Here we go again. A cleaned Unc coin advertised as Proof

[MarkFeld]

Your original comment:

 

"The strike is key to attributing these, and the fully ribbed sails look awfully convincing."

 

Well last time I looked, assessing 'strike' is part of the GRADING process. So I may be just a stupid ole bubba who is basically erroneous to say that TPG graders have to make a decision as to whether this coin by Julian is proof or buisness strike but it is what is it - grading company, they grade coins.

Then I suggest you do more research. We all know that "strike" is part of the grading process of course. But with regard to Columbian half-dollars in particular, "strike" is also part of the attribution process re: proof versus circulation strike, and an expert such as Mr. Julian Liedman knows this. Thus, you can continue to refuse to acknowledge his long years of experience in this matter, but if he has a stance regarding a coin's potential proof status, I am willing to at least read what he has to say without automatically assuming that PCGS and/or NGC is infallible.

 

All I said is if two TPG's say it is not proof, I am going to go with their opinion over the dealer. Silly me.

Oh, of course, it would be silly to ever question the opinions of a third-party grading service!

 

I still take issue with the poster above siding with Julian as though he's proven the coin in question is in fact a proof. Until someone at a TPG who knows the series says it is in fact a proof, the clear and convincing evidence is that it's not. The fact that a questionable coin is for sale (whether E-Bay or anywhere else) demanding money only suitable to a proof is the issue the OP raised.

I do not know whether or not the coin is a proof, but I do know that if an expert of Julian's caliber thinks it MIGHT be, then I won't automatically assume he "must" be wrong !

 

As I noted, I sided with the TPG graders and trust their assessment and it was nice for NGC to publish their evidence on how they distinguish the buisness strikes and proofs. Even if it is not the same coin as Mark notes, they clearly know how to attribute these during the GRADING process.. How about you James Early US? 19Lyds? You folks were pretty darn vocal on this issue. What do you say now?

Here's what I say: READ what NGC stated! I quote:

 

Proof Columbian Half Dollars are distinguishable from business strikes most readily by the exceptional crispness of their devices and their flat, hard-mirrored fields. Prooflike examples are plentiful and, while they may possess deep mirrors, they do not share the sharp detail and texture of the proofs.

 

I'll be darned if this "exceptional crispness" isn't exactly what I alluded to when speaking of the detail in the sail's ribbing in my first post to this thread!.

 

So we go all the way back to the very beginning of the whole argument, which is that NGC/PCGS has an opinion, and so does Julian. I've never professed to which one is "right"... NGC is very competent.... so is PCGS.

 

It's been a fun thread, but it seems to have gone on much too long at this point not to have any real value diluted by all the ranting on both sides.

 

Just because someone disagrees with an NGC/PCGS OPINION about something, that doesn't make them automatically WRONG. It just means they have a DIFFERENT opinion.

 

James, it's one thing to listen to what Julian has to say on the subject. And to not assume that he's wrong, merely because he disagrees with NGC and PCGS. But it's another, entirely, to shell out five figures for such a coin.

 

I know that I wouldn't.

 

And please get over your "attributors", as opposed to "graders". Graders might be said to be attributing coins, in addition to grading, but they are still referred to as "graders" by just about everyone I know.

[lehigh96]

Assuming it's the same coin, then it would be nice if Julian were to provide similar research material to support his assertion.

 

However, while I admit that NGC's presentation on the matter is excellent, it is by no means conclusive because they're using a justification by a preponderance of evidence that is by no means scientifically conclusive.

 

EVP

 

I agree. Julian should post the diagnostics and research material if he expects people to believe that it is a proof or specimen striking. If he did, and his claim was substantiated, everyone would shut up and go away. I'm sorry, claims based on unsupported evidence don't impress me. One who is going to argue against expert grading services should carry the burden of proof in my opinion.

 

You are absolutely correct!

 

Instead, he wants someone to pony up $20K because he declares it a proof. If he has the knowledge and expertise to declare this coin a proof, then he should share that knowledge with his potential buyers in order to EARN the $20K sale. Personally, I would be embarrassed to list a controversial coin with that price tag and that ridiculous description.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Assuming it's the same coin, then it would be nice if Julian were to provide similar research material to support his assertion.

