My CAC submission

[michael]

the buffalo nickel along with liberty and shield nickels being 75% copper and only 25% nickel and due to a great problem at the mint since 5 cent nickel coinage began in making properly alloyed planchets for striking the finished coin's caused many fly specks and streaks of the improperly mixed copper on the struck coins surfaces and this is seen in many nickels

 

this alloy is hard to get properly mixed together while making planchets ready to strike coins and the struck coins tend to have copper flecks and copper toning streaks in the coins outer surfaces that do tone over time so the copper streaking and fly specks are noticeable it is all a matter of to what degree and of course in my opinion the degree is ot that great on this satin proof buffalo and i would rather have this in an original coin with killer toning then some dipped out or ncs ultra conserved totally unnatural looking buffalso nickel; but the market accepts this hence you see many many coins and this only makes original coins not only better but rarer and i wonder what all these nickels that are conserved will look like in up and coming years? well i do not have to worry they are not in my collection

 

this satin proof buffalo nickel being in a megrig holder for such a long and stable period the buffalo toned slowly and with the improper alloy mixture the fly specks on the coin/ in the coins surface toned due to the copper pieces of the improper alloy mixture

 

caused these fly specks as they are not spots or spotted due to someone coughing on the coin/outside contaimints............ but due to the minting process

 

as stated by the original poster mike in fl these fly specks are not that noticeable and james early us says "They are an absolutely convincing argument (for me) contending that this coin has never been cleaned or manipulated in any way."

 

if anything the monster dipped out blast white nickel and silver coinage and also the totally unnatural dipped out overall "look" of ncs conserved blast white silver and nickel coinage are the one ones which should NOT get the cac sticker

 

in proper perspective you got to take the whole coin into the mix and i would love this satin proof buffalo nickel to all the other dipped out and ncs'ed conserved silver and nickel coins that cac DOES sticker

 

but as james says this is all collector preference and currently in this market the conserved and monster dipped out buffalo nickels rule at the slabbing services and with the buying public

 

well it will be interesting to see in up and coming years what the stability of these coins will be over time and me thinks that i would not want to find out by holding any of these dipped and ultra conserved nickel and silver coins

[MarkFeld]

They are an absolutely convincing argument (for me) contending that this coin has never been cleaned or manipulated in any way.

This comment does not pertain to the coin being discussed, but I have seen a great many cleaned coins with spots. So, the presence of spots guarantees nothing.

[WoodenJefferson]

Well Mike, I sat down this morning with a big cup of coffee and went throught this thread from the very begining. Very, very interesting indeed...the results were some what puzzling, yet almost what I'd half expected.

 

I was some what stunned that NGC lagged that far behind PCGS, I really don't quite know what to make of that yet.

 

You picked out a good assorment for an across the board compairison and the results were tallied well and readable.

 

I felt your disappointment in some of those that were submitted and did not sticker, but they can still hold their own, reguardless.

 

Good job and thanks for taking the time, money and sacrifices so that we all may learn.

[MarkFeld]

I was some what stunned that NGC lagged that far behind PCGS, I really don't quite know what to make of that yet.

I wouldn't make anything of that at this point, especially considering the very small sample size of the NGC coins. As compared to those of Mike, my results over the past several months, which are also of a small sample size, show a more even % of NGC coins vs. PCGS coins that have received stickers from CAC.

[WoodenJefferson]

 Quote:

I was some what stunned that NGC lagged that far behind PCGS, I really don't quite know what to make of that yet.

I wouldn't make anything of that at this point, especially considering the very small sample size of the NGC coins. As compared to those of Mike, my results over the past several months, which are also of a small sample size, show a more even % of NGC coins vs. PCGS coins that have received stickers from CAC.

As long as there are no biased opinions, you know, taking a look at the label first, (other than for the grade point) then looking at the coin, I can then see a split ratio between the two companies.

[MikeInFL]

Here's an interesting question for everyone to ponder....

 

Can a coin not get a sticker (for example a "low end of the grade" coin) and still be a good coin?

 

I say absolutely, and would point to the Buffalo Nickel as one example, and I'm sure there are others.

 

Provided one pays a price in-line with the quality of the coin (as Scott said above, buy the coin, not the holder), I would have no problem owning or buying a coin that didn't deserve a sticker.

