Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 3069419, member: 22331&quot;]You are stating what is being observed/declared, and making my case that the TPG are subjectively declaring previously TPG graded coins &quot;CLEANED&quot;. The coins I&#039;ve discussed were removed from slabs, sent to a competitive TPG, returned as &quot;CLEANED&quot;. Resubmitted back to original TPG, again receiving a grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve had many coins &quot;cross-slabbed&quot;, and only once have I received a MS DETAILS &quot;HARSHLY CLEANED&quot; Double Eagle returned that had been previously &quot;slabbed&quot; as 1906 MS62 PL $20 with beautiful uniform luster, virtually without without bag marks or bag rub.</p><p><br /></p><p>I had seen another rare date Double Eagle slabbed AU DETAILS HARSHLY CLEANED, that was sold by Heritage as AU5? grade. I posted it in a thread discussing the value of TPG &quot;CLEANED&quot; declared coins where I stated the coin would be sold, as it was for more than twice melt value.</p><p><br /></p><p>We&#039;re in agreement that virtually all PM &quot;antiquated&quot; coins have been &quot;CLEANED&quot; at some time. One would expect on a used item being sold, a brief statement as to why/evidence of the declaration. If damage is evident, possibly the declaration is improper.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve several perfectly acceptable vehicles that were purchased as &quot;flood&quot; and &quot;hail&quot; damaged. &quot;Altered-fields&quot; or &quot;hair-lines&quot; damage, etc., may be acceptable with a proper grade, as done by SEGS and others. The disparity may need to be altered/adjudicated as some very expensive damages are being declared. The unacceptable scratch declaration, as I recall in the PCI? litigation, by a firm known for scratch? acceptance, was believed quite expensive.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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