RWB

I expect the TPGs to do thorough research and examination - facts only - before making some new claim. I also expect them to define their terminology. They do neither.

No, it does not. The factual information the TPG might have is not shared or published. The raw coins are not allowed to be examined except by those chosen by the TPGs to give the desired "result" -- accurate or not.

The article is not clear that there were two wrecks in the same small area 1 was 3rd century CE and the other 14th century CE. The photos shows only part of the 3rd century Roman wreck. The BBC does not commonly use "stock" photos of ancient coin finds.

I agree...Breen and several others made such arbitrary pronouncements. But they acted as individuals and the coins were available for others to examine. Few bothered to object and the monetary incentives were often small. Today, the TPGs present their "attributions" as not only absolute, but publish nothing before or after attribution. Thus, knowledgeable hobby persons have no input and TPGs present no objective analysis. The minimum I would expect are: 1) a thorough documentation of physical characteristics, 2) a factual empirical description of surfaces, 3) carefully calibrated XRF alloy data, 4) a written discussion of production characteristics germane to the coin, 5) provenance, 6) and factual historical research including context. This would be provided to multiple persons with expertise in the series, production, equipment and related subjects. The TPGs have emboldened themselves to make extraordinary claims (and there by thickly lining the pockets of some owners/speculators), but present absolutely NO EXTRAORDINARY proof or even mediocre evidence. Combined with foggy definitions of terms, the total packages are unsubstantiated and in some instances possibly false.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-59754153 Amazing condition of the coins and gold ring.

PS: There are no definitions for either of those bologna terms. They are ground up hog gut and snout pressed into stinking tubes of offal.

Correspondence between director Andrew, Superintendent Joyce and William Woodin, plus ANA correspondence from 1909-1910 are clear that gold collectors did not like satin proofs - they were not distinctive from circulation coins. They did not like the 1908 sandblast proofs either, but they were better than the 1909-1910 satin (not sandblasted) version. It is also clear that Andrew approved returning to sandblast for 1911, although Woodin wanted 1910 gold proofs in sandblast (in addition to the satin proofs already issued). Far too many "experts" fail to understand that the appearance of a coin depends on multiple mechanical and metallurgical factors beyond the superficiality of type of press used or some arbitrary assumed adjective traditionally used to describe a piece. Another way to state this is that very few modern "experts" have the technical or scientific testing skills to form a complete description of a coin. Further, even fewer have the archival research skills to connect historical materials to observations within appropriate context. The TPGs are sales businesses and anything contrary to that is routinely rejected.

Why not? They have insinuated themselves as sole arbiters who make no disclosure of how, when and by whom the reviews are performed. They do not publish full technical data or assessments, and do not disclose the weighted impact of various parts of their assessment. That is: the TPG have become conclusion makers without use of basic scientific methods, publication of claims or presentation of contrary opinions. This is absolutely contrary to pre-TPG times, when "discoveries" were openly discussed, debated, examined and conclusions reached by informed consensus - not arbitrary pronouncements. There is no "reputation on the line." Very, very few collectors care - only those who wake huge profits on an unsubstantiated label claim care at all. Auction companies and resellers merely accept the TPG label as "truth" and deflect any responsibility to the TPG which then stonewalls.

Neither the 1921s or the 1910 under discussion have ever had open, objective examination or discussion. Anything stated about them is opinion that has been developed independent of discussion by a wide range of participants. For example, the 1921 I examined was not struck on a medal press and was made from clashed dies. In my individual opinion it cannot be a "proof." Nor can it be "special" or "specimen" or anything else unless there is documentation - for which none has ever been presented. I have not been asked to examine the 1910 coin. The sparse and incomplete published information mentions no documentation, and depends entirely on the "secret" examination by one company. As for 1921s, no open, objective examination or discussion has occurred.

The earliest American coin collectors would pay more than bullion value for gold coins they wanted, and bullion brokers usually charged a little more than market rate for coins of collector interest such as early US gold. Thus, there was no starting year.

Have to disagree with this one: "MS/PF 67. At this level, the issues with the coin are more obvious. There might be some hairlines or milk spots that are more numerous or thicker." No coin with an UNC-67 (or MS-67) grade should ever have "milk spots" and any "hairlines" should be limited to one or two, not "some."

Those 1877 Morgans are really tough to find with PL fields -- or any fields at all....

Ahhhh...the finger is hiding a straight clip.

Does anyone have something new to report about O/CC Morgan dollars?

Not really - suckers and liars are born with regularity.

Nexus and Mosaic are a little slow....

I have no information and have not examined the coin. The descriptions are filled with meaningless bologna and assumptions.

Absolutely not! It is worth silver melt value - nothing more. Spending $35+ with not increase its value by one cent.

It's an early stage of silver sulfide tarnish. Location resembles album or paper roll tarnish. PS: The photos were made with mixed light sources. This merely confuses the true color of the coin and slab.

Stuff like this keeps popping up without any empirical support. Some TPGs are happy to stick arbitrary labels on slabs with nothing more than a "looks like" opinion, rather than an independent examination combined with research and analysis. I have not seen the coin and did not contribute to any part of its slabbing, naming or sale. The photos tell me very little.

Hmmm...it appears that particular "Good Luck" token was not very lucky.

Coin grades are not objective. They are subjective opinions. No "grading company" publishes empirical standards for anything.

RE: "1989 D Roosevelt dime double died and would like to know your thoughts" Well, it certainly is dead - at least for a Roosevelt dime. If the OP has been accepting these at 10-cents each in change, then he's likely down a considerable sum after several years. But, however it might be, the illustrated coin is tarnished and not a "doubled die" variety. If it is "graded" the owner will be out all but one-cent of its value, but will likely bring chuckles to the TPG grading room.

Hmmm...not enough glue and it slipped....?

Hoghead515's explanation works well. There are people who will pay a lot more for authentic, naturally "rainbow" toned, silver coins. But be very skeptical of on-line photos and descriptions - digital enhancement is commonplace and very deceptive.