Afterword

At least with Carr, he was able to defend himself against the ridicule and small, petty and cruel jokes. It is too bad this type of thing did not disappear along with the old message boards.

38 minutes ago, t-arc said:

The more I look at this 1936 nickel I would also call it a matte proof even though none were officially released that year.  Considering that previous proofs of the buff series were mattes it is not out of the

realm of possibility that they tried something akin to what we see here before proceeding to the satin finish proofs which of course were not well received by collectors.  But lets just see what the pcgs graders

say about this.  

If one of these proof coins that are believed to not exist, did actually exist, how could it be determined authentic, or not authentic, without knowing the particulars of its production? The diagnostics used to authenticate a known proof would not necessarily apply, given the unknowns involved. Was it experimental in design or method of production and subsequently rejected, with only a few examples struck and all record of its existence lost?

Also, if counterfeits of proofs could be otherwise produced with convincing qualities sufficient to deceive the experts, could the experts not be led to also believe they have discovered a hitherto unknown proof (and, hence, very rare proof), which requires a new set of diagnostics to establish authenticity?

Absent historic records to substantiate (in a limited capacity) the diagnostics used for authentication, you are left with speculation alone, such as the above two paragraphs - which is not to say proof coins that are believed to not exist, could not exist, because they very well might.

Then there is the question of reliability in regard to historic records themselves, which I allude to in the parentheses above and below. Unfortunately, we do not have anything like historic records to enable us to develop diagnostics that substantiate (in a limited capacity, of course) the accuracy of historic records.

Not that it would get us any closer to the truth if we did.

But do not get me wrong historic records are useful, in as much as they gives us something upon which to base our best guess.

23 minutes ago, DWLange said:

The S-Mint proofs of the 1970s-80s found in circulation were largely the result of theft by SFM employees. The coins were being spent at casinos in Reno.

It makes me wonder how many times over the course of the years something like this has happened but was never detected by the mint. Or was never recorded by the mint.

The mint may not have released any 1936 proofs into circulation, but some surely entered circulation nonetheless.

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 4:19 AM, t-arc said:

All of the above verbiage by RWB cannot explain away the sharp squared brilliant rims with no beveling whatsoever that this coin possess, and is so noted on the slab insert. 

I rest my case. 

I do not have much confidence in research or science in terms of conclusive answers, as they rarely (and given enough time, perhaps never) turn out to be quite as conclusive after further research and examination.

Having said that, a second opinion regarding the coin in question would seem to be the logical next step in an attempt to determine its proof status. While such a determination by NGC or PCGS would not produce a conclusive answer (at least, in my opinion), it would be sufficient enough for most, and, should they agree with SEGS, afford you vindication.

If they do not agree with SEGS's assessment of the coin, and as you seem to have great confidence in SEGS's opinion, you can always resubmit to them. Of course, SEGS's answer the first time around may not turn out to be so conclusive the second time around. If they are even still in business.

In my opinion, which by no means is conclusive, the SEGS holder, justifiably or not, leaves too much room for reasonable doubt.

18 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

True, but it's reasonable to take those lies into consideration.

True as well, but I think it has gone a little beyond that in a few posts.

3 hours ago, coinman_23885 said:

It is very much relevant to his numismatic legacy.  A propensity for lying affects his credibility.  If he would lie about something important, he would have no reservation about fudging on something related to coins, especially given some of his more controversial attributions which so far have not been substantiated outside of Wally Breen's mind.

Everyone lies, but that fact alone does not prove they are lying again.

As he is dead, I do not see anything constructive about bringing up his personal transgressions. It certainly contributes nothing of relative interest concerning his ability to research and write about coins.

1 hour ago, RWB said:

The result is that for me, everything Breen wrote has to be "fact checked," much like the present cabal in Washington. Much of Breen's work is exemplary, but "you must know enough to know what to be skeptical of before you can know what he knew." Ya' know what I mean....?

If true, his work sounds like it would do definite harm to the uninformed.

I do not see why CAC's opinion is any more complicated than that - it is an opinion, and nothing more. They dictate to you what a high end coin is within a certain grade, if that is what you wish for them to do. You can put your faith in your own ability to grade coins, or let the TPGs or CAC do it for you.

If you lack the confidence to form your own opinion and decide for yourself, both the TPGs and CAC perform a useful serve. Both also provide some liquidity as well, due to their perceived expertise by many collectors, which is more about financial concerns than the quality of the coin.

"NGC has forgotten that this is a hobby, and it is now making decisions like it is an industry."

It is an industry and a hobby. You have to pay for the coins you want, so I do not see how it could be about anything other than both collecting and money.

How long have dealers been around?

I suspect it is why a lot of NGC housed coins where crossed-over to PCGS, as well. We will have to wait and see what happens.

Would it not depend on the other factors involved in determining value whether the difference in slabs would be significant enough to matter?

Perhaps NGC’s intention was to mitigate as much of the inconvenience created by this transition as possible by attempting to ease it into place. The uproar, in all likelihood, would have been much more intense had they not employed the “grandfathering scheme”.

Many of these remaining PCGS housed coins may be voluntarily removed from the registries as a result of the transition itself, making the remainder that are purged by directive less of a problem.

For the same graded coin, NGC should provide bonus points for an NGC coin vs. a PCGS in the same grade, if they are going to continue to allow grandfathered coins to remain. Also, there is a difference between a FB vs. FT coin. Again, worth more points.

 

Seems only fair for those of us who have only NGC coins in our sets. Some of us have striven to maintain the NGC standard...I think that is worth something!!!!!!

 

Hey NGC, are you listening?????

If NGC’s goal is to purge PCGS housed coins from their registries, your proposal would certainly help to facilitate that end.

