1798 Draped Bust AU-55 *

EFL=Misunderstood your last post. By the way nice LC!....Also this is the 2nd time I know of that g048406 has attempted to find wrong with CVM's business practices and integrity and has gone on and on to do so.

Coin Will be exhibited at end of Week* Stay tuned AA

I'm mainly a Colonial copper collector with LC's right behind. Let me tell you, once you get bitten and acquire a few, you'll be hooked.
The historical aspect and study makes it an area of Numismatics that is very special and very fun :)

I actually was not attacking you just stating facts about your listing practices as well. I know you didn't start the thread as I had been lurking on it since the start since after all its a pretty 1700s copper with great detail and those are always a joy to look at.

However, you were the one to question the ethics of the seller and I was pointing out that your statement above most people would apply to your listing practices as well. Most people would say consistently describing AU details coins as "AU/BU" in your description is intentionally misleading. Having an undergraded graded coin here or there happens, but I didn't even have to scroll down on your listings to notice that pattern that apparently almost everyone is undergraded in your descriptions. My point was you should not hold others to a higher standard than you hold yourself.

As far as the sellers listing practices I see nothing wrong with them. That coin was in that holder at one point (unless I missed someone saying that label didn't match) and had apparently been graded more than once. He used the label that was more than likely given to him when he bought it. It is a nice coin for sure but its not an ultra rare multi million dollar coin people take one look at and know exactly where it came from. Shops are not going to scour the internet for hours creating flow charts of a coins history and grading appearances for every coin that comes into a shop. Whoever sold it to them may or may not have known about the other grading but I seriously doubt they would have brought that up and devalued what they were selling.

I would like cold hard proof of deception (such as overgrading coins in listing descriptions) before condemning a seller. Its hard enough selling coins without speculation and hearsay harming a reputation with nothing to back it up.

Full disclosure I place no weight whatsoever on labels included with coins since once its out of the sealed plastic the label becomes meaningless and the whole point of the plastic is to make sure its not touched in anyway after it was graded.

Which means you know AU is not BU but describe it as such anyways knowing that a lot of those coins have massive jumps in UNC grades. With that background you should be more than capable of placing an accurate grade that doesn't include an inflated one

I am just calling a spade a spade and pointing out the facts about your listing practices which everyone can clearly see for themselves in numerous listings of yours. Your calling someone a fraud for not abiding by a label even when there is another label that disagreed with it and the most likely explanation by far is that they did not even know the other one existed but numerous listings of yours post a higher grade as a possibility than the label states. I've never met or dealt with that other seller in anyway and have no opinion of him since I do not know him, I just felt the double standard of your listing practices should be brought to light since you felt the need to slander a seller with really no proof which I will just assume is try and draw business away from him.

Mitch, don't let a bad apple like basebal chase you away. Your detective skills at digging up a coins sales history have been a cool contribution to this forum. Especially the threads about coins that upgraded in a new holder. It highlights the inconsistency in PCGS / NGCs grading.

Kinda did typing that paragraph. No need to call people idiots.