 

However, while I admit that NGC's presentation on the matter is excellent, it is by no means conclusive because they're using a justification by a preponderance of evidence that is by no means scientifically conclusive.

 

EVP

 

I agree. Julian should post the diagnostics and research material if he expects people to believe that it is a proof or specimen striking. If he did, and his claim was substantiated, everyone would shut up and go away. I'm sorry, claims based on unsupported evidence don't impress me. One who is going to argue against expert grading services should carry the burden of proof in my opinion.

 

You are absolutely correct!

 

Instead, he wants someone to pony up $20K because he declares it a proof. If he has the knowledge and expertise to declare this coin a proof, then he should share that knowledge with his potential buyers in order to EARN the $20K sale. Personally, I would be embarrassed to list a controversial coin with that price tag and that ridiculous description.

 

 

Perhaps Julian doesn't really care whether he sells the coin. Or maybe he thinks or realizes that in its current holder, he wont be able to sell it at a strong price, regardless of what he says about it.

[lehigh96]

Assuming it's the same coin, then it would be nice if Julian were to provide similar research material to support his assertion.

 

However, while I admit that NGC's presentation on the matter is excellent, it is by no means conclusive because they're using a justification by a preponderance of evidence that is by no means scientifically conclusive.

 

EVP

 

I agree. Julian should post the diagnostics and research material if he expects people to believe that it is a proof or specimen striking. If he did, and his claim was substantiated, everyone would shut up and go away. I'm sorry, claims based on unsupported evidence don't impress me. One who is going to argue against expert grading services should carry the burden of proof in my opinion.

 

You are absolutely correct!

 

Instead, he wants someone to pony up $20K because he declares it a proof. If he has the knowledge and expertise to declare this coin a proof, then he should share that knowledge with his potential buyers in order to EARN the $20K sale. Personally, I would be embarrassed to list a controversial coin with that price tag and that ridiculous description.

 

 

Perhaps Julian doesn't really care whether he sells the coin. Or maybe he thinks or realizes that in its current holder, he wont be able to sell it at a strong price, regardless of what he says about it.

 

Then why list it at all?

 

I can think of a reason, but would rather hear yours first.

[James_OldeTowne]

And please get over your "attributors", as opposed to "graders". Graders might be said to be attributing coins, in addition to grading, but they are still referred to as "graders" by just about everyone I know.

I use "attributor" in reference to that step of the certification process that attributes whether a coin is a proof or circulation strike. A "grader" may or may not be responsible for that step. PCGS, uses the term "attributor" where appropriate, and here is one example on their own website: (my bold)

 

Ken Potter is the official attributor and lister of world doubled dies for the Combined Organizations of Numismatic Error Collectors of America

NGC uses the term, too, and in this case, context seems to explicitly distinguishes "Grader" from "Attributor" as job functions:

 

Posted by Jay Turner, NGC Grader and Attributor

The attribution process is definitely distinct and separate from the grading process, although both processes take place prior to certification of any coin. I wouldn't expect an attributor to be involved with the grading of every 1943 steel cent that gets certified, for example, but it is hardly a major leap to think that an attributor looked at the potentially very valuable Columbian half in question before grading commenced.

 

I think that people are analyzing the coin on its own merits. With this said, what is your opinion? If you were a grader at PCGS or NGC and had to make the call, would you put it in a proof holder? Also, other than the mirrors and strong strike particularly on the "fully ribbed sails," is there anything that makes you think that this could legitimately be a proof?

Unfortunately, the diagnostics NGC specifies for attribution of a proof are too small for me to discern in Julian's images. As a matter of fact, I would like to call him this morning to see what leads him to think the coin is "proof", since I myself would absolutely love to own a proof Columbian half. (No way could I afford the price quoted, however.)

 

We don't have the benefit of actually analyzing the coin itself, but only pics, but to answer your question specifically, I personally believe the odds are quite small that the coin actually is a proof. I have only seen maybe two or three proofs ever in person!

[MarkFeld]

And please get over your "attributors", as opposed to "graders". Graders might be said to be attributing coins, in addition to grading, but they are still referred to as "graders" by just about everyone I know.

