This Is Why We Need CAC or at Least NGC or PCGS — Welcome to the CAC Educational Forum

This Is Why We Need CAC or at Least NGC or PCGS

This is not a proof. Not even close. A nice PL, yes. But an 1880-S would be worth a mint if it were a proof. I would expect to see this description on a "third world" slab but not an ANACS holder. It must be a typo.






«1

Comments

  • Here is another 1800's mint marked business strike inexplicably called a proof by ANACS:


  • Attention all forum members - “We need CAC or at least NGC or PCGS” because ANACS is the only major grading company that has ever had incorrect information on their grading labels. None of the others have ever noted the wrong date, mintmark, denomination, variety, designation or any combination thereof. 😉
  • As measured by percentages of typos on their slabs, ANACS is worse than the big three. And the above noted typos are so blatantly obvious the one should wonder about who does their quality control.
  • edited March 2023
    Based on these two blatantly obvious errors, one might wonder who handles this company’s quality control.


    image



  • LMAO, that "1912" is a hilarious typo. But at least PCGS and NGC have probably never called an 1800's mint marked (blatantly obvious) business strike a proof. Collectors and dealers rely on the services to attribute these rare proofs.

    Most of the PCGS typos that I have seen are flat band Mercury dimes called FB. Or freshly certified RB copper called RD.
  • CACfan said:

    LMAO, that "1912" is a hilarious typo. But at least PCGS and NGC have probably never called an 1800's mint marked (blatantly obvious) business strike a proof. Collectors and dealers rely on the services to attribute these rare proofs.

    Most of the PCGS typos that I have seen are flat band Mercury dimes called FB. Or freshly certified RB copper called RD.

    I see you and raise you one:

  • edited March 2023
    As you can clearly see @CACfan , all of the firms have occasional quality control issues with label data. And unlike what you say, the examples quickly shown by two highly respected forum members are indeed much more egregious having incorrect dates than calling a Mint State coin Proof.

    To me, it sounds like you’re trying to stir up trouble for ANACS. I have no skin in the game of defending them, since all of my coins are graded by PCGS.

    Separately, I have a sense that you have a tendency to start threads with very bold statements. As such, based on some of those threads, some of us therefore have concerns about your credibility.
  • As you can clearly see @CACfan , all of the firms have occasional quality control issues with label data. And unlike what you say, the examples quickly shown by two highly respected forum members are indeed much more egregious having incorrect dates than calling a Mint State coin Proof.

    To me, it sounds like you’re trying to stir up trouble for ANACS. I have no skin in the game of defending them, since all of my coins are graded by PCGS.

    Separately, I have a sense that you have a tendency to start threads with very bold statements. As such, based on some of those threads, some of us therefore have concerns about your credibility.

    Your hypocrisy and sanctimony notwithstanding, ANACS calling a business strike a proof on an 1891-O quarter or 1880-S dollar could result in a catastrophic financial loss to a trusting collector, investor, or dealer. In my experience, most people cannot distinguish the differences. I have never seen such business strikes mislabeled as far more valuable proofs in NGC, PCGS, or even ICG holders.

    Conversely, even the least astute among us can determine the real date of the "1912" cent.

    Also, my OP targets only rare coins, not modern coins, which have no relevance to CAC.

    Further, only you would question "the credibility" of anyone who states facts. You seem to be a snowflake when any criticism is made of any TPG.
  • CACfan said:

    As you can clearly see @CACfan , all of the firms have occasional quality control issues with label data. And unlike what you say, the examples quickly shown by two highly respected forum members are indeed much more egregious having incorrect dates than calling a Mint State coin Proof.

    To me, it sounds like you’re trying to stir up trouble for ANACS. I have no skin in the game of defending them, since all of my coins are graded by PCGS.

    Separately, I have a sense that you have a tendency to start threads with very bold statements. As such, based on some of those threads, some of us therefore have concerns about your credibility.

    Your hypocrisy and sanctimony notwithstanding, ANACS calling a business strike a proof on an 1891-O quarter or 1880-S dollar could result in a catastrophic financial loss to a trusting collector, investor, or dealer. In my experience, most people cannot distinguish the differences. I have never seen such business strikes mislabeled as far more valuable proofs in NGC, PCGS, or even ICG holders.

