Interesting ATS Thread

[mommam17]

Yes, I believe in John Albanese. Happy, I said it again. To me, this isn't about them. It's about doing the right thing. Was he obligated, no, but I think he should of said something.

[jom]

My one and only PS FE came back rejected from CAC. Yet I was told CAC would automatically put a bean on PS coins at one time, but no longer will do so. Maybe some bad blood?

 

I doubt seriously that CAC would EVER make such a guarantee and by virtue of the fact your own PS FE came back without a sticker tells me that observation is probably correct.

 

jom

[PerryHall]

Looks like the thread from ATS being discussed has been deleted. I guess Laura or her business partner TDN complained about it. It's too bad because I found it to be both interesting and informative. Hopefully Rick didn't get banned but if he did he is certainly welcome to call this place home.

[EVillageProwler]

Looks like the thread from ATS being discussed has been deleted. I guess Laura or her business partner TDN complained about it. It's too bad because I found it to be both interesting and informative. Hopefully Rick didn't get banned but if he did he is certainly welcome to call this place home.

 

Why do you think Laura or TDN had anything to do with that thread ATS being deleted? After all, it was Snow who was the object of a push/pull argument. Why isn't it even more likely that Snow asked for the thread to get deleted? After all, he had all the risk and was no longer really making his point.

 

And, why do you think Snow got banned? What could he possibly have done to warrant that?

 

You don't really care to make any effort at impartiality, do you? Sheesh!!!

 

EVP

[CaptHenway]

The problem is that an 1856 FE cent graded PR64 PCGS, CAC is actually a broadstrike, which, by itself is OK, but it should never have made it into a holder that does not mention the error. Notice I don't say, "in my opinion". It is a cold hard fact.

 

Also, it has a removed spot that, in my opinion, should not have netted it the PR64 grade. This IS opinion. Also, the coin is an even dark copper color, which if tested may turn out to be copper. Perhaps it is an irregular copper planchet, and that is why it didn't strike up properly. In any event, it is certainly not a regularly struck coin that will make any collector who desires a PR64 1856 FE cent happy. Maybe an error collector, but not a person who desires a great coin like a PR64 1856 FE cent.

 

Everyone is up in arms that it was LEGEND that failed to mention the error. Should we cower because of the firm failing to describe the coin properly? Also, Mark Feld knows full well that the 8-year old fighting match we had was over removing shellac from collections coated in the 1930's when it was standard practice. I published an article about it, and have nothing to hide. If he ever insinuates wrongdoing on my part in that episode, I'll chat with him again.

 

Have to agree with Rick that a broadstruck coin should not be in a holder that does not mention that fact. Doesn't matter if it is a $15,000 coin or a $15 coin. The coin was mis-described.

 

A TPG should not refuse to put a relevant description such as "ERROR" on a slab just because it was not requested or paid for. It is what it is.

 

TD

[RWB]

Fully agree with the Capt.

 

"Authentication" implies more than genuineness.

[coinman_23885]

And, why do you think Snow got banned? What could he possibly have done to warrant that?

 

To be fair to the poster you quoted, I don't think he was implying that Mr. Snow did anything wrong or anything worthy of being banned. A number of posters, including experts such as RWB and Mark Feld, have been banned there for reasons that are questionable at best. Any time a controversial thread is started ATS, a banning is a very serious possibility regardless of whether it is deserved ATS in my opinion and I know I am not the only one to opine that.

 

[dimefreak]

Rick I'm glad you mentioned this! I've tried pointing things out about Legend in the past but it don't go over so well! Thankfully you have like 10000 times the clout I have, especially in small cents!

[RWB]

Some are better than others at accepting their errors and making corrections. Others just get nasty or ignore the problem.

[MarkFeld]

Rick I'm glad you mentioned this! I've tried pointing things out about Legend in the past but it don't go over so well! Thankfully you have like 10000 times the clout I have, especially in small cents!

 

I find it interesting that you mentioned only Legend, and not PCGS (who graded the coin and did not attribute it) or CAC (who stickered it).

[JIM F.]

I'm neutral on this topic, but isn't the end seller - in this case Legend - ultimately responsible for accurate representation of the item sold? Or, are they considered a third party simply selling a product from someone else --- like a newspaper for sale ad? Does Legend create their own ads, or simply pass on what the seller tells them to?

 

Perhaps someone can opine on what responsibilities an auction house does/does not have.

 

Thank You.

 

 

[jom]

I'm not certain who is really responsible. I know that recently I saw what I thought was a couple of "problem" coins in an auction. I emailed someone I knew at the auction house about it. They later told me what I saw was true but they did NOT pull the lots as they deferred to the grading service and their guarantee instead. Both coins went for about $2000 each as it turned out.

