Details graded GSA morgan question.(updated with pics on page 6)

[rrantique]

As proved many times, trying to grade or fully comprehend a coins condition by pictures alone, is not completely effective. This is why honest sellers disclose ALL conditions to buyers.

 

This (thumbs u

[Conder101]

Hmmm....once you are aware of a defect, you, as the seller, are morally obligated to inform a buyer.

What if you don't agree it's a defect?

[MarkFeld]

Hmmm....once you are aware of a defect, you, as the seller, are morally obligated to inform a buyer.

What if you don't agree it's a defect?

 

When I have been in that situation I have still disclosed it and mentioned that I had a different opinion. Likewise, I have also opined that I had a lower (or higher) grade opinion than that which appeared on the grading label of the coin I was selling.

[Kurtdog]

Is this problem GSA in a "Silver Dollar" holder or an "Uncirculated Silver Dollar" holder?

[jpcienkus]

I agree with Mark F. on this one. If I submitted any coin and it came back "Details" than I would make sure I disclosed that when I went to sell it.

 

In my limited experience, the Morgan's in GSA holders are graded rather generously, so there must be something on the coin that was missed prior to submission if you thought it would get a clean grade.

[Nutmeg Coin]

This is a Morgan I sent in for grading before selling:

 

 

I have never sold a problem coin without disclosure of issues that warrant it personally though it is up to the buyers and sellers and return rights usually give ample time to resolve potential issues.

 

Otherwise a nice coin. I've never sent a GSA in for grading, the common ones trade in a narrow range unless they are gem or better.

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

This is a Morgan I sent in for grading before selling:

 

 

I have never sold a problem coin without disclosure of issues that warrant it personally though it is up to the buyers and sellers and return rights usually give ample time to resolve potential issues.

 

Otherwise a nice coin. I've never sent a GSA in for grading, the common ones trade in a narrow range unless they are gem or better.

 

 

 

So why, without even knowing what the coin (which is the topic of this thread) looked like, did you say?:

 

"I would peel off the details graded sticker as it will do nothing for your ability to sell it."

[Nutmeg Coin]

Any experienced buyer will see damage.

 

By the way I searched the Heritage Auctions database and did not see one GSA coin certified as "damaged". Hopefully your search capabilities are better than mine.

[cpm9ball]

This is a Morgan I sent in for grading before selling:

 

 

I have never sold a problem coin without disclosure of issues that warrant it personally though it is up to the buyers and sellers and return rights usually give ample time to resolve potential issues.

 

Otherwise a nice coin. I've never sent a GSA in for grading, the common ones trade in a narrow range unless they are gem or better.

 

 

 

So why, without even knowing what the coin (which is the topic of this thread) looked like, did you say?:

 

"I would peel off the details graded sticker as it will do nothing for your ability to sell it."

 

Forget it, Mark. He doesn't want to give you a straight answer. What he really means is that it is easier to dump it off on someone who doesn't know anything about coins.

 

Don't buy "custard" with nutmeg on it!

 

Chris

[MarkFeld]

This is a Morgan I sent in for grading before selling:

 

 

I have never sold a problem coin without disclosure of issues that warrant it personally though it is up to the buyers and sellers and return rights usually give ample time to resolve potential issues.

 

Otherwise a nice coin. I've never sent a GSA in for grading, the common ones trade in a narrow range unless they are gem or better.

 

 

 

So why, without even knowing what the coin (which is the topic of this thread) looked like, did you say?:

 

"I would peel off the details graded sticker as it will do nothing for your ability to sell it."

 

Forget it, Mark. He doesn't want to give you a straight answer. What he really means is that it is easier to dump it off on someone who doesn't know anything about coins.

 

Don't buy "custard" with nutmeg on it!

 

Chris

 

Chris, based on a number of his posts in other threads here, I don't think he would dump a coin off in that manner- consequently, his remark in this thread was very puzzling to me.

[Nutmeg Coin]

I'm sorry if I injected unhelpful confusion into this topic or hurt people's feelings that is one limit of internet boards vs. in person interaction. No doubt there are many collectors out there that need most coins properly certified, plus they may need disclosures beyond any grades.

[Kurtdog]

No doubt there are many collectors out there that need most coins properly certified, plus they may need disclosures beyond any grades.

You mean "investors."

[mtnstyne]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

[MarkFeld]

No doubt there are many collectors out there that need most coins properly certified, plus they may need disclosures beyond any grades.

