Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by BustHalfNut, Sep 16, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Gee, I didn't know that the graders processed the submission form and any additional paperwork such as a grading coupon. I guess the only job required of the receiving personnel is to check for bombs, anthrax, etc.
The insurance fee would change. I don't know about the tier charge.
If you submit a coin in the wrong tier and it's obviously the wrong tier (a VF 93-S Morgan under economy, for example), they'll bump it up to the correct tier.
One theory I haven't heard much about lately is the "set-up coin theory," which states that the grade you get on any given coin in a submission is influenced what the coin before it looks like.
That's interesting...can you elaborate more? Are you saying you should maybe put a worse looking coin of the same type on the "line" just before the one you care about most?
I’ve experienced this with NGC
The funny thing is that I've heard several ways to do this. Put lesser coins of the same type in front of it to make it look better, put other great coins around it so that it can ride coattails, put a different type near it so that it stands out, and so on. That there are assorted theories on the proper execution of the set-up coin tells me that it is more superstition than anything else.
I disagree. It’s either...
A) an urban legend
C) a conspiracy theory
This was sent in to NGC three times. The first two times with the O-109a (rare) attribution. Both times it got AU details, cleaned. The third time (no attribution) it got AU-55. Then it got sent in a fourth time to be properly attributed.
So you tell me. Imagination, superstition, or conspiracy theory?
Was it sent under regular the 3rd time, as opposed to express the first 2 times?
Yeah but it also CACed after all that. So was it "borderline?"
When I was searching Mint bags for high-grade coins to submit, I would routinely submit 50+ coins of the same denomination/mintmark at a time. When I'd get them back, I would occasionally find an MS67 that I thought should have been an MS68, but there was no rhyme nor reason to this process.
The attribution was correct. The third time it was sent in without variety attribution
Separate names with a comma.