physics-fan3.14

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

    14,960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    42

About physics-fan3.14

  • Boards Title
    WYNK Black Belt

Personal Information

  • Occupation
    Rocket Scientist
  • Hobbies
    Coin Collecting, Duh!
  • Location
    Charleston!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Post mint damage wouldn't go "under" the devices as you show. A mark of that nature would affect the lettering as well. A lamination (or, delamination) is usually linear in pattern - it usually follows the rolled pattern of the strip before it was cut into planchets. This isn't necessarily always the case, but it is typical. Its unusual to see a lamination in the wavy pattern shown here. The problem with a strike-through is that it would also affect the devices. The pattern seems recessed into the coin, but a strike through would also affect the lettering (which appears crisp in your image).
  2. Any pictures or recent appearances of either of these coins? Chapman and Ten Eyck were both well known, so their provenance should be well documented in more recent sales.
  3. What makes you certain that it is struck through and not damaged?
  4. On other forums, if you ignore somebody, you won't see the threads they post. Unfortunately, the software on this forum still shows you a thread started by an ignored member. You see all replies by other members, you just don't see the original post (or any follow up replies by the ignored member). I didn't realize that until today... what an unfortunate neglect, and yet another flaw in the software of this forum.
  5. Eh, I give up, Coinbuf. You see a problem here. I don't. Neither of us is going to convince the other. So, have a Merry Monday, a drink of your choice, and may you have a happy week.
  6. I'm not representing that I have 2 different coins. I have one coin, and I'm using it in one place on one registry. I'm not using the same coin twice in a registry. It fills a single slot. Fact: NGC graded the coin MS-64. Fact: PCGS graded the coin MS-64. Fact: I own the single coin. Fact: PCGS does not allow NGC coins into their registry, and NGC did not allow PCGS coins into their registry at the time I bought it. So, if I want to participate in both websites, should I buy 2 separate copies of the coin? Or, should I exclude myself from one community because the coin is in different plastic? What about the coins that I do use in separate sets: I've got a Capped Bust Half in a capped bust set, and the same coin is also in my 7070-style type set. Is it then unethical to use the same coin in two different sets, and get double the points for the one coin? Should I buy two separate coins for the two sets on the same Registry? Absolutely not - I think everyone would think that's crazy. Essentially, I'm doing the same thing by using an old NGC number. At least, that's my opinion. Clearly, others feel very strongly opposite, and that's ok. If NGC tells me I'm not allowed to do it, then I won't. But until then, I personally don't see anything wrong with it.
  7. If the coin were removed from the PCGS census, as I discussed earlier, then the issue would be very much closed. But they aren't. The implications from that are clear to me, as described above. Some may disagree, and I can see where fraud might creep into the system... but in my opinion, the average collector using the system as I have been describing is not being fraudulent or unethical. Despite what some might think, I am not unethical. I am not dishonest, and I am not trying to cheat the system. I'm merely using a coin that I bought in PCGS clothes but later found in my research to have resided in NGC plastic in the formerly-closed NGC registry.
  8. It depends on how you have your inventory set up, I suppose. Do you collect plastic, or do you collect coins? You see, I think you and I are viewing the world a bit differently. I have X coin in Y grade in an NGC holder. I have X coin in Z grade in a PCGS holder. Either way, I still have X coin. NGC called it Y and I'll call it Y in their registry. PCGS called it Z and I'll call it Z in their registry. Either way, its still X coin and its mine. (if they both call it the same grade, then the difference is immaterial, in my opinion) Are we collecting coins, or are we collecting points? If I were selling it, then absolutely yes I agree. I would describe the coin completely as it currently is, clothes and all. But wouldn't you also want to know what it was formerly clothed in? That sort of history/provenance is incredibly important.
  9. And what about their PCGS set, where NGC coins aren't allowed? Sure, update the coin to the NGC number on the NGC set. Great. But do they have to remove the coin from their PCGS set? Should they be punished because they crossed the coin to NGC? They still own the coin, and PCGS called it MS-xx. Why remove the coin from their PCGS set simply because the coin changed clothes? I see absolutely no reason for this. And thus, your so-called "ethical" argument is closed in my opinion.
  10. In my inventory spreadsheet, I track every known appearance of a coin that I can find. Having the PCGS, NGC, ANACS, or whatever other numbers associated with helps me track value/price, provenance, changes in appearance over time, prove its history... etc. The "knowledge of a coin" is not limited to the current plastic it wears. The coin is the same, despite whoever may have put a hammer on its case. For its entire existence, PCGS has never allowed NGC coins into its Registry. For many misguided years, NGC didn't allow PCGS coins in. The point is, its the same coin. You've paid for the opinion (or, someone has). There is documentation that this coin received this grade by this company. You own the coin. Why is it wrong to use the number assigned by that company to that coin in their registry? Now, if you're going to sell the coin... you should absolutely use the current plastic. The perceived value of a coin is (rightly-or-wrongly) adjusted by the current clothes it wears. If I were to sell you a PCGS 66 and it shows up in NGC 66* clothes, you may or may not be upset. But on the Registry, it is entirely valid to say that NGC evaluated the coin as MS-66*, even if PCGS currently calls it an MS-66. That's my opinion, and I don't think its unethical despite what some politician wannabees might say.
  11. Let me clarify - I bought it in the PCGS holder, and while researching the coin found the same coin in an NGC holder. If it were graded differently, I would agree that there could be issues. It's quite common for a coin to be plus-or-minus a point between the two holders. In my case, the coin graded exactly the same at both services. I see absolutely no issue with this. If it had graded differently, then I would have an issue. In the case you originally presented (MS-66* vs MS-66) I also see no issue - the Star is a unique attribute from NGC. Any coin that grades MS-66* will of course cross to PCGS as MS-66, because they don't recognize the star! This is a no-brainer. And, if I were on the borderline of the 75% mark as you describe, I could see there being some implications. However, I'm not. In my set, I have only 2 PCGS coins (one admitted before the exclusion, one using the old NGC number). I understand the concern, and if I were using it to fraud the system, I'd be concerned - but I'm not.
  12. I think the color is okay, but the writing in the background is very distracting. I'd nix it, and just use a plain background.
  13. I have a coin in my set right now which was originally in NGC plastic, but is now in PCGS plastic. During the interlude where NGC was not allowing PCGS coins into the registry, I had no choice but to use the old NGC number. I'd probably prefer not to do this, but if the number was assigned to the coin, I see no problem with it even if the coin is now in some other plastic. If the number is still valid in the NGC database, then use it. Now, what should happen is when a coin is crossed the TPGs talk to each other and remove it. This is one reason why the census is not terribly reliable. But that's not what happens.
  14. Oh, I understand. I didn't realize they were talking about finned coins.