VKurtB

Member
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About VKurtB

  • Boards Title
    Learning the Ropes
  1. I guess I just don't understand the title of this thread. I can't readily think of what "Grading coins for inventory" might mean to you. The last thing I'd suggest is a "have everything commercially graded" strategy, and I say that as a paid membership NGC submitter. A very small percentage of my coins are NGC candidates, and I'm going to guess the same is true for you. About grading and books: they are "wunnerful" for circulated coins. Grading mint state coins can be equal parts art, science, and voodoo dark arts. There is no way to use sample photos to learn a whole bunch about grading mint state coins.
  2. My experienced opinion is that the 5 ounce silver will sell out very quickly, and the silver dollar may sell out at the end, and while it feels overpriced, and maybe because it is, eventually the clad half dollar in uncirculated (not proof) may just end up the star of the whole issue at the end. Why? It seems like such a horrible deal that many collectors will say "Not Me!" and as a result, few will be sold. Some day, that low mintage will attract an aftermarket following. The gold pieces? I think their fate is the toughest of all to figure.
  3. Some of the color patch shapes on the reverse are quite interesting, but not valuable. A waste of resources to slab it.
  4. There are two ways for lesser grading firms to have bad grades on their slabs. As you have indicated, one is disreputability with intent. But the other, even more significant one, is merely insufficient knowledge to be even offering an opinion on a coin, which is after all, what grades truly are. It's all about the people. Didn't someone once opine that one should never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by stupidity?
  5. Even slightly convinced yet, Lehigh? No? Oh well. What evs.
  6. Was D.H. in the obligatory ugly Hawaiian shirt?
  7. NO subject EVER has generated less light for a given amount of heat than any involving Mr. Carr's work. Nobody even is capable of seeing any worth in the other side's argument, much less find common ground. Bringing up his fantasy overdates is trolling per se.
  8. VKurtB

