PR70 Beauties (More Money Than Brains)

[gmarguli]

While going thru the coins in the current Goldberg auction I came across some beauties.

 

I assume that someone is selling off their registry set of proof Kennedys. All the coins below are graded PR70DCAM by the infallible PCGS. Clearly a set put together by a person who didn't care about quality, but went for slabbed grade instead.

 

Lovely splotchy toning. Most likely dip residue.

 

A couple of black spots.

 

Another coin with what looks like dip residue and a couple of spots. A nice fingerprint on the reverse.

 

An 1981-S with some crud on the reverse.

 

What are those spots on Kennedy?

 

Spotted fields.

 

I'll admit that some of the "problems" could be on the slab, but not all.

 

A few others:

Only a PR68DCAM, but look at the streak across the coin. Ughhh.

 

A nice 1980-S in PR70DCAM with a CARBON spot on the reverse in a focal area.

 

 

On a side note, I'm going to TRY and view a couple of the lots in person (no, not these pieces of junk, but real coins). If there is any coin any forum member wants me to check out in person and give an honest opinion, let me know. I want to stress that I am not positive I will make it there, but I am going to try.

[truthteller]

Well, I guess we can learn from other's mistakes. After 15 dips in Jeweluster, the solution is contaminated and must be discarded. The results of dipping in bad solution are blatant.

 

TRUTH

[TomB]

Dipping in over-dipped solution or rinsing in too hot water will kill the coin in the long-term. Ughhh.

[Hoot]

Truly the worst horror film I've watched in a long time, Greg. As each of the images came up, I lurched viscerally from the awful spectacle!

 

Hoot

[braddick]

Well, I guess we can learn from other's mistakes. After 15 dips in Jeweluster, the solution is contaminated and must be discarded. The results of dipping in bad solution are blatant.

 

TRUTH

 

Or, it appears the original submitter was a bit lazy and used the same dip he had used on his copper.

Bad, bad.

 

Sad, sad for PCGS as these should have been returned for review and NOT accepted by any auction house to dump on some other poor, undeserving soul.

 

Or, is that thinking now out of step with today's new reality?

[keithdagen]

If I remember right, many of these proof coins belong to that jelly donut loving creature across the street.

[TomB]

Really? Wow!

[Russ-migration]

If I remember right, many of these proof coins belong to that jelly donut loving creature across the street.

 

Which, of course, Greg knew before he posted this thread.

 

Russ, NCNE

[gmarguli]

If I remember right, many of these proof coins belong to that jelly donut loving creature across the street.

 

Which, of course, Greg knew before he posted this thread.

 

Somewhat yes and no. I flipped thru the eBay version of the catalog several days ago. That's when I picked out which coins I'm going to bid on as well as ran across these "beauties". At that time I had absolutly no idea who they belonged to. I was shocked at the quality or lack of quality. Honestly, when I saw the coins I thought that they must be ICG graded since they were of such poor quality. I was stunned when I read the description that they were PCGS slabbed and at PR70DCAM no less. At that time I planned to make a thread on them and registry set collectors mind set of buying labels.

 

Yesterday I read that Bear consigned his registry set of Kennedys to be sold. This run of coins also appeared to be a registry set, but I wasn't sure if it was Bears, nor do I care or does it matter. Registry sets are auctioned off all the time. I also do not know where he consigned his coins. Goldberg was a stupid choice for moderns, IMHO. Look at the estimates for many of the moderns. They don't have a clue. I also have no idea where Bears set ranked. It could be the #1, #5 or tied with 50 others for #10. Believe it or not, I don't follow Bear and I sure as hell don't follow proof modern registries.

 

The Jefferson I posted isn't his coin as far as I know, yet it is of similar poor quality, but will likely end up in an "all time finest" registry set. I'm actually not sure if the Kennedys I posted are all his. I believe there were multiples being offered on some. I was also going to link a Roosevelt from another auction. A PCGS PR70DCAM with a few spots, but people could get the picture from just these.

 

Regardless, these coins speak for themselves. They also say a lot about what a typical registry set buyer goes for: the label. I don't care who owns them. I would be ashamed to have ANY of the coins I pictured in my set. They are no better than a $39,100 1963 PR70DCAM 1¢ that is overgraded by 3 points. The coins I pictured are $3 coins surrounded by $12 plastic with a $3000 label.

