Coinbuf

This would be very confusing to me but if it works for you then I can understand using it that way. Because you are representing that you have X coin in X grade in an NGC holder, but you don't what you have is X coin in X grade in a PCGS holder. Everyone knows that once you crack out a coin the TPG will not just simply reholder the coin at the same grade, the old cert is invalid and the coin must be regraded. Once you have the coin in its new plastic it should be represented as it is not as it was. I understand the way you and the member ATS view this but I do see it as less than ethical, even if that is not your intent you are misrepresenting what is in your set as you do not have X coin in X grade in the old NGC holder. Again you don't have a coin in an NGC 66* holder so its wrong in my view to say you do on the registry.

You say there is no damage, what is your explanation as to what happened to this coin? Some areas look like damage, others like a vise job imo, but I don't see this happening in the normal course of mint operations without some human intervention.

You are correct there are phantom sets in the registry, some on purpose (I know of one that I suspect) and some that happen due to the death of the owner who's heirs are unaware and do not retire or delete sets. Usually those latter sets trickle down the list as some of the coins are bought and placed into sets or inventories, however not every coin is bought by an NGC registry user and some get crossed and the certs not turned in.

To what end? This only bloats the inventory as you would now have bot the old NGC and the new PCGS in your inventory, same coin listed in your inventory twice. In a very technical sense yes no harm no foul, but why not update to the NGC coin for the NGC registry. Again I 100% agree, if the TPG's had done this all along the pop reports would be much more accurate and usable.

Thanks all, that was kinda my thought also, just too busy and distracting with the numerals across the background.

Seems like a lot of work, but then again $1.10 was a few days wages back then.

In fact you had three choices; first you were not forced to cross the coin and could have left it in the NGC holder. Your second choice was to remove the coin from your set as you no longer have an XX coin graded by NGC you now have an XX coin graded by PCGS. And the third option was the one you chose which was not to update your set to accurately reflect what is in the set. As I said ATS I find this dishonest and fraudulent as you are misrepresenting what is in your collection, yes you still own the same coin but in a different plastic which could have an effect on the NGC registry, see below. Your though mirrors what one member ATS said, the coin has not changed and you still own the coin so no big deal. But lets say that by keeping that one coin in your set your set is just over the threshold of the 75% NGC graded coins needed to qualify for the major awards which it would not be if you deleted the coin from your set. By using a PCGS graded coin with an old NGC cert number you can sidestep the 75% requirement and be considered for major awards even though your set does not meet the requirement. Step into the opposite shoes and how would you like it if your set was the runner up for a major award to a set that shows as mostly NGC coins but in reality those coins had long ago been crossed and are in fact in PCGS holders. Would you still feel good about this practice as the runner up that would have won had the winning set been legit and accurate, or would you be somewhat upset to learn that. Now I realize that this scenario is the extreme but I also think it is very possible that it may have happened at some point in the past. It may have not been a big issue in the past but the major awards have been growing in value each year and thus the incentive for this type of fraud increases as well. This same issue could happen in the PCGS registry although I suspect that due to the current difference in market prices between the two brands it is far less likely. I 100% agree with you that the TPG's should handle this internally and not rely on the submitter.

Silver (bright silver) coins seem a bit washed out.

Do you find this background too busy, distracting, or otherwise bothersome due to the color and/or writing? I have for many years used a dark blue background and while that is very neutral but dark coins like large cents seem to disappear on that. And I was thinking this was a way to show the coins in my 7070 album without having to say that the coin is in my album, too much or ok.

That's because you omitted part of my statement which lost the context, my full statement in my op is: " perfectly ok even if the coin dropped a grade upon crossover in a previous thread" The last four words you omitted are important, He made those comments in a prior thread a year or two ago. Edited to add: And in todays thread he has brought up the old conversation that revolved around the MS66* that crossed at MS66, at the time of the first thread he expressed that he felt it was fine to use the old MS66* grade in the NGC registry even tho the new PCGS grade was MS66 upon crossover.

Use a PCGS cert in the PCGS registry after you had crossed the coin into NGC plastic or vice versa. Do you consider it perfectly fine or do you see an issue with doing so, this was brought up just a few minutes ago on a thread ATS (where one member who has proclaimed this action to be perfectly ok even if the coin dropped a grade upon crossover in a previous thread) again gave this action his stamp of Okie Dokie. Thoughts?

As was I.

Won't the virus be dead by the time a slab is cracked.

Great nickel, very nice cameo look congrats on the upgrade.

Looks like PMD, the good news is it is worth $.01.

Great idea just not enough people to participate.

Its very colorful, will make it easy to see you.

The color is the tell for cleaning.

Forgot all about this thread, it would seem that the collector market has been strong (almost unbelievably so) during the pandemic.

I never made any reference to non collectors so I'm not sure where you got that from.

Wonder how long you would have to carry one to wear down to a PO1. I guess there is a segment of the market for this, I'm not part of that segment.

Vam 3B if my old reference is still correct.

I have to disagree, I think there is a very good possibility the SP66 1794 dollar will set a new record. This market may be slumping in the middle but the very tippy top is still flying and I think there are at least two whales out there that want the bragging rights. After all ten million for many of the super rich is like lunch money to you and I.

Awww did somebody get their feelings hurt. If you need hand holding and reassurance your talking to the wrong guy, I'm honest and direct no safe space here. As I said if you want to throw money away on pocket change that is just fine go right ahead nobody cares, but advising others to do the same foolish thing is irresponsible. I sure hope your not a financial adviser. Several members other than myself have already said the same as I have, no these are not worth submitting. You will spend $60 in grading/fees/shipping and end up with two coins worth $11 ($1 for the coin and $10 in plastic). The math is really straight forward, however if you prefer to follow the bad advice of one individual then certainly go for it and submit those two. Please report back and let us know how you do with your grades. I suggest you do some homework first tho, so because I'm in a helpful mood (just ask modwriter) here is a link to a completed ebay auction for a 1962 proof PCGS graded PF67 that sold for $6.50. There are others that sold for more but most sold right around the range I said of $10-$12. ebay

I have not studied or collected the $5 Indian series so I can only go by the reference material I have. The PCGS guide to counterfeit detection shows a photo of this depression and when comparing the PCGS example you linked and the guide photo the guide shows the depression to be slightly lower and more inbetween the 1 and the 4 in the date, The linked coin depression appears to be in a slightly higher and more above the 4. I am not in a position to say for sure that the PCGS coin is or is not totally legit, TPG's can and have made mistakes even with very expensive coins like this in the past so it can happen. Also Heritage is in the auction business not the authentication business and I do not know what (or if any exists) their protocol when high profile coins like this are sent for consignment. The guide does go on to say that the counterfeit die was altered at some point to remove the lump which caused the depression but that the die alteration left evidence of the alteration in that area on subsequent coins. As I said I'm not an expert or learned enough in the series to say that every coin having a depression in that area is a counterfeit; only that when I see that depression I am cautious and simply move on.