Crazy coin on Ebay -

[$ilverHawk]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

 

 

The major reverse lines are on the fieild and go under the devices. When grading services say 'cleaned;' they do not say where or how. I agree that PCGS has seem the coin in hand, and may have felt that the coin was chemically cleaned too much, or manually cleaned somewhere I can not determine from picture.

 

NGC and PCGS have both graded 1893 Columbian Expo halves as proof.

proof sold - look at obverse stars and reverse sail lines

 

Thanks for the reference. The NGC proof example clearly shows die polish lines on the Obverse. Julian's PCGS holder states genuine cleaned. The holder does not state if the coin is MS or PF. Please correct me if I am in error. I am not acquainted with the vagaries of PCGS grade codes.

 

I believe Julian is well within his rights to dispute cleaning versus die polish lines on a proof coin.

 

Judging only by the photographs of Julian s coin and comparing it to the NGC example IMHO this is a proof coin.

 

No way would any astute collector pay any where near his asking price. Again my opinion.

 

Carl

[JIM F.]

 

The holder does not state if the coin is MS or PF. Please correct me if I am in error. I am not acquainted with the vagaries of PCGS grade codes.

 

 

Carl

 

Interesting point. However compare to this.

[brg5658]

His prices are laughable, plain and simple.

But he has been in business a LONG time and his stock is constantly changing so it is going somewhere. Most of his stuff is very nice and he does have a client base for it.

 

Bernie Madoff also had quite a following....

 

Just saying....

[e1cnr]

the first numbers tell what PCGS thought

 

9297.92/############

 

9297 is for 1893 MS Columbian (PR number is 9298)

92 is for cleaned

 

the ######### is the serial number unique to coin when graded

[coinman1794]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

 

 

The major reverse lines are on the fieild and go under the devices. When grading services say 'cleaned;' they do not say where or how. I agree that PCGS has seem the coin in hand, and may have felt that the coin was chemically cleaned too much, or manually cleaned somewhere I can not determine from picture.

 

NGC and PCGS have both graded 1893 Columbian Expo halves as proof.

proof sold - look at obverse stars and reverse sail lines

 

Thanks for the reference. The NGC proof example clearly shows die polish lines on the Obverse. Julian's PCGS holder states genuine cleaned. The holder does not state if the coin is MS or PF. Please correct me if I am in error. I am not acquainted with the vagaries of PCGS grade codes.

 

I believe Julian is well within his rights to dispute cleaning versus die polish lines on a proof coin.

 

Judging only by the photographs of Julian s coin and comparing it to the NGC example IMHO this is a proof coin.

 

No way would any astute collector pay any where near his asking price. Again my opinion.

 

Carl

 

The holder reads UNC, which is a term usually reserved for Mint State coins.

 

It is hard to tell from the pictures, as there are proofs of the 19th century that are hard to tell apart from business strikes, but I lean toward a PL coin with cleaning damage of some kind.

[$ilverHawk]

The holder does not state if the coin is MS or PF. Please correct me if I am in error. I am not acquainted with the vagaries of PCGS grade codes.

 

 

Carl

 

Interesting point. However compare to this.

 

The example you show has PF in the title and has the .98 prefix in the coin ID. The OP's coin has a .92 prefix indicating a judgement of cleaning I presume. Does that establish whether the TPG judges the OP's coin to be MS or PF?

 

Carl

[$ilverHawk]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

 

 

The major reverse lines are on the fieild and go under the devices. When grading services say 'cleaned;' they do not say where or how. I agree that PCGS has seem the coin in hand, and may have felt that the coin was chemically cleaned too much, or manually cleaned somewhere I can not determine from picture.

 

NGC and PCGS have both graded 1893 Columbian Expo halves as proof.

proof sold - look at obverse stars and reverse sail lines

 

Thanks for the reference. The NGC proof example clearly shows die polish lines on the Obverse. Julian's PCGS holder states genuine cleaned. The holder does not state if the coin is MS or PF. Please correct me if I am in error. I am not acquainted with the vagaries of PCGS grade codes.

 

I believe Julian is well within his rights to dispute cleaning versus die polish lines on a proof coin.

 

Judging only by the photographs of Julian s coin and comparing it to the NGC example IMHO this is a proof coin.

 

No way would any astute collector pay any where near his asking price. Again my opinion.

