If you guys haven't checked out this Registry Set....
commoncents05
Posts: 10,096 ✭✭✭
commoncents05
Posts: 10,096 ✭✭✭
Comments
-Paul
Time to check his other sets.
njcc
Keets...will I see you in Cinci this weekend?
njcc
I think I need to look around the Registry a little more often.
Mike
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
K
<< <i>woww @ the 1936 brilliant >>
Ho Ho Holy Moley!!! That thing is more than awesome.
-wes
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
Who is John Galt?
<< <i>Wow - those are some of the most beautiful buffalos I've seen! >>
<< <i>
<< <i>woww @ the 1936 brilliant >>
Ho Ho Holy Moley!!! That thing is more than awesome.
-wes >>
that is also one that is widely reported to be AT by an infamous coin doc in Chicago.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>woww @ the 1936 brilliant >>
Ho Ho Holy Moley!!! That thing is more than awesome.
-wes >>
that is also one that is widely reported to be AT by an infamous coin doc in Chicago. >>
Coin Doc in Chicago? I never knew. Care to spill the name to see if I know him/her?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>woww @ the 1936 brilliant >>
Ho Ho Holy Moley!!! That thing is more than awesome.
-wes >>
that is also one that is widely reported to be AT by an infamous coin doc in Chicago. >>
Coin Doc in Chicago? I never knew. Care to spill the name to see if I know him/her? >>
don't know him/her. there have been more than a couple threads the last couple years about this coin, and talk that the doc admitted his work proudly. Russ also reported it in a thread sometime back.
but i guess the AT is "market acceptable" to PCGS, huh?
Who in their right mind would jeopardize a proof 69 buff's value by doctoring it? I know it wasn't graded a 69 when the doctoring allegedly took place, but it must have been evident even then that this was a special coin.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
well, i hate to be a wet blanket, but no it doesn't!!! at least not until the owner get's a 1913 TYPE TWO for the set. the coin pictured is clearly a TYPE ONE and even checks out as such with the cert. number check at the PCGS home page. actually, it's quite embarrassing for both parties involved; PCGS has mislabeled a coin and the owner evidentally knowingly or unknowingly added a TYPE ONE as a TYPE TWO. how could the owner(s) of that coin not know the obvious?? according to the PCGS price guide we're talking about a $10k mistake where the TYPE ONE pictured is valued higher than the TYPE TWO insert. i assume it's a "mechanical error" that will cost someone some money.
that needs to be changed. past that i will withhold any further comment.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>woww @ the 1936 brilliant >>
Ho Ho Holy Moley!!! That thing is more than awesome.
-wes >>
that is also one that is widely reported to be AT by an infamous coin doc in Chicago. >>
Coin Doc in Chicago? I never knew. Care to spill the name to see if I know him/her? >>
Yes, the 36 is incredible (!!!) and yes it looks like the one known to have supposedly been AT'ed by the infamous Chicago resident. I'm not sure anyone knows who the doctor is, but given that the 36 looks natural, I'm not sure it matters (did I just say that?).