 

So would Legend take the same path even if told? I don't know....

 

jom

[Afterword]

PCGS & NGC attribute Improper Cleaning, Wheel Marks and the like on their slabs without a fee. They believe these things to be detrimental to the "mint state" originality of a coin.

 

However, they require payment to attribute mint errors to a coin on their slabs. Does this mean that they do not believe that mint errors are detrimental to the "mint state" originality of a coin?

 

Also, are mint errors detrimental in terms of grading?

 

[JIM F.]

PCGS & NGC attribute Improper Cleaning, Wheel Marks and the like on their slabs without a fee. They believe these things to be detrimental to the "mint state" originality of a coin.

 

However, they require payment to attribute mint errors to a coin on their slabs. Does this mean that they do not believe that mint errors are detrimental to the "mint state" originality of a coin?

 

Also, are mint errors detrimental in terms of grading?

 

Somewhat tangential -- would an obvious 1955 DDO Lincoln, not have the DDO on the holder if submitted as just a "normal" 1955?

 

[Afterword]

"Somewhat tangential -- would an obvious 1955 DDO Lincoln, not have the DDO on the holder if submitted as just a "normal" 1955?"

 

That is what I am asking. Would it - without payment?

[e1cnr]

What if the PCGS graders felt when the saw the coin without slab the coin was alright and the area was a slight planchet impurity or strikethrough. The broadstruck could have been struck through grease - slabs and their plastic can hide and change perspective of what is going on with a coin.

 

To infer that the top couple dealers in a series are the top graders in a series (by default) for all TPG standards, seem to be a stretch.

 

The company ats has always had a policy about threads that appear to rag on them about anything.

 

 

What if the original poster was just wrong? I have heard him say the WI quarters were made bya punch by someone in the mint with 100% certainty, which I also disagree with. (were the 2004-D double ear dimes a trial run or same guy?)

 

I agree that everyone that specializes in a series knows what they like and dislike, but ususally if they do not like a coin they just pass on purchase.

[EVillageProwler]

And, why do you think Snow got banned? What could he possibly have done to warrant that?

 

To be fair to the poster you quoted, I don't think he was implying that Mr. Snow did anything wrong or anything worthy of being banned. A number of posters, including experts such as RWB and Mark Feld, have been banned there for reasons that are questionable at best. Any time a controversial thread is started ATS, a banning is a very serious possibility regardless of whether it is deserved ATS in my opinion and I know I am not the only one to opine that.

 

Ah, yes, I understand. Thanks for this and I agree. In fact, I think I may have almost been banned twice ATS due to a misunderstanding over a runaway thread.

 

And fwiw, I take very minor position on what Snow did. My main gripe is the negative tone disagreements take on, sometimes too quickly, here and ATS.

 

It's fine to say that Snow (or person/company/service/entity AAA) was wrong because of XXX or right because of YYY. But too many comments are negative and destructive, not sincere efforts at constructive discourse.

 

EVP

[Kurtdog]

"Somewhat tangential -- would an obvious 1955 DDO Lincoln, not have the DDO on the holder if submitted as just a "normal" 1955?"

 

That is what I am asking. Would it - without payment?

They charge extra when they have to think. Just market grading, obvious error, no necessity to think, no extra charge.

[Coinbuf]

Too bad the thread was nuked, I also found some of the info in the thread useful and constructive. However as usual over there when a subject involves the TPG, CAC, or Legend replies become very polarized and then the mud slinging begins. I too hope that Rick was not banned, but that is a possibility once you bring the TPG ATS into a thread with negative remarks.

[19Lyds]

Looks like the thread from ATS being discussed has been deleted. I guess Laura or her business partner TDN complained about it. It's too bad because I found it to be both interesting and informative. Hopefully Rick didn't get banned but if he did he is certainly welcome to call this place home.

Rick did NOT get banned but as noted, the thread got poofed.

 

I expect that this is a direct result of the beating that Laura was taking ATS regarding her call to PCGS and NGC to either close their forums or require positive identification of all posters for all to see who might be replying to or offering advice on threads.

 

 

.

[19Lyds]

PCGS & NGC attribute Improper Cleaning, Wheel Marks and the like on their slabs without a fee. They believe these things to be detrimental to the "mint state" originality of a coin.

 

However, they require payment to attribute mint errors to a coin on their slabs. Does this mean that they do not believe that mint errors are detrimental to the "mint state" originality of a coin?

 

Also, are mint errors detrimental in terms of grading?

Only with regard to PCGS Registry Sets where Mint Error coins are not allowed in Mint State/Proof/Variety Sets.

