MarkFeld

See my above post. You were either lazy - which I doubt - intentionally misleading or irresponsible in doing so.

It’s not a matter of whether Roger’s views are “pretty close”, way off or spot-on. The point is that he made it sound as if the notice included specific language, which was not present.

When you write that “A notice...states...” if you’re going to insert your own words/opinions into the sentence, you should clearly indicate such. As written, you make it sound as if the notice included references to “huckster, fraud, and briber” and I presume that wasn’t the case.

No.

Then why post? I don’t understand the point of such posts and you’re not the only one I’ve seen do that. There must be a point to it, so why not make the point, rather than being cryptic?

The link that was provided with the $2650 comment was for Proofs from the Mint.

I agree, it’s not the same thing and I think Saints are a far better deal. But apparently, many buyers of modern coins don’t care what we think.😉

You’re talking primarily about populations. Perhaps the buyers of the mint products prefer their newer appearance and much better condition. Some would rather own a nearly perfect, modern widget than an older one in noticeably worse condition. It’s somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison.

There are many unusual and/or special coins for which there is no official documentation, among them, 1804 dollars, 1913 nickels, some Proof (classic) commemoratives and a number of patterns. I don't recall our conversation, but if my answer was along the lines of what you posted, I apologize for not providing a much better one. I could and would have described the differences in detail, were we siting face to face with some of those coins in hand. In lieu of that, my best option would have been to refer you to some of what has been written in auction lot descriptions of the coins and/or that provided by grading companies. However, if like RWB, you don't believe in the coins unless there's official documentation, there's no point in reading.

There are quite a few Proof Large Cents, as well as Proof Half Cents. And many of them are obvious as such to anyone who is knowledgeable.

I was speaking of knowledgeable collectors and dealers. And so there’s no confusion, I do distinguish them from dumpster divers.😉

Do you read replies? I already stated “It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of thecoins, themselves, serves as good evidence, however. The same goes for some early (pre 1858) Proof coins, for which there is no official documentation. Sometimes, the coins speak for themselves.”

You don’t seem able or willing to distinguish many of your opinions from facts. It is a fact that no documentation has been found. The distinctive appearance of the coins, themselves, serves as good evidence, however. The same goes for some early (pre 1858) Proof coins, for which there is no official documentation. Sometimes, the coins speak for themselves. In the event that you’d like to stop hearing back from me and some others, all you need to do is express your opinions as opinions and not facts, which you often mix in with unfair unfounded and unfair accusations.

Sorry about that. I figured you were aware - it was meant for others who weren’t or who were denying it.😉

Whatever the current extent of a consensus, I don’t see it changing much in either direction.

What you’ve read above is an opinion and numerous people disagree.

No, they don’t resemble SMS examples in any way.

I’d state is as something along the lines of: Some coins which have seen very brief circulation don’t display any wear. As a result, while they’re technically circulated, they can still be graded mint state/uncirculated on the grading scale.

See 2b from Merriam-Webster below. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedigree

Got it, thanks.

Not necessarily. I’ve seen many mint state and proof coins graded higher than the one in this thread, with prints. So I guess you wouldn’t trust PCGS or NGC.

Just because others disagree with you - in this case, with your close-minded conclusion based upon images - doesn’t mean they’re dishonest and motivated by money. You keep throwing that out there, perhaps because you don’t have a solid basis for your declarations. I’m open to the possibility that the coin should have been graded lower. But I haven’t seen it in hand and neither have you. Even if we had, however, our opinions would be opinions, not facts.

Greg, do you have the provenance removed just for coins you’re keeping for your collection or for the ones you’re reselling too? I can understand you not liking them, but paying to have them removed sounds a bit extreme. Do they really bother you that much?

I strongly encourage honesty and accuracy and often speak out against over-grading and inconsistency in grading. Many collectors and dealers who know me are well aware of that fact. At the same time, I’ve seen countless coins that looked considerably different - many of them, shockingly so - and/or better or worse in hand, than in their images. If you, yourself, haven’t experienced the same on thousands of occasions and aren’t already aware of such disparities, you should look at a lot more coins. You’ve unfairly intimidated, if not accused me of bias, on more than one occasion. If you want to see true bias, just look in the mirror.

You’re making conclusions and stating opinions as facts, based on on-line images. You should know enough to realize that doing so can be irresponsible. And that’s so matter how certain you are.