst thing u said was that you were trying to hype your coin.
Is this 4Ts?
All grades are net grades. While it’s possible that your coin is under graded, the odds are dramatically against it. What I see in the images leads me to believe it is a well struck, smooth coin with slight impairment due to friction and/or cleaning. 62 on a great day, 58 on a bad one.
In the range of 58-62, the grades and values are pretty interchangeable and fluid.
Careful. I said that and was labeled offensive and vindictive
And obsessively so
I do hope that the market is not labeled as offensive and vindictive when the coin sells for whatever it sells for!
@grivennik
Perhaps this is a reasonable translation
of the auction catalog "lingo:"
"Satiny in texture [Overall surface uniform in appearance due to continuous hairlines throughout] with an uncommonly smooth [Flat,unoriginal surface with no original luster remaining on those parts of the coin due to bouncing around in a box of coins for several years] appearance for the assigned [Coins formerly graded AU-58 are now found in low MS grade ranges] coin grade."
As a part-time coin dealer in the current environment, I can confirm that the Coin Market IS offensive and vindictive.
An unnecessary slur on the cataloguer. And on Stack's Bowers.
Why would you lie about this? Very odd.
The oddest thing about this thread is that the OP started by complaining about the grade AND the photo. But this coin still looks best in the Stacks Bowers photos. Second best look is the British catalogue where it looks to have vibrant color though less detail. The coins looks XF polished in the OP's photos which he keeps waving around like some kind of smoking gun.
Thank you for your time and efforts in this thread. Have a break!
Young fellow, I should not have expected you to know that the BEST FORM OF HUMOR has some truth to it.
BTW, I do like your coin. As I posted previously, I believe it is correctly graded in the 61-62 range. Let's see what the auction price brings.
PS For the sake of you being more correct than all of us here, I hope it sells for MS-60 money and we see it graded MS-63 several months from now!
My take was that he was representing as high bidder at the ridiculous $130 level, purportedly demonstrating his financial acuity
@grivennik
Welcome to the Forum and here's a hint from a retired TPG grader and top-level dealer.
I, and quite a few others, know a lot more about coins than most here.
Some of them know a lot more than I do in their specialties (and out).
Some people who know very little of what I know have vast knowledge in other areas.
Based on your experiences, you may have much to share.
Do you want to be right? Do you want to make money? Do you want to learn from others who know more?
Do you want to show off? And share too?
Everyone here has at least two motives.
NOT late-breaking news
No particular compliment
, but an objective evaluation: @jmlanzaf is more down-to-earth than many others in his general take on current markets. 
Except I was the high bidder from $110 to the current lofty $320. It just seems like an odd thing to lie about
@jmlanzaf said: "Except I was the high bidder from $110 to the current lofty $320. It just seems like an odd thing to lie about."
Perhaps just a joke?
Perhaps, but I guess I don't get it.
Part of the issue is it’s ngc with no CAC. For market value, it’s hard to get a worse combination
Bruce, that's a sobering assessment.