• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

"Just Having Fun" MS68 PCGS Slab!
0

Started by EleMint Man,

448 posts in this topic

Wondercoin

Wondercoin

Posted
Posted

Thanks Coinman.... And, I'll go a step further concerning Mark not "sugar coating or downplaying faults"...

 

There was a quarter I desired for my 1932-date set recently that was graded MS67+ and I could not get to Heritage to personally see the coin. I asked Mark his opinion of the coin and he told me he personally graded it MS66! Pass the sugar!

 

Wondercoin

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

Mark Feld also has a bias. I trust him to be honest - but everyone has a bias. There are things that, as an employee of Heritage, it would not be in his or his company's interest to say.

 

Even though I too would be interested in hearing Wondercoin's candid assessment of the coin and specifically the residue and marks, in his defense, I agree that Mark Feld would be 100% neutral and would be completely candid.

 

Mark Feld has always been candid with me and doesn't hold back. This is based on my interactions with him as a dealer and even after joining Heritage. If his position prevents him from revealing information or being neutral, I have no doubt he would tell you that he couldn't advise you because of a conflict of interest. He wouldn't sugar coat the coin or downplay its faults.

 

I believe we are in almost complete agreement. His honesty and integrity are not in question here. That is exactly what I said.

 

Nobody can be 100% neutral - its just not possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
numisport

numisport

Posted
Posted

IMO market graded coins such as this 64-D dime are just exactly that - market grades. It's an advertising gimmick used to promote their names. Remember the Newman coins mostly market graded by NGC and then some being crossed to PCGS. Some were downgraded for what reason ? Why would PCGS then grade them technically ? Simply a promotional tool I guess. Why can't we just stick to the "correct grade". Is it really that hard or that risky ? Please somebody direct me to a plausible explanation or article that can explain this. No I don't mean the fact that grading is subjective. Many often wonder why there aren't enough new younger collectors coming into the hobby. Imagine a newcomer trying to figure this out !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted (edited)
IMO market graded coins such as this 64-D dime are just exactly that - market grades. It's an advertising gimmick used to promote their names. Remember the Newman coins mostly market graded by NGC and then some being crossed to PCGS. Some were downgraded for what reason ? Why would PCGS then grade them technically ? Simply a promotional tool I guess. Why can't we just stick to the "correct grade". Is it really that hard or that risky ? Please somebody direct me to a plausible explanation or article that can explain this. No I don't mean the fact that grading is subjective. Many often wonder why there aren't enough new younger collectors coming into the hobby. Imagine a newcomer trying to figure this out !

 

If grading remained technically static, and every coin ended up in a proper grade/slab, the pool from currently minted coins from which a grading company could continue to operate(by making profit from coin grading) would have a finite diminishing limit approaching 0. I don't think they could survive grading moderns only. There are of course other sources of income, slab preferences, slab damage, et cetera. But you would remove the 10-20 submissions each coin gets in hopes of market grade lotto ticket sales.

Edited by mumu
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
Mr. McKnowitall ...

 

Perhaps you did not read a page or two earlier. Or, perhaps you did and it did not matter to you. But,

 

I did not just randomly select Mark to render an opinion of the dime to anyone asking. I mentioned that I planned to consign the coin to Mark's auction house. And, I gave Mark "my blessing" to be as candid as possible (as I am sure he usually is anyway) with anyone asking about the coin. I "gave that blessing" because it was suggested that perhaps the auction house might embellish the quality of coins from time to time in an effort to maximize the recovery for its consignors. I just wanted Mark to know I was totally comfortable with him rendering his opinion (however positive or negative) to anyone interested in the dime.

 

I've already commented on the overall quality of the dime. And, to be clear, it was the nicest quality coin I ever located for that particular date/MM in my personal (26 year) search from 1983-2009. I don't recall seeing a nicer example for the date in the 7+ years since the time of the landmark 2009 auction.

 

The coin has been in a bank vault for 99.999% of the time since the 2009 auction. I have spent perhaps 1 or 2 minutes with the coin in hand in the past several years. My son Justin prepared the ebay auction for me, including the coin photography (which, by the way, I believe he did a sensational job with, don't you think?) In any event, I should have the coin in hand before sending it off to Mark and if anyone desires my personal impression of the coin (knowing full well to do your own homework before bidding on it), feel free to send me an email (mjcapc@aol.com) with your phone number and I will try to give you a call to discuss the coin.

