Let me guess about your comment. ALL self slabbers are crooks. ALL self slabbers upgrade coins to make jillions of dollars. ALL self slabbers should not be trusted. HMMMMM. I once, when I had my retail store, had a black woman steal something. SO, using your thoughts, ALL black women are thieves. Muslims flew the planes into the Twin Towers. SO, ALL muslims are terrorists. Come on ... get a life. I have been in the coin biz for OVER 50 years. I have NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER attempted to cheat someone. And, I NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER will. Do I slab coins? You bet. Do I upgrade the coins to cheat people? Absolutely NOT...period. You have to understand. ALL people are not thieves or terrorists. Are you the person at shows that looks at a properly graded XF45 coin at a coin show and then offer the dealer 20% back of Grey Sheet Fine bid. Are you the person that always looks at someone elses coin and state ... Oh, that's been cleaned. ??????? In my opinion you should not make an open judgement on a NACGS coin unless you own one and totally disagree with the grading. We don't take AU58's and mark them MS70. You cannot judge by what you haven't seen in person. And no, I'd rather you NOT buy a coin from us. You are not going to get a MS65 nice coin for AU58 prices like you might dream of. Sorry for the long rant but I just wanted to state. ALL SELF SLABBERS ARE NOT CROOKS. PERIOD. Now, have a nice day. Jerry
You are wrong. (1) David Hall is one example. Before the Collectors Universe buy-outs collapsed, Q. David Bowers of the old Bowers and Merena auctioned coins from PCGS, as why should they not? And you apparently do not know about the Certified Coin Exchange. (2) What is a so-called "raw" coin in a 2x2 or flip? When you get a coin, is it not authenticated, attributed, and graded by the seller? Do you not write such information in 2x2 and flip inserts yourself. I do. I try to add new information to every thing: mintage, Yeoman (Craig) or Pick numbers, etc., if nothing else, the name of the last seller (ex: Jones, MSNS, 4/10) and I code the price, as well. We are all "self-slabbers." (3) Top-tier graders are infamous for upping the score on submissions. Crack-outs are profitable. We all know that. (3a) Perhaps the most egregious example is the Reed Hawn (Mickley-Hawn-Queller) 1804 Dollar which went from Very Fine to Proof 62. Note that Proof is not a grade. A proof coin is a different kind of coin, based on die characteristics, planchet preparation, etc. So, this did not increment a few grades, it changed from business strike to proof. (4) Everyone knows that you do not buy the holder, you buy the coin. (And you do that only after you buy the book.) If you wish to rail against third party graders -- and now we have fourth party grading of grading -- fine. However, that means that you would never ask anyone else for any opinion on anything else, as refering to any expert or authority is "third party knowledge."
Please back that up by providing specifics about the 1804 Dollar. I do not believe the same grading company graded it Fine and later, 62. And all 1804 Dollars were struck as Proofs, so whether they are graded Fine, XF, 62 or 68, they are still Proofs - no grading company changed their designation.
I can't recall which one it was off the top of my head but one of the 1804 dollars was graded XF by NGC, I think it was, and then some years later PCGS graded the same coin as PF62. As I recall the story about this was written up in the coin mags back in the late '90s or '00 - '01.
They were. But over the years at least 2 of them have been upgraded, 1 at least 3 times and another at least twice. Both of these coins started out being graded as PF40 or PF45 - thus the term XF. XF is also used to describe Proof grades as well as business strikes. One I believe was upgraded to PF58 and the other either PF62 or PF63. I think what Mike was referring to with his comments was the fact of the coins being upgraded so drastically. But I'll let him answer to be sure. Of course what I find intersting about the whole ordeal is how the TPGs went about explaining the reason for their upgrades. If memory serves it was because some of the coin underwent artificial wear shortly after they were made so they could fool collectors into thinking they were genuine 1804 dollars. Of course no such thing really exist. But that's another story.
Doug When mmarotta stated Very Fine to Proof 62 he was indicating Proof 40-45 to Proof 62 as the grade change? If that is so then I understand his statement. What I did not understand is how a coin could be graded as not a proof and then changed later to a proof coin by the TPG, since typically a proof coin is minted differently than other coins.
This whole discussion about the 1804... isn't this a bit of a unique case example that doesn't really square well with the overall general discussion? Has this moved into an unintentional tangent... I mean, we're talking about the "1804" Dollar - a whole convoluted mess in of itself.
Perhaps a different thread entirely is appropriate for the 1804 Dollars. My point was only to counter the claim that "self-slabbers" upgrade coins egregiously while reputable TPGs do not. I took the most extreme famous case I could think of. If I was wrong about the details, I apologize for the confusion. Doug's post reminded me that yes, two different companies examined the Reed Hawn Specimen. Again, I tug my forelock. I still stand by my thesis: We are all self-slabbers.
Interesting thesis as I've never thought of myself as a "self slabber" but your logic tends to lead me to that conclusion. Everytime I put a coin in a 2x2 and assign it a grade I'm in essence "slabbing" the coin. Interesting point to ponder.....
Another good example of the upgrading of an 1804 dollar is the Dexter specimen. When I first saw it in 1989 it was not slabbed and I thought it was an ugly gray toned and harshly cleaned PF-45 PF-50 coin with heavy hairlines. Since then it has been slabbed and crossed three times as Pf-62, then PF-64, and currently PF-65. And this coin has a letter D counterstamped on the back by a previous owner. I find it inconceivable that a hairlined, counterstamped coin could be grade PF-65 by one of the top two services.
OK.... "Inconceivable" ... Pardon me, but it was too good a target to pass up. About a 1000 years ago, reviewing the advertising in a numismatic periodical for a professional gathering, I noticed that a nominally reputable dealer listed in a long offering a Trade Dollar with chopmarks graded "Uncirculated." You gotta wonder... But it is not inconceivable. And thanks, 101, for the facts on the Dexter Specimen. I did not know that and I should have.
The confusion probably stems from the fact that once a coin grades below 60, descriptors such as AU, XF and VF are typically used. But in the case of a circulated Proof coin, the grade should still be listed as Proof 50 (instead of AU50), Proof 35 (instead of VF35), etc. But in the description of an 1804 Dollar or two, the "Proof" part was probably incorrectly omitted. That doesn't mean that the cataloguer believed or meant to implay that t wasn't a Proof. I have seen the example which first graded XF and eventually was graded as a 62 and feel that each extreme of that grade spectrum was off to some extent.
I see nothing wrong with self slabbing as long as the person is not trying to counterfeit the holder of some TPG and has decent grading skills. On my self salbs I simply put the name of my business (I am not a grading service - BCS holders perfect for this) as this is nice for certain types of raw coins where the economies of scale do not favor paying a fee to a TPG (bullion coins). The self slabs can then be integrated in with the other slabbed material to have a overall positive marketing effect. Some will take a stab at a numerical grade and others will but something like Gem BU.
