Sealed boxes already searched?

In the past 2 weeks I've come across 3 boxes of Halves that were still sealed but appear to contain tampered rolls when I open them. 2 of these boxes contained different styles of rolls in the same box too. Boxes came from 2 different banks. Has anybody else ever found boxes like this? Is it possible someone is searching rolls before the boxes are sealed, or searching and resealing them? Possibly just a production glitch?

A freshly opened box today:

Until now this type of box ALWAYS has contained all Loomis wrapped rolls. There's 8 uncrimped rolls in this one. The rolls on the outside edges appear to be wrapped tight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Sounds like some other prospector beat you to the silver. Lol. Insist on your money back.

 

Get your money back, looks like they have been tampered with and took some silver and I doubt the box adds up to the original amount the box says is in it.

 

I agree. just wondering if others have seen this too in sealed boxes, and wondering how sealed boxes get like this. I was very surprised the first time but, multiple boxes from different banks? I hope this doesn't become more common or widespread.

 

Do you guys remember silversearcher?
He's been across all of America getting all halves from all banks! Those are his returns

 

Yeah! File a complaint with Pay Pal and demand your money back, including shipping.

Oh, that's right! You got these rolls from a bank at face value. So, why are you complaining?

Chris

 

I quit getting halves because I would open up a fresh box and they looked like that. I don't think it is a production glitch because in my boxes it has black fingerprints all over the roll and a line in black or blue pen on the side of the roll! I'm guessing that loomis is getting lazy!

 

Well search them for varieties the silver only people never take the time to seek.

 

You can easily re-seal the boxes with hot glue.

 

If you feel that they have been tampered with and you got them at face value from a bank, just spend them. Buy you $500.00 worth of candy, mac & cheese, ice cream (rocky road), fudge, gas for your car, whatever.

 

I got a box that was resealed once, found it odd that Loomis would delivery it without checking it. Rolls had be opened box was sealed with packing tape.

 

Sure anyone could, but I wonder how did it get re-sealed (at Loomis?) and get delivered to the bank indistinguishable from an untampered box?

BTW I looked at the glue seam and it didn't look like it was done twice.

 

Really Chris!?

First of all, if you read my post objectively, I was making an observation, describing the circumstances, and asking if others have seen similar. Not what I'd call "complaining"

Secondly, Regardless of whether a box of coins is obtained for CRH or commerce don't you think there's a bit of due diligence on the part of the coin processors and the banks doing business with them to provide a secure and untampered product? How can you or anyone else be so sure the box actually contains face value?

 

I've gotten boxes of coin that were obviously searched and re-sealed - quite possible that a teller or someone in the bank took it back as though it was never opened.

 

Yeah, really! Were any of the rolls short? If not, why should it matter if the box and/or rolls look like they have been tampered with. What banking regulation has been broken?

Chris

 

99% of these coins have already been searched (more than once) dumped, sent back, repackaged and sent back to the banks. You are only looking at 5 new coins per box. And the more coin roll hunters there are, that number will only get lower.
Sure there will be some NIFC's but dealers don't want them. Everyone is cherry picking out the silver, which is a finite number and can only get lower and lower.
Add to the fact it costs money for the bank to buy this box and sell it to you at face value. That is going to end.

 

"You" aren't the one that's complaining IMO. CRH (for silver) isn't worthwhile in most areas anymore. When you factor in your time, and expenses, it's a losing proposition. (at least in my neck of the woods)

 

Well Chris, you really need it spelled out for you? You just asked me if any of the rolls were short. Now if they didn't look like they have been tampered with we wouldn't have to be asking or needing or answer this question would we!

And nobody but you is talking about banking regulations here! You are strangely hyper-defensive of the poor bank. Do you have a banking affiliation I don't know about?

 

You're the one who had the rolls! So, why shouldn't I ask you if any of them were short or not. Well, were any of them short? If not, then why are you continuing to harp on this? I'd just like you to answer the question!

No! I don't work for a bank! I don't own a bank, and I don't now nor have I ever owned stock in any bank! It's just that I was smart enough to realize more than 5 years ago that CRH'ers would soon force many banks to resort to surcharges and/or added fees to make up for the cost of processing the change. Most commercial accounts need the change for day-to-day operations. The CRH'ers don't!

Yeah, I know! You say you aren't complaining. You're just expecting others to chime in complaining about the same thing, and you can get away with looking like the innocent child.

Chris

 

No I don't expect others to chime in complaining, and foremost in that department is you. I simply asked:

After 2 posts suggesting I get my money back you decided to chime in:

An interesting fact that seems to be lost on you Chris is, all CRH'ers get their money back every time anyway... AFTER we search through them, so the implication is for me not to waste time looking. It makes no difference to the bank if they've been searched or not. You basically just inserted yourself into my post to say:

Not really much in she spirit of CT as I've come to know it.

If you've got something to get off your chest about CRH'ing or CRH'ers maybe you should start your own post to ramble about the cause for surcharges & fees, instead of passive/aggressively complaining about your perceived complaining here.

And to:

You absolutely should, but not because it might establish the bank as being innocent of actually shorting me, no one said they did. That question arises naturally as a result of the tampered appearance, but the real question to be answered is 'Why should anyone have to count $500 in coin to verify the contents of a sealed box that's supposed to have sealed rolls inside?'

Because your dismissiveness, sarcasm, irrelevant comments and accusations are out of line. And you're still defending them