Overgraded coins.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Offending information removed. The amount of overgraded shlock being passed off as better than it is is frustrating and sad.

[thebeav]

It looks like a bunch of over-graded stuff, but I didn't see any counterfeits. I didn't look at all their 572 listings......

Paul

[MarkFeld]

I did a quick check and didn't see a single "fake". That seller deals in a lot of second tier and lower certified coins, but is very knowledgeable. And to my knowledge, he doesn't sell counterfeits.

 

You should be very careful to make sure you are accurate, when accusing a seller publicly, and the way in which you did.

[ldhair]

Did not see anything fake. Several did look cleaned from the images.

I don't think this seller would knowingly sell anything fake.

[e1cnr]

I didn't see any fakes either (but some cleaned)

 

which coins and what diagnostics are you picking up?

 

centsles uses a scanner so all coins look off on luster

[James_OldeTowne]

They look like genuine coins to me. The grading is certainly suspect, however.

[Dudley the 1st]

I did a quick check and didn't see a single "fake". That seller deals in a lot of second tier and lower certified coins, but is very knowledgeable. And to my knowledge, he doesn't sell counterfeits.

 

You should be very careful to make sure you are accurate, when accusing a seller publicly, and the way in which you did.

 

Quite right, Mark. This post is on point about some of my frustrations with other similar coin forums as well.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I did a quick check and didn't see a single "fake". That seller deals in a lot of second tier and lower certified coins, but is very knowledgeable. And to my knowledge, he doesn't sell counterfeits.

 

You should be very careful to make sure you are accurate, when accusing a seller publicly, and the way in which you did.

 

I was very careful to make sure I was accurate before posting.

 

 

The nine in the date.

 

 

 

 

There are two obverse dies known for 1870-CC. It's not obverse #1, as the upright of the one does not line up with the right tip of the shield. So, obverse #2 it must be. However, the 7 in the date looks low, the 8 looks too tall, and the bottom of the 7 looks flat, not rounded. Could all be artifacts of the photo, granted.

 

The 1889-cc $1, 1871-cc $5, and several others look very questionable...

 

...and, of course, there's the overgrading and cleaning. Sure, I guess I should have questioned first, but it looks pretty obvious.

 

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, and I very carefully didn't state that the seller was knowingly doing it....

[MarkFeld]

Oh, and I very carefully didn't state that the seller was knowingly doing it....

I can't tell for certain, but both of the items you posted look genuine to me.

 

And if, by chance, either or both are counterfeit, that still wouldn't begin to approach your remark "We have pages of fakes". So, I am forced to disagree with your assertion "I was very careful to make sure I was accurate before posting.". To me, your posts to this thread seem largely irresponsible and libelous.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, and I very carefully didn't state that the seller was knowingly doing it....

I can't tell for certain, but both of the items you posted look genuine to me.

 

And if, by chance, either or both are counterfeit, that still wouldn't begin to approach your remark "We have pages of fakes". So, I am forced to disagree with your assertion "I was very careful to make sure I was accurate before posting.". To me, your posts to this thread seem largely irresponsible and libelous.

 

I certainly don't agree with your assessment, but I admit to engaging in hyperbole, as an expression of the frustration felt by the dishonesty that permeates this hobby.

 

At the very least, these coins are overgraded and problem...at the very least. That alone calls the integrity of the seller into serious, serious question. These coins ARE NOT as they have been represented, and there are people who don't know who will fall prey to this scheme. Representing items to be in a condition they are not is fraud, regardless of whether or not the seller knows it (and I seriously doubt the seller doesn't know it.)

 

But, since I can't *prove* they are not genuine, I will erase the offending information. Don't want people accusing me of being irresponsible and libelous, after all.

 

[coinman_23885]

Representing items to be in a condition they are not is fraud, regardless of whether or not the seller knows it (and I seriously doubt the seller doesn't know it.)

 

But, since I can't *prove* they are not genuine, I will erase the offending information. Don't want people accusing me of being irresponsible and libelous, after all.

 

 

Fraud implies intent; do we know that the seller knows the coins are overgraded and are problem pieces or is he naive like his clients? I don't know enough about the seller to make a judgment.

[okbustchaser]

These coins ARE NOT as they have been represented, and there are people who don't know who will fall prey to this scheme. Representing items to be in a condition they are not is fraud, regardless of whether or not the seller knows it (and I seriously doubt the seller doesn't know it.)

 

On the contrary, the coins are EXACTLY what they are represented as being. Nowhere does he claim that they are certified by a leading independant grading company--although many sellers do. He dosn't make any statement at all about what a TPG company would say about the coin. Nor does he make any claim that they haven't been cleaned. Instead, he merely claims that they are AU--which at least by the grading standards used by NNC they are.

 

Fraud is probably another word which in this case shouldn't be bandied about.

 

Edit to answer coinman.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that Centsles knows that the coins are cleaned. However, nowhere does he claim that they aren't.

