Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 3553649, member: 15309&quot;]In most of these cases, the TPG would have paperwork to prove that the error was indeed &quot;clerical&quot;.&nbsp; For example, I purchased the following coin sight unseen as a top pop mint state example for the date/mm.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/M3ehbY0.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Once I received the coin, I instantly could tell that the coin was a proof coin and that the MS instead of PF was a clerical error.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/vo5to0L.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/rpyck9w.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>If NGC were to review their records of the graders on this coin, it would assuredly be designated as a proof and the &quot;MS&quot; was typed in during the labelling process as a mistake.</p><p><br /></p><p>So while I understand your point about clerical/mechanical errors, that isn&#039;t going to fly as an excuse when an overgraded coin is submitted for appearance review.[/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