 

Russ, would you want these coins in your set?

[Russ-migration]

Bears, nor do I care or does it matter. Registry sets are auctioned off all the time. I also do not know where he consigned his coins.

 

It's listed right in the online catalog as The Jay Ross Collection. Nobody is going to believe that you are that oblivious as to who owns that set. If you want to attack Bear, just do it without the cutesy little game.

 

Goldberg was a stupid choice for moderns, IMHO. Look at the estimates for many of the moderns. They don't have a clue.

 

I completely agree and stated so across the street in the Registry forum. I also told Bear the same thing via PM. Many of the coins won't even make the opening bid.

 

Russ, would you want these coins in your set?

 

Of course not. I already have better examples, and they're graded 69DCAM, not 70.

 

BTW, "only" PR68DCAM on the Accented Hair? I don't know if that streak is on the coin or on the holder (and, neither do you), but I do know that a PR68DCAM Accented Hair is an extraordinarily difficult coin. ANY AH in deep cameo is very, very tough.

 

Russ, NCNE

[keithdagen]

BTW, "only" PR68DCAM on the Accented Hair? I don't know if that streak is on the coin or on the holder (and, neither do you), but I do know that a PR68DCAM Accented Hair is an extraordinarily difficult coin. ANY AH in deep cameo is very, very tough.

 

So, because the coin is a low pop coin, and really tough, shell out big bucks for an ugly coin because you need it for the set?

[Russ-migration]

Keith,

 

Rereading my post, I'll be damned if I can find where I said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though. It's a well-used technique.

 

Russ, NCNE

[keithdagen]

Rereading my post, I'll be damned if I can find where I said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, though. It's a well-used technique.

 

No, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but what Greg said was that it was only a 68DC. That means that you shouldn't expect the quality that you get on a 70DC, but even with that, do you need a big ugly streak?

[Russ-migration]

but even with that, do you need a big ugly streak?

 

Not if it's actually on the coin, no. But, as I said, none of us knows if it is or not. It's an internet image, and a very poorly done one at that.

 

I was simply noting the fact that "only" and "PR68DCAM" together make no sense in the case of this particular coin.

 

Russ, NCNE

[BankNote1]

I would guess that the coins toned and spotted in the holders after they were slabed? If the contaminants were on the coin before they were slabed they could still react with the coins surface, IMO. PCGS slabs aren't air tight anyway.

 

I don't see how you can blame the person for selling his coins or blame the auction house for listing them. This is a good example of buying the coin and not the holder...

 

[PQSeated]

Back in the old days of PCGS, didn't they used to dip the coins before grading them? If they were graded at that time, that could be a possible reason.

[gmarguli]

Bears, nor do I care or does it matter. Registry sets are auctioned off all the time. I also do not know where he consigned his coins.

 

It's listed right in the online catalog as The Jay Ross Collection. Nobody is going to believe that you are that oblivious as to who owns that set. If you want to attack Bear, just do it without the cutesy little game.

 

 

#1 It is "THE DR. JACOB TERNER COLLECTION".

 

#2 I don't see the name "Jay Ross" there.

 

#3 Who the hell is Jay Ross? Bear's name is Abe something.

 

#4 Do you really think that I pay any attention to who owns what registry - much less some meaningless set such as proof Kennedys?

 

#5 I don't care what people believe I know about the set/owner. Maybe you knew, but that doesn't mean other people are such big followers of Kennedys and Bear to give a damn about knowing these things. Other forums member here didn't know. I knew he collected toned Morgans. That's it. This thread was about buying plastic before you derailed it.

 

#6 I don't need to attack Bear secretly. The dealers that sell to him do that enough. The term sucker is used a lot. That's from the ones that sell to him. I've said it publicly enough that Bear is a LIAR, a HYPOCRITE, and a insufficiently_thoughtful_person. I skip his posts since they are never coin related. Beyond that, I have no contact with Bear. Other than David Hall, he is probably the biggest liar on those forums.

