JTO

Member
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JTO

  1. I think that coin928 hit the mark with his/her concern about the after hours work by NGC employees to do Show Service. I find the people at NGC to be remarkably kind and considerate. When you find a business where the people are "remarkably kind and considerate" you tend to want to interact with them more or preferentially over their competitor. There is the issue: the price of success is more work. More work is financially good but can be personally taxing. I too hope that the employees at NGC are being cared for as well as they have cared for us. The fact that the same faces return to each show argues that there is symbiosis between NGC and its employees. My comment about the decrease in show services was not about the quality of the service itself but about the fact that the service is decreasing over time. If I did not really care about NGC I would not post comments here. Nevertheless we all need to remember that this is a hobby/business and the NGC people at the shows are working while we play. John
  2. There seems to be a growing corporate strategy for NGC to focus on the Non-US market over the US and leave the US to PCGS. I may be wrong and this is in no way a dump on NGC (you can read my laudatory comments about Mark Salzberg and NGC in the "A SLQ Problem Coin's Journey to Righteousness" journal thread.) https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/blogs/entry/292-a-slq-problem-coins-journey-to-righteousness/ It appears that while NGC is increasing its investments in the international market it is not doing as much on upgrading the U.S. platform. The data I use to make the conclusion that NGC is shifting their focus to the Non-US market over the US is based on 1) they dumped all PCGS coins out of existing "World" slots, years ago. 2) The registry no longer starts with US coins but it takes an egalitarian approach to all countries listing coins alphabetically by nation (I start each of my "registry encounters" with Albania.) 3) While they have decreased their presence at US shows (Long Beach etc.) they have increased their presence internationally. This includes both a greater presence at international shows and NGC has opened new "bricks and mortar" Centers in many other countries especially in Asia. This "corporate approach" is probably working as they seem to be the dominant grading service for both World and Ancient coins. Their volume has increased particularly in Asian paper money. With regard to the registry platform the registry navigation drives me crazy. When I finish working on my Complete Standing Liberty Quarter (SLQ) set and want to go back to Quarters to work on my "one per date" SLQ set or Early Quarters set and use the back navigation button on the browser, the browser does not go back to the Quarter's registry page but back to the first page of the NGC Registry (Albania.) I met with the NGC staff at a FUN show and explained this problem and they were clearly aware of as they said that others had complained as well. Alas 2 years and no fix and you cannot "bookmark” page 2, 3 or 8 even as a go around. If you bookmark page 6 the Registry opens to the first page (Albania.) I believe in NGC and find their grading more consistent and fair than PCGS. I much prefer dealing with Mark Salzberg over David Hall. I remember when Heritage Auction was more ANACS than PCGS or NGC. Then ANACS slowly disappeared and it was NGC and PCGS. Now, for U.S., coins I am seeing a decrease in NGC leaving PCGS alone. I hope NGC does not abandon the U.S. market by default (by not focusing their prime effort in the U.S. market and shifting it to the World market.) As I said I believe in and prefer NGC. NGC brought me the Edge View which brings some coins to life. NGC, for the most part, photographs every coin that they grade (PCGS does not.) That photo can help you recover a stolen coin (I have done it.) These efforts by NGC are what sets them as the market leader regardless of who was first to slab a coin (PCGS 1986 and NGC 1987) or who the Investor Class prefers. Please don't leave U.S. NGC! John
  3. Unfortunately that is the rule not the exception. NGC offered more "Show Grading" opportunities in the past. They came to Long Beach, for example, then just stopped. Then they shortened the window for Shows Grading at U.S. shows that they did attend. This seems to be a growing corporate strategy for NGC to focus on the Non-US market over the US and leave the US to PCGS. I may be wrong and this is in no way a dump on NGC (you can read my laudatory comments about Mark Salzberg and NGC in the "A SLQ Problem Coin's Journey to Righteousness" journal thread.) https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/blogs/entry/292-a-slq-problem-coins-journey-to-righteousness/
  4. A blue one I think... what a guy!
  5. Here is a coin that I paid a whopping $360 for, obviously in 2002. I was proud of my find because all the other bidder appeared to be bidding on the holder not the coin. The value of a 1908 with "Motto" is, or was higher than the no motto variety. I paid $40 under greysheet for th coin which was about par for the with motto variety at the time. I took it to the PCGS booth at Long Beach and they aggressively offered to reholder the coin for free, I passed. So the coin sits misunderstood by its holder. I actually have a collection of these and in my experience I have had a easier time finding error PCGS than NGC coins. This is a satirical post bout PCGS for those that are wondering what I am talking about. The motto is on the reverse just above the sun and the holder clearly says that there is no motto, a motto that Theodore Roosevelt felt violated the separation of Church and State. Next a 1849 Gold dollar in an open wreath holder with a close wreath. John