 

 

Would it be nice if he did put out that info? Of course it would. Should he be required to? No.

[coinman_23885]

These coins ARE NOT as they have been represented, and there are people who don't know who will fall prey to this scheme. Representing items to be in a condition they are not is fraud, regardless of whether or not the seller knows it (and I seriously doubt the seller doesn't know it.)

 

On the contrary, the coins are EXACTLY what they are represented as being. Nowhere does he claim that they are certified by a leading independant grading company--although many sellers do. He dosn't make any statement at all about what a TPG company would say about the coin. Nor does he make any claim that they haven't been cleaned. Instead, he merely claims that they are AU--which at least by the grading standards used by NNC they are.

 

Fraud is probably another word which in this case shouldn't be bandied about.

 

Edit to answer coinman.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that Centsles knows that the coins are cleaned. However, nowhere does he claim that they aren't.

 

 

Would it be nice if he did put out that info? Of course it would. Should he be required to? No.

 

You're probably right about him knowing, and I agree with you 100%

[James_OldeTowne]

These coins ARE NOT as they have been represented, and there are people who don't know who will fall prey to this scheme. Representing items to be in a condition they are not is fraud, regardless of whether or not the seller knows it (and I seriously doubt the seller doesn't know it.)

On the contrary, the coins are EXACTLY what they are represented as being.

I agree with Jim. One can be disgusted by what may be seem at first to be deceptive activity, but there is no law that states one must grade coins by a certain standard.

[RockMyAmadeus]

These coins ARE NOT as they have been represented, and there are people who don't know who will fall prey to this scheme. Representing items to be in a condition they are not is fraud, regardless of whether or not the seller knows it (and I seriously doubt the seller doesn't know it.)

 

On the contrary, the coins are EXACTLY what they are represented as being. Nowhere does he claim that they are certified by a leading independant grading company--although many sellers do.

 

Of course, what constitutes a "leading independent grading company" clearly differs between you, me, and the seller, so that point isn't really relevant.

 

He dosn't make any statement at all about what a TPG company would say about the coin. Nor does he make any claim that they haven't been cleaned. Instead, he merely claims that they are AU--which at least by the grading standards used by NNC they are.

 

Fraud is probably another word which in this case shouldn't be bandied about.

 

Edit to answer coinman.

 

I have no doubt whatsoever that Centsles knows that the coins are cleaned. However, nowhere does he claim that they aren't.

 

 

Would it be nice if he did put out that info? Of course it would. Should he be required to? No.

"Market acceptability."

 

By long, long established market standards, those coins are overgraded. You'll notice, every response here concurred with that.

 

The grading standards of the entire hobby didn't spring out of nothing; they developed and evolved over decades of discussion and review. While there is, obviously, room for differences of opinion, the reality is, no Mint State coins are confused for F-12 coins, and vice versa, amongst anyone with a basic education in coin grading, in nearly every case.

 

If someone is using the established nomenclature of the hobby...in this case, "MS60", "MS62", "AU58" etc...these designations aren't meaningless. These designations mean something, and for someone to consistently deviate from those established meanings, in the attempt to make an item seem to be better than it actually is, is fraud. Since NNC does not have a published set of standards that explains why their coins are so "differently graded" than usual, accepted practices, then they, too, must be using those desgnations to mean what they are generally accepted to mean within the hobby. The seller gives tacit approval to this by his selling of these coins "certified" by this company.

 

It would be one thing if NNC had published grading standards that explain the deviations. They do not.

 

As far as the cleaning issue, anything that would materially devalue an item, such as cleaning does, should be mentioned. If I were to sell a comic book and "forget" to note that the front cover had been glued back on, do you think my buyers would have a legitimate complaint? Of course they would, even though I have "represented" the book EXACTLY as it exists.

 

So yes, "fraud" in this case...especially since you noted that a seller is fully aware of the issue...is most definitely appropriate.

 

If you still doubt that, answer me...would any one of the people who buy his coins be able to certify them, let's say by an "eBay approved third party grader" for precision, at or near the same grades that NNC graded them, without problem? And would any of you buy or sell an NNC item in the same ballpark as a similarly graded NGC/PCGS/ICG/ANACS, etc certified coin...?

[coinman_23885]

"Market acceptability."

 

By long, long established market standards, those coins are overgraded. You'll notice, every response here concurred with that.

 

The grading standards of the entire hobby didn't spring out of nothing; they developed and evolved over decades of discussion and review. While there is, obviously, room for differences of opinion, the reality is, no Mint State coins are confused for F-12 coins, and vice versa, amongst anyone with a basic education in coin grading, in nearly every case.

 

If someone is using the established nomenclature of the hobby...in this case, "MS60", "MS62", "AU58" etc...these designations aren't meaningless. These designations mean something, and for someone to consistently deviate from those established meanings, in the attempt to make an item seem to be better than it actually is, is fraud. Since NNC does not have a published set of standards that explains why their coins are so "differently graded" than usual, accepted practices, then they, too, must be using those desgnations to mean what they are generally accepted to mean within the hobby. The seller gives tacit approval to this by his selling of these coins "certified" by this company.