[James_OldeTowne]

This comment does not pertain to the coin being discussed, but I have seen a great many cleaned coins with spots. so, the presence of spots guarantees nothing.

Spots? or carbon spots?

 

I feel quite sure that a coin that has been cleaned will have been relieved of its carbon spots!

 

(At least some of them.)

 

Anyhow, Mike, congratulations on what I think are excellent results, and thanks most of all for presenting your results for our edification.

[MikeInFL]

I wouldn't make anything of that at this point, especially considering the very small sample size of the NGC coins. As compared to those of Mike, my results over the past several months, which are also of a small sample size, show a more even % of NGC coins vs. PCGS coins that have received stickers from CAC.

 

It could be that I'm just not very good at picking out "good for the grade" NGC coins.

[MikeInFL]

Thank you, James. I'm glad you (and others) have found value in this thread. I know I have in going through the process....Mike

[lehigh96]

Here's an interesting question for everyone to ponder....

 

Can a coin not get a sticker (for example a "low end of the grade" coin) and still be a good coin?

 

I say absolutely, and would point to the Buffalo Nickel as one example, and I'm sure there are others.

 

Provided one pays a price in-line with the quality of the coin (as Scott said above, buy the coin, not the holder), I would have no problem owning or buying a coin that didn't deserve a sticker.

Mike,I would not worry for one second about having a CAC sticker on that coin. The coin is absolutely phenomenal. Regardless of the spots, that coin well sell for a huge premium over PF67 bid price because of the toning. It makes no difference if the coin is good for the grade or not. The premium will be based solely on eye appeal, and the actual merits of the coin with respect to its grade will become a secondary consideration.I also have a satin proof buffalo nickel PF67 that I thought was incredibly beautiful, until I saw yours. WOW

[Oldtrader3]

Mike, great post with a great deal of interesting information to consider. I enjoyed reading the entire thread and got some good information from it. I have two comments regarding the gold coins that you submitted. Firstly from the pictures, I agree with CAC that the 1835 quarter eagle looks fully original and is nice for the assigned XF45 grade. It is no surprise to me, that the quarter eagle got the sticker.

 

Secondly (again from your pictures), I agree with the CAC decision on the other three gold coins, not being stickered, particularly the 1899 Bass-provenance eagle. However even though the 1913 eagle's luster is not great for an Indian eagle, it might be an appropriate choice. IMHO, the 1854, T2, gold dollar and the Bass 1899 do not have any apparent attributes for grade that would compel me to select them for stickering, especially the 1899 Bass eagle. Would you mind elaborating on why you did choose these coins? Was the choice based on coin cost? I am just curious about your choice to submit those two gold coins, mainly because I collect gold coins.

[MikeInFL]

Mike, great post a a great deal of interesting information to consider. I enjoyed reading the entire thread and got some good information from it. I have two comments regarding the gold coins that you submitted. Firstly from the pictures, I agree with CAC that the 1835 quarter eagle looks fully original and is nice for the assigned XF45 grade. It is no surprise to me, that the quarter eagle got the sticker.

 

Secondly (again from your pictures), I agree with the CAC decision on the other three gold coins, not being stickered, particularly the 1899 Bass-provenance eagle. However even though the 1913 eagle's luster is not great for an Indian eagle, it might be an appropriate choice. IMHO, the 1854, T2, gold dollar and the Bass 1899 do not have any apparent attributes for grade that would compel me to select them for stickering, especially the 1899 Bass eagle. Would you mind elaborating on why you did choose these coins? Was the choice based on coin cost? I am just curious about your choice to submit those two gold coins, mainly because I collect gold coins.

 

Hi OT3,

 

You're not the first person who has concluded the 1835 QE was worthy of the sticker. In fact, everyone I've shown the coin to has liked it. I really like it (I did buy it after all), but setting aside my feelings for the coin I was worried if it technically was a 45 and if the toning was real - it's not like you see rainbow toned gold every day.

 

As for the other three gold coins, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. If you're asking how I chose them to submit to CAC -- the answer is simply that I chose the most expensive coins from my collection. If you asked me how I chose those particular coins to buy, the answer is a bit more complicated....Mike

 

p.s. thanks for the kind words OT3 and Lehigh.

