Nice ebay Pick-up 1881-S Morgan Dollar

Could you do me a big favor, and take an image of the mint-mark, so I can show the new bee how to look for vams .... Make sure the image is viewable ..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oy vey

 

Its hard to find a nice strike for 50 bucks . I look at over 1300 ( S Mint Mark ) of them in the buy it now section, on ebay, before I bought ..

 

WOW!! Now that's dedication and that's when you know you're a coin collector. Isn't there a thread on that? You know your a coin collector when.....In Rick's case, when you look at 1300 (S Mint Mark's) before you decide to buy 1 "iffy" dollar for $50.00.

 

I was hoping for an image of the mint mark on that other coin, the reverse on my is C3a with the image of the second mintmark which means there could be up to 22 different vams for the one I bought ... Best part, Vam #59 is one of them ...

 

Do the images lie, Mr. Perfect? Are the artifacts/issues visible, you know, those not hidden by the convenient glare, just a figment of my imagination? This certainly isn't to say photos are ideal (before your deflection reaches new levels), but if you're unable to process the evidence they do present, perhaps it is you, sir, who needs to spend some serious time with quality reference materials instead of sitting here floating your own boat spewing nonsense, especially that "investor for profit" ridiculousness from he other thread. Your, ahem, "contributions" here say much about the truth behind said claim.

 

After reading some of your responses to other members Q & A it would seem that you have a problem with the views of others. What has worked for me may not work for others, including your self-righteous self. How is it possible that you can be the ultimate judge of a coin by it's photo?

 

Impressive, but let's first back it up some as reading comprehension apparently isn't one of your strong points....

Now, perhaps if you weren't trying so hard to be cute and witty, you would have paid closer attention to what the man actually said, which was: "paid a LITTLE MORE THAN $50 for it though". It's funny how just a word or two can change the meaning of an entire post, doesn't it? One might think such an expert would at least question the idea that someone paid $50 for an NGC66, but apparently not.

In regards to your "ultimate judge of a coin by it's photo" question, perhaps you could first explain how you can be "sure" a problem 1895-O (in another thread) "will grade", or can so confidently state that this coin is "too nice to pass up at that price" using the very same photos? Is this not you JUDGING the coins as well? Come on now; don't be a hypocrite. If I am such a fool for voicing an opinion based upon and evidence shown in the photos, what does that make you for, ahem, doing the same?

As for your claim that I have a problem with the views of others, perhaps here too you should take a long look in the mirror. Throughout this entire thread you've childishly played off my use of the term "iffy", which simply means uncertain, and even dragged it into another thread; does this not suggest you have a problem with my view? Does your earlier responses in this and the other thread not suggest you had a problem with rzage's positions as well? As long as one is basing their post/view/opinion on educated fact, after viewing the evidence provided (when applicable), what's the problem? Oh what a wonderful place this would be if we all agreed or tried to "be positive", hold hands, or tried to show how cute we can be instead of actually DISCUSSING the coin, coins, or issue in question, and disagreeing with others is a part of that, but as the old saying goes "it takes all kinds". Thanks again for your fine contributions.

 

But trolling is yours ...

 

Coming from the guy who has spammed this board with poorly (read: wrongly) attributed "varieties", perhaps this should be taken as a compliment?

Also, while we're at it, your coin is an 81-S, Rich; if it took looking through 1300 examples in your price range to find one a "nice strike", with all due respect, the problem wasn't with the coins. It's interesting that you seem to be okay with pointing out negative aspects of other's coins, yet the story changes when they belong to you. Perhaps in the future you should place a disclaimer in your threads stating that only "thoses" willing to coddle should post; wouldn't want any other "trolls" daring to question the obvious, now would we.

Now, seriously; good luck with your coin.

 

In all fairness I've never seen Books start an argument . These usually start when he answers a post with a well thought out knowledgeable post that someone takes offense too . It's sad that arguments happen over opinions of a coin . As I thought we were here to learn and talk about coins .

 

I think some folks looks at to many coins from books . I've taken 1000s of images, some with a camera on a microscope, dino-lite, cell phones, I think I know a good image when I see one . The images I posted here came from no cheap equipment . To call theses images iffy, without saying why, thats called trolling . Funny, you and him, are the only ones to say that these images are iffy, know one else had that issue; And for the vam, I said I think ? If you look at the first 5 posts, that should anwser all of your questions ...

 

I don't think he knows anything about vams, at least in the wild, ( vam number not known yet ) or the first 5 post would of made him give a different anwser then what he did ....

 

It amazes me how people, whom have the uncanny ability to write an eloquent rebuttal, can't use that same ability to write a proclamation. One or two word sentences will either, draw a demand for explanation, or tend to stand hackles on end.

 

Where in THIS thread did I call YOUR images "iffy"? I didn't, and in fact said NOTHING about YOUR photos, but did observe that those you posted, taken from the linked ebay listing, are just that. Perhaps we should clarify the meaning of the word "iffy" as thus far you've taken it to mean "altered" and pretty much anything other than what it actually does. Here you go....

http://i.word.com/idictionary/iffy

And for emphasis...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iffy

Now, please go back and take another look at the seller's photos. Notice the excessive glare blocking out much of the prime focal areas? Now take a look through some of this seller's other photos, taking particular note of the lighting angles used, and see if you notice anything in common. Also, with your great coin imaging experience, ask yourself if the photos, or even this general style is ideal, and if it makes sense that this is the best that someone with 15,000 feedback can provide his potential customers with. You know as well as I do that they leave much to be desired. This isn't to say that there IS anything hidden behind the glare, but just that it makes making a reasonable and proper judgement call "iffy" (UNCERTAIN).

Now, are there any other "issues", perhaps ones that really stick out on an otherwise white coin? You're the self-implied "expert", Rich; these are issues/concerns that foolish little me shouldn't have to point out to someone of your caliber. With that said, the cost of the coin was at, or at least close to certified 63 money (especially for one so willing to wade through thousands of a single date/mint), so taking this along with everything else both said and seen into consideration, it is not at all unfair, unreasonable, unjust, or trollish to call, in context, the value afforded by this purchase into question.

 

Thats the funny part, I don't remember starting a thread that said: ( Did I Pay To Much For This Coin ) ..

 

You're welcome! Anytime! Glad to do it again!

 

And you guys call him the troller , amazing !!!!!