I use "attributor" in reference to that step of the certification process that attributes whether a coin is a proof or circulation strike. A "grader" may or may not be responsible for that step. PCGS, uses the term "attributor" where appropriate, and here is one example on their own website: (my bold)

 

Ken Potter is the official attributor and lister of world doubled dies for the Combined Organizations of Numismatic Error Collectors of America

NGC uses the term, too, and in this case, context seems to explicitly distinguishes "Grader" from "Attributor" as job functions:

 

Posted by Jay Turner, NGC Grader and Attributor

The attribution process is definitely distinct and separate from the grading process, although both processes take place prior to certification of any coin. I wouldn't expect an attributor to be involved with the grading of every 1943 steel cent that gets certified, for example, but it is hardly a major leap to think that an attributor looked at the potentially very valuable Columbian half in question before grading commenced.

 

James, I believe that in almost every case, the person who "attributes" the coin is a "grader". And that such was the case with the Columbian half dollar in question.

 

When I was a grader at NGC from 1991-1998 and when I was in the NGC grading room for a week earlier this year, the coins were graded (and "attributed") by the graders.

 

By the way, you could say the same about "authenticators" as you do about "attributors" - someone authenticates the coins before they grade them. But again, it is the graders who do the authenticating.

[MarkFeld]

Assuming it's the same coin, then it would be nice if Julian were to provide similar research material to support his assertion.

 

However, while I admit that NGC's presentation on the matter is excellent, it is by no means conclusive because they're using a justification by a preponderance of evidence that is by no means scientifically conclusive.

 

EVP

 

I agree. Julian should post the diagnostics and research material if he expects people to believe that it is a proof or specimen striking. If he did, and his claim was substantiated, everyone would shut up and go away. I'm sorry, claims based on unsupported evidence don't impress me. One who is going to argue against expert grading services should carry the burden of proof in my opinion.

 

You are absolutely correct!

 

Instead, he wants someone to pony up $20K because he declares it a proof. If he has the knowledge and expertise to declare this coin a proof, then he should share that knowledge with his potential buyers in order to EARN the $20K sale. Personally, I would be embarrassed to list a controversial coin with that price tag and that ridiculous description.

 

 

Perhaps Julian doesn't really care whether he sells the coin. Or maybe he thinks or realizes that in its current holder, he wont be able to sell it at a strong price, regardless of what he says about it.

 

Then why list it at all?

 

I can think of a reason, but would rather hear yours first.

 

I have seen sellers place outrageous asking prices on coins, knowing that chances of a sale were extremely remote. And their attitude appeared to be that if the coin sold at that price, they were OK parting with it. But otherwise, they were content to keep it. In other words, they really didn't care, either way.

[brg5658]

Quite amazing that the featured article in NGC's email today was this:

 

From the Grading Room: Business Strike 1892 Columbian Half Dollar with Proof Diagnostics

 

This seems like pretty incontrovertible evidence, and definitive confirmation that Julian's coin is not and cannot be a proof. I haven't examined his coin in hand, but I'll trust that at least 6 graders between NGC and PCGS have. If it doesn't display the diagnostics, no amount of arguing to the contrary will make it so.

 

Faced with this evidence, how does your opinion of the situation change?

 

Assuming it's the same coin, then it would be nice if Julian were to provide similar research material to support his assertion.

 

However, while I admit that NGC's presentation on the matter is excellent, it is by no means conclusive because they're using a justification by a preponderance of evidence that is by no means scientifically conclusive.

 

EVP

 

It's definitely not the same coin. The one in NGC's article is an 1892 -- Julian's supposed proof is an 1893. The point being that I think NGC likely knows enough of the die markers for the 1893 to have been pretty darn certain that Julian's is not a proof. JMO.

[Nutmeg Coin]

You can be sure that the sharpest people who know this stuff cold examined that coin extremely carefully. If Mr. Leidman wants to make his counter-case he should scan relevant correspondence from other "legendary" figures in numismatics. Without that this is just an example of inappropriate and aggressive advertising of a questionable coin, something that ebay has been plagued with for years....

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

In summary, after 150+ Posts, this is what we know:

 

TPGs can sometimes be wrong.

 

TPGs can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be wrong.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller and TPGs and collectors have opinions that don't always agree with the opinions of others.

