Crack-Out Artist Is At It Again

Yes, this is the first time I've seen ebay take action against any of his listings. Let's hope this sets a trend.

PS: ExoGuy, my previous post was not targeted towards you. I agree completely with your opinions. Sorry for the confusion.

So...what you are saying is that what PGCS or NGC says is the law of the land? I guess you missed my point. Just because a TPG says XYZ doesn't mean someone else can't have a differing opinion. Let's do an experiment....so let us say that I submit a coin to PCGS and it gets a "details" slabbing. I think that they are wrong...send it in for resubmission and it doesn't get "details" the second go around. If I then sell that coin on ebay in the PCGS holder, am I breaking ebay rules? If I resubmitted it to NGC and they slab and give it a grade and then resell it on ebay, am I now breaking the rules? As we have seen recently on some threads here where coins degrade in the holder...if I sell it with the original grading, am I breaking the rules?

NOW, Here is YET another Centsles CRACK-OUT:

1879-cc $5 Gold Crack-out:
item#:321167865592
item#:310754492668

Seller, centsles, bought this coin on ebay as item #321167865592 in an NGC AU details-Cleaned holder. He cracked this coin out and has listed it as an AU-58 with NO mention of the known defects.

It's a question of degree, unholyroller. Yes, it's known that there is wiggle room in many TPG "Details" designations. However, that wiggle room does_not exist in the majority of them. You can see the reason for the "Details" designation as clearly as I, or any other halfway-knowledgeable collector. And presentation counts, as well.

Let's go back to the original 1851-O $20 mentioned here. The original auction, as evidenced by the original seller's very high-resolution images, made the coin's cleaning very apparent and unmistakable. Nobody would argue that the coin had been altered. The resale auction's images were not nearly so clear, and offered none of the obvious evidence, while the accompanying copy made no mention of any discrepancy. Here, let's have a look.

Original auction image (keep in mind, I downsized this one by 1/3 just to post here:



The image, as in Centsles' auction, actual size:



The marks visible on both images serve to conclusively identify them as the same coin. In fact - although I do not make that direct accusation - there's evidence that the smaller image was physically altered to lessen the impact of the coin. Note how much "nicer" the major planchet flaw next to the T looks in the smaller pic - that's not attributable to photography alone.

This is what you're defending, not some subtle, arguable difference. I have to assume you're just not aware of the scale of the deception involved here. And, keep in mind, this seller is a former finalist in the PCGS Grading Contest, a person whose grading and attribution skills - as defined by numismatic standards and the TPG's - are established beyond question. He knows better.

Just to be clear...I am not defending this person at all...he is obviously a scumbag. I just question the policies and blind faith.

Absolutely understood. The chief complaint - at least, in the way that I personally visualize this situation - is that the TPG's were unmistakably correct in their initial evaluation, and the crackout reseller would/should have listed the hidden discrepancy had the coin been acquired raw or not. The thing is, TPG's get it right more often than wrong (even though it's the mistakes which get all the press), and there's every reason to generally trust their opinion. Mindful of your mention of "blind faith," that is.

You can't make this stuff up........centsles has just relisted the same 1855-d $1 gold that ebay removed a couple of days ago from my 1st post in this thread:
new ebay listing: item#: 310781193612
1855-D $1 Gold Crack-out:
removed ebay listing: item#:141051510266
item#:141098070071
Seller, centsles, bought this coin on ebay as item #141051510266 in an ANACS XF details-Altered Surfaces holder. He cracked this coin out and has listed it as an AU-55 with NO mention of the known defects.