 

It would be one thing if NNC had published grading standards that explain the deviations. They do not.

 

As far as the cleaning issue, anything that would materially devalue an item, such as cleaning does, should be mentioned. If I were to sell a comic book and "forget" to note that the front cover had been glued back on, do you think my buyers would have a legitimate complaint? Of course they would, even though I have "represented" the book EXACTLY as it exists.

 

So yes, "fraud" in this case...especially since you noted that a seller is fully aware of the issue...is most definitely appropriate.

 

If you still doubt that, answer me...would any one of the people who buy his coins be able to certify them, let's say by an "eBay approved third party grader" for precision, at or near the same grades that NNC graded them, without problem? And would any of you buy or sell an NNC item in the same ballpark as a similarly graded NGC/PCGS/ICG/ANACS, etc certified coin...?

 

But your entire argument rests on the premise that there is a standard grading scale for all rare coins that everyone must use; there is not. The ANA/modified Sheldon scale are regularly used, but the ANA has no regulatory power. Maybe the coins are AU50 on whatever scale they're using; the listing and holders never explicitly stated that the ANA scale was used. And for the record, I would not have sympathy for any buyer who assumed otherwise without doing research.

 

And, by the way, I agree that the coins can be deceiving and if I were Ebay, I would be likely to remove them or require disclosure; however, I don't see where the seller explicitly misrepresented the coin. As has been said many times before, grading is subjective. There are many coins in PCGS and NGC holders that I have seen that I do not like, including overgraded coins; however, I would hardly accuse a dealer selling NGC/PCGS coins as intentionally misrepresenting the coins. And while I express no opinion on the matter, many consider the new ANACS/ICG glorified versions of NNC. Caveat emptor!

[Bruceswar]

Good god people... let not forget the average buyer knows very little about grading as seen time and time again. If collectors are not getting messed around with by the grading of coins, then it is prices also.

 

A few things I think most of us can agree on.

 

 

1. NNC over grades coins by what most people consider the industry standard or even close to it.

 

2. There are cleaned coins, and possible fakes. ( A friend of mine got one these "fakes") PCGS deemed it fake when it when to submit it in.

 

3. This seller knows what he is doing. He is well within his rights to sell coins like this, but I do not know how he sleeps at night. I could never do what he is doing for no amount of money.

 

Ending statement... While it is legally right, it is surely not the right thing to do for this hobby as a whole. People who feel burned are not likely to come back for more.

[James_OldeTowne]

By long, long established market standards, those coins are overgraded. You'll notice, every response here concurred with that.

There is no universal standard. For example, EAC and NGC both use near-identical nomenclature (AG, Good, MS-60, etc.), yet coins graded by each are going to be in (usually) vastly different condition.

 

There are PERSONAL grading standards. NGC abides by theirs, EAC abides by theirs, and I abide by mine. But nobody can stipulate who must use what standard.

 

NNC chooses to use their own standard, and that's fine with me. I simply find myself virtually never buying their coins. I did buy an 1894 Indian cent that, by my personal standard, was overgraded by about two grades, but the price fit what I was willing to pay.

 

A few things I think most of us can agree on.

 

1. NNC over grades coins by what most people consider the industry standard or even close to it.

 

2. There are cleaned coins, and possible fakes. ( A friend of mine got one these "fakes") PCGS deemed it fake when it when to submit it in.

For point #2, fakes are another story. Anyone can get fooled, and I agree there needs to be legal recourse.

 

But for point #1, NNC does overgrade by my personal standard, and appears to overgrade by NGC standards, but again, there is no "industry standard" for grading of coins.

 

Personally, I prefer it that way.

[123cents]

Centsles can be a good place to buy because they have a good return policy. I have bought a few coins that I knew were overgraded but felt they would still cross at a lower grade and they did. With the price I gave I was pleased.

They are certainly not for the people that think the coins are accurately graded by NNC and have no problems.

[coinman_23885]

Centsles can be a good place to buy because they have a good return policy. I have bought a few coins that I knew were overgraded but felt they would still cross at a lower grade and they did. With the price I gave I was pleased.

They are certainly not for the people that think the coins are accurately graded by NNC and have no problems.

 

I have done the same, and I did manage to pick up a Peace Dollar at melt that graded at least MS64 (though the grade on the holder was quite laughable).

[Conder101]

I would say that Centsles does know what kind of quality he is selling. A few years back he won the dealers catagory in PCGS's World Series of Grading. Also he owns NNC, or at least did at one time. I can't say for sure if he still does. So he knows how to grade by PCGS standards, and NNC does not do so.

[BillJones]

If you are going to run a firm that in the business of over graded coins relative to the standards practiced by the leading grading services, it helps if you know how to grade coins. That way you won't be inconsistent and make the occasional mistake the way some "third world" grading services have done in the past.