Professional coin graders?

[Buffalo Head]

I still think that even though this MAY be GENERALLY true, every series still has it's own nuances and specific characteristics.

 

I find it hard to believe that MOST TPGS professional graders are equally proficient across different series.

 

They should have specialists for different series (maybe 3-4 different ones). IMHO.

 

Maybe this is why TPGS are so inconsistent??

Of course graders aren't equally proficient across all series. But I doubt that has much, if anything, to do with inconsistent grading. There is inconsistency among even the easiest series/coins to grade. Grading is at least somewhat subjective, and is not perfectly consistent.

 

Of course grading is subjective but there are certain graders who are better with certain series. This is, at least, a partial, contributing factor to "getting it right", so to speak. It is not all inclusive to the subjective nature of coin grading, though. I do believe it would help accuracy to improve to have specialists in their series, however.

 

You're ignoring the fact that specialists need to be paid...and paid well. Having a specialist for each series would be astronomically expensive, and the added bit of consistancy wouldn't likely cover anywhere near all of the associated costs. Would it be nice? Of couse, but it's just not plausable in the current system.

 

The hard part I think would be earning the trust & repect of collectors to submit their coin to such a service. But I think the cost would be about the same, yes?

 

How many specialists do you envision? If you were to have even one for each series, the number of graders required would dwarf the current staffs at the major TPGS. And that assumes that they even could/would be willing to be hired.

 

We're talking about the ideal here, so I'd say one per series. Perhaps one expert for ALL seated coinage and one for ALL Barber coinage, and one for ALL Lincoln cents...etc. We're still talking quite a few people, as I think the early series (1700's and early 1800's) really need their own specialists per denomination, rather than per generic design.

 

Ah heck with the other coins, I just want my Buffs graded correctly. That's all I care about at this point, the other coins are someone elses problem.

 

You can send them to me...I'll grade them properly and then sell them as such...

 

Okay lets start with this one. Give it your best shot....

 

 

You aren't going to be able to make your point (with me, at least) by trying to show from on-line images that a coin was incorrectly graded.

 

If I take it out of the pastic holder will that help?

[L1ncolnF4n]

MS-64*

 

If it's in a P holder then obviously there wouldn't be a *. The staple scratch of the nose really hurts. I'd have said 6 without that. Typical brilliant S mint strike, with a weak Liberty as expected.

 

Tha "scratch" on the nose is a "die crack" so now your cut, This coin is housed in a hard plastic holder and has not been graded, yet. BUT, the 13-s with a really good strike like the one your looking at is NOT known to have great luster like this one. Most always the 13-S with a hammered strike and full details like I feel this one displays is not a very lustrous coin. I have another one graded 66 and has nowhere near the luster this one has.

 

Cracks are rarely that straight, but that would be obvious having the coin in hand if it were a crack instead of a scratch. I passed the image to my nickel expert and he agreed hands down.

[Buffalo Head]

MS-64*

 

If it's in a P holder then obviously there wouldn't be a *. The staple scratch of the nose really hurts. I'd have said 6 without that. Typical brilliant S mint strike, with a weak Liberty as expected.

 

Tha "scratch" on the nose is a "die crack" so now your cut, This coin is housed in a hard plastic holder and has not been graded, yet. BUT, the 13-s with a really good strike like the one your looking at is NOT known to have great luster like this one. Most always the 13-S with a hammered strike and full details like I feel this one displays is not a very lustrous coin. I have another one graded 66 and has nowhere near the luster this one has.

 

Cracks are rarely that straight, but that would be obvious having the coin in hand if it were a crack instead of a scratch. I passed the image to my nickel expert and he agreed hands down.

 

 

Tis a crack....Your expert is wrong...

[L1ncolnF4n]

Ok you can grade mine now. Forgive me, it's a scan, and I don't have better images, they turned out even worse...the coin's lighter in hand, but it's damn hard to photograph with a white backdrop (ANACS).

 

 

[L1ncolnF4n]

MS-64*

 

If it's in a P holder then obviously there wouldn't be a *. The staple scratch of the nose really hurts. I'd have said 6 without that. Typical brilliant S mint strike, with a weak Liberty as expected.