  6. I couldn't agree more!
  7. You are spot on and well within the the thread. Most SS Central America double eagles have a very distinctive orange peripheral toning pattern. The advice to keep a SS Central America OR SS Brother Jonathan (PCGS), SS Republic (NGC) OR SS New York (NGC) in the original holder with as much of the original material (Box, COA, Faux Book/ box, Outer Box...) is solid advice. This is true for either PCGS or NGC based on the ship. But the don't buy SS Central America's in NGC holders argument has two major flaws. First, a Mint State 1857-S in a PCGS holder, without pedigree is just as likely or MORE LIKELY to be cracked out for a higher grade (So don't buy Au-58 or higher graded PCGS 1857-S double eagles unless gold foil pedigree.) Second, as a collector LOOK AT THE COIN FIRST NOT THE HOLDER. Buy the coin not the holder. There is no question that since the 1986 start of PCGS slabs and 1987 start of NGC there has been significant grade inflation. There are so many references it is pointless to cite them all. BUT, Salzberg removed PCGS coins from the registry because, and I agree with him, the grade inflation is more pronounced at PCGS. (Even though NGC's decision to remove PCGS from my registry bummed me out.) To return to your APMEX coin my advice is: look at the coin. Is it solid for the grade? Next, look at the price; is it fair and within you budget? Last, does the coin have good eye appeal especially to you? If the answers to all these questions are yes buy the coin. In the long run it is the coin that will ultimately appreciate not the holder. If the APMEX coin is a great coin at a fair price but you missed out on the Heritage Steal of a Deal why pass? All dealers markup coins. If the markup has sucked the value out of the coin then pass. But let the coin, the market data for several similar coins and your budget be your guide as to whether to purchase or not. Let the dealers make their daily bread ( I am not a dealer.) For fun and fifty years of collecting here is my SS Central America Just my opinion... John
  8. Sadly don't expect the same courteousness, time and insight at PCGS, if D.H. is the expert. Just my experience. Like coin928 I was amazed at how down to earth, smart, caring and kind Mark Salzberg was. He is a true gentleman and scholar. My comment about the other grader comes from these two experiences 1) my first encounter with mark over crossing a 1872 business strike from PCGS to NGC, he had a cold and was clearly not feeling his best and as I waited in line one of NGC people asked if he wanted to stop as the Hour of " meet the expert" had ended but he said no not until everyone who was in line prior to the top of the hour had had their turn...WOW! And 2) at the PCGS table I took a PCGS 1877 Indian cent that had a bit of verdigris at the date to ask about spot removal or conservation. This was 30 minutes into the "hour" and D.H. was in a discussion with John Dannreuther (who himself is a super smart and nice man.) D.H. basically just blew me off, sending me to talk with one of his staff who informed me that only D.H. was authorized to make the call. So I get back in line and a few minutes later D.H. left with maybe 7 or 8 people in line with me and 15 minutes left in the hour. Maybe it was just a bad day for D.H. or maybe an urgent matter came up, I don't know, but the behavior of Mr. Salzberg sets him and NGC above the other "service" in my mind. I am not trying to badmouth anyone, but it is clear Mark Salzberg is not in it (numismatics) just for the money.
  9. What a journey this coin has had. I bought it from Stacks in March 2012 as: "1923-S Standing Liberty Quarter. AU Details--Environmental Damage (PCGS)." I looked at the coin as said I just don't see the damage but I do see a full head. I bid up to $1,375.00 for the problem coin and took it home. Then I CAREFULLY conserved to coin. About a year later at Long Beach I took it to PCGS (because NGC had no at show grading) and show graded it. It came back in a PCGS AU-58 FH. I was quite pleased with myself. Subsequently, as the war between NGC and PCGS got going I decided to cross it to NGC. So, at the 2015 FUN show I decided to wait in line to "Ask the Expert" (Mark Salzberg) who opined that the coin should not be in an AU holder. I told him that a 60 something without full head was a loss to me, as I cared more about the FH designation than the grade. He said it was clearly a full head and he wrote on the holder MS-61 FH and signed his name, I asked, meekly, if the coin might still come back in a "details" or non-FH holder? Salzberg patiently explained that what he wrote would be the grade period, he is the final word at NGC. I must say he was kind and respectful and his passion and care for the hobby came through clearly. So the journey for this coin has been:...Raw to PCGS AU details environmental damage... to PCGS AU-58 FH and finally thanks to Mr Salzberg... it rests for good in an NGC MS-61 FH. The pictures are here you be the judge...
  10. That is all a bit odd because the resolution of a computer monitor is many times that of a TV. The size of the TV is larger but the resolution lower (bigger image but less data/pixels.)
  11. JTO

