Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Walter1969, Jun 5, 2018.
Admitting you have a problem
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
It is certainly better to have a cleaned genuine coin than an actual modern counterfeit.
But because there are so many over-hyped, over-graded, cleaned, whizzed, repaired, etc coins out there, that is a much larger pitfall that a novice could fall into.
But either way, unless a person really knows what they are doing, they should follow the usual advice and stick to certified coins. That will weed out (most of) the cleaned coins and counterfeits. Problem solved (except when there are counterfeit PCGS/NGC holders involved).
Keep watching eBay till one pops up eventually
When you have an inquiry like that, start your own thread and don’t break into a thread on a completely different subject. You’ll get help.
I thought it was on topic. How many 75 ikes do you have
Well, bless my little square head.
Let's not forget counterfeit coins in genuine holders
Extremely rare but the guarantee covers buyers in those instances
Thank You Dan!
The general definition for COUNTERFEIT: a fraudulent imitation of something else
The general minimum definition for GEM: Has full mint luster but may be unevenly toned (i.e. not corroded). I believe you can easily find corroded Silver coins with a certified "Gem" grade. I can show you numerous to MS67.
It's believed you are extremely unlikely to find a Counterfeit coin, much less being of certified condition, and significant value. Minimum potential for damages!
The important legal element for determination of a "counterfeit" is "fraud". If you purchased the item raw without a message of authenticity it may be found legally to just be an inexpensive "copy", which many have reported on foreign sites for a relatively token trinket amount, as they are being sold there as "trinkets".
We probably are highly unlikely to purchase a raw "trinket" specimen for MS67 TPG pricing. However, It's believed many are purchasing "a fraudulent imitation of something else" for considerably more expensive cost in a MS65, MS66, or MS67 prominently certified "Slabs" of corroded coins. When there's a written published U.S. complete coin Grading standard which states the surface condition for GEM condition in numerous locations, an exception to same by the premier TPG may be adjudicated as fraudulent, and subject to appreciable resale loss, relative to a raw "copy". Does this auctioned coin without a reverse image meet the published standard for GEM state MS65, much less MS66?https://www.ebay.com/itm/1934-D-Mer...TED-Silver-10c-/372313129226?oid=392044159205
What is a U.S. "restrike"? Do they require a "copy" stamp?
How about no?
Go away, troll.
It was stated: "I believe you can". I've numerous in my collection. I'm normally not about to play the critic game with the "disadvantaged", but I quickly linked a specimen that doesn't meet the "GEM" standard, where the seller wouldn't even show the reverse. I know with your talents you could find additional/better?.
You delegate "up" well, but let's cease the effort.
Saying you believe you can easily find gem 65 and up silver coins that are corroded is a bold statement that really requires proof
It would to a jurist or jury in litigation, but you aren't that. I'm just following your normal verbal "Modus operandi" (i.e. M.O.).
Is that your way of saying you can’t produce any in first tier slabs?
The problem with so many grading conversations, people make these far out claims about the quality of real TPG grading and never back it up with proof
I agreed, but take exception with your absolute observation in #78, attempted proactively to play your seeming childish game in #72, yes, while speaking to an addressed other. I tried to post an example internet auction link which initially wouldn't copy, but did after #76. #76 was a response to your seemingly blathering demand for an example of my statement, already anticipated in #72. I posted in #76, as I believed you may have limited faculties, not being able to complete my simple request/suggestion of your personal investigation, if needed by yours.
In the interim between the 2 posts, it appears that eBay deleted the example auction, which didn't have an image of the reverse, that I suspect was corroded as the Obverse of the MS66 certified coin which depicted a less than MS65 grade image, as defined in published standards. I was able to view but not post the deleted image, which I'm certain you can facilitate, as you've seemingly stated to be needed. I haven't yet seen documentation of your believed authority to demand, if really needed for whatever, as stated. I suggested that you investigate your believed demanded proof.
I suggest you quit while you're "ahead". Save your challenges until they're meaningful, as you're believed to be either quite naive or playing an unappreciated game with me. You seemingly expel brash unfounded statements, as you know this and that, without evidence that is believed childishly demand from others. Someone of your professed knowledge should know better. Suggestions or personal investigations are probably more in order.
I haven't time nor interest, in my final days, to continue your offensive games. I'm involved in an ongoing exhausting 50+ year 9 digit sum legal class effort, proving/documenting fraud by businesses over that period to our states Commerce and Attorney General departments.
You're seemingly publicly demanding without perceived authority/action, evidence that can be required under discovery efforts. We both can be deposed to meet your demanded needs, and my evidence, through subpoena if you'd like.
This post is being filed for future reference in the event that some at this site decide to remove, but believed can be retrieved by action, if necessary.
Separate names with a comma.