    Conversely, even the least astute among us can determine the real date of the "1912" cent.

    Also, my OP targets only rare coins, not modern coins, which have no relevance to CAC.

    Further, only you would question "the credibility" of anyone who states facts. You seem to be a snowflake when any criticism is made of any TPG.
    Take that, Steve!
    The one and only arbiter of virtually everything has spoken.
    There’s no point in having a different opinion, questioning or disagreeing with anything he says.
    😉
  • MarkFeld said:


    CACfan said:

    As you can clearly see @CACfan , all of the firms have occasional quality control issues with label data. And unlike what you say, the examples quickly shown by two highly respected forum members are indeed much more egregious having incorrect dates than calling a Mint State coin Proof.

    To me, it sounds like you’re trying to stir up trouble for ANACS. I have no skin in the game of defending them, since all of my coins are graded by PCGS.

    Separately, I have a sense that you have a tendency to start threads with very bold statements. As such, based on some of those threads, some of us therefore have concerns about your credibility.

    Your hypocrisy and sanctimony notwithstanding, ANACS calling a business strike a proof on an 1891-O quarter or 1880-S dollar could result in a catastrophic financial loss to a trusting collector, investor, or dealer. In my experience, most people cannot distinguish the differences. I have never seen such business strikes mislabeled as far more valuable proofs in NGC, PCGS, or even ICG holders.

    Conversely, even the least astute among us can determine the real date of the "1912" cent.

    Also, my OP targets only rare coins, not modern coins, which have no relevance to CAC.

    Further, only you would question "the credibility" of anyone who states facts. You seem to be a snowflake when any criticism is made of any TPG.
    Take that, Steve!
    The one and only arbiter of virtually everything has spoken.
    There’s no point in having a different opinion, questioning or disagreeing with anything he says.
    😉
    It is you who has a problem with me stating MY opinion (actually factual observations) on an educational forum. Note that it is not a Mark Feld politically correct forum.

    Again, my OP addressed only ANACS' mislabeling of mint marked 1800's business strikes as far more valuable proofs.It did not even mention any other issues.

    Excuse me for giving MY subsequent opinion (again, actually a factual observation) that ANACS also makes other slab typos that greatly exceed those of NGC and PCGS in terms of relative percentages of each service's coins slabbed.

    The status quo is less likely to be improved without criticism and/or suggestions.

    I find it curious that almost all of my suggestions (posted hereon) from last year have been (or are about to be) adopted by CAC despite your initial trashing and ridicule of them. CAC probably did not even see my posts but it proves that CAC and I think alike and you are out of touch, your implications to the contrary notwithstanding.
  • CACfan said:

    MarkFeld said:


    CACfan said:

    As you can clearly see @CACfan , all of the firms have occasional quality control issues with label data. And unlike what you say, the examples quickly shown by two highly respected forum members are indeed much more egregious having incorrect dates than calling a Mint State coin Proof.

    To me, it sounds like you’re trying to stir up trouble for ANACS. I have no skin in the game of defending them, since all of my coins are graded by PCGS.

    Separately, I have a sense that you have a tendency to start threads with very bold statements. As such, based on some of those threads, some of us therefore have concerns about your credibility.

    Your hypocrisy and sanctimony notwithstanding, ANACS calling a business strike a proof on an 1891-O quarter or 1880-S dollar could result in a catastrophic financial loss to a trusting collector, investor, or dealer. In my experience, most people cannot distinguish the differences. I have never seen such business strikes mislabeled as far more valuable proofs in NGC, PCGS, or even ICG holders.

    Conversely, even the least astute among us can determine the real date of the "1912" cent.

    Also, my OP targets only rare coins, not modern coins, which have no relevance to CAC.

    Further, only you would question "the credibility" of anyone who states facts. You seem to be a snowflake when any criticism is made of any TPG.
    Take that, Steve!
    The one and only arbiter of virtually everything has spoken.
    There’s no point in having a different opinion, questioning or disagreeing with anything he says.
    😉
    It is you who has a problem with me stating MY opinion (actually factual observations) on an educational forum. Note that it is not a Mark Feld politically correct forum.