    My Gobrecht Original or Unknown

    This is truly an original original. There has been a great deal of study on the sequencing of these dollars. One of the relatively early revelations was that the name below base, which was always assumed to have preceded the name on base, actually was a re-strike. During the original striking in December 1836, the first coins were struck. Only those of the earliest group are free from diagnostic die cracks and clash marks. This coin is free of one of two of the earliest die state changes. The first is a die chip in the denticles peripheral to the second A in America on the reverse. The second is a die clash that extends upward and outward from the eagle's right wing. See June 2009 Numismatist Pg 55 by Dannreuther & Shalley. The upshot is that this is probably one of the first ~400 coins minted. The weight is 416 grains and is of .892 fine silver (January issues and restrikes are made with he new standard .9 fine silver with a weight of 412 grains.) NGC declines to opine as to Original versus Restrike stating there is not enough data to make that determination. After the research leading up and the review of the Dr. Korein collection there is ample data to make these determinations and both PCGS and ANACS do!. I am not a fan of PCGS but here they have NGC beat. The coins here is in remarkably good condition, given that they were released into the hands officials and citizens.
  12. Great job on the photography. For what it is worth, in my lowly opinion, this is a very strong example of strike doubling (hub doubling). The feather made me pause but each ghost image appears as a shelflike shadow rather than a separate strike. The secondary, ghost, image has no signs of downward sloping of the shelf on the side of the primary image (the downward slope is need to indicate a true doubled strike of the die.) Just one old guy's view. You can always send it in and see what the "experts" say. I you have, what did they say? John
  13. The couldn't agree more with comments above. I used to eagerly await logging in my new purchases into the NGC website. No longer. In parallel I have watched the posts on the left side of the control board evaporate. I recognize NGC doesn't want to run the website for free, they want a return on their assessment by forcing people to have All of their coins greeted by NGC prior to being permitted on the registry. I read the commentary by Mark Saltsburg Provided data supporting grade inflation by PCGS. Some of the cases stated appeared to be valid and some on further investigation he had an innocent explanation. Regardless to offer a potential solution rather than just complaining: it seems to me that NGC could continue to still continue to support the registry that included both NGC and PCGS by conducting 10% from PCGS Coins on the NGC registry. Effectively, they are already do this. On modern mint state gold commemorative's my numeric score is perfect (Each coin is MS 70). I have a picture as well as a comment for each coin, but because I have 5 PCGS graded coins out of 40 I am relegated to second place. It may be that NGC has made a corporate decision to abandon the American market and focus Asia as demonstrated by the fact that the opening page of the registry is world coins rather than United States coins. While on the issue of the control panel it still drives me crazy, when I work on a set and then hit the back arrow to go back to the control panel, rather than returning to the page that I was on, it goes to the first page which in my case starts with Argentina. NGC's customer service vis-à-vis the registry is becoming a complete failure. John
  14. For what it's worth, here is my opinion: I have had a number of $10 Eagle's with stars placed in aberrant locations. On your coin it appears that the star is a negative image rather than positive. Meaning that the star is essentially incuse, that is, the stars below the surface of the cheek rather than standing out on top of the cheek. If it were a double straight the star should be raised relative to the surface of the cheek rather than incuse. The bottom line is I think this is most likely the result of a bag mark. The $10 Saint Gaudens coin has stars around the round rim and it is likely that when these coins were in a large bag one of the coins impacted the cheek resulting in the indented star that you see. If it was the result of the double straight from the working die the star should be raised, which in the photo it appears not to be. If on the other hand I am incorrectly interpreting the photographs and the star is raised then I think that you may have a double strike. John
  15. JTO

