If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
Johnny Doe wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:48:02 -0500, "Nick Knight" wrote: In , on 03/30/2009 at 10:15 AM, Johnny Doe said: #3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark on it (the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an AU55 with no other clarifying notations? Yes, if the Morgan dollar was minted in the 17th century. Hmmm. We're not going to get a logical comment, eh? I didn't think the question was all that difficult. Nick, you obviously know that PCGS, et.al., do not deal with 'absolute' grading standards, but vary them according to the era, coin type & size, method of coining, etc. Issues that would be perfectly acceptable on a 1793 large cent are reasons to body-bag a Morgan or any other modern, industry-manufactured coin. Now apply that differentiation to a taler from the 1600's. That wasn't so hard, was it? Nick at least acknowledged your post, but ignored mine, even after I spent time researching the prices for him. Oh well, I imagine I got into his killfile somehow. James |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:48:02 -0500, "Nick Knight"
wrote: In , on 03/30/2009 at 10:15 AM, Johnny Doe said: #3 and finally, I think: If a Morgan dollar had such an obvious mark on it (the ding at 6:00 on the obverse), would PCGS grade it as an AU55 with no other clarifying notations? Yes, if the Morgan dollar was minted in the 17th century. Hmmm. We're not going to get a logical comment, eh? I didn't think the question was all that difficult. Nick, you obviously know that PCGS, et.al., do not deal with 'absolute' grading standards, but vary them according to the era, coin type & size, method of coining, etc. Issues that would be perfectly acceptable on a 1793 large cent are reasons to body-bag a Morgan or any other modern, industry-manufactured coin. Now apply that differentiation to a taler from the 1600's. That wasn't so hard, was it? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message ... Nick at least acknowledged your post, but ignored mine, even after I spent time researching the prices for him. Oh well, I imagine I got into his killfile somehow. He is very proud of his killfile and you should be too. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
Nick Knight wrote:
In , on 03/31/2009 at 09:32 AM, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com said: Nick at least acknowledged your post, but ignored mine, even after I spent time researching the prices for him. Oh well, I imagine I got into his killfile somehow. Killfile? James! You'd have to be pretty obnoxious for that. Those who are "there" are certainly there for a reason. More to my thinking, they're there because there's no reason for me to have to read their posts. Coin-related posts are almost always interesting. I found your post interesting and, well, logical. What was there with which to argue? I'll got reread this evening and see if I can find a constructive comment ... or a nit! OK, no problem, I was just wondering. Reread at your leisure, and if you find a nit, go ahead and pick! It keeps me on my toes, and I definitely need to remain on my toes in today's numismatic climate. It's a jungle out there, with predators hiding everywhere. Oop, here comes one now...GLOM... James |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
Nick Knight wrote:
In , on 03/31/2009 at 09:38 AM, Johnny Doe said: acceptable on a 1793 large cent are reasons to body-bag a Morgan or any other modern, industry-manufactured coin. Now apply that differentiation to a taler from the 1600's. A taler from the 1600's is really nothing all that special. I mean, they are plentiful in a variety of grades, noting specific exceptions by type (of which this doesn't appear to be one). My perception is that there is more demand for US type coins, in-general, even though there are more of them around. Whatever the case, I've always found the phrase "great shape for its age" odd. How much circulation do you think most 1600's talers experienced in the 1800's and beyond? Congratulations on being the first person to say out loud what I've been thinking for some time now. Those VG 1909-S VDB Lincolns probably got that way in the first ten to fifteen years, then were discovered and thrown into a cigar box. But it's in great shape for a 100-year old "penny." I wonder how many of those Depression-era coin boards were ever completely filled and redeemed for a premium. While it's been awhile, I had a beautiful 1827 Bust Half PCGS body-bagged back to me for a much more obscure, seemingly-natural-to-me mark. It managed an MS60 in an ANACS holder, where it resides today. Is there an 1800's cutoff or something? Whenever I have tried to pin anyone down about that, they obfuscate like mad. That said, I just rejected a PCGS slabbed 3 cent silver that looked as if it had been caught in the gearwork of a binder, so it's not necessarily the age. Recently there has been considerable grumbling within EAC about coppers being bagged because of planchet defects caused by the mint. Is an ancient, then, still an "AU" piece with a big chisel test mark down the middle? Plenty of detail on either side! I'd call it an AU piece with a big chisel test mark down the middle. That gives a pretty good verbal picture of the piece. A lot better than "stray marks typical for the grade." A ding is a ding, and this one is significantly detrimental. The true test of the impact of that ding: attempt to sell the coin to a dealer. You'll quickly find that it cuts the offer in half, or worse ("I'm sorry, but guys just won't buy a coin with a mark like that.") James |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
In , on 03/31/2009
at 09:32 AM, "Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com said: Nick at least acknowledged your post, but ignored mine, even after I spent time researching the prices for him. Oh well, I imagine I got into his killfile somehow. Killfile? James! You'd have to be pretty obnoxious for that. Those who are "there" are certainly there for a reason. More to my thinking, they're there because there's no reason for me to have to read their posts. Coin-related posts are almost always interesting. I found your post interesting and, well, logical. What was there with which to argue? I'll got reread this evening and see if I can find a constructive comment ... or a nit! Nick |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?
In , on 03/31/2009
at 09:38 AM, Johnny Doe said: acceptable on a 1793 large cent are reasons to body-bag a Morgan or any other modern, industry-manufactured coin. Now apply that differentiation to a taler from the 1600's. A taler from the 1600's is really nothing all that special. I mean, they are plentiful in a variety of grades, noting specific exceptions by type (of which this doesn't appear to be one). My perception is that there is more demand for US type coins, in-general, even though there are more of them around. Whatever the case, I've always found the phrase "great shape for its age" odd. How much circulation do you think most 1600's talers experienced in the 1800's and beyond? While it's been awhile, I had a beautiful 1827 Bust Half PCGS body-bagged back to me for a much more obscure, seemingly-natural-to-me mark. It managed an MS60 in an ANACS holder, where it resides today. Is there an 1800's cutoff or something? Is an ancient, then, still an "AU" piece with a big chisel test mark down the middle? Plenty of detail on either side! A ding is a ding, and this one is significantly detrimental. That wasn't so hard, was it? Apparently it still is for some. Nick |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Frustrated collectors" or "Common coins that command high prices" | Dale Hallmark | Coins | 7 | January 17th 06 01:31 AM |
"Governor admits baseball claim false" | Mike | Baseball | 0 | November 25th 05 03:02 PM |