JA didn’t sticker it, so now I must sell it …

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Welp, 300 Proof 70’s and 10 69’s with 30 percent of the 69’s submitted by 3 different people from separate households can’t be wrong. “We have no idea whose coins we are grading”…Perhaps, but with 18 undisclosed AP’s getting a jump on the action you can be sure those ain’t AVG Joe’s submission.

 

Sounds like a neophyte slab collector who is incapable of grading for himself.

 

I’m still very much a fan of the concept of AU-6X grades

 

tibor, posted: "I've read through the posts here and on CU forum. I find it hard to believe that John Albanese is calling a customer about a $150 quarter. In the 64 grade it is one of many. The OP says there was a 1927 ms65 nickel also in the submission but wasn't part of the issue. Mr Albanese is a very busy person. I find it hard to believe that there was any communication with him, at least by telephone."

I find it hard to believe you don't. Where I come from it's called "customer relations" or a good business practice. News Flash for you and others. Since the 70s I've worked at five TPGS. At every one of them except NGC I called our customers all the time. That's because an educated collector is our best customer.

I think the fact that an opinion of AU on a TPGS MS coin is even more of a reason to make that call. I'd tell our customer to sell the slab and get a better coin.

GDJMSP, posted: "Sorry, but I do believe it. And yes, I know they will grade coins with wear as high as MS67, and they say so in writing. But, and it's a big but, they also claim that wear caused by certain things doesn't count, and wear caused by other things does count. Bottom line, wear is wear regardless what causes it. A coin is either unc or it isn't - there is no middle ground.

It all depends how a person defines "wear." For those who believe that the loss of original surface along with its luster is wear, there is no middle ground and wear is wear. Others make a distinction between a surface changed by actual wear and one changed by other things.

However, what they neglect to tell anybody is there is absolutely no way that anyone can ever tell what caused the wear on any specific coin. It's simple fact, it is impossible to do. Given that, the reason that they will grade coins with wear as MS becomes all too evident. They do it so they can give their customers what they want."

Actually, in many cases the reason a surface lost its luster can be determined on a specific coin. Loss of luster from stacking is usually ignored by TPGS. Unfortunately, the loss of luster from friction wear has also been ignored by ex-dealer run/owned TPGS.

 

Cat fight I would utupe that one

 

Is it 58 with a bean(green sticker)?

 

My experience - deleted response

 

Gradeflation

But if there weren't profit in it, it wouldn't happen.

But before I go off on TPGs yet again, it's been going on a long time.

Cabinet friction became a term long before any TPGs were around to describe MS Large Cents with known provenance which started showing a little high point discoloration or wear.

 

I wonder if a corroded coin could ever receive a CAC? I've seen a few Env Dmg coins that look great.

 

Provenance might well be more important than condition, anyway.

 

It would be fun to watch.

 

Zombie thread of the century.

The thread that couldn't die . . . .

Z

 

This coin originally didn't sticker with JA.
After a phone call was made by the person who submitted it, it stickered.