@BigA said:
Has anyone seen anything official released by the Mint or are they just ignoring it?
They are just ignoring it. I remain curious as to whether it was a die prep issue or a die polish issue. I'm also not sure about the long run value of these. I had about 100 of them and (happily) sold them out before the crash.
I should add that I had over 100 of them out of a little over 300 sets I owned. I wouldn't put much stock in those percentages, however. The first 250 I had gave rise to 43 "light finish" coins which is in line with @wondercoin estimate of maybe 15%. For some reason, the last 60 sets were 95% "light finish". Those all came from the last 5000 sets the Mint sold. There seemed to be a ridiculously high number of the variety in those sets.
Looks like they might have missed a step (don't they use laser etching now to 'frost' dies?) in the die-making process.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
If you want a pair of Kennedy's to show the difference you could go PCGS for the full finish and an NGC (Gasp, heaven forbid) for the light finish since they do recognize and label accordingly.
. I'm also not sure about the long run value of these. I had about 100 of them and (happily) sold them out before the crash.
But your happiness is based on a claim of a "crash" that has not happened . Might be more appropriate to wait until this predicted crash to claim success....or not ...time will tell
@Kudbegud said:
If you want a pair of Kennedy's to show the difference you could go PCGS for the full finish and an NGC (Gasp, heaven forbid) for the light finish since they do recognize and label accordingly.
Let's look at the 1950 proof coins which exhibit the "normal" proof finish & those 1950 proof coins which exhibit the "matte" proof finish.
There seems to be NO price difference NOR notation on the holder by NGC or PCGS.
It appears people are trying to make something out of NOTHING.
If anything, this new "error" is of poorer quality then the actual proof version & should NOT ever be graded at 70.
Think of it as buying a BMW with a poor paint job. It' s worth LESS then the BMW with a great paint job.
I do NOT see a positive to a lesser quality product.
. I'm also not sure about the long run value of these. I had about 100 of them and (happily) sold them out before the crash.
But your happiness is based on a claim of a "crash" that has not happened . Might be more appropriate to wait until this predicted crash to claim success....or not ...time will tell
I am simply stating a fact. I happily sold them out. No looking back.
On that last day, I bought about 50 of them and someone bought several thousand. 45 of the 50 I received spread across 4 different orders were light finish. If the person(s) who bought the big lot of 5000 that disappeared quickly had a similar yield, there were thousands of these sold on one day.
I would also point out, anecdotally, that some of the people I sold light finish coins to found out that the set they had that they thought was regular finish was actually light finish. Hard to tell until you see them side-by-side.
Even if these catch on, if there are as many as 30,000 or even 40,000 of them, I don't think they are scarce enough to push much past the current $100-$150 raw.
But, again, I don't look back. If these end up (shockingly) at $1000 each 5 years from now, I don't care. Besides, I will have made more money by then from the turnover on the cash. I turn over my entire inventory about 7 or 8 times per year on a roughly 10% pre-tax margin. Over 5 years, that's 40 turns at 10% for a total 4500% yield. So, unless those coins are selling for $5,000 five years from now, I won.
Yes, regular sets are pushing over $100 now. More with the light variety.
If the mintage was %15-20 for the light variety, that puts them in the 30k - 40k range. Not rare, but definitely lower mintage than any other Kennedy to date. The '98 matte finish was around 62k.
Refs: MCM,Fivecents,Julio,Robman,Endzone,Coiny,Agentjim007,Musky1011,holeinone1972,Tdec1000,Type2,bumanchu, Metalsman,Wondercoin,Pitboss,Tomohawk,carew4me,segoja,thebigeng,jlc_coin,mbogoman,sportsmod,dragon,tychojoe,Schmitz7,claychaser, Bullsitter, robeck, Nickpatton, jwitten, and many OTHERS
@aus3000tin said:
This seems small & insignificant.
Let's look at the 1950 proof coins which exhibit the "normal" proof finish & those 1950 proof coins which exhibit the "matte" proof finish.
There seems to be NO price difference NOR notation on the holder by NGC or PCGS.
It appears people are trying to make something out of NOTHING.
If anything, this new "error" is of poorer quality then the actual proof version & should NOT ever be graded at 70.
Think of it as buying a BMW with a poor paint job. It' s worth LESS then the BMW with a great paint job.
