Was this a PCGS mistake ?

Not listed

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I know what's going on. Someone is ducking my question. Someone else is having a drink with lunch

 

Does the term "empirical data" have any resonance for you? It must, as you are the only participant in the thread not using such data, which is difficult unless you're all words and no experience.

Then again, this conclusion is supported by the evidence you've given over these last few months. You really don't know much about numismatics.

 

As I believe you have proved to be one of the 75% here, I'm not interested at all with your evaluation of me. Now, anyone is free to look up our discussions and evaluate your charges/opinion/ and MISINFORMATION .
Nevertheless, it keeps us laughing and enjoying your posts around here - please continue, seriously, we/I especially love you. You are the "poster child" of old times.

I don't know what you are smoking either! Empirical data on what?

What part of my question to the other poster in this thread did you miss?

EVERYONE KNOWS the mint sends out inferior products on occasion. That has nothing to do with the "Big Shot 75%'er" who posted that HE KNOWS of a process the Mint is now using to detect these inferior products. Until the poster backs up his statement (cough - BS) I think the moderators here should remove HIS post, mine, and your misguided defense of a subject you just chose to overlook further up this thread.

I want to know what the mint is doing or zip it

I also wish you would point out all the questionable statements I have made over the months. Gotta, go. Time to check on a proof I'm soaking in dip to get SOME MORE EMPIRICAL DATA to use on uninformed posters!....

 

Knock it off insider. Basebal was obviously just being glib as to quality control and how in recent years it has seemed to be lax. ie milk spots on ase's, the crappy strikes of the c&c sets etc. I'm very sick right now and didn't want to post but I felt the need to as again ypu are taking things out if context and wrongfully digging into them. Why are you even here? Just to throw crap around and see what sticks?

 

@Insider, order 5 or 6 sets of anything directly from the mint and take a long, close look. You'll likely find inconsistencies and an overall lack of quality control. Maybe you won't.... but a lot of folks on this forum have. A lot.

 

PLEASE ... We have no argument. I just went through a Mint sealed monster box looking for 70's! I am NOT DEFENDING THE MINT.

I'm questioning the VERACITY of this statement and this Poster. Get it? Please read the posts!

 

OK, Just for you I will but posters should read his post? Hope you are feeling better soon! Whisky works wonders.

 

Hi Condor, The cert # and the PCGS # are not the same.
The verification number is 28196894 and it shows;
CERT VERIFICATION #28196894
According to the PCGS Certification Database, the requested certification number is defined as the following:

PCGS Coin Information
PCGS # 99594
Date, mintmark 1981-S
Denomination SBA$1
Variety Type 1
Country The United States of America
Grade PR69DC
Holder Type Standard
Population
12,817
PCGS Price GuideSM Value: $22

 

Red letters and abundant emojis. You guys better start taking him seriously!

 

Yours is another "top post" on my list of four so far.
(I hope @Cascade does not see this.)

I wondered how to spell "faces." Still cannot do it unless I look at your post as I'm semi-illiterate. The only reason I use red is to easily distinguish my comments for myself. I'll use a shade of blue if you think it is better but I'm also color blind and the red "stands out." Because of this, I can't grade either (ICGE).

 

Not to try and derail the thread but any proof coin produced after 1973 that graded PR69DCAM could not possibly be considered "high grade" as much as "common".

As for the OP's spot? It might have developed after the coin was slabbed or it might have been there to begin with but it really doesn't matter. It's a common coin and can be had for less than $10.
If the OP wants to return it, it shouldn't matter to the dealer other than the postage fee's associated with the return. Even that's a nit.

If it were returned to PCGS for their "grade Guarantee" (at a cost of $30 per coin), they would just crack it out, dip it or clean the spot, and then return it to the submitter with the same grade. That would be a lose/lose scenario for anybody that wanted to play that game.

 

You forgot about the part where the spot comes back a few months later and maybe brings some of its friends along.

 

Spots are usually the result of poor drying techniques "after" the cleaning process that every planchet goes through before being sent to the coining press.
It is common knowledge that many proof sets are being shipped to customers that have "spots" on all the coins in the sets. Even uncirculated sets contain spotting on the coins most notably in the Zincolns and Presidential Dollars.

Try to cut the poster some slack.

 

That is possible since I'm fairly certain that the slabbing room is not a "Clean Room" with a controlled clean environment. Dust, hair, bugs, skin fragments, can all show up in slabbed coins.

Finding a common PR69DCAM post 1973 Proof Coin that is spot free should not be that difficult.

 

Strange that all us commoners understood the statement while it went right over the head of the supreme numismatist who is always superior and knows more but never has any facts or evidence to back it up

 

Depends on what a person considers "high grade" to mean. Fortunately "words" have fairly universal meanings. My interpretation of "high grade" is ANY coin 67 and above regardless of its value, mintage, or TPGS pop. Commercial interests like to call some coins in VF "high grade" because they don't usually come better. Imagine how confusing this can be to someone not at your level of expertise.

I've owned a gem 1913 Buffalo for almost forty years that several major dealers thought was a proof (one even owned it for a while until he wanted a refund for trying to "pick it off" at a high price for a MS. Anyway, this coin has a spot that keeps returning every so many years the I have removed several times w/o affecting the coin's eye appeal/value. Thankfully it is a "only child."

No argument with this; however, IMO the poster tried to mislead us. I care. That's how much of the BS gets started in numismatics. I do not care that others tolerate this crap (actually I do). Tell a lie long enough and it gets "traction" like: "Dip a coin once and you ruin its luster How about the TPG's don't know whose coins they are grading. What about: "ANACS is the first coin grading service." Just one more for you to rub it in: All the numismatists listed as a contributors listed in the Red Book actually helped with its contents. Slurp, slurp...that's me drinking it all in.

 

I see y

I see you still refuse to take credit for your statement. Have you tried to dip a coin yet?

I've made my point enough and I don't wish to make Cascade sicker. Bye I'll be watching you

 

I haven't been partaking in that thread, but I did read it and see all your contradictions of yourself. You've said a lot their without really saying anything at all