 

Some people don't like what other people state as an opinion.

 

Sometimes people use words that have double meanings to others, or mean an entirely different thing than what was intended.

 

Ebay is responsible/not responsible/a lousy place to buy something/a great place to buy something, unless you don't know what you should know when you buy something on Ebay.

 

There is a difference/there is not a difference between a Grader and an Attributor and an Authenticator.

 

Some coin sellers ask to much for a coin when they shouldn't ask to much for a coin, especially when there are different opinions about the coin.

 

Some coin sellers don't care if someone else thinks they ask to much for a coin that is priced based on the coin sellers' opinion, whether or not their opinion is correct.

 

People that do not have specific numismatic knowledge should be protected by those that do have specific knowledge, when the non-knowledgeable people are contemplating buying something on Ebay, that the supposedly knowledgeable people think may not be a good purchase.

 

There is also an opinion that is opposite from the above opinion.

 

Mr. Feld prefers specificity to Baloney.

 

John Curlis does not care for coin sellers that wear dingy grayish/whiteish unironed shirts and suspenders, especially when worn while unshaven and rolling around on a chair with rollers, at a coin show. (The unstated exception to this is if the rolling chair is needed for a physical ailment, then the rolling chair is of course o.k.).

 

I think I got it all.....add or delete as needed.

 

John Curlis

[brg5658]

In summary, after 150+ Posts, this is what we know:

 

TPGs can sometimes be wrong.

 

TPGs can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be wrong.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller and TPGs and collectors have opinions that don't always agree with the opinions of others.

 

Some people don't like what other people state as an opinion.

 

Sometimes people use words that have double meanings to others, or mean an entirely different thing than what was intended.

 

Ebay is responsible/not responsible/a lousy place to buy something/a great place to buy something, unless you don't know what you should know when you buy something on Ebay.

 

There is a difference/there is not a difference between a Grader and an Attributor and an Authenticator.

 

Some coin sellers ask to much for a coin when they shouldn't ask to much for a coin, especially when there are different opinions about the coin.

 

Some coin sellers don't care if someone else thinks they ask to much for a coin that is priced based on the coin sellers' opinion, whether or not their opinion is correct.

 

People that do not have specific numismatic knowledge should be protected by those that do have specific knowledge, when the non-knowledgeable people are contemplating buying something on Ebay, that the supposedly knowledgeable people think may not be a good purchase.

 

There is also an opinion that is opposite from the above opinion.

 

Mr. Feld prefers specificity to Baloney.

 

John Curlis does not care for coin sellers that wear dingy grayish/whiteish unironed shirts and suspenders, especially when worn while unshaven and rolling around on a chair with rollers, at a coin show. (The unstated exception to this is if the rolling chair is needed for a physical ailment, then the rolling chair is of course o.k.).

 

I think I got it all.....add or delete as needed.

 

John Curlis

 

Just start each line with "WHEREAS", and you'd have a formal legal document.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

In summary, after 150+ Posts, this is what we know:

 

TPGs can sometimes be wrong.

 

TPGs can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be wrong.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller and TPGs and collectors have opinions that don't always agree with the opinions of others.

 

Some people don't like what other people state as an opinion.

 

Sometimes people use words that have double meanings to others, or mean an entirely different thing than what was intended.

 

Ebay is responsible/not responsible/a lousy place to buy something/a great place to buy something, unless you don't know what you should know when you buy something on Ebay.

 

There is a difference/there is not a difference between a Grader and an Attributor and an Authenticator.

 

Some coin sellers ask to much for a coin when they shouldn't ask to much for a coin, especially when there are different opinions about the coin.

 

Some coin sellers don't care if someone else thinks they ask to much for a coin that is priced based on the coin sellers' opinion, whether or not their opinion is correct.

 

People that do not have specific numismatic knowledge should be protected by those that do have specific knowledge, when the non-knowledgeable people are contemplating buying something on Ebay, that the supposedly knowledgeable people think may not be a good purchase.

 

There is also an opinion that is opposite from the above opinion.

 

Mr. Feld prefers specificity to Baloney.

