Just Bob

Are those parallel lines/ scratches on the coins or on the holders?

5 hours ago, robec1347 said:

 

I think it might be a bit  under graded.

 

I agree. Whatever ANACS saw does not show in the pictures, at least as far as I can see.

Love the color.

1 hour ago, AlexStoddart said:

 

.  Oh well, a newbie learns; if the deal is too good to be true, it is.

Trust me. You are not the only person on this forum to learn this lesson through experience. Hang in there.

And let us know how you make out.

12 minutes ago, jtryka said:

I got this one in the mail today.

 

I always enjoy trying my hand at attributing these.

O-112

20 hours ago, Thomas Kurr said:

Look what I found on google!

Did you verify that certification number?

42 minutes ago, rrantique said:

Gorgeous IHC Dean.

 

 

That's frosty. Did it get a PL designation?

Without pictures, one can only offer an opinion, so here is mine:

ICG could have either missed the cleaning on the first two coins, or not felt that it was harsh enough to detract from the appearance, and thus the value, of the coin. I do not know their usual practice concerning cleaned coins, and that practice could even have changed over time, so it might depend on when your coins were graded.  Additionally, NGC could have seen something that they did not like, and decided to "play it safe" and give them a details grade. My bet, though, is that NGC probably got it right, regardless of how they managed to get past IGC.

The third coin, which went from MS to AU, could have been "market graded" by ICG. That is where a coin is assigned a grade based not so much on its technical merits, but on its perceived value. Example: an MS61 coin can be a lower-end, baggy coin, but still technically BU, that may not be desirable to many collectors. An AU58 coin might be a pristine, mark free coin, that has just a slight rub on the high points. Many collectors would be willing to pay more for the nicer AU than the 61. Sometimes the grader (or seller, if the coin is raw) will give the coin a bump in grade which corresponds to the higher price. It can also happen with a monster toner or a coin with amazing eye appeal.   I don't like the practice, but, such is life.

Have someone look at your other TD, either in hand or by posting pics here, if you feel like you need another opinion before you submit it.

Good luck!

And, welcome to the forum

2 hours ago, jtryka said:

Picked this one up at the post office this morning, fills the last year hole in my classic head half eagle set!

 

Congratulations!

2 hours ago, karachi said:

i have old coin 1796/1871/1881/1900/1906 any 1 real buyer contact me not fack people contact me 00923152166901

First of all, let me welcome you the the NGC forum.

Now, a few things:

1. This kind of post is best placed in the Marketplace forum.

2. Pictures of the obverse side of the coin (the front) are necessary.

3. This forum is frequented by people who are knowledgeable in the are a of numismatics, and are quite good at discerning which coins are FAKES, and which are real. Just food for thought...

These are available from a different website for $113.66 US, with a discount for quantity purchases:

1 hour ago, ldhair said:

We need something ugly/funky.

 

 

Definitely funky.

I am curious to know what would cause that toning pattern.

These proof Indians are some mighty fine looking coins!

17 hours ago, Curry said:

First one was taken by PCGS and their trueview before being resubmitted to NGC and the rest were taken by Robec

I am thinking O-131, but that is subject to change with more study.

Edit: I have decided to stick with that answer.

Giovanni Cavino was a medalist and, according to some, a forger, born in Padua, Italy in 1500. More info Here .

And HERE

As far as how to tell the difference, I am not nearly familiar enough with these to know. Maybe Doug or someone else will chime in.

So, is this coin the original, or the Cavino overstrike?

On 2/3/2018 at 6:22 PM, 123cents said:

I always wonder,  when I see a trade dollar this worn, if this one made it overseas a time or two.

Great looking coin.

On 2/3/2018 at 5:05 PM, jtryka said:

Picked this one up at a local show today, a modest upgrade as this one is graded VF-30, my other is graded F-15.

 

I can't see the die crack in the lower leaves, so I am going with O-101.

And now, for something completely different...

I loved that show!

Great color on that 92-O!

I'm too lazy to re-type the list, so see my sigline.

Add my name to the list of folks who like that Carson City quarter. (thumbs u

Nice medal, Ron. Here is some info about it:

1969 Richard Milhous Nixon

Official Inaugural Medal

Designer:

Ralph Joseph Menconi (1915-1972)

Medalist:

Medallic Art Company

Varieties Struck

Dusterburg*Number -- MacNeil**Number -- Alloy -- Diameter -- Mintage

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OIM 17G70 ---------- RMN 1969-1 ---------- Gold -- --- 70mm -- --- 1

OIM 17S70 p ---------- RMN 1969-2 ---------- Silver ------ 70mm ----- 1

OIM 17S64 ---------- RMN 1969-3 ---------- Silver ------ 64mm ------ 15,000

OIM 17B70 p ---------- RMN 1969-4 ---------- Bronze ------ 70mm ------ 78,529

OIM 17B38 ---------- RMN 1969-5 ---------- Bronze ------ 38mm ------ 1,000

OIM 17gB70 ---------- RMN 1969-6 ---------- Goldplate ------ 70mm ------ 500

-------------------- ------------------------------------- in Lucite

-------------------------------------------------------------- Block

* Dusterberg, Richard B.; The Official Inaugural Medals of the Presidents of the United States ; Cincinnati, Ohio; Medallion Press; 1971

** MacNeil, Neil; The President's Medal 1789 - 1977; New York, New York; Clarkson N. Potter, Inc. /Publisher in association with the National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian; 1977

 

1901-P

PCGS AU 55 - 10% O/C:

In more ways than one.

 

 

1893/2 - PCGS AU 58

 

 

Was this one difficult to locate?

Can't wait to see your '94-s!