    Is My Coin "Too Good"

    Here is the rub... Crack it out and say goodbye to MS-66. If you decided to recertify it may come back in anything from an MS-67 to a "AU Details Artificial Color." Enjoy the coin, I have cracked out many coins for an album set (I tape the slab insert to the inside cover of the album.) But, recognize that it is a one way street. One trick I use for a coin that I know that I am going to use in an album is to buy a "details" coin that I think might pass for original. Here are my 2 most memorable crack out/recert coins. These were coins that on close inspection I thought were good original coins; that the "Details" grade was inappropriate. 1) 1909-S Indian 1c was in an ICG AU-58 corroded holder. I cleaned the coin carefully with some old Coin Care (the stuff with the now banned TFTCE (trifluoro-trichloro-ethane.) After removing a small amount of verdigris I sent the coin to PCGS and got it back in a PCGS AU-58 holder. The second 2) and my favorite is a 1923-S FH Standing Liberty Quarter that I bought in an NGC AU details improperly cleaned holder. It really did not look cleaned to me. I CAREFULLY dipped it, let it dry for 24 hours and PCGS put it in an AU-58 FH holder. It is now in an NGG MS-61 FH slab and is now in my NGC registry set with picture so you can judge for yourself. I love the albums and I loved the spending time on the NGC registry as a way of enjoying virtual albums. The business decision to no longer allow PCGS has really slowed me down. For most all of my registry sets I have an album as well and for many I only have the album (Lincoln cents, Washington quarters where it make no sense to me to slab a 1964 quarter for the registry.) Buy the coin not the holder... And enjoy the hobby.
  16. JTO

    Updates and Improvements

    The "journals" are worse not better. The registry is also worse and I have cut my time there by 80% (maybe a good thing?) NGC has taken the "high road" out of town and left us, the collectors, behind. Why do I have to go to page 4 to find my U.S. coins? The time is ripe for a Third, Third party to open a user friendly Registry for us "the collector" that serve as the fuel for the hobby. Maybe the ANA, hint , hint... A good registry is like a virtual Dansco or Whitman album, with holes to fill and eventually the joy of completing a set. This is where NGC had a huge advantage toward participation. Most serious collector have a mix of PCGS and NGC. In auctions of US coins, currently, the ratio of PCGS coins to NGC is about 3 to 4 to 1 . For world coin auctions it is reversed with NGC dominating by up to 10:1. That maybe why NGC is putting the world coins in front of U.S. on their Registry. Is NGC giving up on the U.S. market? NGC IF YOU IGNORE U.S. COLLECTORS WE WILL GO AWAY!!! Here is what I see as a solution, after having several PCGS coins returned that would not cross ( AFTER NGC GOT THE GRADING FEE) I had an idea. If NGC is so much purer and dedicated to truth and honesty then here is an idea: Submit PCGS coins to NGC to cross (full fee) or just to grade (like the GSA coins.) These coins have no guarantee from NGC if they are left in the PCGS holder, they just get a grade. Because they are still in the PCGS holder they: 1) Don't get included in the NGC population report 2) The NGC grade is affixed to the PCGS holder so the coin can be used in the NGC registry 3) NGC has no liability as they do not provide a guarantee (as stated in the small print by NGC on both GSA and Ancient coins) 4) If the coin is sent in for only an NGC grade but not gross over (the GSA treatment by request) the fee could be reduced (again NGC is not providing a guarantee) (About the guarantee, most of you already know all of this but for those that don't, here it is.)The guarantee is what you pay for. Yes they are guaranteeing the grade in an NGC holder but the big money is in the guarantee the the coin is not a counterfeit. PCGS has certified at least 2 counterfeit coins that they placed into their holders within the last two years. If a person buys that coin, in the original PCGS holder without evidence of tampering, they can go to PCGS and expect to be reimbursed for their loss (the fair market value of the coin.) The grade guarantee is much more difficult to "prove" unless it is a "Red" copper that has turned brown, which is why they don't guarantee color on copper anymore. This would bring me back to NGC and I would be willing to pay to get my PCGS coins on the NGC registry (which I liked better before). But it is hard to look at a Liberty V in a PCGS MS-66 holder that NGC would not cross and then resubmit to cross at MS-65 or 64, Would you do it? John
  17. JTO