 

John Curlis does not care for coin sellers that wear dingy grayish/whiteish unironed shirts and suspenders, especially when worn while unshaven and rolling around on a chair with rollers, at a coin show. (The unstated exception to this is if the rolling chair is needed for a physical ailment, then the rolling chair is of course o.k.).

 

I think I got it all.....add or delete as needed.

 

John Curlis

 

Just start each line with "WHEREAS", and you'd have a formal legal document.

 

 

That is a very, very outstanding idea.

That would allow me to have a closing Declaration.

I am going to work on that.

Thank You.

John Curlis

[Kurtdog]

If he has the knowledge and expertise to declare this coin a proof, then he should share that knowledge with his potential buyers in order to EARN the $20K sale.

In other words, we need more proof it's a proof.

[Kurtdog]

Then why list it at all?

 

I can think of a reason, but would rather hear yours first.

He's trading off his reputation looking for a sucker who'll pay that price for the coin not for what they see in it but for what he says he sees in it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Then why list it at all?

 

I can think of a reason, but would rather hear yours first.

He's trading off his reputation looking for a sucker who'll pay that price for the coin not for what they see in it but for what he says he sees in it.

 

I think I covered your last 2 thoughts in my Summary, although the language/word choice I used is less descriptive.

 

If you are suggesting I add the word "sucker", I think I used "non-knowledgeable people" as the expanded descriptive, so a change is not warranted at this time, unless it is a question of excluding a Board Member that is an Octopus or Catfish or Carp (physically-not mentally).

 

Thank You

 

The Summarizer

[johnny9434]

more or less........

[Kurtdog]

Then why list it at all?

 

I can think of a reason, but would rather hear yours first.

He's trading off his reputation looking for a sucker who'll pay that price for the coin not for what they see in it but for what he says he sees in it.

I think I covered your last 2 thoughts in my Summary, although the language/word choice I used is less descriptive.

 

If you are suggesting I add the word "sucker", I think I used "non-knowledgeable people" as the expanded descriptive, so a change is not warranted at this time, unless it is a question of excluding a Board Member that is an Octopus or Catfish or Carp (physically-not mentally).

 

Thank You

 

The Summarizer

Well, you know the saying. There's a su--I mean, non-knowledgeable person--born every minute.

[coinman1794]

Quite amazing that the featured article in NGC's email today was this:

 

From the Grading Room: Business Strike 1892 Columbian Half Dollar with Proof Diagnostics

 

This seems like pretty incontrovertible evidence, and definitive confirmation that Julian's coin is not and cannot be a proof. I haven't examined his coin in hand, but I'll trust that at least 6 graders between NGC and PCGS have. If it doesn't display the diagnostics, no amount of arguing to the contrary will make it so.

 

Faced with this evidence, how does your opinion of the situation change?

 

This confirms that the coin is not a proof; NGC would have labeled it as such. The coin is either a Prooflike with cleaning damage, or it is a polished coin.

 

It is very interesting that a business strike has been found from the proof die pair and that it is unknown whether or not it was refinished to a frosty texture. If it was used to strike business strikes and not resurfaced, there may be PL coins out there that are struck from the Proof dies!

 

[mkman123]

Has Julian even commented on this coin on the forums lately?

[lehigh96]

 

You are absolutely correct!

 

Instead, he wants someone to pony up $20K because he declares it a proof. If he has the knowledge and expertise to declare this coin a proof, then he should share that knowledge with his potential buyers in order to EARN the $20K sale. Personally, I would be embarrassed to list a controversial coin with that price tag and that ridiculous description.

 

 

Perhaps Julian doesn't really care whether he sells the coin. Or maybe he thinks or realizes that in its current holder, he wont be able to sell it at a strong price, regardless of what he says about it.

 

Then why list it at all?

 

I can think of a reason, but would rather hear yours first.

 

I have seen sellers place outrageous asking prices on coins, knowing that chances of a sale were extremely remote. And their attitude appeared to be that if the coin sold at that price, they were OK parting with it. But otherwise, they were content to keep it. In other words, they really didn't care, either way.