 

Wondercoin

 

 

 

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I read everything in the thread, inclusive of the reply to me that simply reiterates your previous commentaries. It does not change my thoughts. You have every Right to use honorable methods to sell the coin, including embellishment and avoidance when you deem necessary. That is the art of business and advertising.

 

I also read your eBay commentary in the listing, which you repeated on three occasions in your posts. Nothing wrong with doing so. I noted the following description by you in the listing: "The bands are fine and probably close to an MS68+quality- REMAKABLE QUALITY (caps by you) for a 64D dime that simply never looks like this....."

 

You then inform the reader of your status. It appears you have thoughts on the bands and chose words that would offset any initial thoughts that the marks are distracting and lull the reader into a sense of quality via your past numismatic history. There is nothing wrong with that either. You continue to embellish the superiority of the coin but avoid all aspects of the marks, inclusive of the superior sales tactic used in the listing to redirect the viewer attention.

 

I am a little befuddled though, that for what you deem to be a numismatic treasure of modern coinage, especially Goodies, that the opening sale choice would be EBay. I don't have anything for or against EBay and realize the many coins sold by all levels of collectors and dealers alike. It just seems a little lightweight for the rarity you are presenting on behalf of the owner, but I understand that is just my opinion.

 

As to the photo quality, it is fine. It was fine enough to cause commentary and discussion. That is beneficial.

 

Given my opinion of your posts and the writeup on Ebay, I don't find a need to accept your kind offer of emailing for your personal impression of the coin, that included the added caveat by you that a person do their own homework before bidding. I think that is excellent advice in the case of the coin being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RWB

RWB

Posted
Posted

On the surface, "embellishment and avoidance" don't seem particularly honorable....but maybe that's just my 'very old public school' upbringing. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wondercoin

Wondercoin

Posted
Posted (edited)

Mr. Mcknowitall...

 

Thank you for your approval as to the fine job I am doing for JHF in marketing his 1964-D dime.

 

You pondered why my "opening sale choice" would be eBay, but of course, you may have forgotten that this was not my opening sale choice at all. That was a Landmark Roosie Dime auction roughly 7 years and 4 months ago in connection with the 2009 Pre-FUN events at Superior Galleries that sold more than "six figures" of the coins from JHF's great dime collection (with a stand alone 56 page catalog also being produced). As I previously mentioned, JHF had this very 1964-D dime reserved at an $11,500 opening bid in that auction. He is now asking less for the coin.

 

Since that time, the vast majority of the unsolds from that sale (including by the way a seldom seen NGC-MS69 Silver Roosie Dime) have been disposed of and now just a handful or so of the dimes remain unsold, including this pop 1/0 1964-D (and a number of other MS68FB coins a few of which I have already mentioned).

 

Just to note what I am sure was an unintentional oversight on your part... You just quoted me as saying in my eBay offering:

 

FROM YOUR LAST POSTING ..."The bands are fine and probably close to an MS68+quality- REMAKABLE QUALITY (caps by you) for a 64D dime that simply never looks like this....."

 

Yet, what I actually say there is:

 

"The "bands" are fine and the obverse of the coin is probably close to an MS68+ quality"

 

I wanted to correct your misquote as I am very clear in my offering that my comment regarding "MS68+ quality" pertains to the Obverse of the coin only.

 

Again, thank you for your post....

 

New thoughts ....

 

On a related topic... it is not always the case that the obverse (or reverse, or either side) of coins currently in MS68 holders are deemed to be "MS68" quality by the top set holders in a particular series. Even in the case of Washington quarters, I pass routinely on MS68 graded quarters that I personally grade MS67+ or lower. Obviously, this is the subject of many of the "gradeflation" posts.

 

Regarding the 1964-D Dime, for what it worth, I do believe the Obverse of the coin is not a "squeaker" into the MS68 grade at all, but a solid MS68 and, in fact, in my personal opinion close to even MS68+ quality (as I stated on eBay). I know this opinion is shared by at least one of the very premier Silver Roosie Dime collectors out there who has no doubt (in his opinion) that the obverse of the 64-D dime is solid MS68 quality.