    Confused

    I too agree, the "journals" are worse not better. The registry is also worse and I have cut my time there by 80% (maybe a good thing?) NGC has taken the "high road" out of town and left us collector behind. The time is ripe for a Third, Third party to open a user friendly Registry for us "the collector" that serve as the fuel for the hobby. Maybe the ANA, hint , hint... NGC IF YOU IGNORE US WE WILL GO AWAY!!! Here is what I see as a solution, after having several PCGS coins returned that would not cross ( AFTER NGC GOT THE GRADING FEE) I had an idea. If NGC is so much purer and dedicated to truth and honesty then here is an idea: Submit PCGS coins to NGC to cross (full fee) or just to grade (like the GSA coins.) These coins have no guarantee from NGC if they are left in the PCGS holder, they just get a grade. Because they are still in the PCGS holder they: 1) Don't get included in the NGC population report 2) The NGC grade is affixed to the PCGS holder so the coin can be used in the NGC registry 3) NGC has no liability as they do not provide a guarantee (as stated in the small print by NGC on both GSA and Ancient coins) 4) If the coin is sent in for only an NGC grade but not gross over (the GSA treatment by request) the fee could be reduced (again NGC is not providing a guarantee) This would bring me back to NGC and I would be willing to pay to get my PCGS coins on the NGC registry (which I like better). But is is hard to look at a Liberty V in a PCGS MS-66 holder that NGC would not cross and then resubmit to cross at MS-65 or 64, Would you do it? John
  18. JTO