 

I have coins listed in my E-Bay store that I really don't want to sell because they are part of my collection that I would like to keep. I place a very high price to discourage someone from buying the coin but would be happy with the profit if someone were to pay my asking price. The real purpose of these types of listings is to get the viewers to look at my other listings. In order to do that however, I will need to impress them with the content of the listing they are viewing. They are basically advertisements

 

Now maybe others feel differently, but Julian's $20K Columbian listing is very off putting to me. So much so that I will not even consider buying a coin from someone who uses such business practices. Which leaves me right back at the same spot. Why list the coin at all?

[mkman123]

Lehigh, do you think maybe he paid "proof" price back then, submitted it, it came back non proof and now is trying to dump the coin on someone else?

 

 

[lehigh96]

In summary, after 150+ Posts, this is what we know:

 

TPGs can sometimes be wrong.

 

TPGs can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be wrong.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller and TPGs and collectors have opinions that don't always agree with the opinions of others.

 

Some people don't like what other people state as an opinion.

 

Sometimes people use words that have double meanings to others, or mean an entirely different thing than what was intended.

 

Ebay is responsible/not responsible/a lousy place to buy something/a great place to buy something, unless you don't know what you should know when you buy something on Ebay.

 

There is a difference/there is not a difference between a Grader and an Attributor and an Authenticator.

 

Some coin sellers ask to much for a coin when they shouldn't ask to much for a coin, especially when there are different opinions about the coin.

 

Some coin sellers don't care if someone else thinks they ask to much for a coin that is priced based on the coin sellers' opinion, whether or not their opinion is correct.

 

People that do not have specific numismatic knowledge should be protected by those that do have specific knowledge, when the non-knowledgeable people are contemplating buying something on Ebay, that the supposedly knowledgeable people think may not be a good purchase.

 

There is also an opinion that is opposite from the above opinion.

 

Mr. Feld prefers specificity to Baloney.

 

John Curlis does not care for coin sellers that wear dingy grayish/whiteish unironed shirts and suspenders, especially when worn while unshaven and rolling around on a chair with rollers, at a coin show. (The unstated exception to this is if the rolling chair is needed for a physical ailment, then the rolling chair is of course o.k.).

 

I think I got it all.....add or delete as needed.

 

John Curlis

 

Just start each line with "WHEREAS", and you'd have a formal legal document.

 

 

That is a very, very outstanding idea.

That would allow me to have a closing Declaration.

I am going to work on that.

Thank You.

John Curlis

 

Do you understand that NGC does not issue a "Forum Class Clown" award at the end of the year?

 

PS. Everytime you post I think of Bear, RIP.

[lehigh96]

Lehigh, do you think maybe he paid "proof" price back then, submitted it, it came back non proof and now is trying to dump the coin on someone else?

 

 

I don't know when he bought the coin or how much he paid. And while that information might make this conversation even more interesting, my fundamental problem with what he is doing is that he is circumventing the established and accepted rules of the marketplace for his own financial gain. The TPG's were established to level the numismatic playing field so that consumers could have confidence that both the authenticity and condition of the coin were backed by a guarantee. If Julian were to offer a financial guarantee in his listing, I would have no problem with his ask price.

 

Furthermore, Julian likes to plaster his E-Bay listings with the fact that he is a member of the PNG (Professional Numismatists Guild). However, in my interpretation, his listing in question violates the rules of the PNG's "Collector's Bill of Rights."

 

PNG's Collectors Bill of Rights

 

Number 1 in the bill of rights is " Not misrepresent rarity, value or quality of items sold." Without TPG authentication or his own guarantee, selling a coin for $20K that would be worth $50 if his opinion is wrong, misrepresents the value of the coin IMO.

 

Number 8 says "Do their best to educate their clients or direct them to resources." He made absolutely no attempt to educate any possible buyer of the controversial $20K coin.

 

I would like to give the benefit of the doubt, but he now has two separate listings for $20K 1893 Columbians that the TPG's have graded as MS but he is listing as Proof.

[Nutmeg Coin]

We should be grateful that NGC went to the trouble to post diagnostic images on a proof and non- proof Columbian. It would be interesting to have such close up images on the ebay coin.

 

 

[Kurtdog]

I don't see him misrepresenting anything. I see him representing a contrary opinion. The issue I have with him, again, is with the listing of that contrary opinion in the title so as to encourage hits to the coin. That's spamming. When potential buyers hit a proof coin, they expect to see a proof coin, and not a mere opinion by the seller the coin is a proof. Again, I don't know how he gets away with that, but this is twice, now.

