Options
Now that I'm a Collectors' club member, it's interesting to see Shared Order statuses
Hyperion
Posts: 7,438 ✭✭✭
I'm thinking this won't go under the "successful" submissions column for the submitter.
Link To Submission
I'm not sure that I should cut and paste the results for non members. Is that unethical? Is it unethical for me to even post this link?
Link To Submission
I'm not sure that I should cut and paste the results for non members. Is that unethical? Is it unethical for me to even post this link?
0
Comments
1 1 X 1880-O $10 US Genuine (92 - Cleaned)
2 1 Y 1892-O $10 US MS61
3 1 Y 1900 $10 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
4 1 Y 1901 $10 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
4 2 N 1901 $10 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
5 1 Y 1905 $10 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
6 1 N 1907 $10 Liberty US MS63
7 1 Y 1907 $10 No Motto US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
8 1 Y 1910 $10 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
9 1 Y 1860 $20 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
10 1 N 1871 $20 US AU55
11 1 O 1900-S $20 US Genuine (91 - Questionable Color)
12 1 I 1904-S $20 US MS63
12 2 P 1904-S $20 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
13 1 L 1908-D $20 No Motto US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
14 1 M 1911-S $20 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
15 1 Q 1922-S $20 US AU58
16 1 M 1924 $20 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
17 1 < 1926-S $20 US Genuine (94 - Altered Surface)
18 1 N 1927 $20 US MS64
chaching!
<< <i>It is possible the submitter may have known the coins were cleaned but sent them anyway to get them in Genuine holders to enhace their saleablility. You don't have to use ANACS for that purpose any more. >>
While that's possible, I imagine a more likely scenario is that the didn't buy the book first. A painful lesson.
Please visit my website Millcitynumismatics.com
<< <i>
<< <i>It is possible the submitter may have known the coins were cleaned but sent them anyway to get them in Genuine holders to enhace their saleablility. You don't have to use ANACS for that purpose any more. >>
While that's possible, I imagine a more likely scenario is that the didn't buy the book first. A painful lesson. >>
Yes, it could be someone's "treasures" picked off ebay, full of hairlines.
I've seen worse submissions -- I have seen modern submissions that look like they just pulled coins out of their pocket and sent them to PCGS.
I, too, am curious about the questionable color gold coin. I've seen a few. Specifically, at the Santa Clara show, there was a raw $10 indian. About a quarter of the coin was a dark indigo spot, fading to red at the edges. Bizarre.
Link
Total value after certification: About $6
<< <i>Here is $84 + postage in grading fees spent on a $6 proof set:
Link
Total value after certification: About $6 >>
Just because it doesn't hold a lot of value, doesn't mean it's a waste of money to someone. 1974 could be a special year to that person and money wasn't an object, to make a set like that. I'm not saying you are wrong, but to assume such a narrow idea is well, you know.
Am I dumb for sending in a 1967 Canadian set with the $20 gold coin also to NGC for certification? All I did it for, is because my daughter loves the coins, and I thought it would be special to have them all together with the gold be "certified". Guess you can throw me into the "throw my money away" crowd too.