 

Carl

 

The holder reads UNC, which is a term usually reserved for Mint State coins.

 

It is hard to tell from the pictures, as there are proofs of the 19th century that are hard to tell apart from business strikes, but I lean toward a PL coin with cleaning damage of some kind.

 

As a matter of education for me, could you tell me what you see that makes you lean towards a MS PL coin rather than a Proof coin?

 

Carl

[e1cnr]

comparison with the coin pic NGC called proof (which seems better struck)

- look at rounding of denticles on periphery

- compare with ribbing in the sales

- check the detail and cross lines on continents un globe

 

- it could be lighting and angles, and they are exactly the same

StacksBowers sold pic

[coinman1794]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

 

 

The major reverse lines are on the fieild and go under the devices. When grading services say 'cleaned;' they do not say where or how. I agree that PCGS has seem the coin in hand, and may have felt that the coin was chemically cleaned too much, or manually cleaned somewhere I can not determine from picture.

 

NGC and PCGS have both graded 1893 Columbian Expo halves as proof.

proof sold - look at obverse stars and reverse sail lines

 

Thanks for the reference. The NGC proof example clearly shows die polish lines on the Obverse. Julian's PCGS holder states genuine cleaned. The holder does not state if the coin is MS or PF. Please correct me if I am in error. I am not acquainted with the vagaries of PCGS grade codes.

 

I believe Julian is well within his rights to dispute cleaning versus die polish lines on a proof coin.

 

Judging only by the photographs of Julian s coin and comparing it to the NGC example IMHO this is a proof coin.

 

No way would any astute collector pay any where near his asking price. Again my opinion.

 

Carl

 

The holder reads UNC, which is a term usually reserved for Mint State coins.

 

It is hard to tell from the pictures, as there are proofs of the 19th century that are hard to tell apart from business strikes, but I lean toward a PL coin with cleaning damage of some kind.

 

As a matter of education for me, could you tell me what you see that makes you lean towards a MS PL coin rather than a Proof coin?

 

Carl

 

The strike, the finish on the high points, and the presence of the type of luster grazes associated with bag storage all seem to indicate that it's a business strike. I cannot examine the rims properly to determine if they are rounded or raized, and there are many other limitations when evaluating a picture.

 

[MJ]

It's probably a violation.

 

I think Julian is wrong on this one.

 

I think he can ask whatever he wants for it. There is no way you will convince him else wise that he is wrong. Ain't going to happen. He has forgotten more about coins then most will ever see and he is set in his ways.

 

Much to do about nothing. MJ

[Hard Times]

I dunno, as coinman notes, looking at the images and comparing with the proof posted here, Julian's coin, at least from these images, looks to be as nicely defined and struck, and the surfaces sure look proof-ish. Again, these are images and not in hand. Having said that, he could always crack it out and send it to NGC to get a second opinion.

 

Say what you want about Julian, he is great to talk to at shows, has tremendous knowledge, and seems to have a decent sense of humor. The last two FUN's, he has shared a corner booth with Gary Groll a seller of raw conders. Each time Gary shows Julian the conders I am about to buy, and how stunning they are for what is a relatively low price, Julian always says' 'Gary you are charging him way to little for these'.............. Gary replies 'I know, I know......'

 

Best, HT

[physics-fan3.14]

I dunno, as coinman notes, looking at the images and comparing with the proof posted here, Julian's coin, at least from these images, looks to be as nicely defined and struck, and the surfaces sure look proof-ish. Again, these are images and not in hand. Having said that, he could always crack it out and send it to NGC to get a second opinion.

 

Say what you want about Julian, he is great to talk to at shows, has tremendous knowledge, and seems to have a decent sense of humor. The last two FUN's, he has shared a corner booth with Gary Groll a seller of raw conders. Each time Gary shows Julian the conders I am about to buy, and how stunning they are for what is a relatively low price, Julian always says' 'Gary you are charging him way to little for these'.............. Gary replies 'I know, I know......'

 

Best, HT

 

Being a great guy to talk to with a good sense of humor has absolutely zero to do with the matter at hand. I'm sure Bernie Madoff was great to talk to at parties as well, and incredibly knowledgeable about his profession. Not accusing Julian of being anything like that, I'm just saying one has nothing to do with the other.