[brg5658]

The word "proof" has been removed from the auction listing title description.

[$ilverHawk]

We should be grateful that NGC went to the trouble to post diagnostic images on a proof and non- proof Columbian. It would be interesting to have such close up images on the ebay coin.

 

 

OP s coin is an 1893. The proof example NGC shows is an 1892. Did the dies from both years come from the same hub? If not, then the 1892 markers would not apply to a 1893 coin.

 

I'm not arguing that the OP's coin is a proof--I don't know enough to give an opinion on that. But unless both dates came from the same hub, the comparison of the 1892 markers to the 1893 coin is useless.

 

Carl

[Kurtdog]

The word "proof" has been removed from the auction listing title description.

Oh. Well, then, he's good, right? It's just his opinion in the body of the listing? We restrict one's speech, we restrict our own. Isn't that how it works? Who is he defrauding with his opinon? Nobody. Jury dismissed.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

In summary, after 150+ Posts, this is what we know:

 

TPGs can sometimes be wrong.

 

TPGs can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be wrong.

 

A coin seller can sometimes be right.

 

A coin seller and TPGs and collectors have opinions that don't always agree with the opinions of others.

 

Some people don't like what other people state as an opinion.

 

Sometimes people use words that have double meanings to others, or mean an entirely different thing than what was intended.

 

Ebay is responsible/not responsible/a lousy place to buy something/a great place to buy something, unless you don't know what you should know when you buy something on Ebay.

 

There is a difference/there is not a difference between a Grader and an Attributor and an Authenticator.

 

Some coin sellers ask to much for a coin when they shouldn't ask to much for a coin, especially when there are different opinions about the coin.

 

Some coin sellers don't care if someone else thinks they ask to much for a coin that is priced based on the coin sellers' opinion, whether or not their opinion is correct.

 

People that do not have specific numismatic knowledge should be protected by those that do have specific knowledge, when the non-knowledgeable people are contemplating buying something on Ebay, that the supposedly knowledgeable people think may not be a good purchase.

 

There is also an opinion that is opposite from the above opinion.

 

Mr. Feld prefers specificity to Baloney.

 

John Curlis does not care for coin sellers that wear dingy grayish/whiteish unironed shirts and suspenders, especially when worn while unshaven and rolling around on a chair with rollers, at a coin show. (The unstated exception to this is if the rolling chair is needed for a physical ailment, then the rolling chair is of course o.k.).

 

I think I got it all.....add or delete as needed.

 

John Curlis

 

Just start each line with "WHEREAS", and you'd have a formal legal document.

 

 

That is a very, very outstanding idea.

That would allow me to have a closing Declaration.

I am going to work on that.

Thank You.

John Curlis

 

Do you understand that NGC does not issue a "Forum Class Clown" award at the end of the year?

 

PS. Everytime you post I think of Bear, RIP.

 

I was hoping they would consider, because I will never get an Award any other way.

 

I, too, miss the Christmas Trees, especially about now.

I was always humbled that he included me in the Camelot Sagas.The high points of my life. That is when I knew I had made it to the Big Time.

 

With Respect, John

 

PS: How bout them shirts and suspenders, though?

[lehigh96]

The word "proof" has been removed from the auction listing title description.

Oh. Well, then, he's good, right? It's just his opinion in the body of the listing? We restrict one's speech, we restrict our own. Isn't that how it works? Who is he defrauding with his opinon? Nobody. Jury dismissed.

 

That doesn't make it good in my book. I could care less if he uses the word "proof" in the title of his E-Bay listing. The 1892 Columbian Proofs had a total mintage of 103 pieces. To my knowledge, the number of 1893 Columbian Proofs is unknown but they are considerably more rare than the 1892. The current NGC population is one coin. I don't know how many PCGS coins there are but my guess is only a handful. Knowing that information, are we really supposed to believe that one dealer has been so diligent in his search to find the elusive 1893 Columbian proofs that he has actually found two of them? Despite the fact that both were attributed as mint state specimens by the TPG's. And while he may consider what he is doing a legitimate business strategy, my opinion is that it is a misrepresentation of the value of the coin unless he offers a guarantee.