The registry has really kept me focused on my two main collecting interests, Type coins and Morgans. Although I haven't a chance of ever being at the top, it feels good to fill in a hole and see my numbers going up.

 

I have always been very picky on both price an quality so I look at a LOT of coins before buying one.If I limit myself to either the PCGS OR NGC registry, I will be looking a whole lot longer for the perfect coins. I have always looked at both but bypassed ANACS and ICG since NGC didn't allow them. I have 90 coins in my two sets of which 48 are NGC and 42 are PCGS.

 

A lot of the coins were cheap so wouldn't be worth crossing over but the Morgans (even though some were less than $100) would still be tough to find as picky as I have been. If I go with NGC, I would probably need to crossover about 24 coins, if I go with PCGS, it would be about 26.

 

I am thinking of the PCGS option since they do consistently sell for more (from what I have read, not personal experience). At least that way I could get some of my crossover fees back. Anything else I should be thinking of? Would also have to buy all new boxes to hold them since I have NGC silver slab boxes.

You could always start a PCGS registry set/sets with your PCGS housed coins and continue to build your NGC registry set/sets with your NGC housed coins. It sounds like you enjoy the process of building registry sets, so perhaps this is an option you should consider.

I believe the ANA has an election coming up in 2017. You might want to run for one of the Board of Governors slots. Nowadays, it might not even require any experience.

 

What ever happened to civility here?

 

I think the exchange was a civil one. It was a simple misunderstanding. There was no name calling. It concluded amiably.

"The ANA is our society and we should lobby their board to develop and maintain a registry set for their members. If they refuse then we should "drain the swamp.""

I offered an alternate means to serve this end. My intent was to be helpful.

None was extended, but perhaps a truce is applicable.

"So do not assume I am unqualified."

I made no assumptions. As you say, I do not know your qualifications. I was simply covering all possibilities, so as not to assume you were qualified.

I believe the ANA has an election coming up in 2017. You might want to run for one of the Board of Governors slots. Nowadays, it might not even require any experience.

"Most of the TPG revenue (I'd estimate 90%) has to come from dealers..."

Whatever the percentage is, it is only possible because of collector interest. Providing the means for promoting collector interest, such as registries, is a sound business tactic.

"The net result of this will tend to drive me more toward PCGS, not away from them."

So unless you believe he could possibly be unaware of this, he must have good reason to do so despite that knowledge.

But perhaps you and others are right and he simply does not know what he is doing. He is totally unaware that PCGS coins demand a premium over NGC coins and would likely result in more NGC coins being crossed over to PCGS.

Or perhaps he believes it is the right thing to do regardless of possible consequences.

Or perhaps it is one of many more necessary measures to come in an attempt to keep NGC solvent.

Are neither of these last two possibilities more important than the comparatively minor inconvenience it creates for registry participants?

One thing is for certain, he will find out how many loyal registry members there are.

Given who he is, it is reasonable to assume he could know things of which we are unaware. Some seem to believe he is acting out of desperation, when it could be quite the opposite.

If what he says here is true

 

 

That is an enormous *IF*

 

And that is where Mark and I disagree.

 

NGC and PCGS have both changed their standards over time. It's inevitable, it is unsurprising, and everyone knows it. NGC has not remained perfectly constant over 30 years - it just isn't possible.

 

There are 2 other fallacious assumptions embedded in this announcement:

 

1. PCGS has had a serious decline over the past couple of years. I'm not sure this is true. You can pick a half dozen examples and try to build a case that PCGS is slipping, but I can pick a half dozen overgraded, cleaned coins in NGC holders. Shoot, I'll bet someone could find enough cleaned/AT/problem coins with CAC stickers to make a case that they are shoddy as well.

 

2. NGC is better than PCGS. No, actually, y'all are pretty much equal. There are areas that one of you is clearly better (I've said it many times before), there are areas where one of you is worse. On average, you were pretty much equal. The thing that set NGC apart, their openness and willingness to listen to the customers, have both pretty much been obliterated by this announcement.

 

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

 

 

 

Should he condone the awarding of what he believes does not warrant the recognition?

 

If he truly believes that NGC is so superior, and he is willing to risk his company and his reputation on that fact, then yeah, go for it. He'll be proven right in the end if that is actually the case. I disagree with him, but the fact is that he is more powerful in this hobby than I will ever be.

 

But he should also listen to his customers and supporters who are telling him that this is a bad idea

I am certain he has been and is still listening. I am equally certain it was not an easy decision to make for that very reason.

If what he says here is true

 

 

That is an enormous *IF*

 

And that is where Mark and I disagree.

 

NGC and PCGS have both changed their standards over time. It's inevitable, it is unsurprising, and everyone knows it. NGC has not remained perfectly constant over 30 years - it just isn't possible.

 

There are 2 other fallacious assumptions embedded in this announcement:

 

1. PCGS has had a serious decline over the past couple of years. I'm not sure this is true. You can pick a half dozen examples and try to build a case that PCGS is slipping, but I can pick a half dozen overgraded, cleaned coins in NGC holders. Shoot, I'll bet someone could find enough cleaned/AT/problem coins with CAC stickers to make a case that they are shoddy as well.

 

2. NGC is better than PCGS. No, actually, y'all are pretty much equal. There are areas that one of you is clearly better (I've said it many times before), there are areas where one of you is worse. On average, you were pretty much equal. The thing that set NGC apart, their openness and willingness to listen to the customers, have both pretty much been obliterated by this announcement.

 

In fairness to NGC, however, Dena responded to my request to cancel my membership and give me a refund. They are going to refund my membership, and she said that all feedback is being forwarded to Mark Salzberg. I really hope he listens and rescinds this announcement. If NGC rescinds this decision, I will immediately renew my membership and restore my Registry sets.

Should he condone the awarding of what he believes does not warrant the recognition?