MarkFeld

you’re pantry,

Chances are that you’d be wasting money for grading and postage in having such coins graded. If mine, I’d leave them as is.

As others have posted, one way or another, the coin is damaged, not an error.

Welcome to the forum. Yours is not the DDO, which shows very conspicuous doubling. Look at the date and obverse lettering seen on the example below.

So even though you’ve been talking about multiple coins all along, all of a sudden it’s become a one coin submission. And you’ve added the postage charge to the Express grading fee, then misrepresented the total as the Express service charge. I’m OK letting readers decide for themselves who the liar/troll is. I’m sorry to have participated in this waste of a thread.

That’s the spirit.😉

Don’t be so harsh. Obviously, the tax preparer should have known before spending any time doing any work, that the fees would be greater than the tax bill. Likewise, a grading company should know before grading the coins, that the value doesn’t merit the cost of grading. The tax documents, coins and payments should have simply been returned to the customers before any work was done. 😉

Express service is nowhere close to $100. EXPRESS $10,000 $65 And the grades you expect or hope for, don’t have any bearing on how the coins will grade or their value. I have no doubt that numerous submitters overestimate the value of their coins every day.

Welcome to the forum. The coin is worth its melt value - currently, approximately $3.50.

I haven’t seen it.

Yes, he did and so did Mark Feld. I do that more than on rare occasions.

Based on the pictures, my guess would have been 64.

My bet is that you omitted, paraphrased and/or misconstrued something.

The one side that I can see looks like a 64.

I can’t imagine PCGS replying to such an email, and without first re-examining the coin, stating “no problem” with respect to an upgrade.

Before you stated “Carrying on this was graded an MS-64 by pcgs, I dont see it.... Minimum 65...” When you complain about a coin like that in such a way, it severely undermines your credibility.

Actually, the 1881-S might have served as an excellent example. Based on the images, if you thought it deserved a 65 or better, you don’t appear to be on the same page as PCGS and NGC.

I would have guessed 64. Regardless, PCGS need not be ashamed.

So we see it precisely the same.😄 But seriously, I’m glad you posted, as I figured you had probably handled them.

I’m not at all familiar with those coins, but my guess is MS63. That’s due to the discoloration on the cheek and neck, the marks on the lower right part of the neck and upper left portion of the cap, the marks beneath and to the left of the rooster, the marks on the left wing and the marks behind its neck and head. That said, the pictures aren’t very clear. And for all I know, the coin could have rub/be AU and/or have altered surfaces. Regardless of how it was graded by PCGS, NGC or anyone else, that says nothing about the validity of the thread originator’s complaints.

I’ve seen many coins offered the same way when the person was living, as well.

It’s not a Cheerios or Goodacre example - if you do a web search, it should be easy to tell - and it’s not unusual to find very well preserved regular examples such as yours.

The more you post, the less credibility you have.

That makes it sound as if most of the coins weren’t graded by NGC, previously. And to me, at least, as if they were probably liberally graded.

Why not?