 

#7 And last, but not least. I honestly don't care if people believe I knew that Bear was the owner or my reasons for posting the coins. I'm sure as hell not going to waste any more time defending myself to YOU.

 

 

Russ, would you want these coins in your set?

 

Of course not. I already have better examples, and they're graded 69DCAM, not 70.

 

No you don't. You just admitted that they are graded lower. Therefore they are inferior.

 

 

 

BTW, "only" PR68DCAM on the Accented Hair? I don't know if that streak is on the coin or on the holder (and, neither do you), but I do know that a PR68DCAM Accented Hair is an extraordinarily difficult coin. ANY AH in deep cameo is very, very tough.

 

You're right. I don't know if it is on the slab. That's why I stated that in my original post. Why imply that I didn't?

 

Just curious, did you sell Bear any of the Kennedys in his set? Maybe some of your motives can become clearer?

 

[gmarguli]

Back in the old days of PCGS, didn't they used to dip the coins before grading them? If they were graded at that time, that could be a possible reason.

 

No. At least it wasn't done to many coins.

 

These coins are just overgraded pieces of junk. Nothing more than that. Basically the stuff that needs to be purchased off the market.

[Russ-migration]

Just curious, did you sell Bear any of the Kennedys in his set? Maybe some of your motives can become clearer?

 

No, I didn't. And, yours are the motives that are clear.

 

When you were banned at PCGS, I was one of the very first to state that I thought their move was a stupid one, and that you had contributed far more than just the criticism, but much in the way of knowledge and help.

 

Since you've left, and can find nothing meaningful to say other than a constant bashing of anyone who doesn't kiss your [!@#%^&^] and jump on your little martyr pitty pot, I find that I was completely in error in that defense.

 

You may now talk only with yourself because, frankly, your whining, [!@#%^&^], moaning, "whoah is me, PCGS is the epitomy of all evil, David Hall sucks" schtick is boring and lame and I grow weary of wallowing in it.

 

Russ, NCNE

[gmarguli]

Just curious, did you sell Bear any of the Kennedys in his set? Maybe some of your motives can become clearer?

 

No, I didn't. And, yours are the motives that are clear.

 

When you were banned at PCGS, I was one of the very first to state that I thought their move was a stupid one, and that you had contributed far more than just the criticism, but much in the way of knowledge and help.

 

Since you've left, and can find nothing meaningful to say other than a constant bashing of anyone who doesn't kiss your [!@#%^&^] and jump on your little martyr pitty pot, I find that I was completely in error in that defense.

 

You may now talk only with yourself because, frankly, your whining, [!@#%^&^], moaning, "whoah is me, PCGS is the epitomy of all evil, David Hall sucks" schtick is boring and lame and I grow weary of wallowing in it.

 

Russ, NCNE

 

 

What does this thread have to do with being banned at the PCG$ forums because David Hall prefers to silence critics rather than fix problems???

 

This thread was about buying plastic, but you have decided to use it to bash me and twist it into some sort of "Greg hates PCGS" thread in order to defend your friend, Bear. I don't know what your problem is - nor do I care. You came here and chose to post to this thread. If you have such a problem with what I posted, then debate it. Show what I posted was wrong. Show how these coins are great. Show how my (and others) opinions of them were wrong. Come on now, you are the self-proclaimed Kennedy expert. Let's hear your expert opinion on them.

 

Oh that's right, you don't want to contribute like that over here. You just want to attack others because they have negative opinions of ugly coins your buddy owns. Were these not owned by Bear (and I still don't know for a fact they are) would you still be posting your same rant?

 

You ASSumed that I was attacking the owner of these coins. That was wrong. Rather than believe that or debate it, you go on your little hissy rant. You contributed nothing. You can't debate facts. You run when proven wrong. You are a detractor - just like you are across the street. Stay across the street. I'm sure there is someone over there that hasn't been lectured about Kennedys just yet and they are waiting for you to come along. God knows that those forums could use a few more threads about Kennedys. There probably haven't been any new ones in the last half hour. Please show them your new Kennedy purchase on eBay and your submission results (without pictures). I know many people are holding their breath for these to be posted.

