MarkFeld

On 9/20/2022 at 9:19 AM, Oldhoopster said:

You need to get out more

I see patina used regularly on the chat boards and verdigris is somewhat regularly especially when discussing ancients or early us copper

There is a numismatist/chemist who makes a product called Verdi care or VerdiGone that has been favorably discussed elsewhere. He frequents other boards. I believe you can get this product through the coin supply sellers

How does any of this pertain to Greenland?  Do you have a coin from there that you have questions regarding the patina or verdigris?  If so, pics help

I agree. I used the word "patina" in an email earlier today and see and use that word, as well as "verdigris", more than occasionally. 

On 9/20/2022 at 9:11 AM, Selfmade1313 said:

I am a material scientist. The yellow is not residue. Any of you actually know anything about the J2020 and middle relief pieces? They are still being discovered today.  Thanks for your opinions but I think you need to go back and read the coinweek article on mid reliefs still being found. 

I’m not a “material scientist” but can tell you that the coins you posted are extremely common examples with a value of roughly $20-$25 each.

On 9/20/2022 at 8:05 AM, RWB said:

As others mentioned, the coins have residue from tape. Probably taped to a page. Even after removing the adhesive residue, they will have no collector value because of the wear. A fair market value is about 5% over melt, or about $22 each.

Melt value is roughly $15 per coin, so I’m hoping you meant that the coins are worth approximately 50% over melt, not 5%.

On 9/3/2022 at 8:23 AM, Jon Randolph said:

I have contacted them, was told the claims department would contact me in 2 days? Crickets!! I’ve heard nothing- very disappointed so I’m going to get my attorney to seek damages I guess. Sad, can’t stand PCGS and came here- very 1st group and lost?? 

So contact them again and try to be patient and civil. The fact that you’re already talking about seeking damages through an attorney, gives an indication that you’re being far from patient or understanding.

It sounds like you’re saying that NGC shipped your order to you via FedEx. If that’s the case, as the sender, NGC is the one to file the claim - in their case, with their private insurance carrier. You should have already been in contact with NGC about this.

On 8/24/2022 at 10:14 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

John Albanese posts now in his CAC Forum on the CAC website....had some good information in some of the posts, might go back and grab some of the more important ones.  You never know if they'll disappear.

It’s unlikely he will be banned from that forum.😉

On 8/3/2022 at 12:01 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Got it.....and the Satin Proofs were the closest thing to today's Mirror Proofs, right ?

I think you said mirror proof technology came in the late-1930's or 1940's, right ?

What causes the mirror-like finish and reflectivity in today's proofs vs. those 70-100 years ago....is it polish, better dies, improved metallurgy ?

I do realize that you had a mirror-like finish on the 1907 EHR Saint-Gaudens but that was a result of the annealing process which left gold on the surface and removed copper.

There are fully mirrored Proof coins from roughly 100 years before the dates you mentioned (“1930’s or 1940’s”). And that includes a small number of gold coins.

On 8/2/2022 at 6:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Breaking News!  This is B.S. "Beyond Sheldon" and "Beyond Salvage." Unsalvageable!  I don't even collect this series, but if you hand me a copper coin that's been underground for over a hundred years, I am not going to suggest there is a new and improved cure that will magically restore it to "AU - Details," at best. My suggestion is rinse it off, allow it to dry and either put it in a paper flip and place it in a drawer or give it a decent re-burial. Anyone suggesting anything else is being mean-spirited, flippant, and unhelpful (as it relates to the condition exhibited by this coin).

My guess is that he meant to write “AG”, not “AU” details. Regardless, none of this thread’s participants have suggested anything along the lines of what you mentioned. So please chill out.

On 8/2/2022 at 9:02 AM, Quinnd3 said:

@MarkFeld yeah after seeing the minimum $25 fee it has I am not going to do that, I figured 5% of value then ok but the coins only a $40 coin most likely due to the damage it has in the top left 

Just the grading (without conservation) would probably be more than the value of the coin, unless you have a multiple coin economy submission. Even then, I don't think it would be merited.

I can't imagine that the coin could be worth the cost of conservation and grading.

On 7/31/2022 at 1:42 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I haven't seen as much in articles and the media/internet on Tyran as I have with Simpson.  Just sayin'........

Maybe you should check it out and stop selling it short.

https://www.thetyrantcollection.com

https://www.money.org/tyrant-collection

On 3/24/2022 at 5:00 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

He just disclosed his identity, right ?  His claim to fame is lots of high-end coins I believe.

Go for it....I have a small number of Auction Catalogs.