[Afterword]

"They charge extra when they have to think. Just market grading, obvious error, no necessity to think, no extra charge."

 

 

A 1955 DDO Lincoln is worth a lot of money, so I can see the TPG phoning and making certain it was not worth the $15.00 to the person who submitted the coin, but I am surprised that they would not require payment to add the designation to the slab.

[JIM F.]

"They charge extra when they have to think. Just market grading, obvious error, no necessity to think, no extra charge."

 

 

A 1955 DDO Lincoln is worth a lot of money, so I can see the TPG phoning and making certain it was not worth the $15.00 to the person who submitted the coin, but I am surprised that they would not require payment to add the designation to the slab.

 

I wish I had a raw one to see what would happen.

 

[Kurtdog]

"They charge extra when they have to think. Just market grading, obvious error, no necessity to think, no extra charge."

 

A 1955 DDO Lincoln is worth a lot of money, so I can see the TPG phoning and making certain it was not worth the $15.00 to the person who submitted the coin, but I am surprised that they would not require payment to add the designation to the slab.

Supposing the guy doesn't pay the extra and they don't attribute it. They get laughed out of the business for missing it. That's why they have to attribute it when it's obvious.

[The Penny Lady]

Even though this is somewhat OT, fyi, some of the more major varieties such as 1955/55 Lincoln (2825 for BN, 2826 RB, 2827 RD) or the 1867/67 (92088, 89, 80) and 1888/7 (2169, 2170) Indian cents have their own PCGS coin number so it's not necessary to pay extra to have them attributed. When you send them in for grading, just use the appropriate coin number.

[Kurtdog]

Looks like the thread from ATS being discussed has been deleted. I guess Laura or her business partner TDN complained about it. It's too bad because I found it to be both interesting and informative. Hopefully Rick didn't get banned but if he did he is certainly welcome to call this place home.

I see it got the 102. Poor little thing. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, that's error code for, "Somebody is thinking."

[dimefreak]

Rick I'm glad you mentioned this! I've tried pointing things out about Legend in the past but it don't go over so well! Thankfully you have like 10000 times the clout I have, especially in small cents!

 

I find it interesting that you mentioned only Legend, and not PCGS (who graded the coin and did not attribute it) or CAC (who stickered it).

 

PCGS was wrong... I don't know that CAC was wrong... in fairness I did not see the original thread. Its my understanding that it was mislabeled and there was a spot removed. The mislabel puts PCGS in the wrong. The spot removed must not have bothered CAC and they are willing to buy it ( that's what the sticker means right?) So you are 100% right either of those could be in the wrong. However, I was replying directly to his comment about Legend. Perhaps I should have bolded that portion of thebqoute. Furthermore, over the years I have read many chest puffing soap box rants about how awesome of an eye said person has and how said person is carrying the torch as an ambassador for coins. So when said person does not live up to the hefty standards I feel its worth pointing out. With that said, I do like the lady at that establishment. I just wished she would break away from that self entitled know nothing that thinks he runs the world of coins!

[JIM F.]

Looks like the thread from ATS being discussed has been deleted. I guess Laura or her business partner TDN complained about it. It's too bad because I found it to be both interesting and informative. Hopefully Rick didn't get banned but if he did he is certainly welcome to call this place home.

I see it got the 102. Poor little thing. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, that's error code for, "Somebody is thinking."

 

In my opinion a 102 code means "cowardly lion" Others may think "tin man -- who does not have a brain".

 

 

 

 

[illini420]

Even though this is somewhat OT, fyi, some of the more major varieties such as 1955/55 Lincoln (2825 for BN, 2826 RB, 2827 RD) or the 1867/67 (92088, 89, 80) and 1888/7 (2169, 2170) Indian cents have their own PCGS coin number so it's not necessary to pay extra to have them attributed. When you send them in for grading, just use the appropriate coin number.

 

 

To clarify this, all varieties, even the minor ones have their own PCGS coin number. PCGS will attribute major varieties without an additional fee. Last time I asked, I was told that any of the varieties listed in the Red Book are considered major varieties and do not require the additional variety attribution fee.

 

However, if you want the Cherrypickers FS number on the label (that requires a different PCGS coin number) and then the attribution fee is required, even for a major variety.

 

 

[Hard Times]

Yes, I believe in John Albanese. Happy, I said it again. To me, this isn't about them. It's about doing the right thing. Was he obligated, no, but I think he should of said something.

 

 

Rick did say something. He said it publicly after the coin did not sell and raised his concerns so that we could all learn and not have problem coins hidden behind a veil of the power brokers. Kudos for Rick for doing the right thing to insure that many would be educated. (thumbs u

 

Best, HT