 

This thread was about buying plastic. If you can't see that, then you are denser than I thought. Twist it all you want. No one but you cares. The coins pictured are junk. Someone will pay a lot of money for that junk. They will do this because they see the slabbed grade and need it for their registry set. You are clearly the type of person who would promote this because the seller is your buddy. I wouldn't. That's the difference between you and me. I'm not a scumbag! Wallow in that Kennedy boy!

 

Any more BS you want to spew, take it to PM. I don't want these forums getting as junked as the PCGS forums. Oops, that must be my bias showing again....

[goose3]

I've ALWAYS been of the opinion that there is absolutely NO such thing as a "perfect" coin no matter what anyone says.

 

I've always maintained that I would never purchase a "perfect" coin.

 

These pictures do nothing but reinforce my belief.

[DonHeath]

All the coins below are graded PR70DCAM by the infallible PCGS. Clearly a set put together by a person who didn't care about quality, but went for slabbed grade instead.

 

Greg, do you believe the coins pictured were graded PR70 looking like they do now? Did any of the 70s you made at PCGS look like that? Do you believe they were all "made" by the same collector (not likely), or were they likely purchased by a collector who found the problem with the dip residue long after the return period had expired? The coins look like [!@#%^&^], and I'm no PCGS lackie, but If you're going to take a potshot at PCGS or the registry, at least keep it credible, since I know you know better. Who on these forums really doesn't believe dipped coins get holdered and occasionally turn in the holder? When you couple all the insinuation with some gratuitous character assasination, it all begins to sound like the very thing you accused David Hall of?

 

BTW - PCGS needs to get those dogs off the market before some DA buys them. Another good argument for a dated holder.

[andy007]

I checked out all of the coins pictured in the post prior to seeing the thread and thought about how terrible the dip residue and spotting looked on what is supposed to be a perfect coin. I own several PCGS examples in my proof kennedy set, which have acquired such ugly residue spots, and am slowly replacing them with handpicked coins from modern proof sets to send in for grading myself, so that I know they will not be plagued with these spots and other issues in the future. Well, maybe I can get rid of the spotted and dipped ones on Ebay cheap to a PCGS label lover(can I patent that term? ) so they can boast of their label points in their Ebay created registry set.

[gmarguli]

All the coins below are graded PR70DCAM by the infallible PCGS. Clearly a set put together by a person who didn't care about quality, but went for slabbed grade instead.

 

Greg, do you believe the coins pictured were graded PR70 looking like they do now? Did any of the 70s you made at PCGS look like that? Do you believe they were all "made" by the same collector (not likely), or were they likely purchased by a collector who found the problem with the dip residue long after the return period had expired? The coins look like [!@#%^&^], and I'm no PCGS lackie, but If you're going to take a potshot at PCGS or the registry, at least keep it credible, since I know you know better. Who on these forums really doesn't believe dipped coins get holdered and occasionally turn in the holder? When you couple all the insinuation with some gratuitous character assasination, it all begins to sound like the very thing you accused David Hall of?

 

BTW - PCGS needs to get those dogs off the market before some DA buys them. Another good argument for a dated holder.

 

 

I don't believe that the dip residue coins were like that when PCGS slabbed them. Most likely they turned after being slabbed. I don't fault PCGS or any grading service for that. I have had coins I removed from sets and dipped turn after being slabbed. I rinse them VERY well, so I know it can happen unexpectedly. Those with black spots and crud I believe were like that when they were slabbed. Those spots don't just show up. They can, but not likely. The nickel is the worst and I believe it was like that when slabbed. PCGS let a lot of junky coins get thru with the PR70 grade when they were scared ICG would be a serious threat in the modern market. 99% of the PR70s out there probably wouldn't regrade PR70 today. There's for two reasons for that, the quality and the politics.

 

I would guess that the coins were made by a bunch of different people over a short period of time (the PR70 open window at PCGS). However, like I said, that is a guess. I have no knowledge about it one way or the other.

 

The shot is that these coins appear to be a registry set. They have no business masquerading as a top quality coin. Someone has this set and claims it to be top quality. It is not even close to being top quality. Do you think those coins would even grade PR68 if submitted today - assuming they could avoid a bodybag, which I don't think a couple could?