You mean "investors."

 

Please don't tell others what they mean.

 

Buyers can want or need all types of information and/or opinions about coins and still be collectors, rather than investors. In fact, I think collectors are more apt than investors to do so.

[MarkFeld]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

 

That's a tough one. Personally, if I thought the initial opinion was in error, I doubt I'd disclose it. If I had doubts, however, I would. Ditto for coins that up-grade.

[Kurtdog]

No doubt there are many collectors out there that need most coins properly certified, plus they may need disclosures beyond any grades.

You mean "investors."

Please don't tell others what they mean.

 

Buyers can want or need all types of information and/or opinions about coins and still be collectors, rather than investors. In fact, I think collectors are more apt than investors to do so.

You mean investors are more apt than collectors to do so. Collectors know their hobby. That's why they collect. They don't need third-party certifications for market acceptability. Investors need that.

[Kurtdog]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

Not really. No more than disclosing it didn't get the CAC bean the first time around. That's two conflicting opinions by a third-party grader on the "problem." If I thought the coin had a problem, I'd say it. In fact, I have. I always do.

[MarkFeld]

No doubt there are many collectors out there that need most coins properly certified, plus they may need disclosures beyond any grades.

You mean "investors."

Please don't tell others what they mean.

 

Buyers can want or need all types of information and/or opinions about coins and still be collectors, rather than investors. In fact, I think collectors are more apt than investors to do so.

You mean investors are more apt than collectors to do so. Collectors know their hobby. That's why they collect. They don't need third-party certifications for market acceptability. Investors need that.

 

No, I most assuredly didn't mean what you decided I meant. Your having an opinion about something doesn't make it fact.

 

Some collectors know their hobby much better than others. And placing a high "value" on expert opinions does not necessarily turn collectors into investors.

[Kurtdog]

No doubt there are many collectors out there that need most coins properly certified, plus they may need disclosures beyond any grades.

You mean "investors."

Please don't tell others what they mean.

 

Buyers can want or need all types of information and/or opinions about coins and still be collectors, rather than investors. In fact, I think collectors are more apt than investors to do so.

You mean investors are more apt than collectors to do so. Collectors know their hobby. That's why they collect. They don't need third-party certifications for market acceptability. Investors need that.

No, I most assuredly didn't mean what you decided I meant. Your having an opinion about something doesn't make it fact.

 

Some collectors know their hobby much better than others. And placing a high "value" on expert opinions does not necessarily turn collectors into investors.

The "hobby" isn't that difficult. In my opinion, you're making it way more than it is. And an aspiring collector can certainly learn from seasoned collectors, I agree with that, obviously.

[cpm9ball]

This is a Morgan I sent in for grading before selling:

 

 

I have never sold a problem coin without disclosure of issues that warrant it personally though it is up to the buyers and sellers and return rights usually give ample time to resolve potential issues.

 

Otherwise a nice coin. I've never sent a GSA in for grading, the common ones trade in a narrow range unless they are gem or better.

 

 

 

So why, without even knowing what the coin (which is the topic of this thread) looked like, did you say?:

 

"I would peel off the details graded sticker as it will do nothing for your ability to sell it."

 

Forget it, Mark. He doesn't want to give you a straight answer. What he really means is that it is easier to dump it off on someone who doesn't know anything about coins.

 

Don't buy "custard" with nutmeg on it!

 

Chris

 

Chris, based on a number of his posts in other threads here, I don't think he would dump a coin off in that manner- consequently, his remark in this thread was very puzzling to me.

 

Then why didn't he just retract the statement? He has avoided giving a direct answer each time.

 

Chris

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

 

That's a tough one. Personally, if I thought the initial opinion was in error, I doubt I'd disclose it. If I had doubts, however, I would. Ditto for coins that up-grade.

 

The Post you responded to is in the affirmative that it is a problem coin, and is known to be a problem coin to the person resubmitting.

 

I do not think this is a tough one at all. Why would a person want to submit a problem coin for a regrade, if the person is sure it is a problem coin, unless it is to hope it comes back without the problem detected? Does that somehow lessen the responsibility to disclose?

 

OK, it comes back undetected. Now the person sells it and does not disclose. Is that a tough call, as to integrity of transaction?

 

If you think the original opinion was an error, meaning you detected the coin was a problem but the Holder does not declare it as a problem coin, you, as a Numismatic Dealer, would not disclose this knowledge?

