| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 2,521 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2936 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7195 Posts |
VG details "improperly cleaned"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8904 Posts |
I'm grading this one at G-4 (for lack of a distinct date).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3345 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
I think they gave G details/cleaned.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
5375 Posts |
These can have almost no date and significant detail, even at the F-VF range. I don't think this coin is G, more like F.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1064 Posts |
I would go for G-4, looks like mighta been scrubbed...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6394 Posts |
I agree with fine details but I don't know how NGC factors in the vanishing dates for these coins. I also think this one has been "improperly cleaned". Looking forward to finding out what NGC said.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
hmmm...TPGs are terribly inconsistent on grading these, so it's anyone's guess. I'm going to say they split the difference and called it VG8.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4778 Posts |
I would say Fine details also.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2936 Posts |
Well it's tomorrow, so here's the call. NGC shipped this one back in a body bag with "unreadable date" as the reason for not grading the coin. Well excusssssssssse me, but the last time I looked, any SLQ with a "3" as the fourth digit could only be a 1923. Otherwise -> I'm the next millionaire! Of the five coins I sent to them for grading 1) came back in a body bag "altered surfaces" - the wonderfully toned 1885 Morgan DMPL I bought from Jaobler; 2) this one back in a bag for "unreadable date"; 3) 1872 LSD graded AU "improper cleaning"; 1935 S Peacie graded UNC "improper cleaning"; and 5) 1928 S Peacie graded AU-58. I wouldn't have sent those "cleaned" coins in if I had any idea or hint of cleaning - same with the AU-58 as to wear. That was quite a bit of cash I sent to them which they kept gladly with no resultant increase in value on my side of the equation. I have lost a LOT of confidence in NGC but they don't need to worry about a little guy's concern. There are much bigger fish to fry with the rubber stamped MS69/70's these days.  OK.. I feel better now... Thanks for listening....  Paleoguy |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3283 Posts |
You have legitimate reasons to complain. Strengthens my disapproval for slabbing in general although I understand how money can be made using the services. What they need is a service that just gives it a genuine or fake stamp and let us determine grade and value through commerce.  For the record I was thinking F12 all things considered. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2936 Posts |
Thanks for the reply Upstate. I agree with you on the F-12. I'm not totally convinced it has been cleaned either as I used a bright white light for the photos. Anyway, it has a proud place in my SLQ set (less 1916). Paleoguy
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
4849 Posts |
NGC must be blind. I understand them grading it down, but the coin is clearly a 1923. I wonder if they were concerned about an added MM? and wrote it up that way instead? That's the only explanation that would make sense for not putting it in a slab. I'd send it in to ANACS instead.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8904 Posts |
 I don't get it. Maybe the grader was having a bad day? Weird! |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2936 Posts |
Moester - According to their propaganda, three graders + QC would all have been having a bad day. I hate to throw away money - unless it's to buy a coin. |
| |
Replies: 21 / Views: 2,521 |
Posted 09/07/2011 4:41 pm
