JTO

Member
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JTO

  1. PCGS does it again making their "New" holder Worse than their old ones. Sometimes I wonder if the people at PCGS are just mean spirited, greedy or maybe both. The new PCGS holders which were introduced a few months ago have added security feature on the bottom of the slab. This consists of a series of capital letters. Presumably to accommodate this feature they made their slabs fatter. Okay... Also, NGC lead the collecting community with the edge view slab and I must say that I strongly prefer it to the old style were the edges are covered by plastic. he'll notice that the new PCGS slabs no longer have this feature. Or maybe if you paid a premium you can get it. Either way...come on. What a surprise, the new PCGS slabs no longer fit in the NGC plastic slab boxes. Since this is one of the primary ways that I store my slabs it has presented me with a bit of the dilemma. They do fit into the intercept shield cardboard box lined with copper to reduce environmental deterioration (corrosion/oxidation). I have a large number of these boxes but after about 5 years the protection becomes exhausted as the Copper molecules in the lining are bound to oxygen. Also the NGC boxes are more space efficient and generally nicer to deal with. Granted NGC had a good thing going by selling their boxes as the only high quality all plastic boxes that fit PCGS, NCG, ICG and ANACS. That is now over. This appears to one collector as one more step in the war between NGC and PCGS that will lead to complete separation and force collectors to choose one or the other. So far NGC, in my opinion, has taken the high road. They include PCGS coins in the NGC registry (exclusive of world coins). There boxes accommodated all relevant slabs, including PCGS. Look at the freedoms and liberties we have given up in the name of security since 9-11-2001. No I'm not saying that something is trivial as coin collecting is in anyway on par with the terrorist attacks on New York. But here is PCGS "upgrading" there slab for "security" reasons in leaving me with a slab lab of lesser quality that doesn't fit into my system. On the whole when put in the perspective of the twin towers my concern is trivial. But this just like the twin towers, it pisses me off. See more journals by JTO
  2. PCGS does it again making their "New" holder Worse than their old ones. Sometimes I wonder if the people at PCGS are just mean spirited, greedy or maybe both. The new PCGS holders which were introduced a few months ago have added security feature on the bottom of the slab. This consists of a series of capital letters. Presumably to accommodate this feature they made their slabs fatter. Okay... Also, NGC lead the collecting community with the edge view slab and I must say that I strongly prefer it to the old style were the edges are covered by plastic. You may notice that the new PCGS slabs no longer have this feature. Or maybe if you paid a premium you can get it. Either way...come on. What a surprise, the new PCGS slabs no longer fit in the NGC plastic slab boxes. Since this is one of the primary ways that I store my slabs it has presented me with a bit of the dilemma. They do fit into the intercept shield cardboard box lined with copper to reduce environmental deterioration (corrosion/oxidation). I have a large number of these boxes but after about 5 years the protection becomes exhausted as the Copper molecules in the lining are bound to oxygen. Also the NGC boxes are more space efficient and generally nicer to deal with. Granted NGC had a good thing going by selling their boxes as the only high quality all plastic boxes that fit PCGS, NCG, ICG and ANACS. That is now over. This appears to one collector as one more step in the war between NGC and PCGS that will lead to complete separation and force collectors to choose one or the other. So far NGC, in my opinion, has taken the high road. They include PCGS coins in the NGC registry (exclusive of world coins). There boxes accommodated all relevant slabs, including PCGS. Look at the freedoms and liberties we have given up in the name of security since 9-11-2001. No I'm not saying that something is trivial as coin collecting is in anyway on par with the terrorist attacks on New York. But here is PCGS "upgrading" there slab for "security" reasons in leaving me with a slab lab of lesser quality that doesn't fit into my system. On the whole when put in the perspective of the twin towers my concern is trivial. The just like the twin towers it pisses me off. To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  3. That "shelf like" appearance is usually a dead giveaway for strike doubling. I may be wrong and the NGC guys know their stuff but that does not look like a Doubled Die to me. Just one old guys opinion.... I hope I am wrong, John
  4. Grading services, especially PCGS, seem to give a pass to high ticket or marque coins. I tried this once before but it got bogged down on the peripheral issue of the role of the auctions houses in this issue. It drives me crazy when I send in a perfectly good coin and get it back "code 92" or improperly cleaned or maybe that's code brown. Here is another shining example of a coin that is er... Proof-61? Or should it be Proof Unc details? The upper red arrow shows a protected where the abrasive cleaner could not reach and the lower arrow show the "hairlines" or improper cleaning marks on Liberty's leg. These features eliminate the possibility that these are just highly reflective die polishing marks. What if this were a 1983 Kennedy half with the same surface, what do you think the grade would be? John To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  5. Grading services, especially PCGS, seem to give a pass to high ticket or marque coins. I tried this once before but it got bogged down on the peripheral issue of the role of the auctions houses in this issue. It drives me crazy when I send in a perfectly good coin and get it back "code 92" or improperly cleaned or maybe that's code brown. Here is another shining example of a coin that is er... Proof-61? Or should it be Proof Unc details? The upper red arrow shows a protected where the abrasive cleaner could not reach and the lower arrow show the "hairlines" or improper cleaning marks on Liberty's leg. These features eliminate the possibility that these are just highly reflective die polishing marks. What if this were a 1983 Kennedy half with the same surface, what do you think the grade would be? John See more journals by JTO
  6. I found the 1916 in FH I had been waiting for. After a long wait I found a full head 1916 Liberty Standing Quarter with original surfaces and a great strike. What do you all think? The 1916 FH is always much softer than the 1917 FH. In my opinion the 1916 is not really a "type one" to be grouped with the 1917's. It has a completely different master hub. Look at the stars on the gateway or the letters on the obverse and on "United States of America" on the reverse. The stars have a softer edge on the 16 and the letters of the both the obverse and reverse are more rounded on the 1916 compared to the 1917. See more journals by JTO
  7. JTO

    What do you think, Full Head?...

    I found the 1916 in FH I had been waiting for. After a long wait I found a full head 1916 Liberty Standing Quarter with original surfaces and a great strike. What do you all think? The 1916 FH is always much softer than the 1917 FH. In my opinion the 1916 is not really a "type one" to be grouped with the 1917's. It has a completely different master hub. Look at the stars on the gateway or the letters on the obverse and on "United States of America" on the reverse. The stars have a softer edge on the 16 and the letters of the both the obverse and reverse are more rounded on the 1916 compared to the 1917. To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  8. ridiculous variations in grading standards depending on the coin and who submitted it. I have said it before; Marquis coins submitted by auction houses get upgraded and put in holders that regular coins submitted by regular people would never dream of getting. But was told: "Oh no the grading is completely anonymous and above Board". This coin is in the Stack's auction and as a chain cent would qualify as Marquis coin. If I submitted this coin it would come back with details grading, corroded. How can you explain this coin getting a pass on the corrosion and being slabbed in a regular PCGS Holder? The reverse is worse. Look at the coin and then at the holder, can you honestly tell me that coin belongs in that holder? See more journals by JTO