Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SubtleSledgehammer, post: 4132282, member: 100245&quot;]The reason I have reopened this thread is to comment on recent experience with ANACS (and NGC and PCGS) and my takeaways. Here goes: Just a couple of weeks ago I bought a beautiful slabbed Morgan (keep in mind the seller offered free, 30-day returns) graded by ANACS in one of its old white slabs at MS64 DMPL. Now, my experience tells me that, for what I collect, the only way I will realize value is by considering coins that are only housed in the old ANACS holders. In that I am particularly fond of proof-like Morgans, it is further imperative that I also go in knowing that what ANACS considers, for instance, Deep Mirror Proof-Like will, in most cases, come back from PCGS as just PL or, most devastatingly, <i>not</i> prooflike at all. In my view, at this point PCGS has become a tough grader numerically speaking, (though NGC is quite on par for the most part). HOWEVER, when it comes to awarding the coveted prooflike designations? PCGS is now, shall I say, <i>beyond</i> strict! Anyway, this poor chap, back in the day, seemed to have paid quite a premium for his ANACS graded and DMPL-assigned Morgan. Now that he wanted to sell he was being met on eBay with a resounding and ear-splitting... silence, aka a decided lack of activity on his &quot;Buy it Now&quot; price. I was/am in the market for that date, condition and DMPL designation AND it looked to be a beautiful coin, in particular due to some stunning toning (in my eyes anyway as toning is not everyone&#039;s cup of tea). As many of you would likely agree, it is notoriously difficult to determine the proof like legitimacy of a coin by viewing even high res, quality images. So, I took a chance and negotiated with him WAY down from his asking but still at a price point that, if not being deemed DMPL by PCGS when I would inevitably try to cross it over, would mean I was losing around five hundred dollars as a result of buying (if not for option to return it). I don&#039;t like wasting people&#039;s time and causing inconvenience, (I&#039;m not one for constant coin browsing via the exploitation of a generous return process), but when I got it I was once again reminded that trusting ANACS (old or new holders) for their calls on proof-like assignation is probably a big time losing proposition if only shopping sight unseen, meaning unseen while being in my own hand. Unfortunately it was by no means, IMO, DMPL and perhaps, by PCGS current standards, not even PL (though I would have had enough confidence for that, had it been the case, to keep the coin and take a chance). Anyway, to his disappointment and my regrets, I sent it back for a refund.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Attached are images of the coin and, as always, would love to hear thoughts on the above myriad of observations/opinions.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH]1069728[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]1069729[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>Thanks[/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