I do NOT see a positive to a lesser quality product.
Just my opinion.
Chris
I agree. I was very excited when I got my first couple. But the more I got, the more ho-hum I became. I still find them interesting, but I don't think they are a long-term "winner".
Based on these pictures, in my opinion the second coin is simply a later die state of the first.
As a die is used the frosted areas will become more polished and the polished areas will become more frosted, until eventually they meet in the middle. I have seen this happen with multiple dies that I have struck with. A die can be refreshed by polishing it again and bead-blasting (or lasering) it again. It appears that the die in question was used without refreshing for longer than it perhaps should have.
Based on these pictures, in my opinion the second coin is simply a later die state of the first.
As a die is used the frosted areas will become more polished and the polished areas will become more frosted, until eventually they meet in the middle. I have seen this happen with multiple dies that I have struck with. A die can be refreshed by polishing it again and bead-blasting (or lasering) it again. It appears that the die in question was used without refreshing for longer than it perhaps should have.
This may be true. The more I looked at, the more I suspected this to be true. That's why I kept my sell price under everyone else on eBay and sold them all out. I still find them interesting because they are so obviously different. But, they are common enough that I don't think they will be a "must-have variety".
For me, the thing that became obvious was that not all light finish coins were equally "light". That's when it started to seem like a die wear or die polish (I hear insider in my head yelling that that's the wrong term)...let's go with die rehab problem. At one point, I had someone who wanted multiples and I told him I had "regular", "light" and "medium" finishes. LOL.
I would also point out, anecdotally, that some of the people I sold light finish coins to found out that the set they had that they thought was regular finish was actually light finish. Hard to tell until you see them side-by-side.
Even if these catch on, if there are as many as 30,000 or even 40,000 of them, I don't think they are scarce enough to push much past the current $100-$150 raw.
Point one: Totally agree but, what is weird, is some are MUCH more obvious than others...I will try and find the pics I took of one of the obvious ones
Point two: probably agree...but holding the present price if far from a crash
Edited to add:
Found them: same lighting same angle (taken with a Samsung S7 so not the best quality)
The worn die theory can be legit, but I have not seen any specimens that are shades of "light" in the 100 or so I've seen (granted, small sampling). In that case, there should be a continuum of the fatigue. The specimens either ARE or ARE NOT. Everyone that has found these state they are very obvious when side by side with normal strikes. No maybes.
Refs: MCM,Fivecents,Julio,Robman,Endzone,Coiny,Agentjim007,Musky1011,holeinone1972,Tdec1000,Type2,bumanchu, Metalsman,Wondercoin,Pitboss,Tomohawk,carew4me,segoja,thebigeng,jlc_coin,mbogoman,sportsmod,dragon,tychojoe,Schmitz7,claychaser, Bullsitter, robeck, Nickpatton, jwitten, and many OTHERS
@Akbeez said:
The worn die theory can be legit, but I have not seen any specimens that are shades of "light" in the 100 or so I've seen (granted, small sampling). In that case, there should be a continuum of the fatigue. The specimens either ARE or ARE NOT. Everyone that has found these state they are very obvious when side by side with normal strikes. No maybes.
I don't know that it's simple fatigue. It might be fatigue coupled with a sloppy attempt to refinish the die. If you look closely under magnification, you will see different grain sizes on the surface facets.
Comments
They are just ignoring it. I remain curious as to whether it was a die prep issue or a die polish issue. I'm also not sure about the long run value of these. I had about 100 of them and (happily) sold them out before the crash.
I should add that I had over 100 of them out of a little over 300 sets I owned. I wouldn't put much stock in those percentages, however. The first 250 I had gave rise to 43 "light finish" coins which is in line with @wondercoin estimate of maybe 15%. For some reason, the last 60 sets were 95% "light finish". Those all came from the last 5000 sets the Mint sold. There seemed to be a ridiculously high number of the variety in those sets.
Looks like they might have missed a step (don't they use laser etching now to 'frost' dies?) in the die-making process.
@BigA
Those with 'Light finish' labels command higher price
If you want a pair of Kennedy's to show the difference you could go PCGS for the full finish and an NGC (Gasp, heaven forbid) for the light finish since they do recognize and label accordingly.
. I'm also not sure about the long run value of these. I had about 100 of them and (happily) sold them out before the crash.