    Why the comments were removed

    Was this done to damped the dissatisfaction with NGCs recent changes? It occurs to me that one reason that the "comments" option was removed was to dampen/minimize the voice of those of us who are unhappy with the changes that NGC has made recently. Most significantly the decision to no longer allow PCGS coins on the NGC registry. This was obviously a business decision made at the top level of NGC. Presumably the thought is that people will start crossing there coins over to NGC to continue with this registry. It is my opinion that this was clearly true for the world coins. However, NGC was clearly superior to PCGS in grading world coins. That is not the case with US coins. The reality is whether we like it or not, US coins in PCGS holders statistically bring in more money for the same grade at auction. Because NGC included both their coins and PCGS, I viewed NGC as the better of the 2 registries. In my opinion it showed that NGC was more committed to the collector than just the bottom line profit. As a result I would submit coins to be graded preferentially by NGC. I loved the Versatility of the NGC Registry, But no more. I have met and interacted directly with the top person at both NGC and PCGS. I found Mark S. Of NGC to be thoughtful, considerate and insightful. He struck me as a collector, who understands collectors, and was consistently trying to do the right thing. On the other hand, David H. seemed to be arrogant, condescending and made it clear during the Meet the Expert that his time was more valuable than any of the people that he was meeting. In one instance while he was conducting a Meet the Expert session he was spending more time talking to John Dannreuther (a really nice man) about where to put in Coin Facts than he did to the people waiting and line. The title of one of his first books, in my opinion, is the best illustration of his approach to us lowly collectors... The Mercenarys Guide to the Rare Coin Market c1987. I just expected more from NGC, Oh Well.
  19. The number of replies gives a barometer of the value of the journal post. I too was saddened by the removal of the reply option on the Recent Journals section that were posted on the left side of the registry screen. I would gauge the quality of one of my posts based on the number of replies it received. I don't want to go searching through the chat rooms nor will I. I really enjoyed some of the posts, especially those with pictures, There on the left of my registry Control Panel screen each day. Now that I cannot reply I find that I don't pay as much attention to the posts, because why should I? No it is not just about what I have to say. I really enjoyed the back-and-forth discussions that were frequently engendered by an excellent post. It gave collectors the chance to interact with some of the finest Numismatic researchers of our day (i.e. RWD: Roger W. Burdette). PCGS is gone. Fine, that was a business decision, but I did you have to cheapen the Recent Journals section. Is it to save money? If not as one user I will say that the change has made the Recent Journals section worse, less than it was, not as good as it had been and for what I ask? Please put it back. Otherwise is just one more reason not to mess with the whole registry game on NGC.
  20. I was burned over 10 years ago by a Dealer selling Silver Dollars by the roll. He was selling on the come, sell then take the money and go buy the roll. He got caught upside down by the metals run up and would not refund, he strung me along for the 30 day protection period and then nothing. He was well known in his community, and I reported him to the Fed's. The bottom line was that it was Visa that ultimately saved the day. I never pay for anything on e-bay with cash or bank transfer unless it is under $10. John
  21. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the "Royal" Canadian Mint is out of control and abusing the collecting public. Rarity does not always confer value. There may only be 20 or 50 of some of the subject coins, but again my opinion, they are going to be a prolonged flash in the pan. That said, do what you like. But with modern coins be careful about expecting to get a return on your investment in the long run. Just one opinion, John
  22. I would like to add my worth. I agree with a number of the discussants that it is unreasonable to expect NGC to bare the cost of manually and training PCGS coins into their registry. One option, which I suspect PCGS would agree to, is to have PCGS allow NGC to access their database. At that point whatever number you enter, assuming it's a valid PCGS Number would Auto populate the slot with everything from the correct grade and modifier ("+", details grade, etc...." to even the picture if that is available in the PCG S database. It should work as smoothly as when you use the "check certification" on the PCGS (or NGC website for that matter). I think this is a common sense no cost solution. And after experiencing the recent Election that means it clearly will not work. The likelihood of getting PCGS and NGC to cooperate is about is likely as Donald Trump appointing Hilary Clinton to his Cabinet. The reason I even bring this possibility up is because it would actually be in PCGS's best interest. I fear that NGC's decision to stop accepting PCGS will not work out well for NGC (to whom I have greater loyalty). Also the consequences of the current move may further destabilize the coin market, which, I perceive to be somewhat precarious at this time. My worth, John
  23. To Mark: I started a new thread because it had been a week since the original post and I want those, if any, who were looking for the grade to see it. Second based on your definition obviously all coins are in fact net graded. My point was when does an atribute constitute damage versus "negative eye appeal". Grading is subjective by nature but several sources (Such as the ANA grating standards, PCGS Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection, Photograde, PCGS Photo Grading App, Coin World, Making the Grade...) give objective standard that attempt to instill an element of objectivity to the process. I felt that the coin was a VG, not a Fine, based on the above resources. Is the difference trivial, sure, but the HOBBY is filled with trivia and trivial issues. Those are what appeal to the odd brains of we coin collectors.
  24. But rim damage is not an element in establishing a grade. That is my point if there is enough of a rim "bump" to be damage then it should be "VG details...Rim Damage". John
  25. Has NGC begun net grading coins? First, I apologize for the delay in posting the results, I am a working guy and cut busy with my "day job". Thank you all for your thoughtful and insightful comments. Many of you identified correctly that there are rim bumps at the 11 o'clock position and 2 o'clock position. My dilemma is this: Based on all of the grating standards that I've been able to find this coin should grade VG and could possibly even grade Fine. My understanding is that the grade is based primarily on the amount the coin's wear. In different series the sharpness of strike also plays a role usually to add a positive attribute if the coin is well struck (i.e. full head designation for Liberty Standing Quarters, full split bands for dimes, full bell lines for Franklin half dollars...) The conundrum for me is that both PCG S and NGC state that they do not "net grade" coins. If the coin is a problem coin then it is listed as "unable to grade" and then assigned a "Details Grade" using the adjective (i.e. VG details) without a numerical score. This allows "problem coins" to be used in the NGC registry. There "problem coins" are given a value of one half of the lowest number for the category (for example a corroded coin that has uncirculated details gets one half of the score a "no problem" MS--60 coin would get. For people new to the hobby the ANACS historically would take into account problems and assign a "net grade" based on the underlying grade of the coin and the severity of the problem. Although the difference is minor, as I looked at the coin I saw a Very Good or maybe even Fine-12 coin that was under graded. Now I am curious as to whether in fact NGC assigned a "net grade" based on a Very Good to Fine coin with rim damage. If so based on their grating policy they should have called the coin out as a problem coin and assigned to details grade. I welcome your input as to whether I should return the coin to NGC to be re-graded. In my opinion it is clearly better than a "Good--6" unless they're calling it a problem coin in which case that should have been stated on the holder. Again I thank you for your thoughtful comments and I await your insights. John To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.