 

Which then brings up the related question what is the grade of the reverse of the 64-D dime and how does one "average out" the obverse and reverse grades? Let say hypothetically, one might grade the 64-D coin "MS68.6 obverse ("close to MS68+") obverse and MS66+ (MS66.7) reverse" but give the obverse of the coin 75% of the value of the overall grade. That averages out to an MS68.125 overall grade. Even if the coin was hypothetically graded by the next guy at only MS68.5 obverse (just an average MS68) and a (low) MS66+ reverse (MS66.7) but gave the obverse of the coin a 75% weight, that would come to an average grade of MS68.05.

 

A hypothetical grade of MS68.6 obverse but just an MS67.1 reverse for example at equal weight of 50-50 for obverse and reverse results in an average grade of MS67.85.

 

Which brings up a number of related questions if one was to personally determine how they might grade out the 1964-D dime in question:

 

1. What weight do you place on the obverse of the coin vs. the reverse with respect to the grade you intend to assign to the coin? This is obviously a critical question if it is common in the industry (is it?) to give the obverse of a coin a bit more weight than the reverse of the coin.

 

2. Do you (or do you not) give the coin a "bump up" at all due to its nice toning, especially for the date?

 

Summary: At a time when the services were grading far fewer MS68FB / MS68FT coins than we are seeing getting graded today, PCGS assigned a grade of MS68FB to the 64-D dime. Do we know what weight (e.g. 50%, 2/3, 3/4, 80%) they assigned to the very lovely obverse of this coin - No. Do we know what "bump", if any, they awarded the coin for its lovely color for the date in question - No.

 

Can one "tear apart" an MS68 graded coin by focusing on just one side of the coin, especially the reverse side? Of course. Look no further than the 1964-D (same date) Kennedy Half Dollar in PCGS-MS68 that just sold for around $25,000 at public auction (thank you AHfreak for corrrecting my $22,000 previous statement) and set the world record for a business strike Kennedy Half Dollar. Can anyone post pics of the obverse and reverse of that Kennedy here? We can ask the very same questions I just did about the dime of the same date.... namely, how much weight to the obverse and whether a "bump" is warranted for the color.

 

As always, just my two cents.

Wondercoin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Wondercoin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
Mr. Mcknowitall...

 

Thank you for your approval as to the fine job I am doing for JHF in marketing his 1964-D dime.

 

You pondered why my "opening sale choice" would be eBay, but of course, you may have forgotten that this was not my opening sale choice at all. That was a Landmark Roosie Dime auction roughly 7 years and 4 months ago in connection with the 2009 Pre-FUN events at Superior Galleries that sold more than "six figures" of the coins from JHF's great dime collection (with a stand alone 56 page catalog also being produced). As I previously mentioned, JHF had this very 1964-D dime reserved at an $11,500 opening bid in that auction. He is now asking less for the coin.

 

Since that time, the vast majority of the unsolds from that sale (including by the way a seldom seen NGC-MS69 Silver Roosie Dime) have been disposed of and now just a handful or so of the dimes remain unsold, including this pop 1/0 1964-D (and a number of other MS68FB coins a few of which I have already mentioned).

 

Just to note what I am sure was an unintentional oversight on your part... You just quoted me as saying in my eBay offering:

 

FROM YOUR LAST POSTING ..."The bands are fine and probably close to an MS68+quality- REMAKABLE QUALITY (caps by you) for a 64D dime that simply never looks like this....."

 

Yet, what I actually say there is:

 

"The "bands" are fine and the obverse of the coin is probably close to an MS68+ quality"

 

I wanted to correct your misquote as I am very clear in my offering that my comment regarding "MS68+ quality" pertains to the Obverse of the coin only.

 

Again, thank you for your post....

 

New thoughts ....

 

On a related topic... it is not always the case that the obverse (or reverse, or either side) of coins currently in MS68 holders are deemed to be "MS68" quality by the top set holders in a particular series. Even in the case of Washington quarters, I pass routinely on MS68 graded quarters that I personally grade MS67+ or lower. Obviously, this is the subject of many of the "gradeflation" posts.

