Who Would You Agree With?

So I dont know Julian Leidman, but i know of him. And i have nothing against him, infact i just bought a coin from his ebay store. My question is about two of his listings:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-VDB-Li...600899?hash=item2ca10ddb43:g:4U4AAOSwLVZV5zaq

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1916-Lincol...835972?hash=item2ca6abc504:g:eZEAAOSwu4BV5zqw

He states that in his opinion both coins are matte proofs but ANACS and PCGS say no. His prices are... high, for what PCGS has graded them as. These two are great examples of wheats that i look for, but i couldnt even begin to make an offer, for my offers would be low-balls for sure. Also if you're going to ask that kind of money, which is based on his opinion of them being matte proofs, why not take close up pics of the coins?

Who's opinon do you go with? PCGS or Julian Leidman?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A coin dealer can say whatever he wan's to sell a coin. And an opinion is just that - an opinion. Anybody that buys it on the matte proof opinion has no proof it is or isn't but I'm sure if they send it in for resubmission and truly find out that it isn't then probably won't be able to return it anyhow. "All coins must be in their original holder"!

I'd stick with PCGS on this one just in case!

 

Mr. Leidman is a well respected dealer but even the best dealers can be wrong at times. Better to play it safe than sorry.

 

Me too, and for the same reason. The images are not good enough to tell if these are actually proofs or not, either. I don't think he's trying to swindle anybody by selling a $30 coin for $2500; I think he believes in good faith that these two coins are matte proofs. But, I wouldn't touch them without both seeing them in hand and getting some kind of written guarantee of return privilege in case they can't be authenticated as proofs by a major TPG.

 

people can make mistakes but who do you think has looked at more matte proofs in hand?

 

Very true, but that doesn't help whoever buys the coin when they go to sell it again.

 

I'd go with the TPG.

I would find it hard to believe that a well known dealer like him would make such claims in anything but good faith. However, I notice that he challenges the TPG on quite a few slabs, always pushing for a higher price. Coin expert, or not, I would be very reluctant to bite. What I don't understand is that if he believes the TPG missed it, why he wouldn't ask for a regrade. Unless, of course, he already has...

 

well, if you agree with Julian, when you go to sell it you have to find someone else who agrees with you both.

and feels that PCGS & ANACS are clueless

 

Mr. Leidman WAS a respected dealer.
That has faded considerably in the last 5-10 years.
That is my opinion AND one or two dealers that I've asked about it.

 

I'm as perplexed as you guys,he has two awesome 1892&1893 commens that he says are proofs with the tpg also saying they are AT circ strikes. He has the credentials to question the TPG,but what happens when you try to resell??

 

And a few forum posters as well.

 

It's just frustrating i guess. I really like the 16'... or i like what it looks like in the pics. I wish i could see to what degree it was cleaned. But even then, that price is just stupid high for what PCGS says it is. And from my recent purchase, it seems he doesnt budge much on price.

Oh well, thanks for the opinions. I will just watch them for awhile and see what happens.

 

I look at the coin in hand and go with MY opinion.

 

I would agree he likely does honestly believe that, with that said I have never seen a listing where he sells something cheaper because in his opinion it was over graded ect.

 

Well, AFAIK, there are die markers for all the MPL's. Pretty much settles the issue IMO.

 

....and that's kind of why this thread becomes one of regret. Kevin Flynn's Lincoln Cent Matte Proofs is sufficiently definitive to forestall any argument about a given example. No room for "belief."

 

Goes to show you, even a dealer can be confused by these, just like the hundreds of forum posts from folks who think they may have one. The worst two offending years are 1909 and 1916....which happen to coincide with fresh master hubs and the mint's determination to put out a high-quality product.

 

But this is why i wanted input from others. Personally, i believe that neither of these two are matte proofs, simply because PCGS says they arent. Anyone with Fynn's book (which i have) can look at hi-res pics and get a pretty good idea if it is a matte proof or not. Even with a google search you can find the markers for each. Is this why he doesnt show close up pics of them? Maybe he bought them raw believing they were proofs and when PCGS and ANACS both said they arent, he now has two coins that he paid probably way too much for and now hopes he can get his money back out them. But then again would someone of his expertise make such a mistake?

It's baffling to me that someone like him, who is on the PCGS board of experts can come out and say that on coins he's selling, that PCGS is wrong.

I dont know maybe i've answered my own questions

 

Exactly... buy the book, read the book, learn everything you can about the series. Then make up your own mind.

For what its worth, everyone makes mistakes. I've made mistakes, you have, PCGS has and Julian has made mistakes too.

 

Here's an example that has "sand blasted" fields (1909 non-VDB), it makes you look more than twice! My main quick diagnostic for an MPL is the rims....then the other stuff. The dealer fails to clearly show the rims and provide better/bigger photos. I find that odd for the asking price. I believe I see several inconsistencies with the rims.