numisport

Some MS 66 coins can be had for 200 bucks or so. 1972 Philly of any type is expensive but I purchased an MS 64 T2 that is pretty nice. What I think is cool about these Ikes is the original toning. Here's an MS 66 that I paid up a little for the toning. As I remember back then the coins with few marks that might warrant an MS 66 grade were only secured by chance rather than by request.

I am old enough to remember trying to get nice Ikes back in the 80's. I was told by my dealer friend that I would have to get them from mint sets. Well I went through a few and could not even find an MS 64 quality coin ! Then the TPG's started grading them and I bought a few MS 66's for a little money. So in one way I can applaud them for my purchases. In other ways you are right on the money. U.S Mint customers should be disgusted by the way sales of ASE scarcities have been offered.

Aside from key dates, I'm not able to win any coins I want at auction (at reasonable prices). While I am only looking for NGC CAC coins currently, I end up paying way more than price guide for these. So if I'm up against dealers in some instances then the price guides should eventually reflect increases, but they do not it seems. Collector coins in my price range often show prices dropping, yet I have to pay more to own them. Of course the explanation for this is painfully obvious to me and explains why collectors leave the hobby.

Many here have said never buy a raw coin on ebay. I agree with that.

All are worth face value or spot minus margin minus adultery

I think your claims and demands sound childlike and how would you expect NGC to respond to extorsion style threats you throw about ? My response would be a request that they look at your coins again, not a demand. I recommend you rethink your somewhat shallow statements and try again if you wish.

Anyone know what causes those staples to fail like that ? Is it the staples or the stapler ?

By the way hoghead I strongly recommend RWB's book on '36 to '42 proofs, by far the most informative research on the subject I've seen.

If you like early modern proofs you can look for deep mirror quarters to be the best you'll find as there were no cameos. I bought these a few years ago and check out the '42 with ultra deep mirrors but very little cameo.

I'll guess 64, 64PL and 64+

Probably would have been mint director Robert M. Patterson M.D. for the time period. I see a few of these early directors were M.D.'s

Here's another disgusting fact about Bernie's money. He was a huge political donor. Don't you think the Clintons and the Obamas should return that money to settle the case 😒

This is of course a proof with nice obverse cameo. Your coin looks high grade as well but I would keep the set together. These proofs always have full strike detail but can show some die wear. Full bell designation is not given for proofs.

In short MAC grade enhancements are just what CAC avoids. There's no way MAC can give you an honorable grade enhancement without removing the coin from its holder; That's what TPGs do for their fees. All CAC does is guarantee that coin is solid or above average for the grade. Fair enough

Roger you are so right on the money. Unfortunately often times (especially older coins) a coin grade is really an appraisal as it seems. For instance look how many Bust halves and quarters could grade AU62 rather than MS62. Cabinet friction IMO is quite detrimental to overall appeal.

Here's one I own I think is his label. Check his website for the 'We The People' labels (R & I Coins)

I whole heartedly agree that TPG's should distance themselves from a fourth party verifier. Just look at how their PCGS Board of Experts looked when viewing their inventory.... its all PCGS stuff; only half of the market available.

Here’s where I’m stumped. According to CAC a CAC sticker means the coin is (in one person's opinion, in one moment in time) at the A or B level (of A, B or C) of the spectrum of a given grade range (let's remember TPG grade is constantly changing). So, setting aside the RIDICULOUS thought that anyone (emphasis on “one”) could consistently and reliably slice the difference between 65+ and 66 into three sectors (this means being able to accurately and consistently discern a .166 or 1/6th of a grade point difference) on tens of thousands of coins over long periods of time: CAC does not recognize plus grades or Star grades thus cannot differentiate there, it's only a 65 to them. Also it's easy to understand why some coins get a green been. Not only can coins be more accurately described in a sight unseen exchange (like it or not) it also gives CAC a way to be a market maker by buying coins he has already approved.

While not up to speed too much on counterfeit type such as yours I would say is not real. Looks mushy and missing detail as well as brass color likely fake.

It's my opinion that many graded GSA's are over graded just because they are original lustrous coins as stated earlier. Majority of these coins are scraped and hacked to the point for me they have lost the eye appeal that many Morgans have in MS 65 grade. I've seen some nice CC's that are not in GSA holders that are fine to me but these things were handled poorly to say the least. The bags must have been scraped, dropped, scooped, and thrown about time and time again until they just no longer look acceptable. Yes I'll find a nice prooflike example of an 84-CC now that prices are low.

Yes it looks like a proof. Square rims are the giveaway. Many of these were separated when hundreds of thousands of these sets were broken up for silver melt.

Sarasota Numismatics usually has a large selection of GSA stuff in many different dates and grades. Most of these are neither rare nor even scarce but just cool anyway.

It's washer or dryer damage. I have done this myself. Coins get stuck between agitator and basket and just spins the coin sometimes for a long time until you find it.

I noticed recently that among cancer causing agents in California is 'wood dust'. Wouldn't that cause cancer in Indiana 🤢

It's fiction, just a novel and a great read.