[MarkFeld]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

 

That's a tough one. Personally, if I thought the initial opinion was in error, I doubt I'd disclose it. If I had doubts, however, I would. Ditto for coins that up-grade.

 

The Post you responded to is in the affirmative that it is a problem coin, and is known to be a problem coin to the person resubmitting.

 

I do not think this is a tough one at all. Why would a person want to submit a problem coin for a regrade, if the person is sure it is a problem coin, unless it is to hope it comes back without the problem detected? Does that somehow lessen the responsibility to disclose?

 

OK, it comes back undetected. Now the person sells it and does not disclose. Is that a tough call, as to integrity of transaction?

 

If you think the original opinion was an error, meaning you detected the coin was a problem but the Holder does not declare it as a problem coin, you, as a Numismatic Dealer, would not disclose this knowledge?

 

John, I took the question to be one about a coin which the grading company opined had a problem, the owner disagreed and resubmitted the coin. In that case, I don't believe the seller has a duty to disclose.

 

If there were a situation where I detected a problem on a coin not so designated, I would disclose.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

 

That's a tough one. Personally, if I thought the initial opinion was in error, I doubt I'd disclose it. If I had doubts, however, I would. Ditto for coins that up-grade.

 

The Post you responded to is in the affirmative that it is a problem coin, and is known to be a problem coin to the person resubmitting.

 

I do not think this is a tough one at all. Why would a person want to submit a problem coin for a regrade, if the person is sure it is a problem coin, unless it is to hope it comes back without the problem detected? Does that somehow lessen the responsibility to disclose?

 

OK, it comes back undetected. Now the person sells it and does not disclose. Is that a tough call, as to integrity of transaction?

 

If you think the original opinion was an error, meaning you detected the coin was a problem but the Holder does not declare it as a problem coin, you, as a Numismatic Dealer, would not disclose this knowledge?

 

John, I took the question to be one about a coin which the grading company opined had a problem, the owner disagreed and resubmitted the coin. In that case, I don't believe the seller has a duty to disclose.

 

If there were a situation where I detected a problem on a coin not so designated, I would disclose.

 

Good. I was going to ask you Who are you and where is Mr. Feld, if you answered otherwise.

 

As to the interpretation of the question, "...Let's say you cracked out a PROBLEM COIN..." which clearly indicates prior knowledge and concurrence that it is a problem coin. The question did not state that the person disagreed it was a problem coin. Maybe the original questioner should clarify intent.

 

And, for the record, I don't care if the coin was returned a second time and labeled as the bestest coin ever made and stunningly perfect. I would disclose its prior bed of non-glory, if I concurred with the original bed description as a problem coin. because, after all, any of the opinions are just that, and I would rather keep my nose clean, if it ever turns out that the grader that awarded the bestest status was Mr. Magoo. I am certain you know my reference (and not only to Mr. Magoo).

[MarkFeld]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

 

That's a tough one. Personally, if I thought the initial opinion was in error, I doubt I'd disclose it. If I had doubts, however, I would. Ditto for coins that up-grade.

 

The Post you responded to is in the affirmative that it is a problem coin, and is known to be a problem coin to the person resubmitting.

 

I do not think this is a tough one at all. Why would a person want to submit a problem coin for a regrade, if the person is sure it is a problem coin, unless it is to hope it comes back without the problem detected? Does that somehow lessen the responsibility to disclose?

 

OK, it comes back undetected. Now the person sells it and does not disclose. Is that a tough call, as to integrity of transaction?

 

If you think the original opinion was an error, meaning you detected the coin was a problem but the Holder does not declare it as a problem coin, you, as a Numismatic Dealer, would not disclose this knowledge?

 

John, I took the question to be one about a coin which the grading company opined had a problem, the owner disagreed and resubmitted the coin. In that case, I don't believe the seller has a duty to disclose.

 

If there were a situation where I detected a problem on a coin not so designated, I would disclose.

 

Good. I was going to ask you Who are you and where is Mr. Feld, if you answered otherwise.

 

As to the interpretation of the question, "...Let's say you cracked out a PROBLEM COIN..." which clearly indicates prior knowledge and concurrence that it is a problem coin. The question did not state that the person disagreed it was a problem coin. Maybe the original questioner should clarify intent.

