ANOTHER overgraded PCGS Morgan

Yes, I get that for stuff like light scratches on G/VG coins, a minor hit or two, or an ancient cleaning. But if the coin is covered in cleaning hairlines or has severe mechanical damage like the quarter eagle has, then I will cry foul.

Here is another PCGS AU-50. So enlighten me, how does the above coin fit into the net-grading scheme which you so strongly patronize? The below coin is just as nice, if not superior, to the above example.




And here is an old ANACS AU-50, showing that this date came with both strong and weak strikes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Did I nail that one right on the head or what?

And his trusty old follow up.
Could have told you that one was coming next...

So, he steals material and uses it as his own. I am more in belief now that what I and Typecoin said is true.
THe guy takes what he reads from you, and the pcgs forum and uses it as knowledge. What has he ever posted that confirms I should believe a word he say's, especially when it is all heresay.

Then your next usual post, trying to tag along followers.
The feeling is mutual bud.
We all know PCGS is your sanctuary, well it is my playground.
And if a company says they are the best then they should act that way.
Not liberal one month and conservative the next. And if you believe they are always right, They are just playing you my friend.

I like reasonably graded coins in all slabs, and lump all of them together in one category. Authenticators I take all their grades with a grain of salt and use my knowledge of the series to either agree or not. When the top two try to use leverage and small print to either take certs away, or change a given mistake without having to compensate, Or for crimony sake pay for ins. and shipping. Then yes I have an axe to grind and you can call me a hater.

This is exactly my point and what I said.

 

More trolling without any substance. You ever going to answer the simple question?

 

I wouldn't buy this coin as a 67 but FTR I don't think it's nearly as baggy as most of you do. Almost everything on the bottom half of the obverse I think is actually toning and lack of toning. Look at the pullaway toning around the date the coin is lightly toned throughout the obverse and has patches that didn't tone (that detract from the coin's appeal which I count against it personally) that look like scattered hits.

The upper left field is concerning but that could also just be toning (which again I find unattractive and would preclude me from being a buyer but might not be "technical" hits against it).

 

I have answered that before. You need to get some new material, so far the same olé rhetoric.

 

When the purpose of your posts is simply to harass and annoy another member of this forum because you don't like them, that is 100% trolling.

 

I'm not going to involve myself in a discussion about a series that I have never collected and never seen in person. That doesn't change the fact that you understand why the TPGs are more lenient on early US coinage with respect to damage.

Btw, I like the tooled coin better than the first one shown in the post above. Or should I say, I like the photo better.

 

Ill take the Anacs coin

Old Anacs > New Pcgs - all day long

 

This will always be a point of subject among these threads. As long as someone takes the stance of PCGS being infallible. There will be folks, not only me, to take the opposite stance. That is not trolling. It is a fact.
The purpose of my posts is not to harass, or annoy. That statement is absolutely not true.
I will say that I use some of the same tactics that baseball uses, it's pretty obvious it doesn't go over to well. We may not agree at all about things, but that doesn't mean that I don't like him. That may be your perceived thoughts, it is just NOT the reason.
I would lean much more to both of your positions if the "top two" TPG'S used more discretion with their inherent mistakes, not just relying on their fine print to justify them.

 

There is a HUGE difference between being lenient with minor damage accrued in circulation and major damage purposefully done to a coin. The first category I can forgive, the second not so much.

 

I disagree.

 

Old Anacs may not be better than PCGS in some, maybe even most series. For the series i collect however, I would take a small white holder over the newer PCGS anyday. As has been said before. John Roberts is one of THE best in the business concerning silver dollars. To add to that, Vam attribution is/was better as well.

 

So that one has a weak strike. But it is still a higher grade based on technical merits.

 

Never seen anyone take that position. It's just what some people seem to cry when their own limitations are called out. Only on internet forums are the TPGs fallible but poster grading from a picture isn't. This is very likely double digit threads now that I have literally said this exact same thing to you, they do make mistakes but their mistakes are no where near as many as the internet tries to make it seem

That actually is the definition of trolling. Purposely taking an extreme contrary position that you don't even believe in just because of someone else is being an internet troll.

 

+1

 

By your apparent stance, "anything that you don't believe is trolling"
The same stance that most "think they know it all" take.

I can handle only part of that statement. The venue of an internet forum does highlight the more than obvious, but these aren't the only coins that are steadily graded higher. I nor other members here have enough money or even willingness to buy over graded coins, just to prove you wrong.

Using the coin that started this thread, below is an example of what I and others consider extreme favoritism, or just your willingness to believe everything that PCGS does.

Please tell us how this ever makes a 66 grade?
Forget the toning for a second and look at all the contact that this coin has received. There is definitely more than luster breaks on this coin.

Now look at the luster and toning. I agree with you it's eye appeal looks to be outstanding, But really? A 66 with a toning bump.
How many bumps does a coin get before it becomes ludicrous.
This is happening more often than you think.
It may not be this extreme, but even a one grade bump make a difference.

A coin graded correctly or even conservatively will always be reflected in the market, a lot of times it will exceed the next grades market value and possibly more depending on the venue. Too add, it is most likely that these coins aren't seen in the market too often because they ARE part of someone's collection.

 

Purposely taking an extreme counter position you don't even believe in is trolling and some of you certainly do seem to believe that you know everything and are the ultimate experts.

Yes the tinfoil internet TPG conspiracy theories, almost always perpetuated by those with little to no experience with the TPGs. Just because you don't like a grade doesn't mean there's favoritism or corruption like some of you seem to assume.

This is basically what I have been talking about. Their grade opinion when they say it in hand differs from yours, so instead of saying hmm maybe I am using a different standard or the picture is bringing out stuff that's not a big deal we get oh its an example of TPG favoritism.

Yes. Eye appeal is very important with grading and there can be marks on coins in that grade range. The style of picture you posted is designed to show every single little mark on the coin, combine that with viewing the coin on a huge computer monitor and you're looking at it at a magnification above the magnification used for grading. Some of the stuff mentioned would very likely be barely noticeable if at all in hand.

Again you guys can grade with whatever standard you want, but when you use a different standard than the market and the TPGs and most others then you don't get to bash them for not using your personal standard. You don't have to like or agree with every grade but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it was wrong.

 

I believe I asked you how much experience you had with Pre 1835 gold and more specifically 1700s gold to which I believe the answer was none. They are completely different world. There's actually be numerous examples of people like you calling things out on gold of that era claiming this and that where real experts stepped in to correct it about planchet flaws, adjustments, strike issues ect. That's the problem with pretending to be an expert at everything, jack of all trades master of none

 

“PCGS said it was right, so therefore it is right.”

Here we go with that circular logic again...

 

@baseball21
David Halls relative had a balance of several million in grading fees right?

David Hall is no longer the H.N.I.C. at PCGS

Go ahead and put on the tinfoil hat, before you reply