 

Regarding the 1964-D Dime, for what it worth, I do believe the Obverse of the coin is not a "squeaker" into the MS68 grade at all, but a solid MS68 and, in fact, in my personal opinion close to even MS68+ quality (as I stated on eBay). I know this opinion is shared by at least one of the very premier Silver Roosie Dime collectors out there who has no doubt (in his opinion) that the obverse of the 64-D dime is solid MS68 quality.

 

Which then brings up the related question what is the grade of the reverse of the 64-D dime and how does one "average out" the obverse and reverse grades? Let say hypothetically, one might grade the 64-D coin "MS68.6 obverse ("close to MS68+") obverse and MS66+ (MS66.7) reverse" but give the obverse of the coin 75% of the value of the overall grade. That averages out to an MS68.125 overall grade. Even if the coin was hypothetically graded by the next guy at only MS68.5 obverse (just an average MS68) and a (low) MS66+ reverse (MS66.7) but gave the obverse of the coin a 75% weight, that would come to an average grade of MS68.05.

 

A hypothetical grade of MS68.6 obverse but just an MS67.1 reverse for example at equal weight of 50-50 for obverse and reverse results in an average grade of MS67.85.

 

Which brings up a number of related questions if one was to personally determine how they might grade out the 1964-D dime in question:

 

1. What weight do you place on the obverse of the coin vs. the reverse with respect to the grade you intend to assign to the coin? This is obviously a critical question if it is common in the industry (is it?) to give the obverse of a coin a bit more weight than the reverse of the coin.

 

2. Do you (or do you not) give the coin a "bump up" at all due to its nice toning, especially for the date?

 

Summary: At a time when the services were grading far fewer MS68FB / MS68FT coins than we are seeing getting graded today, PCGS assigned a grade of MS68FB to the 64-D dime. Do we know what weight (e.g. 50%, 2/3, 3/4, 80%) they assigned to the very lovely obverse of this coin - No. Do we know what "bump", if any, they awarded the coin for its lovely color for the date in question - No.

 

Can one "tear apart" an MS68 graded coin by focusing on just one side of the coin, especially the reverse side? Of course. Look no further than the 1964-D (same date) Kennedy Half Dollar in PCGS-MS68 that just sold for around $25,000 at public auction (thank you AHfreak for corrrecting my $22,000 previous statement) and set the world record for a business strike Kennedy Half Dollar. Can anyone post pics of the obverse and reverse of that Kennedy here? We can ask the very same questions I just did about the dime of the same date.... namely, how much weight to the obverse and whether a "bump" is warranted for the color.

 

As always, just my two cents.

Wondercoin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for confirming your actual quote. I anticipated you would do so. It assists in narrowing the discussion to the correct focus-the marks. I am neither approving or supporting or condemning your representation efforts. I detect an annoyance on your part with my thoughts in your reply commentary. I hope not, because it would be a little silly. You continue to use the "you may have forgotten" comment. No, I did not. It is 7+ years later. It is a different market now. Considering your faith in the coin and personal expertise and acknowledgement of same by the TPG and your opinion of probability that the coin is of a higher quality obverse, then why not send in for regrading?

 

The rest of your post is sales and advertising and misdirection and restatements that are not of any value in reaching a conclusion concerning the marks. You continue to draw attention from the marks by elevating weighted grading of the obverse, and hypothetical grading math. Your salesmanship and business acumen is not in question, by me.

 

What grade is fine "bands"?

 

What is the numismatic definition of fine "bands"?

 

You need not answer either question. It just seemed a curious observation in your listing. It comes across as redirecting the focus of the reader, IMHO. It is the equality of stating the tires are fine on a valuable collectible automobile, to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Afterword

Afterword

Posted
Posted

"Which brings up a number of related questions if one was to personally determine how they might grade out the 1964-D dime in question:

 

1. What weight do you place on the obverse of the coin vs. the reverse with respect to the grade you intend to assign to the coin? This is obviously a critical question if it is common in the industry (is it?) to give the obverse of a coin a bit more weight than the reverse of the coin.

 

2. Do you (or do you not) give the coin a "bump up" at all due to its nice toning, especially for the date?

 

Summary: At a time when the services were grading far fewer MS68FB / MS68FT coins than we are seeing getting graded today, PCGS assigned a grade of MS68FB to the 64-D dime. Do we know what weight (e.g. 50%, 2/3, 3/4, 80%) they assigned to the very lovely obverse of this coin - No. Do we know what "bump", if any, they awarded the coin for its lovely color for the date in question - No.