 

Tha "scratch" on the nose is a "die crack" so now your cut, This coin is housed in a hard plastic holder and has not been graded, yet. BUT, the 13-s with a really good strike like the one your looking at is NOT known to have great luster like this one. Most always the 13-S with a hammered strike and full details like I feel this one displays is not a very lustrous coin. I have another one graded 66 and has nowhere near the luster this one has.

 

Cracks are rarely that straight, but that would be obvious having the coin in hand if it were a crack instead of a scratch. I passed the image to my nickel expert and he agreed hands down.

 

 

 

Tis a crack....Your expert is wrong...

 

Still looks like a staple scratch on the image, but like I said, in hand it would be evident that it is raised rather than incused.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

MS-64*

 

If it's in a P holder then obviously there wouldn't be a *. The staple scratch of the nose really hurts. I'd have said 6 without that. Typical brilliant S mint strike, with a weak Liberty as expected.

 

Tha "scratch" on the nose is a "die crack" so now your cut, This coin is housed in a hard plastic holder and has not been graded, yet. BUT, the 13-s with a really good strike like the one your looking at is NOT known to have great luster like this one. Most always the 13-S with a hammered strike and full details like I feel this one displays is not a very lustrous coin. I have another one graded 66 and has nowhere near the luster this one has.

 

Cracks are rarely that straight, but that would be obvious having the coin in hand if it were a crack instead of a scratch. I passed the image to my nickel expert and he agreed hands down.

 

 

Tis a crack....Your expert is wrong...

 

Joe - doesn't look like a crack to me. Its way too straight, and it looks like it continues on his face. It is more appropriately termed a "die gouge" or die line. A worker probably had a tool or something and scratched the die.

[Buffalo Head]

Ok you can grade mine now.

 

 

 

I need a bigger image. And I'm not that good with Lincoln cents and I am without my expert at the moment

[Buffalo Head]

MS-64*

 

If it's in a P holder then obviously there wouldn't be a *. The staple scratch of the nose really hurts. I'd have said 6 without that. Typical brilliant S mint strike, with a weak Liberty as expected.

 

Tha "scratch" on the nose is a "die crack" so now your cut, This coin is housed in a hard plastic holder and has not been graded, yet. BUT, the 13-s with a really good strike like the one your looking at is NOT known to have great luster like this one. Most always the 13-S with a hammered strike and full details like I feel this one displays is not a very lustrous coin. I have another one graded 66 and has nowhere near the luster this one has.

 

Cracks are rarely that straight, but that would be obvious having the coin in hand if it were a crack instead of a scratch. I passed the image to my nickel expert and he agreed hands down.

 

 

Tis a crack....Your expert is wrong...

 

Joe - doesn't look like a crack to me. Its way too straight, and it looks like it continues on his face. It is more appropriately termed a "die gouge" or die line. A worker probably had a tool or something and scratched the die.

 

Sooooo, your saying as struck, right? Last time I checked this will not effect the grade. I hope....

[L1ncolnF4n]

MS-64*

 

If it's in a P holder then obviously there wouldn't be a *. The staple scratch of the nose really hurts. I'd have said 6 without that. Typical brilliant S mint strike, with a weak Liberty as expected.

 

Tha "scratch" on the nose is a "die crack" so now your cut, This coin is housed in a hard plastic holder and has not been graded, yet. BUT, the 13-s with a really good strike like the one your looking at is NOT known to have great luster like this one. Most always the 13-S with a hammered strike and full details like I feel this one displays is not a very lustrous coin. I have another one graded 66 and has nowhere near the luster this one has.

 

Cracks are rarely that straight, but that would be obvious having the coin in hand if it were a crack instead of a scratch. I passed the image to my nickel expert and he agreed hands down.

 

 

 

Tis a crack....Your expert is wrong...

 

Joe - doesn't look like a crack to me. Its way too straight, and it looks like it continues on his face. It is more appropriately termed a "die gouge" or die line. A worker probably had a tool or something and scratched the die.