    Again, my OP addressed only ANACS' mislabeling of mint marked 1800's business strikes as far more valuable proofs.It did not even mention any other issues.

    Excuse me for giving MY subsequent opinion (again, actually a factual observation) that ANACS also makes other slab typos that greatly exceed those of NGC and PCGS in terms of relative percentages of each service's coins slabbed.

    The status quo is less likely to be improved without criticism and/or suggestions.

    I find it curious that almost all of my suggestions (posted hereon) from last year have been (or are about to be) adopted by CAC despite your initial trashing and ridicule of them. CAC probably did not even see my posts but it proves that CAC and I think alike and you are out of touch, your implications to the contrary notwithstanding.
    Your opinion has no fact to it. The OP Morgan is just as easy to identify as a business strike as my NGC Bicentennial quarter.

    But, if I had to guess, my view here is wrong, because as @MarkFeld said - it's not the opinion that matters. :sunglasses:

  • I did not give my opinions, just factual observations. And the "Proof" Morgan fooled the dealer who bought it.
  • CACfan said:

    I did not give my opinions, just factual observations. And the "Proof" Morgan fooled the dealer who bought it.

    Or did it? Maybe he's just looking for someone who doesn't know better and a quick payday.

    Therefore, your observation is not factual.
  • Just by coincidence, the serial pirate who hacks reputable Ebay accounts and lists other sellers' coins, etc. is fraudulently listing the aforementioned "proof" Morgan.


  • FlyingAl said:

    CACfan said:

    I did not give my opinions, just factual observations. And the "Proof" Morgan fooled the dealer who bought it.

    Or did it? Maybe he's just looking for someone who doesn't know better and a quick payday.

    Therefore, your observation is not factual.
    I doubt it. The "dealer" who bought it was an admitted newbie.
  • This is the latest known victim of the aforementioned serial hacker. The real seller also lists the Morgan. Ebay will soon delete this account or at least clean out the hacker's stolen listings.

    https://ebay.com/str/leparadisdespetitsprix
  • That Michael Jordan card looks interesting as do the Rolexes. Too bad they are scam listings.
  • Holy slab-scam, 25,000 listings! They must be uploaded with a fancy program because it could not be done manually so quickly.
  • PCGS, NGC, ANACS and ICG all have QC issues at times. The reality is that good coin QC people know their stuff and won't stick around for long without aggressive raises and/or advancement opportunities.
  • CACfan said:

    MarkFeld said:


    CACfan said:

    As you can clearly see @CACfan , all of the firms have occasional quality control issues with label data. And unlike what you say, the examples quickly shown by two highly respected forum members are indeed much more egregious having incorrect dates than calling a Mint State coin Proof.

    To me, it sounds like you’re trying to stir up trouble for ANACS. I have no skin in the game of defending them, since all of my coins are graded by PCGS.

    Separately, I have a sense that you have a tendency to start threads with very bold statements. As such, based on some of those threads, some of us therefore have concerns about your credibility.

    Your hypocrisy and sanctimony notwithstanding, ANACS calling a business strike a proof on an 1891-O quarter or 1880-S dollar could result in a catastrophic financial loss to a trusting collector, investor, or dealer. In my experience, most people cannot distinguish the differences. I have never seen such business strikes mislabeled as far more valuable proofs in NGC, PCGS, or even ICG holders.

    Conversely, even the least astute among us can determine the real date of the "1912" cent.

    Also, my OP targets only rare coins, not modern coins, which have no relevance to CAC.

    Further, only you would question "the credibility" of anyone who states facts. You seem to be a snowflake when any criticism is made of any TPG.
    Take that, Steve!
    The one and only arbiter of virtually everything has spoken.
    There’s no point in having a different opinion, questioning or disagreeing with anything he says.
    😉


    I find it curious that almost all of my suggestions (posted hereon) from last year have been (or are about to be) adopted by CAC despite your initial trashing and ridicule of them. CAC probably did not even see my posts but it proves that CAC and I think alike and you are out of touch, your implications to the contrary notwithstanding.
    Gee, I think I read that comment from you once before! No, it was twice. No three times. No four times. No it was at least five times. Please continue to remind us of this interpretation of yours regularly, so that we don’t ever forget it.
Sign In or Register to comment.