 

Can one "tear apart" an MS68 graded coin by focusing on just one side of the coin, especially the reverse side? Of course. Look no further than the 1964-D (same date) Kennedy Half Dollar in PCGS-MS68 that just sold for around $25,000 at public auction (thank you AHfreak for corrrecting my $22,000 previous statement) and set the world record for a business strike Kennedy Half Dollar. Can anyone post pics of the obverse and reverse of that Kennedy here? We can ask the very same questions I just did about the dime of the same date.... namely, how much weight to the obverse and whether a "bump" is warranted for the color."

 

 

 

 

 

You make a good case for how the dime in question might warrant an MS-68 grade despite the two marks on the torch. However, you could have made an even more compelling case for your client if you had revealed the fact that the marks on the torch were mint made, and I see no reason why you would not do so - unless they are indeed post mint marks.

 

Unless, of course, you have never looked at the marks closely enough to make this determination. However, this seems unlikely given your stated experience with such coins.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wondercoin

Wondercoin

Posted
Posted (edited)

"Thank you for confirming your actual quote. I anticipated you would do so"

 

Then, I am not sure why you posted the misquote in the first place or failed to correct it yourself when you caught it? No one obviously likes to be misquoted. I am not sure "annoyance" is the word though.

 

You ask why I do not send the coin in for upgrading, when I never stated the coin was an MS68+ anywhere? That was confusing though.

 

You then suggest "misdirection" when I have told you repeatedly to form your own judgement on my customer's coin (or ask Mark next month about it) and I am pretty much finished discussing it. I hope you can respect that and if anyone wants to ask more questions about the quality of the dime (you or anyone), I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above.

 

So, with the weekend coming to a close, does anyone want to address my comment regarding grading? Weights of obverse vs. reverse, bumps for color, etc.

 

Wondercoin

 

Edited to add.... Afterword: Thank you for the comment. But with all due respect, I don't need to make any further "compelling" case for the dime. You saw how Superior described the dime in 2009. You saw how I described the dime. We'll see how Heritage describes the dime if I send it to them (and it does not sell in the next month).

 

While I am selling the dime for my customer, any interested party can simply ask me for a reasonable return privilege, which would be quickly agreed to. Take a look even how Legend described the wonderful 1964-D half dollar in their last sale? Do you see any comments at all on the "marks here and there" on the reverse of the coin? Anyone interested in buying a $5,000 - $10,000 Roosevelt Dime probably shouldn't be relying on the Seller's agent for "a complete inspection report" like one might expect buying a new home. ;) That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do.

 

Summary... I personally like the 64-D dime as an MS68FB coin, which is why I offered it on eBay. Did I ever say the coin was an upgrade shot to MS68+FB - NO. Did I ever say the coin had "strong" Bands - NO. Did I ever say the coin was mark-free on the obverse and reverse - NO.

 

Wondercoin

 

 

Edited by Wondercoin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hard Times

Hard Times

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

Edited by Hard Times
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hard Times

Hard Times

Posted
Posted
I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
"Thank you for confirming your actual quote. I anticipated you would do so"

 

Then, I am not sure why you posted the misquote in the first place or failed to correct it yourself when you caught it? No one obviously likes to be misquoted. I am not sure "annoyance" is the word though.

 

You ask why I do not send the coin in for upgrading, when I never stated the coin was an MS68+ anywhere? That was confusing though.

 

You then suggest "misdirection" when I have told you repeatedly to form your own judgement on my customer's coin (or ask Mark next month about it) and I am pretty much finished discussing it. I hope you can respect that and if anyone wants to ask more questions about the quality of the dime (you or anyone), I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above.

 

So, with the weekend coming to a close, does anyone want to address my comment regarding grading? Weights of obverse vs. reverse, bumps for color, etc.

 

Wondercoin

 

Edited to add.... Afterword: Thank you for the comment. But with all due respect, I don't need to make any further "compelling" case for the dime. You saw how Superior described the dime in 2009. You saw how I described the dime. We'll see how Heritage describes the dime if I send it to them (and it does not sell in the next month).