 

Sooooo, your saying as struck, right? Last time I checked this will not effect the grade. I hope....

 

If it's indeed a gauge or crack then no, it won't affect the grade. However if it's damaged, it obviously would affect it.

[physics-fan3.14]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

[jom]

Jom, do you really think this coin is "ugly" ? I thought we were friends? WOW! I think I'm going to go lay down now. I can't believe this.....

 

Oh we're friends alright. So be sure to sent that junk to me ASAP. I'm promise I'll uphold to "green" disposal procedures when I receive the coin.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

 

jom

 

PS: On a serious note: That doesn't look like a die crack in the photo as it seems "into" the coin. It even extends into the face just past the nose. It looks like a staple scratch actually.

[L1ncolnF4n]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

I agree that it detracts from the eye appeal of the coin, but there are plenty of coins with high technical grades, that I think look like , but are properly graded. It's a matter of purchaser preference on that, but in theory, at least, it shouldn't detract from the technical grade (market grading like today's TPG's is a whole different issue).

[Walkerfan]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

[MarkFeld]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

[L1ncolnF4n]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

Absolutely. There are plenty of coins that I've seen that have made me stop and wonder what happened to them, and you have to suspect that it's PMA.

 

 

---

Totally realized this was post post 1000

[Walkerfan]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

[L1ncolnF4n]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

 

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

[Buffalo Head]

Jom, do you really think this coin is "ugly" ? I thought we were friends? WOW! I think I'm going to go lay down now. I can't believe this.....

 

Oh we're friends alright. So be sure to sent that junk to me ASAP. I'm promise I'll uphold to "green" disposal procedures when I receive the coin.

 

Thank you for your support.

 

 

jom

 

PS: On a serious note: That doesn't look like a die crack in the photo as it seems "into" the coin. It even extends into the face just past the nose. It looks like a staple scratch actually.

 

It is NOT a scratch. The alloy has been sucked up into the die crack when struck, it's raised. I have seen one other 13-S struck with the same clashing and yes this same die crack on the coin and it was graded ms-67.

[Walkerfan]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

 

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

 

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

 

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

 

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

[Buffalo Head]

I found it. There's a 1913-S type 1 MS67 listed right now on e-bay with this same die crack & clashing. Here is the item # 160562449104....I don't know how to link it up, so if someone would be so kind as to do this for me I sure will appreciate it....Joe

[MarkFeld]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

 

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

 

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

 

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

 

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

In addition to the above, mint-made flaws such as die polishing lines, will typically stop when they reach the design elements (such as stars, the portrait, letters, etc.). Lint marks will be distinguishable from post-production flaws, due to their shape. Mint-made filing or adjustment marks are usually parallel and appear in the same direction. Also, they are far more likely to appear on older coins, etc. Determining the source of flaws is somewhat like putting a puzzle together.

[Buffalo Head]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

 

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

 

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

 

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

 

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

In addition to the above, mint-made flaws such as die polishing lines, will typically stop when they reach the design elements (such as stars, the portrait, letters, etc.). Lint marks will be distinguishable from post-production flaws, due to their shape. Mint-made filing or adjustment marks are usually parallel and appear in the same direction. Also, they are far more likely to appear on older coins, etc. Determining the source of flaws is somewhat like putting a puzzle together.

 

Post production flaws? Do you mean "bag marks" "staple scratches" stuff like that?

[L1ncolnF4n]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

 

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

 

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

 

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

 

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

In addition to the above, mint-made flaws such as die polishing lines, will typically stop when they reach the design elements (such as stars, the portrait, letters, etc.). Lint marks will be distinguishable from post-production flaws, due to their shape. Mint-made filing or adjustment marks are usually parallel and appear in the same direction. Also, they are far more likely to appear on older coins, etc. Determining the source of flaws is somewhat like putting a puzzle together.

 

Post production flaws? Do you mean "bag marks" "staple scratches" stuff like that?

 

That's what he meant. Bag marks are acceptable to a point, and shouldn't impact the grade, but a staple scratch is going to be considered damage regardless of when it happened. The key word is "scratch" if the coin was struck through a staple that's another story entirely.