[jom]

 Originally Posted By: michael

- CAC blew it on the 1936 proof buffalo, which is an awesome coin based on the images

They didn't blow it at all. It's absolutely gorgeous, but noticeably spotted.

 

Which was the first thing I noticed when Mike showed the coins. There's really no way it should be in a 67 holder...this opinion, of course, it strictly based on the photo.

 

I'm wondering why Mike thought the $10 Indian should not have been stickered yet it was! It seemed good enough to me from the photo.

 

Great thread...thanks.

 

jom

[MikeInFL]

I'm wondering why Mike thought the $10 Indian should not have been stickered yet it was! It seemed good enough to me from the photo.

 

It was exactly the opposite -- I predicted the coin would sticker and it didn't.

[CHABSENTIA]

Well Mike, I sat down this morning with a big cup of coffee and went throught this thread from the very begining. Very, very interesting indeed...the results were some what puzzling, yet almost what I'd half expected.

 

I was some what stunned that NGC lagged that far behind PCGS, I really don't quite know what to make of that yet.

 

You picked out a good assorment for an across the board compairison and the results were tallied well and readable.

 

I felt your disappointment in some of those that were submitted and did not sticker, but they can still hold their own, reguardless.

 

Good job and thanks for taking the time, money and sacrifices so that we all may learn.

 

Again.There were 35 coins submitted/ Only 12 of them or 1/3 were NGC. There wer 23 PCGS slabs submitted or twice as many. If 17 PCGS slabs were submitted along with 18 NGC slabs at random and the percentage rate was the same for NGC slabs then I would say you might have a point.

[Oldtrader3]

The sample size and selection method of sampling is too low and not random enough of a sample to suggest any statistical significance to the grading differences between PCGS and NGC. I would not conclude any statistical conclusion from this small, not controlled sampling.

[CHABSENTIA]

The sample size and selection method of sampling is too low and not random enough of a sample to suggest any statistical significance to the grading differences between PCGS and NGC. I would not conclude any statistical conclusion from this small, not controlled sampling.

 

Which was my point. Regardless of the size of the sample you can't submit "X"

number of coins and only have 1/3 of the coins for one TPG and 2/3 for the other.

 

If I have 6 nickles and 3 pennies and I continuously flip them and record the statistics I can't say that the nickles have a better chance of comiing up heads

when the number of nickles were flipped at least twice as much,

[MikeInFL]

Yes you can Chasbentia. To use your example, if you flipped each group of coins 100 times, you will notice that both the nickels and pennies will approach 50% heads and 50% tails....even though you flipped twice as many nickels as pennies.

 

Really, it all depends on how many times you flip them - because the underlying probability of a head or a tail is the same regardless of the number of flips. However, the law of large numbers says basically that after you reach a certain number of tosses, there's no significant statisticial difference in tossing it more times -- the result will approach and stay close the mean (in the coin toss example, 50%). So regardless if you have twice as many nickels as pennies, there is a number of flips when where it no longer matters if you flip any more...

 

The problem, as you and others have pointed out, with applying this law is that I only submitted 14 NGC coins -- not a large sample size. The question is, really, when does this becomes statistically significant enough to draw a conclusion with a reasonable probability of it being correct (i.e. low variance/standard deviation). Although I took several classes on the topic in college, I'm not a statistician, so there are others who are probably better situated than you or I to answer the question, but I suspect even with 14 examples you can draw some conclusions, albeit less solid than if I had, for example, submitted 140 NGC coins and 210 PCGS coins.

 

Regardless, I think you are too focused on the statistics derived from my submission being extended into generalities between PCGS and NGC -- which was NOT my intent and nowhere did I, or anyone else on this thread, draw that conclusion. Even WJ said "I really don't quite know what to make of that yet."

 

Respectfully...Mike

 

p.s. the point OT3 made about the sample set being non-random is also a valid criticism. For example, the price range of the coins I submitted (between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars) doesn't cover the entire range of coins that could be submitted. However, the conclusions could be drawn for this price range of coins...given a large enough sample size. A second example is the coins I choose to buy -- I have a large % of toned coins in my collection whereas a random group of certified coins would likely have a lower % of toned coins. A third example is my skill as a collector -- for instance a more expeirenced collector who is focused on purchasing "good for the grade coins" would likely have a higher "sticker rate" than someone less experienced or less concerned with "good for the grade". But again, nobody is drawing any broader conclusions based on my submission....I only offered statistics based on MY collection and MY submission.