 

And, for the record, I don't care if the coin was returned a second time and labeled as the bestest coin ever made and stunningly perfect. I would disclose its prior bed of non-glory, if I concurred with the original bed description as a problem coin. because, after all, any of the opinions are just that, and I would rather keep my nose clean, if it ever turns out that the grader that awarded the bestest status was Mr. Magoo. I am certain you know my reference (and not only to Mr. Magoo).

 

I love the word "bestest" !

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Not to stir the pot but question for the field.

 

Let's say you cracked out a problem coin and resubmitted it and it came back in a problem free holder. Do you then feel an obligation to tell a buyer that it was previously in a details holder?

 

That's a tough one. Personally, if I thought the initial opinion was in error, I doubt I'd disclose it. If I had doubts, however, I would. Ditto for coins that up-grade.

 

The Post you responded to is in the affirmative that it is a problem coin, and is known to be a problem coin to the person resubmitting.

 

I do not think this is a tough one at all. Why would a person want to submit a problem coin for a regrade, if the person is sure it is a problem coin, unless it is to hope it comes back without the problem detected? Does that somehow lessen the responsibility to disclose?

 

OK, it comes back undetected. Now the person sells it and does not disclose. Is that a tough call, as to integrity of transaction?

 

If you think the original opinion was an error, meaning you detected the coin was a problem but the Holder does not declare it as a problem coin, you, as a Numismatic Dealer, would not disclose this knowledge?

 

John, I took the question to be one about a coin which the grading company opined had a problem, the owner disagreed and resubmitted the coin. In that case, I don't believe the seller has a duty to disclose.

 

If there were a situation where I detected a problem on a coin not so designated, I would disclose.

 

Good. I was going to ask you Who are you and where is Mr. Feld, if you answered otherwise.

 

As to the interpretation of the question, "...Let's say you cracked out a PROBLEM COIN..." which clearly indicates prior knowledge and concurrence that it is a problem coin. The question did not state that the person disagreed it was a problem coin. Maybe the original questioner should clarify intent.

 

And, for the record, I don't care if the coin was returned a second time and labeled as the bestest coin ever made and stunningly perfect. I would disclose its prior bed of non-glory, if I concurred with the original bed description as a problem coin. because, after all, any of the opinions are just that, and I would rather keep my nose clean, if it ever turns out that the grader that awarded the bestest status was Mr. Magoo. I am certain you know my reference (and not only to Mr. Magoo).

 

I love the word "bestest" !

 

Intentional...firstest with the mostest (lets not show our age via previous colloquialisms from our younger years)

[nk1nk]

Is this problem GSA in a "Silver Dollar" holder or an "Uncirculated Silver Dollar" holder?

 

Kurtdog,

 

I dont remember for certain, most of them are in "uncirculated silver dollar" holders but a few were in "silver dollar" holders and I believe this coin in question is in the latter. I realize I posted this thread a little premature, as soon as I get the coin back I will post pictures and hopefully get back on topic. I have enjoyed this thread though.

 

Nick

[Kurtdog]

Hey Nick, I guess we'll both find out when you get it back, . Looking forward to the pictures.

[nk1nk]

Ok I received the coin back and yes it has some sort of damage, not sure how I missed it, straight on its not terribly noticeable but any slight rotation and it sticks out bad, the area in question has several deep scratches, not sure what caused them but I don't think it's a wheel mark, at least not like any wheel mark damage I have seen before. Nutmeg, there is no sticker to remove they simply did not grade it, I thought it would details grade to atleast authenticate the piece and kurtdog its in a "uncirculated silver dollar" case which looks untampered with to mines eye. Opinions welcome.

 

Nick

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[cpm9ball]

Like I mentioned before, it wouldn't be the first time that someone swapped coins out in these GSA cases. It's not that hard to do, and if someone is very careful, no one would ever know.

 

Of course, it's also possible that the Mint worker who placed this coin in the case was out partying the previous night.

 

Chris

[bstrauss3]

Not sure I see the conflict.

 

The GSA "Uncirculated" is a statement of fact, the coins were minted, never issued and stored in bags for 100 years. Some bags were on the top, some on the bottom, they were moved around and other things may have happened. Maybe your coin took a railroad journey to the GSA vaults and rocked back and forth against it's neighbor. But the coins are uncirculated.

 

That is not to say one can't have been damaged beyond some gradable threshold, while still being uncirculated.

 

I have one with an MS65 obverse that was graded MS63 because of a quarter inch gouge on the eagle's breast.

 

I'm not able to explain the difference - a group of random lines: ungradable, one gouge: MS63.