But your happiness is based on a claim of a "crash" that has not happened . Might be more appropriate to wait until this predicted crash to claim success....or not
...time will tell
Makes perfect sense...no "heaven forbid" needed.
This seems small & insignificant.
Let's look at the 1950 proof coins which exhibit the "normal" proof finish & those 1950 proof coins which exhibit the "matte" proof finish.
There seems to be NO price difference NOR notation on the holder by NGC or PCGS.
It appears people are trying to make something out of NOTHING.
If anything, this new "error" is of poorer quality then the actual proof version & should NOT ever be graded at 70.
Think of it as buying a BMW with a poor paint job. It' s worth LESS then the BMW with a great paint job.
I do NOT see a positive to a lesser quality product.
Just my opinion.
Chris
Maybe..but a couple of questions:
Was there EVER a price difference with the 1950's? or was it just a either or kinda thing occurring almost 70 years ago
There IS a price difference (now) with this variety and it IS recognized by a TPG...
Making "something out of nothing" assumes there is "nothing" to start with....
This is a confirmed variety and it is being priced as such
I am simply stating a fact. I happily sold them out. No looking back.
On that last day, I bought about 50 of them and someone bought several thousand. 45 of the 50 I received spread across 4 different orders were light finish. If the person(s) who bought the big lot of 5000 that disappeared quickly had a similar yield, there were thousands of these sold on one day.
I would also point out, anecdotally, that some of the people I sold light finish coins to found out that the set they had that they thought was regular finish was actually light finish. Hard to tell until you see them side-by-side.
Even if these catch on, if there are as many as 30,000 or even 40,000 of them, I don't think they are scarce enough to push much past the current $100-$150 raw.
But, again, I don't look back. If these end up (shockingly) at $1000 each 5 years from now, I don't care. Besides, I will have made more money by then from the turnover on the cash. I turn over my entire inventory about 7 or 8 times per year on a roughly 10% pre-tax margin. Over 5 years, that's 40 turns at 10% for a total 4500% yield. So, unless those coins are selling for $5,000 five years from now, I won.
Yes, regular sets are pushing over $100 now. More with the light variety.
If the mintage was %15-20 for the light variety, that puts them in the 30k - 40k range. Not rare, but definitely lower mintage than any other Kennedy to date. The '98 matte finish was around 62k.
I agree. I was very excited when I got my first couple. But the more I got, the more ho-hum I became. I still find them interesting, but I don't think they are a long-term "winner".
Based on these pictures, in my opinion the second coin is simply a later die state of the first.
As a die is used the frosted areas will become more polished and the polished areas will become more frosted, until eventually they meet in the middle. I have seen this happen with multiple dies that I have struck with. A die can be refreshed by polishing it again and bead-blasting (or lasering) it again. It appears that the die in question was used without refreshing for longer than it perhaps should have.
This may be true. The more I looked at, the more I suspected this to be true. That's why I kept my sell price under everyone else on eBay and sold them all out. I still find them interesting because they are so obviously different. But, they are common enough that I don't think they will be a "must-have variety".
For me, the thing that became obvious was that not all light finish coins were equally "light". That's when it started to seem like a die wear or die polish (I hear insider in my head yelling that that's the wrong term)...let's go with die rehab problem. At one point, I had someone who wanted multiples and I told him I had "regular", "light" and "medium" finishes. LOL.
.
Point one: Totally agree but, what is weird, is some are MUCH more obvious than others...I will try and find the pics I took of one of the obvious ones
Point two: probably agree...but holding the present price if far from a crash
Edited to add:
Found them: same lighting same angle (taken with a Samsung S7 so not the best quality)
Light finish:
Normal RP:
The worn die theory can be legit, but I have not seen any specimens that are shades of "light" in the 100 or so I've seen (granted, small sampling). In that case, there should be a continuum of the fatigue. The specimens either ARE or ARE NOT. Everyone that has found these state they are very obvious when side by side with normal strikes. No maybes.
No comment so far, but I agree that is is correctly called a Variety much like the Accented Hair Kennedy Halves.
It remains to be seen if it will be attributed as such.
Pete
It is called a variety
because the press operator let it go for a few extra hit 
I don't know that it's simple fatigue. It might be fatigue coupled with a sloppy attempt to refinish the die. If you look closely under magnification, you will see different grain sizes on the surface facets.