    1993 penny

    This is MOST likely a de-plated normal cent.
  9. But wouldn’t that ruin the registry game for collectors of moderns?
  10. Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange. With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown. How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934, after he became the cashier. QED. The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy! "Unknown" as in the circumstances under which the 1933' Double Eagles were actually obtained. Are you claiming that Switt didn't have legitimate dealings with the Mint prior to 1934? Again, others disagree with you and my guess is that they know as much as or more than you do about business at the mint during that time period. We will have to agree to disagree. Two points. The jury found (and at the end of the day, that's all that counts) that the "coins" were stolen from the Mint. There is even a dispute that they were legally ever "coins" per se, since they were never monetized. Second, there is no record of Switt having ILLEGITIMATE dealings with the Mint until 1934, which he continued to have quite a bit, according TO THE RECORD. He may have had legitimate dealings in and before 1933, but that's hardly at issue. He got one Mint cashier to do "dirty dealings" from 1934 on. Is FWB or anyone else willing to "finger" a second Mint cashier during the winter of 1933? What the jury "found" does not necessarily equate with "known". There is no "record" of Switt having illegitimate dealings with the Mint at any time. And one or more numismatic experts have stated that the term "monetized" didn't even exist back then. This will be my last post to this thread. Then one or more numismatic experts are mistaken as a point of law, because the Farouk specimen needed to be, and the Third Circuit court's footnote in the August 1 decision referred to it early on, recognizing that the government disputes that 1933 double eagles are even legally coins at all. The Court used the term "coins" as merely a convenient shorthand. Remember, the Federal Reserve was in full flower in1933. We're not talking pre-1913. Numismatic "expertise" is an ephemeral, mercurial and ill-defined thing. Today's "knowledge" is tomorrow's myth. It certainly implies nothing regarding knowledge of legal status, in fact it may work to the detriment of knowledge of law. Numismatists tend to be quirky beasts, often beset by non-mainstream political viewpoints that put them out at the skinny end of the bell curve. Their "expertise" needs to be taken with TRUCKLOADS of salt.
  11. Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange. With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown. How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934, after he became the cashier. QED. The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy! "Unknown" as in the circumstances under which the 1933' Double Eagles were actually obtained. Are you claiming that Switt didn't have legitimate dealings with the Mint prior to 1934? Again, others disagree with you and my guess is that they know as much as or more than you do about business at the mint during that time period. We will have to agree to disagree. Two points. The jury found (and at the end of the day, that's all that counts) that the "coins" were stolen from the Mint. There is even a dispute that they were legally ever "coins" per se, since they were never monetized. Second, there is no record of Switt having ILLEGITIMATE dealings with the Mint until 1934, which he continued to have quite a bit, according TO THE RECORD. He may have had legitimate dealings in and before 1933, but that's hardly at issue. He got one Mint cashier to do "dirty dealings" from 1934 on. Is FWB or anyone else willing to "finger" a second Mint cashier during the winter of 1933? Is FWB suggesting that a Mint cashier put the 1933's in the holder in which Ms. Langbord just happened to find them coincidentally in the immediate aftermath of the sale of the Fenton/Forouk specimen's sale? C'mon, Mark, you're brighter than that! These coins were known to have been stolen and were carefully secreted away for decades until what looked like an opportune moment. I'll tell FWB he's full of horse droppings to his face, if you like. Actually, I'd rather enjoy doing it.
  12. Mr. VKurtB, you're the one who brought up the subject of my views and Heritage, not me. Others (including some attorneys, as well as rare coin experts and highly respected numismatic researchers) disagree with you regarding the possibility of an innocent or legal exchange. With respect to a case like this, when someone says something like "NO POSSIBILITY" it's difficult for me to think of them as unbiased. Feel free to think of my mindset as l"aissez faire", but despite my opinion on the case, I am open to the possibility that the ruling was correct. And I would not use language like "NO POSSIBILITY" when some of the the relevant facts are unknown. How are we using that final term "unknown"? In some fanciful extra-legal usage? It is undisputed that Izzy Switt's "source" at the Mint was George McCann. The record shows McCann only became the Mint cashier in 1934(!!!). How then could McCann be the source of an innocent exchange before Roosevelt's order of March 6, 1933? No, the Switt exchange HAD TO HAVE HAPPENED in 1934 AT THE VERY EARLIEST, perhaps as late as 1937, but not likely, after he became the Mint cashier. QED. The idea of an innocent exchange to Switt is pure fantasy! Otherwise we need an ADDITIONAL crooked Mint cashier. FWIW, for the thread title, it's 'Langbord', not 'Langboard'.
  13. Whether your view helped make Heritage want you back or whether your duties at Heritage inform your view is immaterial to me. Chicken v. egg. It speaks to a mindset, Mr. Feld. It speaks to an exaggerated laissez faire mindset regarding the penumbra of the intersection of commerce and law. The en banc Circuit opinion covered myriad aspects of the facts of the case. It is a self-contained recitation of the facts. Read it. There is NO POSSIBILITY of an innocent or legal exchange for the 10 1933 D.E.'s. in 1933 or more likely, 1934. The trial court jury so found and the Circuit found their verdict reasonable. None whatsoever. It's a tough slog of a read, but it's all in there. I promise. By the way, I will have the entire decision at the Message Center (voice from above) at the ANA show in Anaheim. I am an ANA National Volunteer (blue shirt). I deeply hope a large portion of Steve Roach's Money Talk will be devoted to this subject. I suspect it will, as he attended the jury trial personally.
  14. Well Mark, as a professional who works in writing laws, I am willing to have him speak for me in this. The trial court and the en banc Circuit got it right; Midge Rendell writing for the vacated panel got it wrong. I've read every word of all three opinions. Have you? Could someone associated with Heritage perhaps have an unhealthy personal financial rooting interest here? Hmm?
  15. I like interesting colour names, like russet and vermilion and crimson and stuff like that. Reminds me of the Crayola days of my youth. But as a former photo lab guy, I know all catalog photos are just blended cyan, magenta, and yellow (and some black too, I guess). At any rate, all CMYK printing, even the good stuff, has a finite and limited gamut, and some coin colours aren't within it, so sometimes no photo can adequately represent the coin. That's why it can pay to examine a coin in hand when possible. This is why people at major shows spend time in lot viewing rooms.