 

While I am selling the dime for my customer, any interested party can simply ask me for a reasonable return privilege, which would be quickly agreed to. Take a look even how Legend described the wonderful 1964-D half dollar in their last sale? Do you see any comments at all on the "marks here and there" on the reverse of the coin? Anyone interested in buying a $5,000 - $10,000 Roosevelt Dime probably shouldn't be relying on the Seller's agent for "a complete inspection report" like one might expect buying a new home. ;) That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do.

 

Summary... I personally like the 64-D dime as an MS68FB coin, which is why I offered it on eBay. Did I ever say the coin was an upgrade shot to MS68+FB - NO. Did I ever say the coin had "strong" Bands - NO. Did I ever say the coin was mark-free on the obverse and reverse - NO.

 

Wondercoin

 

 

Misdirection.

 

What is the grade of fine "bands"?

 

What is the numismatic definition of fine "bands"?

 

Consider that the questions concerning your opinion of the coin is what you should be able to directly and with confidence reply to. You should not have to resort to illogical logic posits on weighted grading math hypotheticals or what you didn't say...yet strongly intimated....in posts. It is what you didn't say and what you did not explain that causes lack of confidence in your opinion. In essence you shifted the responsibility to Mr. Feld as a stand in representative for you, prior to any formal engagement. It is my opinion you did so to add to credibility of the condition of the coin. There are many excellent numismatists on this board. If you can not publicly answer direct questions about the marks from board members, why do you expect that credibility of your opinion will be the reward? That is not a desirable situation for someone that is trying to sell a coin, much less so when selling for someone else.

 

You offered it on EBay, or you offered it on behalf of your client on EBay? Were you not aware of the marks until now? Did you just forget? You must have known something. You described the bands as "fine". Do you not understand why your posts cause confusion, and lack of confidence in your opinion?

 

Yes, I anticipated. Do you truly not understand why?

 

I think, to paraphrase the Bard, you protest to much, imho, and do so to misdirect the thrust of the questioning, which is the marks. I don't have any opinion of your prior knowledge or experience or what capacity you served a TPG. This is 2016. You are trying to sell a $10,000.00 coin in the present economy and to do so for a non-essential item. You have not presented a logic posit for doing so. I personally don't think you can. How many collectors do you think have $10,000.00 of disposable income to purchase the coin when you can't address the simple and obvious questions concerning the marks? I am not certain you were prepared to sell this coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AHFreak

AHFreak

Posted
Posted
I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

 

So wait, you are asking him to comment on the hits... and he is saying he will as soon as he gets the coin in hand and can view it again in hand. But yet you are accusing him of avoiding, or dancing around, etc? That makes no sense at all to me. If he did adress the hits without the coin in hand wouldn't that be even more of a reason for you and others to take issue with it? Seems to me that NOT having the coin in hand before addressing the marks would be the main reason to call him out.

 

What are you expecting, what would you like him to do above and beyond what he has already done?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

I do not agree. The coin was described in the EBay listing, and in particular, he described the "bands" as fine.

 

Respectfully Mark, I don't think your point is made. He continued to obfuscate and misdirect. With respect, why did he mention "bands" being fine at all in the listing? I am all for benefit of the doubt. However, I asked questions 4 times in the most courteous manner I could, and received misdirection and obfuscation and hypothetical presentation of weighted math. I do not think it was wise to invoke your name either, and if he had permission to do so prior to his post, it should have been disclosed.

 

I gave him 2 opportunities to excavate himself from the hole. He chose not to, or worse, did not recognize the opportunity. He chose to protest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted (edited)

Y

I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

 

Seeing them from an image and/or trying

to remember them from a previous view is one thing. Trying to determine what caused them is something else.

 

I sure can't tell from the images. I think it far more responsible for him to view the coin before answering.

Edited by MarkFeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
Y
I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

 

Seeing them from an image and/or trying

to remember them from a previous view is one thing. Trying to determine what caused them is something else.

 

I sure can't tell from the images. I think it far more responsible for him to view the coin before answering.