[James_OldeTowne]

Personally, I think that the sample size was small, yet useful. Mike is a bona fide collector at heart, and I think his coins would be a fairly representative cross section of what a typical, astute collector might consider sending in. The sampling is hardly definitive, but let's please not diminish its usefulness completely!

[CHABSENTIA]

Yes you can Chasbentia. To use your example, if you flipped each group of coins 100 times, you will notice that both the nickels and pennies will approach 50% heads and 50% tails....even though you flipped twice as many nickels as pennies.

 

Really, it all depends on how many times you flip them - because the underlying probability of a head or a tail is the same regardless of the number of flips. However, the law of large numbers says basically that after you reach a certain number of tosses, there's no significant statisticial difference in tossing it more times -- the result will approach and stay close the mean (in the coin toss example, 50%). So regardless if you have twice as many nickels as pennies, there is a number of flips when where it no longer matters if you flip any more...

 

The problem, as you and others have pointed out, with applying this law is that I only submitted 14 NGC coins -- not a large sample size. The question is, really, when does this becomes statistically significant enough to draw a conclusion with a reasonable probability of it being correct (i.e. low variance/standard deviation). Although I took several classes on the topic in college, I'm not a statistician, so there are others who are probably better situated than you or I to answer the question, but I suspect even with 14 examples you can draw some conclusions, albeit less solid than if I had, for example, submitted 140 NGC coins and 210 PCGS coins.

 

Regardless, I think you are too focused on the statistics derived from my submission being extended into generalities between PCGS and NGC -- which was NOT my intent and nowhere did I, or anyone else on this thread, draw that conclusion. Even WJ said "I really don't quite know what to make of that yet."

 

Respectfully...Mike

 

p.s. the point OT3 made about the sample set being non-random is also a valid criticism. For example, the price range of the coins I submitted (between a few hundred and a few thousand dollars) doesn't cover the entire range of coins that could be submitted. However, the conclusions could be drawn for this price range of coins...given a large enough sample size. A second example is the coins I choose to buy -- I have a large % of toned coins in my collection whereas a random group of certified coins would likely have a lower % of toned coins. A third example is my skill as a collector -- for instance a more expeirenced collector who is focused on purchasing "good for the grade coins" would likely have a higher "sticker rate" than someone less experienced or less concerned with "good for the grade". But again, nobody is drawing any broader conclusions based on my submission....I only offered statistics based on MY collection and MY submission.

 

What you say is true regarding flipping just one coin. My point was that if you flipped each coin 100 times then you would have flipped the 6 nickels a total of 600 times. If you flipped the 3 pennies 100 times then you would have flipped the pennies 300 times.So out of a total of 900 flips the pennies would have been flipped 300 times or 1/3 of the total flips

 

If you really wanted to get technical about it then you could also take the different weights of each coin into consideraation. This was not my point.

 

The fact that the 14 coins was a small sample also was not the point.Actually the 23 coins for the PCGS total is also a small sample.

 

My point was that you can't compare the random chance that the higher number of rejects for NGC slabs made it look as though the PCGS slabs had a better chance of getting slabbed. The sample would appproach a better indication as the number of the sample got larger but the coins would have to be approximately equal.

 

If I was evaluating a drug then I would not have twelve people and only three out of the twelve taking the experimental drug. I would have 6 people taking the placebo and 6 people taking the drug or if I had three different criteria then I would have sets of four three sets etc.

[Oldtrader3]

Actually, for drug testing we did a double blind sampling with 300+ people taking the placebo and 300+ people in control groups taking the drug over a period of at least one year to get high enough confidence levels of human clinical testing data before seeking release approval for Europe. The FDA usually requires even longer human clinical testing for a new drug that is not a simple compounding change in the U.S. That is why it takes so long to get preliminary FDA drug release in the U.S. We also had to conduct concurrent accelerated aging studies under differing environmental conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity for at least one year equivalent of accelerated aging to prove drug stability and efficacy as well.

 

This was twenty years ago. I do not know what testing levels it takes now to gain FDA clinical trial approval for a drug release. Even with all the tests and controls, a new drug will sometimes cause problems with some genetic group, somewhere in the world where you least expect it. We once had a homogeneous, genetic population of people in France who had a adverse reactions to one of our anti-infective device coating compounds after we had human tested them in the U.S. genetic melting pot here for one year without any allergic reactions.