[Walkerfan]

That really depends on the graders. This is a subject of some debate - many argue that die polish lines should bring the grade down. Where do you draw the line between die polish and other die flaws? Some could argue that a die crack or gouge brings down the eye appeal, and hence the grade. For them, that may be so - and hence the subjectiveness of grading.

 

The other thing is this-- how can one (a professional grader) possibly tell if it was abraded at the mint during the handling process vs. done by some careless collector with a staple.

 

I really don't see how one can distinguish between the two and, yes, there should be a difference between the two, which affects the final grade differently. The mint handling abrasion should be more acceptable and NOT affect the grade as much as a staple scar. IMHO.

Far more times than not, mint-made flaws will be distinguishable from post-production flaws. And if the source/nature of the flaw is unknown, it should probably be treated as having been done, post-production.

 

How can they tell, Mark?

 

I made the comment earlier: generally PMA/ damage will be incused (sunk into the coin) versus mint damage or flaws will show through design elements, luster will continue through the flaw (cartwheel won't be interupted) versus when something has a staple scratch the luster will differ in the affected area.

 

Thanks, I guess that makes sense.

 

Even though mint abrasions are and can be incused (I see it alot) there is still no interruption of the mint luster.

 

I guess the luster would be the main thing to look at when trying to decide.

In addition to the above, mint-made flaws such as die polishing lines, will typically stop when they reach the design elements (such as stars, the portrait, letters, etc.). Lint marks will be distinguishable from post-production flaws, due to their shape. Mint-made filing or adjustment marks are usually parallel and appear in the same direction. Also, they are far more likely to appear on older coins, etc. Determining the source of flaws is somewhat like putting a puzzle together.

 

Post production flaws? Do you mean "bag marks" "staple scratches" stuff like that?

 

That's what he meant. Bag marks are acceptable to a point, and shouldn't impact the grade, but a staple scratch is going to be considered damage regardless of when it happened. The key word is "scratch" if the coin was struck through a staple that's another story entirely.

 

Exactly, and thanks to everyone for their input. This has turned out to be an interesting thread.

[Buffalo Head]

Okay, one more time. I found a coin just like the one I'm showing with the same mark coming from the rim to and beyond the nose of the Indian. Here's the item # 160562449104

I don't know how to link it up but if someone would I will appreciate it. This 1913-S type 1 has been graded by NGC at MS-67..Hook me up with this link, please.....Joe

[Walkerfan]

Okay, one more time. I found a coin just like the one I'm showing with the same mark coming from the rim to and beyond the nose of the Indian. Here's the item # 160562449104

I don't know how to link it up but if someone would I will appreciate it. This 1913-S type 1 has been graded by NGC at MS-67..Hook me up with this link, please.....Joe

 

BUFF

[Walkerfan]

Looks like the same to me, Joe!

[Walkerfan]

Although, not identical, this line (die crack) also extends into the design elements; just like yours. I'm not 100% sure but you make a very good case and I am more inclined to say that yours PROBABLY is a die crack, too.

[Buffalo Head]

This line (die crack) also extends into the design elements; just like yours.

 

Thank ou my friend. Now this coin linked is of the same die, yes? The only exception is....MINES NICER ...At least the eye appeal is and that's what Joe likes in his collection. The 13-S is a tough coin with the luster mine has, and it has a bunch.

I like the "idea" of a Buffalo grading company. It's does NOT have to do any other coins at all, just Buffs. If a company such as this came along with a nack of "getting it right" I would be a happy paying customer.

[Walkerfan]

This line (die crack) also extends into the design elements; just like yours.

 

Thank ou my friend. Now this coin linked is of the same die, yes? The only exception is....MINES NICER ...At least the eye appeal is and that's what Joe likes in his collection. The 13-S is a tough coin with the luster mine has, and it has a bunch.

I like the "idea" of a Buffalo grading company. It's does NOT have to do any other coins at all, just Buffs. If a company such as this came along with a nack of "getting it right" I would be a happy paying customer.

 

True Dat! I won't argue with you on that, buddy!