MarkFeld

Congratulations to Mark on his incredible career and achievements!

MS62.

I was very sad to hear of Jim’s passing. I always enjoyed his posts and even more so, our private message exchanges. He was extremely helpful to others and a most thoughtful, kind man. My condolences go out to his loved ones and friends.

Thank you.

Pictures?

I didn’t read all of the replies but the coin looks genuine, cleaned and unnatural.

I had known David for nearly 30 years, part of that time, working with him at NGC. He was so very dedicated, enthusiastic, enjoyable, intelligent and helpful. I had a few email exchanges with David, late last year, after I learned of his illness. And despite the extreme difficulties he was having, he was still the same extremely good-natured man that I’d come to know. I feel very fortunate to have know him.

I'm deeply saddened to report I've been told by a friend at NGC that David passed away last night. My condolences go out to his friends, family and loved ones.

Doug Winter (not Doug “Winters”) is extremely knowledgeable and a great writer.

Yes, it looks like a modern copy to me. And coins should be held by their edges, so as to avoid fingerprints on them.

I understand that his exoneration doesn’t necessarily mean he was innocent. At the same time, the accusations don’t necessarily mean he was guilty, either.

Why is it being assumed that Leech was correct? It seems that this sentence contained in the opening post should lend some support to the possibility that his accusation was unfair. “Dodge was investigated for various changes during his term, but fully exonerated in 1881.”

The referenced thread was about a 1910 $10. My post originally contained an old description for a four piece ($2.50, $5, $10 and $20) 1910 Proof gold set.

That was the thread in which I’d posted an old Heritage lot description about 1908-1915 Proof gold coinage.

The “well known numismatist” has removed the incorrect portion of his post. While you obviously had no obligation to do so, if you’d messaged him, he would have been aware of it and taken action much sooner. Thank you.

The coin you’re being offered isn’t a Proof - if you buy it at an apparent bargain price, you’ll still be overpaying for it by a wide margin.

None of the replies have addressed the "looks proof like" portion if the thread title. If the coin merited a "PL" designation, it would be worth getting graded, though that doesn't appear to be the case, here.

You’re free to attribute whatever motives you wish to those “who have SOMETHING to sell”. Whether you’re being fair in doing so isn’t nearly as important as whether they’re helpful and if so, how helpful. And while you don’t have use for certain posters, that doesn’t mean that others can’t benefit significantly from them.

No one said it was anyone’s job to teach and educate, here, or on any other forum. Some of us enjoy it and get a great deal of satisfaction doing so, however. There’s nothing wrong with a middle ground of answering questions and at the same time, encouraging others to do their own research and thinking.

I’m sorry to hear that, but can certainly understand. To those who say trolling is no worse here than on other forums - there seem to be fewer active posters on this forum, so a small group of trolls can account for a larger percentage of the posts and thus, be more disruptive.

It appears that you don’t keep your promises. it doesn’t matter whether you, I or anyone else believes that what I described, is a viable option. What matters is what submitters of the coins believe. And I’ve seen posts from many collectors indicating that they submit coins for the reason I stated. Now, in order to try to set a good example, I promise not to post to this thread again. And I keep my promises.

I agree and even if they did, I don’t think it would add any meaningful value.

I realize you didn’t ask me but I’ll answer, anyway. I see a great many coins that have been submitted for grading and/or to CAC, where the cost was more than any potential added value to the coin. In some cases, the submitters simply weren't aware that the added value would be less than the submission fee. In other cases, they didn’t care, because they wanted to test their grading skills. They wanted to see how their grading/assessment compared to that of a grading company or whether their coins were nice enough to sticker. They viewed their submissions as potentially valuable learning/grading-sharpening experiences.

Any grade coin is subject to gradeflation? C coins are low-end for the assigned grade. I think the confusion about C coins vs. problem coins that merit details-grades, is due to the fact that CAC has declined to sticker both categories. So submitters didn’t ordinarily know why their coins failed. With the new grading company, some of the CAC rejects will receive straight grades and others, details-grades.

I wasn’t saying that at all. I was saying that I didn’t recall any conversations with fellow graders about things (grading) having changed. That’s not remotely the same thing as saying that graders saw/see little to nothing wrong with grading. While I was a grader, I had plenty of complaints about grading and I do now, as well. And I’m confident that at least some current graders feel the same way.