• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Apparently this was not submitted as an error only as an over date.and as we all know you only get what you ask for, and as such the "one cent" was ignored..
  2. I cannot seem to find the other discussions you mentioned above. I am just very curious about this coin. I like the corrosive theory but if a liquid was in contact why would it only corrode the one cent and no other details ?
  3. I have been collecting large cents for a very long time and I have never seen this before. As you can see I have examined this coin at very high magnification. I cannot find any marking that would indicate hammering another coin into it. I cannot find any marks that indicate pressing. I also think that if this is transfer corrosion the wreath from the reverse would also be visible even if faint. I find it curious that the highest point from the reverse imprinted on the highest point of the obverse without any other part of the reverse showing ? Thank you for your input. I look forward to others opinion as I am at a loss for an explanation. Typo correction version, sorry
  4. I would like to hear all opinions on how this could have been caused. There are no vise marks, no press marks and there are no other points from the reverse showing. I have heard all sorts of theories and would love to hear any and all. Thank you for helping with this request.
  5. I have heard all kinds of explanations for this coin and I would just be interested in hearing any and all opinions as to what people think could have caused this perfect reverse imprint. Thanks for any imput on this.
  6. I am of the opinion that you could present a good argument for both sides. I also believe people tend to accept things they feel they cannot change or think they can't change. You are quite right about this subject will be debated until the change is forgotten and business goes on as usual. One thing I know for sure is that the world of collecting has come a long way since I started collecting in 1957. Now more often than not collectors will know better what they are purchasing. Certified coins from the only 2 grading companies I have faith in are first, NGC and a distant 2nd PCGS. I started collecting certified coins when NGC started out. In my collections I have only NGC certified coins and I have a relatively high number of certified coins. Some of my favorite coins I own are raw and I am very happy with them. For me, my collections have, and always will be, about history, artistry and the coin itself. The holder is a wonderful means of knowing for sure subtle differences in coins like varieties and disputed grades. In the old days it was hard to know for sure what you were buying. Now there is the all knowing Google and third party grading services. Thank you for your input I love talking about coins and enjoy comments on my "opinions"
  7. I have not posted here for awhile because I felt I previously stirred up a hornets nest. This post may be of help with the problem of crossover or regrades. I very recently decided to have a brand X certified coin, ( 1839 N-8 Petite head large cent ) brand X graded AU50. Not being a big fan of crossover due to never having any good outcome from it I decided to crack out the coin and submit it to NGC. The coin came back correctly attributed but graded as VF30. My opinion is it is under graded but I want to go on record as saying I would prefer to have a true grade from NGC than a higher graded coin from brand X. I hope this makes sense in some way to those who doubt NGC is by far the superior grader with much stricter guidelines and superior graders. Again I want to specify that this is my opinion and only my opinion and I don't want anyone to be offended by my opinions. I do enjoy spirited comments and welcome everyone's opinion. I do have competitive sets but I only compete with my own goals therefore I only have NGC graded coins. Your thoughts are welcome and appreciated.
  8. Thank you Jackson64 for your comment. I never meant that anyone was obliged to agree with me. I also do not consider myself a rahrah coin guy. I think I am just an avid collector since long before there were grading companies. I suppose I am loyal to NGC because I like consistency in everything I do. Again this is a personal preference. Because the coin is more important than the holder my entire collection consists of only about 1% graded coins. All of which are NGC and that is because I believe NGC employs the best graders in the industry. I do not expect anyone to agree with what my opinion is which is I said MY opinion. My collecting has always been about history and art. I only collect US coins but because I used to purchase coins at yard sales and flea markets I ended up with many old foreign coins. If we want to allow inclusion then perhaps we should change the registry name to NGC/PCGS registry. As I have said before I am in no danger of winning an award and my participation in the registry was motivated by a desire to share the beauty of coins I have with other collectors. If the end game is solely to win a competition then I guess all grading companies coins should be allowed to compete ? When I posted this journal it was intended to see how other collectors felt and it has done just that. I will say that so far I have not seen enough consistent evidence to change my opinion although I enjoy a spirited debate. Again my comments are motivated by my opinion and not intended to anger anyone. I have the utmost respect for all collectors and welcome all comments to help me understand why NGC bent to pressure to accept PCGS coins. Thank you to all who have made great comments on this journal.
