Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;19Lyds, post: 1334925, member: 15929&quot;]I emailed James Wiles regarding the RPM-004 and RPM-005 being &quot;replacements&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>He replied:</p><p><br /></p><p><i>&quot;Replacement means that what is listed in the Master listing will not match what is in the RPM Book.&nbsp; The entries in the RPM Book were deemed to not be RPMs and thus were removed and replaced with new listings. &quot;</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i></i> &quot;&quot; I further queried:</p><p><br /></p><p><i>&quot;Thanks James.</i><i></i></p><p><i>&nbsp;</i></p><p><i>If someone had gotten one of these RPM’s attributed by ANACS before it was “replaced”, wouldn’t that cause a problem?</i><i></i></p><p><i>&nbsp;</i></p><p><i>I guess I’m wondering why an RPM number was “re-used” so to speak instead of just stricken from the Master Listing or annotated as “De-Listed”? &quot;</i>He replied:</p><p><br /></p><p><i>&quot;These were done 10 years ago, so I doubt there will be much confusion.&nbsp; Of course you should never trust a TPG to get an attribution correct.</i><i>I use the replacement method because most collectors don&#039;t want to have &quot;holes&quot; in their collection. &quot;</i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i></i>So there you have it. I learned a while back that ANACS attributions from 10 years ago (the small holders) are unreliable and as such, try to avoid purchasing attributed coins in those holders.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m of the opinion that any attribution should be viewed with skepticism until validated by CONECA. This isn&#039;t exclusive to ANACS either as I&#039;ve gotten some invalid attributions from PCGS and NGC as well.[/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