| Author |
 Replies: 15 / Views: 2,069 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
861 Posts |
PCGS is becoming more and more like NNC lately: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1805-Draped...em4d2a4db774If that coin is UNC, I'd hate to see what they think an AG looks like. I wouldn't pay $100 that piece of *** Edited by Staff | The bad word filter is in place for a reason. Bypassing the filter and making the intended word obvious anyway is completely unacceptable. ***. Edited by g048406
12/26/2014 12:22 am
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
Tampered slab? Some reason we can't divine from the photos? Plain idiocy? Spontaneous world combustion?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1949 Posts |
That has to be a labeling error...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
How can it be labeled both UNC, and "not gradable?"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7375 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2563 Posts |
The lettering looks a bit small to me, so I'd say fake slab. But that could just be me.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
Quote:
How can it be labeled both UNC, and "not gradable?" It's UNC "Details" meaning a no "problem-free" grade. This coin was the subject of a long thread at CU Forums this month. Consensus opinion over there was that it is a legit coin and slab with a mechanical labeling error. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1748 Posts |
I'd bet it's a labeling error. It does match up with the PCGS verification website.
Edited by DoubleEagle20
12/26/2014 01:31 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2368 Posts |
I was expecting an EF/AU coin with some PMD when I clicked that link...what IS that?  |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Looks like it served as a blast deflector for a Space Shuttle launch.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
It appears to have bee a high grade coin before the corrosion got to it, but the corrosion is heavy enough I don't see how they could have determined it had Unc details rather than AU or even XF details before the corrosion ate it. I can see enough detail on the reverse to give it at least XF detail but it would be a major leap of faith to call it anything higher.
|
|
Moderator
United States
16677 Posts |
That is one ugly coin. I wouldn't touch it for a third of that price.
That coin, IMO, is worth about FR2 money.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1531 Posts |
Quote:
I wouldn't pay $100 that piece of *** Me neither.  I wonder if it was a detector find? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1512 Posts |
It's like they say...buy the slab not the coin...wait...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
Quote:
That has to be a labeling error... I wonder what the possibility is that someone (the Chinese?) has hacked the PCGS database and is substituting their fake slabs for the real one. All they need to do is leave all the info intact and just do an image swap. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 861 Posts |
I think the counterfeiters would have made a much nicer looking coin to put in this holder. I am quite positive this holder and coin are in a "real" PCGS holder. The holder fits all the signs of a genuine holder, the coin is so messed-up I would never have encapsulated it. The coin has only melt value IMO. I am happy to see that nobody bought the holder as they were obviously looked at the coin and were repulsed. TPG's serve a great purpose, but, this is a case where their label notation borders on criminal. Again, JMO |
| |
Replies: 15 / Views: 2,069 |
|
Posted 12/25/2014 10:23 pm