 

A collector having a set of appx. 40 coins and SEVERAL are like this doesn't point to bad luck on the part of the collector, but rather bad decisions on the part of the collector. Buying the slab and not the coin.

 

I agree these coins need to be purchased off the market by PCGS. Sadly, I would have hoped the owner of the coins would have sent these coins to PCGS to get off the market. However, I won't be a hypocrite as I would auction them off instead of send them to PCGS also. I know where the money is.

[DonHeath]

Sadly, I would have hoped the owner of the coins would have sent these coins to PCGS to get off the market.

 

Me too, Greg. Thank you for the clarification.

[Wihlborg]

Greg,

 

The shot is that these coins appear to be a registry set. They have no business masquerading as a top quality coin. Someone has this set and claims it to be top quality. It is not even close to being top quality. Do you think those coins would even grade PR68 if submitted today - assuming they could avoid a bodybag, which I don't think a couple could

 

I agree whole heartily. This is one of my pet peeves about the registries. There are those who will buy the highest graded coin they can find regardless of its eye appeal or even if it truly makes the given grade just to get the most points in their registry set. They than seem to feel that their set is better than someone else’s set because they have more points!

 

That is why I feel it is so important to have photos of the coins posted in the registry. The registry should be a showcase for the best sets and eye appeal should be a big part of being considered the best. IMO the only real way to know where a set stands in the registry is to see the coins.

 

John

 

[gmarguli]

The registry should be a showcase for the best sets and eye appeal should be a big part of being considered the best. IMO the only real way to know where a set stands in the registry is to see the coins.

 

Wouldn't it be a nice feature if we could vote on a set based on the pictures. That way people who notice a set with truly great coins could reward it, while someone with overgraded ugly junk would be penalized.

 

Take a look at Gregg Bingham's commem set. While it is currently ranked #1, there are others who are close to it. However, take a look at the coins in his set. Stunning (if you like toning). This is a person who obviously buys coins that have great eye appeal. Many (most?) of his coins have the * designation. It would be very easy for one of the #2 or #3 set holders to pass him with an upgrade to their set. However, I doubt they have better looking coins. No offense to them, but Gregg's set is clearly stunning.

 

[Hoot]

Wouldn't it be a nice feature if we could vote on a set based on the pictures. That way people who notice a set with truly great coins could reward it, while someone with overgraded ugly junk would be penalized.

 

I fear this idea, as I think that even the best of crowds are likely to be infested by rats and crowds have a way of turning to mobs.

 

Hoot

[gmarguli]

Wouldn't it be a nice feature if we could vote on a set based on the pictures. That way people who notice a set with truly great coins could reward it, while someone with overgraded ugly junk would be penalized.

 

I fear this idea, as I think that even the best of crowds are likely to be infested by rats and crowds have a way of turning to mobs.

 

True, but there could be safeguards put in place. Only registered users could vote. Perhaps only users who have been registered 6 months and made 50 posts? That way it would exclude people making a bunch of IDs just to rate other set.

 

Perhaps have both the weighted rating and the collector rating listed next to it.

 

They could also make the score one where the collector score is given only 10% or 25% of the total value?

 

I like the idea.

[Wihlborg]

Greg,

 

Take a look at Gregg Bingham's commem set. While it is currently ranked #1, there are others who are close to it. However, take a look at the coins in his set. Stunning (if you like toning). This is a person who obviously buys coins that have great eye appeal. Many (most?) of his coins have the * designation. It would be very easy for one of the #2 or #3 set holders to pass him with an upgrade to their set. However, I doubt they have better looking coins. No offense to them, but Gregg's set is clearly stunning.

 

I agree, and as a matter of fact the current #2 ranked set is hidden. If you click on it you get a message that says 'Sorry, the details of this set are not available at this time.' No photos, no descriptions, not even the cert. numbers. Maybe the person who owns this set has coins that are nicer than Gregg Bingham’s, but how do we know? Personally I don’t feel a set should be allowed to be hidden. If you want to put your set in the registry you should at least have to show the grading company and cert. numbers. I feel that if you are that private you should not put your set up for public view or should I say public non-view.

 

John