Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 1090910, member: 15309&quot;]There is always the possibility that the TPG&#039;s have changed their standards.&nbsp; And please keep in mind Doug that this shift does not necessitate an overall shift but could be constrained to this particular toning pattern/color scheme.&nbsp; In other words they think this coin is the work of a particular coin doctor.&nbsp; Also, the TPG could have simply made a mistake.&nbsp; The other issue is that we have only seen Matt&#039;s photo.&nbsp; The coin could look very different in hand.&nbsp; You know as well as I do that sometimes a QT coin has a &quot;look&quot; that is very difficult to describe in words and often elusive in photographs, but the &quot;look&quot; is very real.&nbsp; For example, let&#039;s look at the coin I listed as questionable toning on the scale.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Raw/JN1954-DRawBUAT.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>After viewing the photo, you can make an argument that this coin should belong in the Borderline or even the market acceptable category.&nbsp; But once you view the coin in hand, there is no doubt that the iridescent oil slick toning is questionable and the coin has no business residing in a TPG slab.&nbsp; Furthermore, this coin very well could be naturally toned.&nbsp; But if it is, it is the result of improper storage and deserves to be treated as a problem coin IMO.[/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