 

As to the question of the coin - if PCGS called it a cleaned UNC, I am likely to believe them. The number one biggest indicator to me is the weakness of the ribbing on Julian's coin. Case in point - my coin, posted below, looks just like a proof at first glance. Deep mirrors, hammered strike, and fantastic cameo contrast make a presentation that anyone would admire. And yet, it is unquestionably a Prooflike business strike.

 

[mumu]

I agree that some coins seem priced way out of skew but I can say Julian also pays strong money for coins that fit his inventory.

[mommam17]

I don't understand why it can't be found out if it's a proof or not? Julian is on the PCGS Board of experts, with other extremely knowledgeable people, who should be able to nail this one down, I would think...

[MJ]

I don't understand why it can't be found out if it's a proof or not? Julian is on the PCGS Board of experts, with other extremely knowledgeable people, who should be able to nail this one down, I would think...

 

PCGS says it's not a proof. Julian disagrees. Wouldn't be the first time----wink---MJ

[JIM F.]

I don't understand why it can't be found out if it's a proof or not? Julian is on the PCGS Board of experts, with other extremely knowledgeable people, who should be able to nail this one down, I would think...

 

PCGS graded it a cleaned UNC, that is not debatable.

 

Apparently Julian disagrees.

[mommam17]

So the man that sits on the Board of Experts disagrees with the other experts about his coin. Either it is a proof or not, and it seems there's enough experts around to figure this one out..

[MarkFeld]

So the man that sits on the Board of Experts disagrees with the other experts about his coin. Either it is a proof or not, and it seems there's enough experts around to figure this one out..

 

It seems to me as if it has been figured out.

[mommam17]

Ok, I mean they should be able to convince Julian what he has.

[MarkFeld]

Ok, I mean they should be able to convince Julian what he has.

 

If someone wants to believe something badly enough, they will usually do so. Especially with those big dollar signs floating around in their head.

[JIM F.]

Ok, I mean they should be able to convince Julian what he has.

 

If someone wants to believe something badly enough, they will usually do so. Especially with those big dollar signs floating around in their head.

 

You mean my PL mercury dimes aren't really rare branch mint proofs? Apparently I could advertise them on Ebay as such.

 

 

[JIM F.]

The coin is no longer available. Perhaps someone took advantage of the free economy shipping.

[PerryHall]

The coin is no longer available. Perhaps someone took advantage of the free economy shipping.

 

Julian probably just got tired of all the bashing and decided to stop trying to sell it until things cooled off.

[Hard Times]

I dunno, as coinman notes, looking at the images and comparing with the proof posted here, Julian's coin, at least from these images, looks to be as nicely defined and struck, and the surfaces sure look proof-ish. Again, these are images and not in hand. Having said that, he could always crack it out and send it to NGC to get a second opinion.

 

Say what you want about Julian, he is great to talk to at shows, has tremendous knowledge, and seems to have a decent sense of humor. The last two FUN's, he has shared a corner booth with Gary Groll a seller of raw conders. Each time Gary shows Julian the conders I am about to buy, and how stunning they are for what is a relatively low price, Julian always says' 'Gary you are charging him way to little for these'.............. Gary replies 'I know, I know......'

 

Best, HT

 

Being a great guy to talk to with a good sense of humor has absolutely zero to do with the matter at hand. I'm sure Bernie Madoff was great to talk to at parties as well, and incredibly knowledgeable about his profession. Not accusing Julian of being anything like that, I'm just saying one has nothing to do with the other.

 

As to the question of the coin - if PCGS called it a cleaned UNC, I am likely to believe them. The number one biggest indicator to me is the weakness of the ribbing on Julian's coin. Case in point - my coin, posted below, looks just like a proof at first glance. Deep mirrors, hammered strike, and fantastic cameo contrast make a presentation that anyone would admire. And yet, it is unquestionably a Prooflike business strike.

 

 

While you are correct in your assessment of my assessment Jason, there were previous posts in this thread that were somewhat negative towards Julian, so I was merely pointing out his character that I have witnessed in person. As you are aware, many of theses threads have several issues going on as they evolve. One such issue was indeed the original issue, the coin itself. As I note above, if there is any claim by Julian as to proof or not, he can always crack it out and send it to NGC, or to PCGS for a review.

