A collecting forum. CollectingBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » CollectingBanter forum » Collecting newsgroups » Coins
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

World Coins - Claim of "Finest Known" and PCGS's "Added Value"?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 31st 09, 03:32 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Mr. Jaggers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,523
Default 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  
Old March 31st 09, 03:38 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Johnny Doe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default 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  
Old March 31st 09, 05:44 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
PC[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 855
Default 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  
Old March 31st 09, 11:51 PM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Mr. Jaggers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,523
Default 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  
Old April 1st 09, 12:06 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Mr. Jaggers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,523
Default 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  
Old April 1st 09, 12:34 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Nick Knight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 496
Default 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  
Old April 1st 09, 12:38 AM posted to rec.collecting.coins
Nick Knight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 496
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 02:31 AM
"Governor admits baseball claim false" Mike Baseball 0 November 25th 05 04:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CollectingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.