  9. Mike, thank you for the kind words. I , like you, have learned so much about history and the fine art of sculpting dies for minting coins. I too did not join the registry in the hope of winning prizes but rather to share coins with like minded collectors. These comments were meant only to give collectors pride and support for their chosen collections. If we all had an abundance of money then we could afford to have the very best coins which in my opinion would be NGC graded. The competitive collections that are at the top set levels have , what appears to be, some investment sets. I have no problems with that. I also have no problems with showcasing sets that have PCGS & NGC coins together. I just plain like the NGC registry to support NGC collectors in competition a little bit better. I am in no danger of winning any awards either way but I do enjoy sharing sets with other collectors. Thank you for giving me food for thought. Have a great New Year.
  10. I believe Augustus 70 has made good points which help me prove my point. As fo the point of a more comprehensive database I would have go on record as simply stating that the database is still out there just not in one place. Searching and obtaining coins a collector wants or needs has never been an easy task. If you want coins that have a meaningful and legitimate grade then you need to have NGC graded coins. This is why they are so well respected in all markets. Taking a chance on crossover coins from PCGS is risky and the only reason it does not maintain or receive the same grade in NGC is that NGC is smart enough to send coins back and states, does not cross, which is a gift and lets you know that your coin is over graded in the PCGS holder. If collectors will abandon PCGS and flock to NGC then why let the competitive playing field be leveled ? The integrity of the NGC Registry should be maintained even if it is not a popular decision to only allow NGC coins to be considered in competitive sets. The coin is the most important part of the equation. Thank you for your comments.
  11. I would have to disagree on one point which is in my opinion, PCGS, on the whole, is NOT more respected in the market just less money and easier to obtain higher graded coins. I will admit I like coin928s proposal as that could make the field a little more equal as PCGS coins cannot compare to NGC coins. Not meaning to offend and just stating my opinion based on my 50 plus years of collecting.
  12. I certainly agree that in the end it is the coin that counts. The display or the holder is not up for consideration when you need or want a specific coin for you collection. My collection is 100% NGC because I am extremely fond of the standards for grading NGC has. I am not belittling PCGS or collectors that have them but you have to agree the grades they place on coins is not of the same quality as an NGC grade. I completely with the respect NGC has for it's collectors which is another reason I have difficulty accepting the admission of PCGS coins in competition on an NGC Registry platform. Showing is fine with me competing is like comparing apples to lemons. I have been collecting NGC coins since the companies beginning and this is the first year for me to have competitive sets. Prior to this year I was an avid researcher and admiring others collections. Even if I was not in any competition I still would disagree with adding PCGS to the competitive arena. If I was a PCGS competitor I would oppose NGC coin acceptance equally as much and not understand any better than I do NGCs acceptance of PCGS. I guess in the bigger picture it really does not matter except to die hard collector that chooses one or the other.
  13. It is, as always, true that many people on both sides will not agree. If we look at it in it's entirety we can ask the question why dedicate your collecting loyalty to one grading company or the other if they don't demonstrate a willingness to support loyal collectors of there brand. The whole registry concept and creation was done with the right intentions, I believe, but brand loyalty for the company you choose should warrant stronger customer support. I think the change to allow PCGS coins to compete was a decision made based on the amount of pressure placed on the decision makers. This site, and the competitions, are driven and based around NGC and it's numerous dedicated NGC collectors. Thank you for your input.
  14. This writing is not intended to anger anyone but rather to spark conversation regarding NGCs decision to allow PCGS graded coins to be added to NGC Registry competitive sets. In my opinion sometimes corporate decisions are made by bowing to the demands made by the loudest voices and not by what is right. I believe that it is far more difficult to obtain a higher grade in any coin with NGC than PCGS. This being said PCGS graded coins will be allowed to compete in NGC registry sets and given the same weight when even an untrained eye can see the difference in like graded coins. I feel this is an unfair advantage with the PCGS coins. PCGS has their own registry for a reason as did NGC. I am not maligning PCGS coins but I will state that in my opinion PCGS grade standards are for less stringent than NGC grade levels. This creates an uneven playing field. I have no problem with sets allowing collectors to showcase their PCGS coins on NGC registries. My issue is with allowing them to compete with NGC only (sets that only contain NGC coins) sets. I own a lot of NGC graded coins and not one graded coin from any other grading company because of their stringent requirement for each grade level. I have never collected coins based on monetary gain but rather first based on history and second on artistic beauty. My collections will never hold any graded coin other than NGC and I don't feel I should have to compete with a less stringently graded coin in a set. Again, I cannot stress this enough, my opinion is that there is a place for PCGS coins to compete but it is not in an NGC registry competitive set. I am betting that I am not the only one that has this opinion and would like to hear other opinions on this as I am always open to everyone's views and opinions. Maybe I will be convinced to change my opinion.