To get back to the most important issue at hand here is the fact that MCM manipulated an NGC holder for a 1990 G5Y Gold Panda in order to either do one of the following:
1. Remove the original coin along with the internal white gasket and replaced it with another gasket and coin but failed to realize it was not the correct year/size/denomination coin for the intended NGC holder.
2. Utilized Photoshop or some other photo editing software to cut/crop the original image of the 1990 G5Y Gold Panda and replace it with the image of a 2001 G50Y Gold PandaThese two scenarios above are clearly the facts of what occurred and either one of these two situations are definitely what occurred … there is simply no other explanation. If so I would like to hear it.
Another thing to consider is that it’s obviously not the first time MCM has modified an NGC holder, if it would have been the very first time MCM had performed this “trick” then very close scrutiny would have been extended to this operation on its “maiden voyage” to ensure the modified NGC holder would fly under the radar of the most astute collector. MCM has apparently done this “trick” on so many occasions that they got just a little too comfortable performing it so frequently that they inevitably let their little secret accidentally slip out … Now the “cat is out of the bag”
I think now that we can all irrefutably establish the fact that these of these two scenarios listed above did occur … we now must question WHY MCM decided to perform these reprehensible shenanigans and WHY it is condoned by NGC. Before we look at possible reasons why MCM altered the NGC coin/holder in question, I do think it’s also important to note what has already been mentioned in this thread that the CEO of MCM (John Maben) does previously have eight years at NGC as the NGC Executive Vice President and a Grading Finalizer. Although John’s previous “high level” corporate position at NGC and MCM’s close proximity to NGC (1,500 feet away) may not be the “smoking gun” … I do believe these facts about John/MCM along with “doctored coin/holder” debacle coupled with NGC’s cavalier response to the “doctored coin/holder” lead us all to believe that the preponderance of evidence before us establishes that there is gross misconduct at MCM/NGC/Ebay and that it has been sanctioned at the highest levels within these companies.
Some people are delusional who cannot see the relevance of the relationship between John Maben, his 35 MCM “numismatic professionals” (how many are former NGC?), the current “cronyism” between MCM/NGC/ Ebay … all of this suspicion now has merit considering the recent revelation of “Frankencoin” and the lack of admonishment for the trickery and intentions behind it. Remember folks … “Frankencoin” was not a “stock” photo as NGC alleged … it was a “doctored/manipulated” holder/coin which is substantially more conducive to deceptive behavior. In the past I disregarded the history between MCM and NGC as irrelevant but this recent incident and how it is being handled by NGC has modified my perception of NGC.
So now that we have established without doubt that MCM did in fact execute either one of the two maneuvers listed above (or both) … it is imperative for the welfare of the entire numismatic community that we discover exactly what the reasoning is behind this type of dishonest behavior. Also it is very important that we must all consider the fact that this ominous behavior is occurring with one of the largest (maybe the largest) dealer of NGC graded coins in the USA and possibly the world.
There are several possible reasons that MCM would create “Frankencoin” but a few motives that come to mind are the following:
1. It’s possible that MCM has discovered a technique in which to compromise the NGC holder without detection (John has 8 years of NGC experience) therefore they can remove 69 or 70 grade coins and replace these high grade coins with less desirable coins. Now they have a low quality coin with an instant high grade in an NGC holder. Then MCM can just resubmit the original high grade coins to NGC to get another 69/70 grade and sell the lower grade coins which are now in high grade NGC holders.
2. It’s possible that the NGC graded coin MCM is currently selling may have a high NGC grade but also has imperfections so what MCM may be doing is photoshopping perfect coin images over the image of imperfect coins so that the buyer does not see these defects upon purchase. MCM is banking that when the buyer receives the defective coin that they do not see the imperfection and that it is not the coin that was initially advertised for sale.
After being a longtime loyal NGC supporter … their response to Frankencoin is extremely unsettling and quite frankly very disturbing for me. I have to say that my confidence in NGC at this moment is quite shaken. My testament to being faithful to NGC is evident with my NGC coin collection currently sitting at #27 out of 800 World Coin Sets which does not include several coins that I was planning to send in for NGC grading.
I’m going to hold off on grading or purchasing any other coins for now. I’m so disgusted that I may even liquidate my entire coin collection as the other collectibles I’m involved in have nowhere near the level of nonsense as numismatics.
In closing I’ll also add that when it comes to OMP coins, the propensity for trickery is just as probable. We have all seen the resealing of crap coins and counterfeits, it’s actually easier to accomplish with OMP than it is with graded coins. I’ve experienced it myself on a first hand basis. Anyone with a cheap heat sealer can reseal anything they want into “OMP” but this OMP topic I believe is for another thread. At the moment I would like to know what is going on with the MCM/Frankencoin and how can this be condoned by one of the most respected and reputable coin grading companies in the world.
For now we have three-ring circus going on and the stars of the “show” are MCM, NGC & Ebay. It’s time for someone to “raise the curtain” so we can all see what’s going on behind the scene.
