This seems a bit dubious: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=360341278835 Why would anyone break a coin out of a slab and then sell it raw like this?
There is a member on this forum who was cracking high grade coins out of the holders for his Dansco 7070. But more than likely it was in a PCGS genuine holder or an NGC details holder. Or the seller is just Full of it.
He states "proof" in the title but under "condition" he mentions "uncirculated"........ I know nothing about this series but I will say that the coin ain't lookin' "proof" to me.
where's the luster ? The statement of "clearly a proof" in the description is questionable to me. I think I am going to pass this one up. gary everything Ken said
Maybe it isn't a Proof 64 and it never was in a slab? Or maybe it was an AU58 slab? Who knows? Anyway, here is a real 1903 PCGS Proof 64 Philippine 20 centavos http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/CoinDetail.aspx?s=90323&level=1&g=1&redir=t
People crack slabs all the time...but you should always save the slab insert for proof. Without that, it's hearsay.
Agreed, meaningless seller puffery. I would report him for trying to use a PCGS grade without the coin being included in a PCGS slab.
That's pretty bad. You could say the same for NYC or Philly, Cleveland, etc. lol Don't all the crooks come from big cities ?
I have bought many coins from that seller, never had a problem and all coins were exactly as advertised and pictured.
People do this all the time! when a coin does not bring the expected grade they simply Crack the slab and try and sell it to the uneducated this is done with currency as well!
That may be the case with AU58s and MS60-62s, but I think whoever had that particular coin slabbed (assuming it was slabbed) would have been more than happy to get a Proof 64 grade for it.
Cracking it out of the proof 64 holder is a little retarded!! i just don,t see the rationale here! The only motivation i can see is to make more $$
Well, I could see one other type of motivation, I guess-- if the coin had developed ugly blotches of toning (we used to call that "tarnish"), then it is conceivable that the owner might try to crack it out to try to dip out the blotches. But the coin still doesn't look anything like the Proof 64 that I provided a link for.