[CHABSENTIA]

Actually, for drug testing we did a double blind sampling with 300+ people taking the placebo and 300+ people in control groups taking the drug over a period of at least one year to get high enough confidence levels of human clinical testing data before seeking release approval for Europe. The FDA usually requires even longer human clinical testing for a new drug that is not a simple compounding change in the U.S. That is why it takes so long to get preliminary FDA drug release in the U.S. We also had to conduct concurrent accelerated aging studies under differing environmental conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity for at least one year equivalent of accelerated aging to prove drug stability and efficacy as well.

 

This was twenty years ago. I do not know what testing levels it takes now to gain FDA clinical trial approval for a drug release. Even with all the tests and controls, a new drug will sometimes cause problems with some genetic group, somewhere in the world where you least expect it. We once had a homogeneous, genetic population of people in France who had a adverse reactions to one of our anti-infective device coating compounds after we had human tested them in the U.S. genetic melting pot here for one year without any allergic reactions.

 

Right. Which was my point. You had a total of 600 people and the divsion was 50% with 300 taking the placebo and 300 taking the drug.You didn't have 400 taking one side and 200 taking the other or the results would have been skewed. In the submission to CAC you had a total of 35 coins with 23 PCGS slabs and 12 NGC slabs.While the sample was very small on both the results would have been skewed if one tried to compare the results of NGC to PCGS as one being less or more prone to rejections.

[MikeInFL]

While the sample was very small on both the results would have been skewed if one tried to compare the results of NGC to PCGS as one being less or more prone to rejections.

Again, that is simply not true. The results are the results. The confidence in the conclusion is the only thing that would change in your example (the larger the sample, the higher the confidence). Respectfully...Mike

[CHABSENTIA]

While the sample was very small on both the results would have been skewed if one tried to compare the results of NGC to PCGS as one being less or more prone to rejections.

Again, that is simply not true. The results are the results. The confidence in the conclusion is the only thing that would change in your example (the larger the sample, the higher the confidence). Respectfully...Mike

 

Am I missing something here? I have already said that both were not high samples. I further said that the NGC sample was not high enough in relation to the PCGS sample that was submitted.

 

If you feel that the samples for each the PCGS and NGC are high enough to register an indication then you have to go for it. If you think that submitting one third of the total for any one TPG and 2/3 of the total for the other gives an accurate indication that one has a better chance for not being or being rejected then you need to go for it.

 

if you submit another 35 coins at random that you own and next time you sumit 23 in NGC slabs and 12 in PCGS slabs and get close to the percentage of previously but with the reverse situation then it will prove nothing. If one deliberately submits the worse of one TPG as opposed ot the other and gets more rejections than the other TPG which is submitted at random or is deliberately cherry picked then it is not valid,

 

I can pretty much guarantee you that in the previous example where Old Trader used the example of testing a drug where there were 600 subjects and 300 got the drug and 300 the placebo that this is the way it is done all the time as the results would be skewed if it was 400 and 200/

 

The more important part which I am reasonably sure is that Oldtrader will say that the test was a "blind". In other words nobody knew who got the pacebo or who got the actual drugs.

 

The normal procedure would be to have equal samples and for them to be in a blind. To get the most out of a submission thren one would have to submit equal quantities of each TPG nad to submit them at random without trying to pick the best ones of each or the best of one and the worst of the other.

 

Any other way might be an attempt to skew the results of CAC to represent a certain conclusion and I am sure that a person that was partial toward CAC and a belief that one TPG normally had more rejections than the other would not do such a thing.

 

You are correct that a larger sample using the 2 criteria would thern increase the Confidence level.

 

If you beleive otherwise then you need to follow your own lead.

 

 

[MikeInFL]

While the sample was very small on both the results would have been skewed if one tried to compare the results of NGC to PCGS as one being less or more prone to rejections.

Again, that is simply not true. The results are the results. The confidence in the conclusion is the only thing that would change in your example (the larger the sample, the higher the confidence). Respectfully...Mike

 

Am I missing something here?

