Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by thomas mozzillo, Jul 5, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
After (PF 62):
Details listing on Heritage:
The articles says all parties did the right thing, but it does not fully clarify how. We know that Heritage and the consignor pulled the coin. Hopefully NGC also stepped up and made a strong monetary offer to remove this coin from the market and solidify our trust that when they make mistakes they fix them.
What if the consignor is the conman/AT artist? It is very plausible given how recent the other sale was. If this is the case, he doesn't deserve a cent.
If that can be proven, it does make things more complicated. However, it might be difficult to do since even if the consignor subbed it to NGC, it could still be that he bought it raw from someone else who did the doctoring. I’ve seen plenty of coins change hands multiple times in short spans. Plus, if the doctor was smart enough, it would be unlikely that he would resub the coin himself and send it back to Heritage in a short timeframe (as a coin like that would be easy enough to trace back). It’s more plausible that the coin has changed hands a few times (or at the least has multiple people involved, who may or may not be working together).
In the end, NGC should still be on the hook as they made the mistake. They should do something that reaffirms our trust in their abilities.
I disagree with pulling it completely from the market. There are no more than four or five Proof 1818 half dollars known, and any Proof coin from this era is a major rarity. Despite the problems, it is still a coin of importance.
Of course if the coin doctors keep messing around with it, the surfaces will be such that its Proof staus will be impossible to note.
That is a good point too.
I should have clarified that by “take off the market” I meant remove it from its current straight graded holder (not completely remove it from collectors).
I do wonder though, do you think there is a way to make sure it isn’t straight graded again? Or are the top TPGs aware enough to not ever straight grade it again?
The pulling from the market comment was only made to the fact that it was once deemed cleaned. If noted and specified as a details coin. The coin will always be a cleaned specimen in my eyes. To see these coins pop up in strait graded slabs erk's me.
Once cleaned always cleaned. No matter the coin or rarity.
Now with a coin like this specific one, yeah, because of its scarcity making it more memorable it's usually 2 TPGs involved. But even in cases like this it happens with one TPG just as often as it does the other. And it doesn't just happen with coins that have been harshly cleaned and then toned again. It happens with coins across the problem designation spectrum. It can be harsh cleaning, scratches, altered surfaces, etc etc.
Nor is this something new, this very same thing has been going on since the beginning, since long before problem coin slabs even existed. And it has been discussed on the coin forums for as long as the coin forums have existed.
I appreciate your reply. I'm sure this has been going on for "as long as the coin forums existed". You've been on this site a lot longer than I have. I don't really look for older threads on a topic. (Maybe I should). Perhaps when I posted this I should have made my intent a little clearer. It wasn't so much about a coin being resubmitted and receiving a better grade.
My thinking was that the toning, IMO, was artificial/questionable, and wanted other's opinions on whether it was AT or NT. I have noticed on other threads this blue toning was being called AT/QT by many of the members. Doesn't mean their calling it AT or NT is correct.
Next time I'll be more specific as to why I started a thread.
Imho, if a coin has been cleaned and submitted. It should be labeled cleaned. No matter what year or what coin. If the company doesn’t label this. Then they are lying to the customer and purchaser. Making them a thief
And perhaps that's a silly question; of course they can???????
Well, I didn't exactly make it clear but intentionally toning coins like that to hide problems and issues is probably the oldest trick in the book. It is specifically why so many people (including the TPGs) have always been suspicious of toning.
But no, I didn't answer your question of whether "I" thought it was AT or not, but that was not the purpose of my comments either. But for the record, yeah, I'd definitely call that one AT. And I see it as being nothing more than an effort to hide the problems and issues the coin has. A successful effort by the way, at least as far as the TPG was concerned.
And THAT, was the point of my comments. Ya see, those efforts always have been successful. And I don't mean every single time when I say that, I'm talking about for how long those efforts have been successful.
Still, the TPG should have caught it. Deliberate or not.
I very much doubt that they can prove he intended fraud, but it seems to have already been proven the coin is a re-grade
Hopefully, the TPG wont be like those Las Vegas joints who bathe in publicity of a big win, then quietly screw the winner later.
The TPG exists to catch that stuff. Even if he was attempting deliberate fraud.
Yeah, that's the issue in this case. But ya gotta remember, the very best that anybody can ever do is guess if a coin is AT or not. There is absolutely no way to ever prove it - none. The one and only person who ever knows it with certainty - is the person who did it.
My point is this - precisely because the TPG is guessing - they gotta be wrong sometimes. And maybe even more often than not. THAT'S what most folks don't know !
Separate names with a comma.