 

Frankly, the more I see coins, the more I realize that images on the web don't always tell the whole story. So we can all say what we want but without seeing the coin in hand, I am guessing it is hard to decide proof or buisness strike.

 

Best, HT

[brg5658]

Looked it up in PCGS cert verification, and the images there are the typical PCGS "impossible to interpret" ones. Apparently this coin is a "CoinFacts" display coin. Linky to PCGS here.

 

 

 

[johnny9434]

its still a nice looking coin

[$ilverHawk]

Don't know about any violation but that thing looks like the reverse was wiped with steel wool.

 

The reverse shows heavy die polish on fields - the mint did it

 

I don't know how you can determine that from those images. Especially since PCGS saw the coin in hand and determined that it had been cleaned.

 

 

The major reverse lines are on the fieild and go under the devices. When grading services say 'cleaned;' they do not say where or how. I agree that PCGS has seem the coin in hand, and may have felt that the coin was chemically cleaned too much, or manually cleaned somewhere I can not determine from picture.

 

NGC and PCGS have both graded 1893 Columbian Expo halves as proof.

proof sold - look at obverse stars and reverse sail lines

 

Thanks for the reference. The NGC proof example clearly shows die polish lines on the Obverse. Julian's PCGS holder states genuine cleaned. The holder does not state if the coin is MS or PF. Please correct me if I am in error. I am not acquainted with the vagaries of PCGS grade codes.

 

I believe Julian is well within his rights to dispute cleaning versus die polish lines on a proof coin.

 

Judging only by the photographs of Julian s coin and comparing it to the NGC example IMHO this is a proof coin.

 

No way would any astute collector pay any where near his asking price. Again my opinion.

 

Carl

 

The holder reads UNC, which is a term usually reserved for Mint State coins.

 

It is hard to tell from the pictures, as there are proofs of the 19th century that are hard to tell apart from business strikes, but I lean toward a PL coin with cleaning damage of some kind.

 

As a matter of education for me, could you tell me what you see that makes you lean towards a MS PL coin rather than a Proof coin?

 

Carl

 

The strike, the finish on the high points, and the presence of the type of luster grazes associated with bag storage all seem to indicate that it's a business strike. I cannot examine the rims properly to determine if they are rounded or raized, and there are many other limitations when evaluating a picture.

 

Thanks, I think you address the important cues quite clearly. I must say that judging from the pics, it is difficult for me to see the differences that you point out in the two coins. But I am not any where near an expert on this series. I was struck by the reflectivity of the fields and what appears to me to be a very sharp, proof like strike. But then again, just like you, I am judging from the pics offered in the posting.

 

Carl

 

 

[JIM F.]

Well. From an innocent and non-partisan OP that I posted on this thread my take away is that;

 

1) The numbers on the PCGS holder indicate that this coin was determined to be a MS coin. And it is CLEANED.

2) Proof coins for this particular coin issue are few and far between -- and this is not one of them.

3) The Seller seems to have some fans and others that are not fans of him.

4) The Ebay listing appears to be in violation of Ebay terms.

5) The Ebay listing is no longer active.

 

My opinion (and it is just my that) of this guy named Julian .

a) I don't know this Seller, but my impression is that he is a jerk and is unethical, and ANA should revoke his membership.

b) I question why he is even part of PCGS grading.

 

 

As an ANA member, I will recommend that his membership be revoked. Other ANA members please join in.

 

Thank You.

 

 

Thank You.

 

 

[newprepper]

First time I've disagreed with you jimbucks, personallity aside, the coin to my untrained eye from photos has an appearance that looks like it could be a proof, the TPG's are not 100% accurate, it is subjective, thats why people send back in till they are satisfied, now he should probably crack it out and resubmit, I won't disagree there, but as far as having membership revoked, seems a little harsh to me. the listing is down though no details on who removed it. Just my 1 cent worth, I don't know enough to have 2 cents worth

[JIM F.]

First time I've disagreed with you jimbucks, personallity aside, the coin to my untrained eye from photos has an appearance that looks like it could be a proof, the TPG's are not 100% accurate, it is subjective, thats why people send back in till they are satisfied, now he should probably crack it out and resubmit, I won't disagree there, but as far as having membership revoked, seems a little harsh to me. the listing is down though no details on who removed it. Just my 1 cent worth, I don't know enough to have 2 cents worth

 

See PM.

 

Thank You.