 

Yes, (and apologizing in advance for the brash response) you are missing a basic understanding of statistics along with the realization that nobody has drawn any conclusions. I've tried, twice, to explain but have failed. I will now "follow my own lead" and give up trying...Mike

 

p.s. I don't appreciate you (for the second time now) suggesting/inferring that I'm lying about how I chose the coins to submit...and to support a conclusion I never made.

[michael]

Yes, (and apologizing in advance for the brash response) you are missing a basic understanding of statistics along with the realization that nobody has drawn any conclusions. I've tried, twice, to explain but have failed. I will now "follow my own lead" and give up trying...Mike

 

p.s. I don't appreciate you (for the second time now) suggesting/inferring that I'm lying about how I chose the coins to submit...and to support a conclusion I never made.

 

 

(thumbs u (thumbs u

 

mike in fl it aint worth it........................ this is what you get for sharing your results

[MikeInFL]

The first submission was so eye-opening, I have decided to send another group of coins. Here is the second submission:

 

# Year Type Denom. Grade TPG

 

1 1820 Liberty Head Large Cent MS 64 BN PCGS

2 1823 Liberty Head Large Cent G 6 PCGS

3 1826/5 Liberty Head Large Cent XF 40 PCGS

4 1830 Ex: Rasmussen Liberty Head Large Cent VF 20 NGC

5 1833 Liberty Head Large Cent AU 58 NGC

6 1838 Liberty Head Large Cent AU 50 PCGS

7 1838 Liberty Head Large Cent AU 58 PCGS

8 1847 Liberty Head Large Cent MS 62 BN NGC

9 1848 Liberty Head Large Cent AU 53 BN NGC

10 1853 Liberty Head Large Cent AU 55 BN NGC

11 1854 Liberty Head Large Cent AU 55 BN NGC

12 1854 Liberty Head Large Cent MS 64 RB PCGS

13 1855 Liberty Head Large Cent AU 55 BN NGC

14 1857 Small Date Liberty Head Large Cent XF 45 BN PCGS

15 1857 Large Date Liberty Head Large Cent AU 58 PCGS

16 1871 Indian Head Small Cent XF 45 BN NGC

17 1909 VDB Lincoln Small Cent MS 66 RD NGC

18 1936 Lincoln Small Cent MS 67 RD PCGS not eligible

19 1865 Shield Two Cents MS 65 BN NGC

20 1868 Shield Two Cents PR 63 BN PCGS

21 1861 Three Cent Silver MS 63 PCGS

22 1883 Liberty Head Nickel MS 65 NGC

23 1883 Liberty Head Nickel MS 63 PCGS

24 1924-S Buffalo Nickel VF 30 NGC

25 1897 Barber Dime MS 64 PCGS

26 1835 Bust Quarter VF 30 PCGS

27 1948-D Washington Quarter MS 66* NGC

28 1942 Walking Liberty Half Dollar MS 66 NGC

29 1921-D VAM 1A Morgan Silver Dollar XF 45 PCGS

30 1852-O Liberty Head Gold Dollar XF 40 NGC

31 1899 Liberty Head Quarter Eagle MS 64 PCGS

 

Again, (in hopes of being as impartial as possible) I chose the most expensive coins remaining in my collection. I will update this thread with more information as it becomes available....Mike

 

[MAULEMALL]

Good post Mike...

I wonder though..

What is the actual value of the coins that stickered... What would you value them for insurance purposes..

 

And with those that didn't sticker..

 

I haven't posted until now because I have been soaking it all in...

 

I do have a question though... I was under the impression that modern coinage weren't being stickered.. What are the cut offs?? I was reading ats and in a thread there was a statement about a Franklin with a CAC sticker...

 

[MarkFeld]

Good post Mike...

I wonder though..

What is the actual value of the coins that stickered... What would you value them for insurance purposes..

 

And with those that didn't sticker..

 

I haven't posted until now because I have been soaking it all in...

 

I do have a question though... I was under the impression that modern coinage weren't being stickered.. What are the cut offs?? I was reading ats and in a thread there was a statement about a Franklin with a CAC sticker...

Here is a link to the types/dates of coins which are eligible for review by CAC - See here

[MikeInFL]

What is the actual value of the coins that stickered... What would you value them for insurance purposes..

 

And with those that didn't sticker..

 

Maulemall,

 

Thanks for the kind words. PM Sent.

 

Take care...Mike