Jedinite

Member
  • Content Count

    29
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jedinite

  • Boards Title
    Learning the Ropes

Personal Information

  • Location
    Heartland USA
  1. It would appear that some of us have a different definition of "market value" To me, that term is whatever a willing buyer and willing seller agrees the value to be in an open sales transaction. The reality is that most of the value lists are higher, across the board, than what any given coin can be purchased for in any given grade. This is true across many different hobby value guides...baseball cards, as an example, where real prices are a small % of true value. To me, the real "market value" is the value at which you can walk around a bourse floor at a large coin show and purchase a coin or, conversely, the sale value at a large public auction (Heritage, for instance). Call it wholesale or retail, it is what it is. My experience is that CDN is, generally speaking, much more in tune with those values than PCGS, Coin World, etc., which are universally too high..."retail", if you so choose to call it.
  2. Despite its cost, faults and limitations, I have never found any other service to be as accurate, across the board, for the true market, as CDN. Unless things have changed of late, the value, to me, of the PCGS and NGC sites is the ability to search for actual coin sales. The other general listings are super high retail, as is Coin World. Am I missing out on better, new information?
  3. Most overpriced: Any of the more recent, slabbed MS69 & MS70 regular strike and proof gold and silver eagles. Better be prepared to lose money over time. Second place: Most modern commems.
  4. I understand the validity of what you are saying, but somehow I doubt that these scientific tests were undertaken, given the 15 seconds (or whatever amount of time) that was probably spent in evaluating the coin. Again, if they would simply explain (validate) their opinion, which has been paid for by the submitter, it would legitimize the process. Moreover, all three of the dealers indicated they had resent pillars back to NGC that were initially rejected and then slabbed. Also, that pillars rejected by NGC were later slabbed by PCGS. All of this, in my opinion, just points to, in so many cases, the subjectivity of the process, which is not limited to just differences in grading levels. I suspect the "altered surfaces" explanation is as good as any on this coin, which doesn't make it counterfeit, just more difficult to authenticate.
  5. Just to follow up on this, I showed the coin to 3 foreign coin dealers at the Dallas ANA show. All 3 examined it carefully & indicated they saw no problem with the coin...and said they would purchase it with no qualms, although I had no interest in selling it. Two of them expressed frustration with similar grading experiences. So, back it goes into my raw coin collection. Once again, it seems to me if a grading service renders an opinion that a coin is not genuine, and charge a fee for the same, they should provide information that documents that opinion.
  6. I recently submitted this 1759 (not 1859) Mexico Pillar Dollar to NGC for cert & grading. To my surprise, it came back as "not genuine". I have owned this coin for about 30 years, so it is not coming from China recently. Wondered if someone could detect the problem, or if this is a known date that is commonly seen bad. Sorry the photos are not better...iphone photography.