MarkFeld

I guess it depends upon whether you believe that some posts clearly violate NGC’s posted guidelines and merit a report. And whether you’re open to the possibility that not everyone who sees things differently from you is on the thought-police force. After all, posting isn’t necessarily the same thing as (merely) thinking.

Yes, in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, I choose to give the benefit of the doubt. And perhaps more so, because at that time, it’s easy to believe that the coins had no special value.

I have no idea whether anything improper was done and neither do you. I hope it wasn't, but unlike you, since I don't have the facts, I'm not going to make accusations. And that doesn't mean I excuse "misdeeds".

This is from the catalog description of a Proof that was sold earlier this year: "Undoubtedly, proof High Relief twenties will remain controversial long into the future of numismatics. The case NGC has claimed for the production of proofs rests on interesting and fairly convincing diagnostics. In our 2018 reference Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles, Scott Schechter stated: Proofs were struck using a collar previously used to strike Ultra High Reliefs; specifically, the serif-letters collar described as "Edge 3" or "Edge B-II" by Roger Burdette. All proof High Reliefs are Wire Rim variants and all share three diagnostics: Two faint die lines that emerge from the base of the branch. A die line that runs through the base of the Capitol dome. Die lines that are visible within the raised portion of the sun's rays on the reverse."

It wasn't difficult to get an answer from NGC. As long as the the 1907 High Reliefs that are designated Proof trade at decent premiums to business strikes, those who hope or think they have one, will continue to submit them.

I just contacted NGC, quoted what you posted and asked if they still designate examples as Proof. I was told yes. I'm surprised that you, someone who frequently calls for factually based determinations, would post what you did, without first checking with NGC.

I don't excuse misdeeds. At the same time, I try to avoid doing what you did here - stating (opinion/speculation) as fact, that a misdeed was committed, when that might not have been the case.

I haven't heard that. Who told you?

There’s no evidence that the 1964 coins were ”surreptitious striking of an unauthorized type”. And that’s regardless of whether they were specially prepared or merely early strikes.

Please cite the precedent for that and how it relates to the 1933 Saints and 1974-D aluminum cents. And what about all of the known experimental pieces and patterns (a number of which have traded publicly) that haven't been treated as “larceny” ?

The Langbord case is likely not on point and neither is the 1974-D aluminum cent. In each of those situations, there was a recall of one type or another, whereas there was nothing of the sort with the 1964 coins. Your so-called precedent doesn’t even reach the bar of “apples to oranges”.

At least now, it sounds as if you’re acknowledging that you don’t know a theft or “illegal transference” occurred. That’s better.

Where's the proof that such occurred? It sounds as if you're taking it as a given that it did, merely because the items were part of the estate. Couldn't they have been obtained legally?

My guess is that it would take far less time than has been spent talking about it, though perhaps it wouldn't be nearly as much fun : )

How do you know it was illegal?

Those are not SMS coins. Reverse images might be helpful, but it looks like a a Proof set.

Even if the coins looked the same to you, in the opinion of NGC, two of them have been cleaned. If you’re proficient at evaluating coins, you won’t usually need magnification to determine whether a coin has been cleaned Also, unless a coin is a major variety and/or submitted under a variety tier, something like minor doubling won’t be noted on the grading label.

The key is to try to determine the market value of the ungraded coin, vs. the market value, if graded. And then weigh that estimated difference in value against the cost of grading and postage. The benefit of any added liquidity of a graded coin should also be considered. Some coins of values less than $100 are still worth getting graded. On the other hand, other coins worth $1000 or more - such as some generic gold coins - coins aren’t necessarily worth getting graded.

They were worth their silver content before they were graded and they're worth their silver content, now that they've been graded. Why did you get them graded?

Absolutely, and Insider is definitely one of them!

None of what you’ve experienced or written means that Insider couldn’t reach a much larger audience by methods other than his “time honored teaching and testing method“.

Sarcasm aside for a moment - I wonder if his answer would have been different, had he viewed properly white color balanced pictures of the entire coin?

In addition to forgetting to change his clock, he might have been thinking it was Monday.😈

Perhaps the distaste among those of whom you’re speaking, should be considered by someone who really wants to teach.

The replies from Insider and others should provide clear answers to your question.😉