 

Mark, in the spirit of fairness, it would have also been far more responsible to not comment on the EBay description...... that he wrote and commented that the photos were a fine job by a family member....that the "bands" were fine. Are you under the impression he did not know about or review the photos in his own Ebay listing? I can understand not remembering a coin from 7 years ago. I do not understand not viewing photos on his own EBay listing, or for that matter shown in this thread. I can understand you want to be fair and impartial. However, it is his own Ebay listing with a photo clearly depicting the marks and clearly labeling the bands as fine. All he had to do was state he made a mistake, correct the listing and preserve credibility. He was given the mile high hint to do so. He didn't. He misdirected and obfuscated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted (edited)
Y
I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

 

Seeing them from an image and/or trying

to remember them from a previous view is one thing. Trying to determine what caused them is something else.

 

I sure can't tell from the images. I think it far more responsible for him to view the coin before answering.

 

Mark, in the spirit of fairness, it would have also been far more responsible to not comment on the EBay description...... that he wrote and commented that the photos were a fine job by a family member....that the "bands" were fine. Are you under the impression he did not know about or review the photos in his own Ebay listing? I can understand not remembering a coin from 7 years ago. I do not understand not viewing photos on his own EBay listing, or for that matter shown in this thread. I can understand you want to be fair and impartial. However, it is his own Ebay listing with a photo clearly depicting the marks and clearly labeling the bands as fine. All he had to do was state he made a mistake, correct the listing and preserve credibility. He was given the mile high hint to do so. He didn't. He misdirected and obfuscated.

 

John, I admit to being a softie (sometimes).

 

Had I been in Mitch's shoes, my replies would have been more pointed and less verbose - Mitch, if you disagree, feel free to correct me (in 3000 words or less). ? However, I would have also failed to provide much of the excellent background information that he did.

 

And I am sympathetic to his having entered this thread and subjected himself to this "discussion". I doubt that he thought he would persuade anyone here to bid on the coin and he had probably read enough to understand that once you enter such a thread, it can be difficult to exit satisfactorily. So (corrected typo) I give him credit for that.

 

With respect to your question about what I think about his familiarity with or review of the EBay photos - I have no idea when he viewed them or how carefully he did so. But regardless of whatever criticisms you and others have of his posts, he has indicated that he will view the coin/bands again and address the bands issue. So I prefer to cut him some slack.

Edited by MarkFeld
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted

Wondercoin said

 

"Summary... I personally like the 64-D dime as an MS68FB coin, which is why I offered it on eBay. Did I ever say the coin was an upgrade shot to MS68+FB - NO. Did I ever say the coin had "strong" Bands - NO. Did I ever say the coin was mark-free on the obverse and reverse - NO"

 

As stated early, 68's don't need to be mark free. As stated earlier I like this coin better as a 67 from super large images though I never viewed it in hand. It is it fact a dime and not a hubcap. Mitch is more qualified then me so I'll punt for now.

 

FYI this still might be the finest graded 64-D out there regardless of grade. If you lined every single 64-d out there this may come out on top. Some want the very best. I can get behind that even if I don't always play in that end of the pool.

 

mark

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mark

mark

Posted
Posted

I agree with Mark and Mark.

 

Plus, I have to wonder why Mitch even bothered to comment in this thread. I think it's pretty clear that no one who has posted in this thread has any interest in buying on the coin. Instead, the only interest seems to be in criticizing the coin and criticizing Mitch because he 1) Doesn't remember the coin from years ago, and 2) Is unwilling to comment on what are two marks on a coin from a picture.

 

If I were Mitch, I'd have looked at the posts and the posters, shrugged my shoulders and moved onto other endeavors. That said, I am glad Mitch did post because I thought some of the history he posted was fascinating.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted (edited)

I will also add that in the recent 83-CC thread we had a few guesses from esteemed board members here that thought the coin was a 67. To others the coin was no better then a 64 and or cleaned/ heavily dipped ( lots of folks ATS as well). Images can be deceiving. When people get the guesses right they are experts. When they get them wrong it's based on misinterpreting the images or lighting or something else. To me it was obvious that the 83-cc Morgan in question was a 64 at best and likely upgradable. To others it was a 67 with an asterisk stating the obvious. That the images might be "hiding" something. In Mitch's case maybe , just maybe the images maybe accentuating "marks". It cuts both ways. I also get some way wrong on GTG's based on images.

 

Anyways, I look forward to Mark's comments regardless as another POV and one that is based on actually seeing the coin in hand

 

Mark

 

Edited by MJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
Y
I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff! (thumbs u

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

 

Seeing them from an image and/or trying

to remember them from a previous view is one thing. Trying to determine what caused them is something else.

