PCGS rant, rave or WTH?

Perhaps not intentionally, but it does happen.

I am particularly amused when both coins involved in an accidental switch are found like in a case of a particularly rare Early Date Large Cent (1797 NC-7). It is obvious that the coins were switched between the time they were attributed and graded and the time they were packaged in the PCGS plastic tomb.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Mixing up labels is NOT switching coins. If you want to make bigger accusations than that than PROVE IT.

Otherwise just more sigh

 

Just step back and take a deep breath. Switching coins is a larger set with intentional and unintentional subsets.

Jumping to the conclusion that any acknowledgement of unintentional switching is an attack on the integrity of the TPG is an illogical reach.

I have problems with TPGs concerning their ability to be expert in so many disparate branches of collecting. I have seen numerous errors in basic attribution identification even over and above mixing up labels in my own area of expertise. But I make no claim of a lack of integrity other than a claim of expertise where there is ample evidence of a lack of such expertise.

Now fire away if you choose. But it won't change my experience in my area of expertise and TPG shortcomings.

 

So another claim of them switching coins with 0 proof got it

 

You need to up your reading comprehension skills b-ball.

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

If there is confusion with that by all means ask for clarification

 

Myopic git.

TPG TPG TPG!!!

 

Are you familiar with Boulian Logic? I really helps one to grasp the difference between what logical statements you can and cannot make about grouping.

 

I believe its Boolean

 

You are correct. I was always much better at math than spelling or names.

 

Are you familiar with actual real world facts? How about actual proof?

 

Still waiting for real proof, and people wonder why so many stopped posting here

 

Do you realize you're asking for proof of an accusation not being made? At least not by me.

But if you want to see a mistake, here's a couple for you.


This is a 1793 NC-6 which I identified. It has been written up as the lead article in Penny-W and you can follow it's progress on the Attribute This thread in US coins.

 

The lack of self awareness in that sentence is shocking.

 

Bingo was his name-o!

 

sorry to but in . has any one hear of anacs switching coins to

 

You specifically stated that switch coins highlighting in bold when I said they don't.

Wrong label isn't switching coins for the second time, nor is a mistake.

It's astounding the accusations that have been thrown around in this thread

 

Once again, I question their competence, not their integrity. You have a very narrow view of what switching is and I have a more comprehensive view. If we can't understand the differences in how we are using the terms, there's no hope of any resolution.

It's like the political factions we see today and which are taboo on this board for just that reason.

 

If putting the wrong label on the holder is not a mistake then you're implying it is done on purpose? Prove that!

This thread is absurd.