Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Leadfoot, post: 457489, member: 2972&quot;]But that&#039;s just it, the coin wasn&#039;t upgraded -- since at least 2003.</p><p><br /></p><p>To wit, the 1854-O in question was already in a &quot;specimen&quot; holder NOT an &quot;MS&quot; holder when it was purchased from Heritage, dating back to 2003, as is shown in the Heritage archives and linked earlier in this thread.&nbsp; Why do you suggest that the coin was upgraded subsequent to being purchased when there is evidence to the contrary for all to see?</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>And some coin sellers believe they can (presumably) buy a coin for $X, and sell it for 20X four months later.&nbsp; <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie2" alt=";)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The question is not if NGC employs some of the best experts (they do), nor if eBay has banned NGC (as if that means anything), but rather if a) this coin is in fact as specimen or proof (there is NO evidence whatsoever that indicates it), and b) if a seller is justified in asking 20x for a coin purchased four months ago (personally, I think that&#039;s ridiculous and feel sorry for someone buried in that coin at the $400k asking price, but can&#039;t deny you the right to ask that price).</p><p><br /></p><p>All that said, I can understand your persepective about the buying public buying plastic, however that doesn&#039;t change anything -- it doesn&#039;t make faulty attribution right, nor does it justify asking 20x what a coin was worth four months ago on the open market.</p><p><br /></p><p>Take care....Mike[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in