GTG 1950 Franklin Half Dollar PCGS

I was asking if he was accusing PCGS/NGC and the other accepted TPGs of fraud which is what his post appeared to imply. If someone wants to accuse them of fraud they should do so directly, otherwise it seems they don't believe in what they are saying

There's no security issue when the same posts and photos are being used on multiple forums under different names.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What difference does it make. I've followed Bill Jones for a long time on multiple forums and have always found his posts very informative.

 

Okay baseball, you have gone over the line. I made no such accusations, and I am reporting you.

I thought that you were pulling me into this. The main reason that I am over here instead of over there is that I have gotten some pretty rough treatment from people on that board because I have not given my full endorsement to CAC. I have said many times that CAC gets it right FAR more often than they get it wrong, but that's not good enough for them. I'm not as happy over there as I once was. My goal is help collectors, not to be a cheerleader for grading companies.

 

I think people need to go back and re-read some things. There are two different conversations going on and I think some confusion is taking place resulting in some anger.

 

Not defending anyone here, but Baseball is talking to 4 different people over 2 different conversations. They asked if you are Bill Jones and then there is a discussion over fraud and grading. Two different topics from my understanding.You are the same member as Bill Jones and that's cool. I too enjoy your posts. Keep them up.

I just want to make sure there isnt any confusion thats all.

 

IMO the moderators on this site do an excellent job of keeping personal attacks to a minimum and are not tolerated.

 

You're spot on. The quotes were from different people.

There was a lot of accusations that got nuked over on CU and I'll keep what I saw to myself other than saying it wasn't one person being ganged up on

 

I think youll like it here better. The problem I have with CU is if you bad mouth PCGS in any way, they ban you. Since CT isnt affiliated with any TPG, you can openly say what you want. And we dont seem to have near the CAC conversations as they do on CU.

 

So far its a" he said-he said" exchange, I confirm that we do not insist or pay respect to user's names or avatars as such unless they violate the rules, copyright, or ownership and are reported to us. PCGS site is PCGS's, everyone knows it and their rules, ditto for NGC, and expressions that irritate the owners can result in difficulties. My opinion as a member of all 3 : on grading changes over time, is that they existed 40 years or more ago, and have continued ( sometimes ) slowly due to the competitive collecting and perception of increasing intrinsic value ( unclear as to whether it actually does in the same amount as expressed value). Obviously no more 1884-S morgans are being made by the mint, so regrading does account for financial gains if it is positive. In today's world facts do not seem to be necessary to express opinions on much of anything, so why with coin grading? The same is true with errors and varieties, and the effects of eating too many or too few chickpeas. Let's calm down people. Thanks , Jim

 

Bill reported me for a conversation with someone else about someone else. I wouldn't exactly call that a he said he said exchange

 

What are you talking about? "extra credit"? That is the whole point of market grading. If the luster and eye appeal are MS67-68 level, as they are on this coin, and the surfaces are only MS65, the coin shouldn't be limited and isn't limited to the MS65 grade simply because that is where the surface preservation is.

I have always been told that surface preservation is king and accounts for 40% of the grade, while the other attributes get 20%. By that rationale you would get the following breakdown for the coin in question:

Surface Preservation: 65 x 4 = 260
Luster: 67 x 2 = 134
Eye Appeal: 68 x 2 = 136
Strike: 66 x 2 = 132
------------------------------------------
Grade 66.2

So even when you give surface preservation "extra credit" by weighting double to all the other elements of grading, this coin still comes out as an MS66.

My point was that the people who are calling this coin an MS65 are doing so because they are using surface preservation as a grade limiting factor instead of a simple element of grading. Furthermore, I have stated that my photos make the marks and planchet flaws look worse than they are, and don't do the luster and eye appeal the justice they deserve.




Both the TruView and Heritage photos better represent the surfaces of the coin.

 

I gave you a direct answer in my first post. The adjective "fraudulent" means of or relating to fraud. There is plain vanilla classic fraud (which requires scienter) and then there is a separate tort of constructive fraud (which has the same elements as classic fraud except for scienter). Either way, announcing a guarantee based on a standard that you claim is consistent and won't change and then changing it later allowing you to dodge warranty claims is fraudulent in my opinion. That's true regardless of whether it was done to dodge warranty claims or to generate revenue. Both David Hall (PCGS) and Mark Salzberg (NGC) have publicly stated that the standards have changed through the years (you can go find the evidence on their respective forums or websites if you care to dig long enough), which is obvious to everyone in this hobby who has submitted coins throughout the years.

P.S. Since you are such a fan boy, even Mother Laura and Master Bruce have acknowledged the same. This is why so many are "CAC only."

 

PCGS is defrauding people with their grading, yes or no?

PCGS is commiting fraud, yes or no?

NGC is defrauding people with their grading, yes or no?

NGC is committing fraud, yes or no?

 

And those admissions are specifically related to the grading during the early years of the TPGs. They categorized it as growing pains basically. They have never admitted to this cyclical change of grading standards where they tighten and loosen periodically. That is a conspiracy theory that runs rampant on coin forums. And yes, I have been submitting coins for years, and see no change in standards.

 

It doesn't matter when it occurred. It is but one example of a watering down of so called standards. If an entity proves that it is willing to move the goal post once, there is nothing stopping them from doing so again. Didn't you stop collecting around 2008-2009? A lot has changed in 10 years. Did you ever submit or collect the areas I highlighted in my other post?

 

I suppose your name explains your reasoning.

One of things I learned early in my collecting life was when you got ready to sell a coin, dealers used any excuse to hammer you down. I learned what those excuses were, and they effected my grading and buying habits.

I'll freely admit that I don't pay huge premiums for toning. It can be very pretty, and the original toning, that the toning fans think is "ordinary," can add a lot of value to nice circulated coins, but it can also hide a lot of sins. That is why coin doctors learn how to use AT to their advantage, not just to catch the people who are into "monster toning" but also to hide hide cleaning and circulation marks. It can even help to put a counterfeit over the top, even at the leading grading services. It has happened, most unfortunately.

When I look under the "monster toning" and see a lot of marks with a high grade marked on the holder, I pass. I've been down that path in the past and don't wish another view of the scenery.

 

That would most like be Doug who has self admitted many times he got out a decade or so ago.

 

Screaming luster doesn't make up for significant surface abrasions. Nice surfaces don't make up for extreme striking irregularities. This is why so many Morgan Dollars were once rare in gem (back when the hair over the ear had to be full to receive a gem grade).

 

And if there were a "disagree button" I'd be hitting it. I've been looking at graded coins since 1990 or so, and I've seen changes. Some of them are in my collection.

 

Go back and read what I wrote. My posts speak for themselves and need no clarification as to my intent or substance of my posts.