 

I sure can't tell from the images. I think it far more responsible for him to view the coin before answering.

 

Mark, in the spirit of fairness, it would have also been far more responsible to not comment on the EBay description...... that he wrote and commented that the photos were a fine job by a family member....that the "bands" were fine. Are you under the impression he did not know about or review the photos in his own Ebay listing? I can understand not remembering a coin from 7 years ago. I do not understand not viewing photos on his own EBay listing, or for that matter shown in this thread. I can understand you want to be fair and impartial. However, it is his own Ebay listing with a photo clearly depicting the marks and clearly labeling the bands as fine. All he had to do was state he made a mistake, correct the listing and preserve credibility. He was given the mile high hint to do so. He didn't. He misdirected and obfuscated.

 

John, I admit to being a softie (sometimes).

 

Had I been in Mitch's shoes, my replies would have been more pointed and less verbose - Mitch, if you disagree, feel free to correct me (in 3000 words or less). ? However, I would have also failed to provide much of the excellent background information that he did.

 

And I am sympathetic to his having entered this thread and subjected himself to this "discussion". I doubt that he thought he would persuade anyone here to bid on the coin and he had probably read enough to understand that once you enter such a thread, it can be difficult to exit satisfactorily. So (corrected typo) I give him credit for that.

 

With respect to your question about what I think about his familiarity with or review of the EBay photos - I have no idea when he viewed them or how carefully he did so. But regardless of whatever criticisms you and others have of his posts, he has indicated that he will view the coin/bands again and address the bands issue. So I prefer to cut him some slack.

 

Understood. The turning point for me was describing in the listing the bands are fine, and after I mentioned this to him, he continued to obfuscate and avoid addressing the choice of words. He was given the opportunity to excavate himself from the hole. I tried gracefully to suggest that was where the confusion may be flowering and it would be in his interest and certainly the interest of the owner of the coin, to amend the inconsistency. It is not so much what the marks are, to me, or are not, or what the grade is, or is not. As you know, I never grade from pictures. I can't. Neither would I state that the bands are fine, when there are indeed marks that at the very least raise a question that directly and so visibly indicates a problem with the designation of the coin exists.

 

I don't know him. I assume he is knowledgeable, and would know that there are many experienced numismatists on the board that would engage in a lively discussion. I did not read any deliberate discourtesy toward him personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted

You assumed right. He is probably the leading expert on moderns

 

mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted

Someone important queue up looking at what some have called verdigris. So we don't have to wait for more than 1 viewing by each viewer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Mcknowitall

Mr.Mcknowitall

Posted
Posted
Wondercoin said

 

"Summary... I personally like the 64-D dime as an MS68FB coin, which is why I offered it on eBay. Did I ever say the coin was an upgrade shot to MS68+FB - NO. Did I ever say the coin had "strong" Bands - NO. Did I ever say the coin was mark-free on the obverse and reverse - NO"

 

As stated early, 68's don't need to be mark free. As stated earlier I like this coin better as a 67 from super large images though I never viewed it in hand. It is it fact a dime and not a hubcap. Mitch is more qualified then me so I'll punt for now.

 

FYI this still might be the finest graded 64-D out there regardless of grade. If you lined every single 64-d out there this may come out on top. Some want the very best. I can get behind that even if I don't always play in that end of the pool.

 

mark

 

The bands are fine......

 

What is the numismatic definition of fine bands? What is the grade of fine bands? What ius tge definition of fine bands to a TPG? Is it FB? Why mention it if the designation of the coin by the TPG is FB? It is not about mark free. It is about the description in the listing that clearly depicts a reason to question a FB designation and a description by the seller that the bands are fine, without any explanation. He opined that the photos were a fine job by a family member. It would have been a small matter to correct the listing and/or explain the reasoning. He chose not to. The graceful offer after the fact to explain after he sees the coin is commendable. However, the listing could use a little editing, in order to avoid the appearance of obfuscation and misdirection of the viewer, IMHO. The designation of FB by the TPG is clearly defined by the TPG. No further explanation or listing description by the seller would be needed, IMHO. The designation would stand or fall on its own merits and fulfillment of the requirement of the TPG. I don't think stating the bands are fine is the method to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0
Go to topic listing