In this case, saying only that his claim to fame is “lots of high-end coins” is still a gross understatement of the nature of his collection and the care he has taken with it.

On 7/28/2022 at 11:03 AM, Nutmeg Coin said:

Cac would probably be interested in buying the proof quarter since it has their sticker, you could call them.

This is one of the slowest times of year to sell coins.  Personally I would look at paying for the books with a credit card or getting them used, which I used to do in college.

A coin club member asked me to sell some certified Moderns, it has taken months to get him near market value on ebay.   Auctions on ebay are a loser, I would recommend buy it now with offers.  

The buy sell trade forum on PCGS forum is good.

Never, ever run valuable coins on ebay with zero reserve or reserves significantly under value unless you have 30 or more regular buyers and followers, you will be taken to the cleaners!!  I can give you a lot of examples of that.

 

 

Just because the quarter was stickered by CAC doesn’t mean they’d have any interest in buying it. They sticker coins when they feel it’s deserved, not because they’d like to buy them. And I’ve never seen CAC post bids on that type and grade of coin. 
The above doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t buy it, but it’s incorrect to think they’d be interested in doing so, just because they stickered it.

On 7/28/2022 at 9:10 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm going to look for some HD pics of a 1911 Proof Saint to see this appearance. 

What do you mean by "messed with", Mark ?  You mean handled or not properly stored ?  I would think these coins went exclusively to hard-core coin collectors who would have properly cared for them, unlike MCMVII HRs where you had lots of ordinary folks mishandle them.

You might not be able to see the effect I mentioned if you’re viewing images and not the coins.

”Messed with” = doctored, dipped, etc.

For those of you who aren’t real familiar with 1908-1915 Proof gold coins - in addition to their beauty, original examples of each year offer their own distinct color/appearance/texture. My personal favorite is 1911, which typically displays - as I have seen it described - “crystalline, nearly diamond-like facets”.

Numismatists who have examined enough original survivors of each year can determine the date of the coin, just by looking at the reverse. Sadly, so many of these coins have been messed with over the years, that a lot of them have lost their distinctive appearance. That makes Mr. Koessl’s set all the more special.

On 7/27/2022 at 7:27 PM, RWB said:

If some members with to perpetuate ignorance that is their option - as foolish and degrading as it might be.

     On 7/27/2022 at 2:44 PM,  RWB said: 

It is completely false and misleading. Better to get back on better and historically accurate terminology than to encourage continued confusion.

“The terminology seems to give an indication of what the coins look like. How is it false, misleading, inaccurate and confusing?”

I guess you didn’t care to answer my above question regarding your disdain for the term “Roman”.
On top of that, throwing out insults like “foolish” and “degrading” certainly doesn’t do much to invite or further a conversation. I tried to do that from my end, with an open mind.But you have reminded me why I’d given up on trying to engage with you, previously. Lesson learned (again).

On 7/27/2022 at 6:53 PM, jimbo27 said:

I had the sellers photos and NGC photos before I made an offer, which they accepted and was still cheaper than most ms65s. I think the coin was graded properly. Oh, because you were curious $255.

If the coin’s nice, that seems like a reasonable price. That said, it doesn’t sound cheaper than most 65’s. With a quick search, I found seven different PCGS and NGC MS65’s that were auctioned since May and which brought between $180 and $228, each.

Above all, I hope you like and enjoy the coin.

On 7/27/2022 at 6:17 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Wow!  Judging by the last two photos, presto! Now we've got cartwheels and the mysterious terrain is but an afterthought. I asked an older woman in thr supermarket what the "medical" name for that was, and she cheerfully said, "Why, that's a liver spot, Sonny!"

(Wait'll the Hon. @VKurtB hears you bought the coin sight unseen!  Personally, I think you've done very well for yourself, all things considered.

I’m extremely impressed that you could reach such a conclusion without having any idea what the coin cost. That does make a difference in most cases.

Which photo most closely resembles the reverse “splotch”? It doesn’t really show in the last one.

On 7/27/2022 at 4:26 PM, FlyingAl said:

Thank you!

I just checked and based on the lot offerings, I’ll have the opportunity to look (at our August 22-28 sale sale) and compare some of the coins we’ve been discussing. I’m guessing I’ll be able to do so sometime the week after next.

On 7/27/2022 at 3:59 PM, FlyingAl said:

What I really want to know is if in hand the proof gold (Satin) looks different from the Matte proof cents and nickels. I'm trying to find a basis for why the authors of the article mentioned would state that they were made in the exact same way if they look entirely different. 

They do to me. That said, maybe if I sat down with a couple examples of each and compared them I’d have a different answer. If/when I can do that, I’ll do so and report back.