Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;huntsman53, post: 171238, member: 1242&quot;]zaneman,</p><p><br /></p><p>I have to agree with most of the others and say that artificiially toning coins is a bad thing! We all know that it is done (sort of hush...hush) but as long that it is not announced and declared to the coin collecting and selling Community, it has not had a real adverse affect on coin values and grading. To announce, declare and sell a substance that will tone coins and is undetectable, may cause a real adverse affect on their values and grading prctices or standards. Just to give you an example of an adverse affect on coin values and grading, I will offer the following: There are three dates (1896-O, 1900-O and 1902-O) of Morgan Silver Dollars that PCGS and probably several other TPG&#039;s will not Certify and Grade if they are the &quot;Micro O&quot; Varieties. The reason for this, is that there were so many of these counterfeited that PCGS and some other TPG&#039;s have branded and declared that all specimens of these three dated Morgans with Micro O Mintmarks are Counterfeits and that they will no longer Certify and Grade any of these. With all of the other known &quot;Micro O&quot; Variety Morgans and others being found only recently, it is reasonable to believe that there are genuine Morgan Silver Dollars with these specific dates that have the&quot; Micro O&quot; Mintmarks. Therefore, if you have a genuine one of these, don&#039;t ever expect to have it Certified and Grade by PCGS and several of the other TPG&#039;s. This has adversely affected the value and any possible grading of any genuine specimens, if they do actually exist which I believe is highly possible and thus, has adversely affected the owner(s) of such specimens.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Frank[/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