Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="s_mack, post: 921097, member: 25917"]Look, I'm not the expert but I"m not an idiot either. And I'm sorry, but I think its you that doesn't "get it" - especially after speaking with the gentleman at NGC. He said quite clearly that gold coins MS 64 (or even up to 67) WILL have scratches and marks similar to those in my photo - and that's evidenced when you compare it to the PGCS link earlier... it also has similar markings. So I really think you're just overstating what MS 64 means. Perhaps you aren't familiar with gold (softer metal)? I don't know. And yes I'm satisfied it is not a fake. Beyond a doubt unless you consider the craziest of coincidences. He looked at the photos and said it was consistent with the notes on that coin's file (I have to make some presumptions, but I take it that its a bit like graded diamonds... a file is kept detailing significant identifying markings). It is the same coin. It DOES have "deep scratches". And it IS an MS64 (or at least was graded as such at the time by a professional far more qualified than you or I). Period. I do realize that you were trying to help. I get that. And sure, the advice to use the best photos and present it in the best way is sound. But you (and not just you) are really going to more effort than I'd expect to trash the coin. I'm sorry, but I'll defer to the experts on this. I really wish I had never posted the photo. There was no need. With the NGC data and the presumption of authenticity (and really, that's gotta be some 99.9999___% of them), all I wanted was an estimated value. That's been given. Thank you. - Steven ps. though I do appreciate what I've learned through this discussion![/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches