What's with this population explosion regarding
Boom
Posts: 10,165 ✭
PCGS 66 1955-D Quarters? As if we don't know. CUT IT OUT! You're killing the rest of us!
I have quite a few 7 candidates too. If this keeps up I may as well help flood it too.
I have quite a few 7 candidates too. If this keeps up I may as well help flood it too.
0
Comments
VERY nice 55-D for sale, found in a lesser slab. Just click on my sig line to see it. I Have original rolls
that probably average 64...you know the kind, the real shiny looking ones...I don't care for them and
would waste neither my time, the graders' time, nor my money.
However I do have quite a few of what I call the "Normal looking" ones, that I will submit. In any
other year and mint mark these coins would go 66 in a heartbeat, some with a shot at 67 as they'
are flawless in every way! PCGS seems to have a seperate standard when it comes to the 55-D, as
several other respected forum members have previously conveyed. Just keep trying.
Well, I can not speak to that, but, if anyone wants to buy a 2002(d) Roosie in PCGS-MS68FB, feel free to email me for a "board member special".
Wondercoin
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
decent money, 67-a couple hundred bucks. I have at least 10 original bank wrapped rolls (shotgun rolls)
I can tell they're genuine/ never been tampered with, from several different banks. Same holds true for other years as well. Now suppose I submit all 10 rolls of the 58-Ds under bulk submission with 66 being where we set the bar. Population that is low right now will be shot to be damn- I flood the market/ population rises dramatically...as dramatically as prices will drop accordingly.
The $200 PCGS 67 1958-D will drop dramatically as I alone could double the population of 67s.
This is what is so dangerous about paying crazy money on some low pop coins. If and when I do this
a lot of people will have lost big time on that one coin.
Same hold true for the 57-D. I just paid $500 for a PCGS 67. I have several rolls of these as well. Right now, pop in 67 is 40 something, again I could probably double population on that coin too.
61-D, 62-D etc etc-got those too. I have a 1964-D that's still in it's Mint set that is without doubt a 67 if not a 68. We're talkin utter perfection. You have to see this coin to believe it. WOW! Moral of all this is beware of paying crazy money on low pop coins that can be devastated in one day!
BTW...I just HAD to break open one of these old rolls and sure enough, they're for real-no fakery!
Boom: My best guess is that you make -0- PCGS-MS67's from ALL of your 1958(d) shotgun rolls combined, other than perhaps an end piece of two that might make it. But, as for the hundreds and hundreds of brilliant coins in those 58(d) rolls - again, I believe -0- would slab PCGS-MS67. And, to make it more interesting - I would pay $500/coin for up to (5) PCGS-MS67 blast white 1958(d) quarters from these rolls, proving that your submissions would have -0- impact on the "$200" current price you reference in your post. My "$2,500" proposal, available for the taking, expires 6/30/04 - this should give you plenty of time to submit the coins via "bulk" and make some "easy money"
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
print what you have said. I did not say or even imply that I CAN, but COULD double the population of
this so-called low pop coin, and others. Forget "I" and instead say, pop could be doubled literally
overnight, whether by one or several collectors. Not but a few months ago there were right at
100 1955-Ds in 66. In that span of time the population of that one coin has increased right at
10%. Just that 10%-10 or so coins has had a profound effect on the price of that coin. I have personally
witnessed the decline in price. As a matter of fact, when I obtained one of my pieces I was the 100th
coin in pop and paid almost $500 for it. Just the other day I picked one up for a little over $300.
I respect you as a force and a wealth of knowledge within the Numismatic community while you, on
the other hand, knowing very little about me, seem to show none for me. THAT, is a mistake! NEVER
underestimate anyone. 44 years speaks for itself. Being commended on having a good eye by one's
peers is just about THE highest compliment a collector can receive. Having 2 1932-D PCGS 63 Quarters
that I hand picked, upgrade to PCGS 64 is no small feat. This post is not about ME or what I can and
cannot do-it's about the perils of paying crazy money for what are Pop-top coins one day that could
literally be devastated the next by one or a few people coming out with hoards, thereby making
a somewhat grade rare coin literally "common" overnight!
For a supposedly intelligent man to make the comment you did concerning my inability to make even
ONE PCGS 67 58-D is foolhearty. Not even you know for sure what PCGS will do. I don't know what
you hoped to prove by such a statement, but I'm not impressed. If anything I am disppointed that you
would make such a statement. I don't need your money but if and when I decide to submit these rolls
I will give you the submission # and if you let your mouth overload itself....well, we'll just cross that
bridge when we get there! In the meantime, practicing copying and pasting quotes and learning how
to scan a few coins wouldn't hurt!
The topic of this thread IS, the effect population growth has on high premium, low pop coins that is
subject to rapid change.
. Nothing personal unless you choose to make it so by making outlandish statements.
If you do not get the point then obviously you are not the learned Numismatist I have taken you for.
Boom: Here is my friendly reply to you:
1. To be clear, I recognized the possibility that you might make one or two MS67's from an end piece or two from the rolls. Let's be clear on that at the outset.
2. You make it sound like these are rolls of coins you produced yourself at the Mint and take pride in your craftsmanship
Bottom line - you did not produce these (400) quarters sitting in (10) rolls - my prediction that these rolls would yield -0- blast white PCGS-MS67's is no reflection on YOU AS A PERSON. Please do not personalize this discussion. In fact, if you believe my knowledge of this particular dated Wash quarter is misplaced, I look forward to showing me that was the case. I would enjoy learning that my position on the random (10) rolls was in error, but, not nearly as much as having an opportunity to purchase (5) of them for $2500
Wondercoin
witnessed the decline in price."
Boom: I can not speak to what % of these additional 10% were "crackouts" and what % were truly "new" coins - no one really can other than the (10) submitters on those (10) coins. What I can say is this. I am very comfortable paying $500 (even with the latest pop increase) for a couple solid for the grade 1955(d) quarters in PCGS-MS66. If anyone has one, they can PM me. And, congratulations on buying one at $300 - you got one heck of a deal.
I also agree with you on the notion that the pricing on a scarce date Wash quarter can be severely impacted by a rising pop (and is, therefore potentially "risky business"). Look no further than the 1934(d) in MS67, which has risen from pop 0 to pop 3 in the past half year or so - a remarkable increase in pop as far as I am concerned.
Wondercoin
Boom: My best guess is that you make -0- PCGS-MS67's from ALL of your 1958(d) shotgun rolls combined, other than perhaps an end piece of two that might make it. But, as for the hundreds and hundreds of brilliant coins in those 58(d) rolls - again, I believe -0- would slab PCGS-MS67. Wondercoin >>
Dang straight!
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
DLG: And, again, this is not an issue of whether Boom is a wonderful person or a sensational grader, etc. I have never met Boom and can not even address his grading prowess. I conceed Boom may be about as good as anyone in the Wash quarter series. Nothing personal here.
My comment on -0- MS67 white coins coming from a random (10) rolls is based upon the better part of (10) years personal research by me on each and every silver Wash quarter date in the series. It is also very much on topic because the issue here was whether a quick move up in the pop could dramatically affect the current $200 price for a 58(d) quarter. In fact, if (20) brilliant PCGS-MS67 1958(d) quarters were made tomorrow, they would all be purchased HIGHER than the current market price IMHO!! If I could get all (20) blast white roll coins at $250/coin for PCGS-MS67, I would write the check tomorrow. In fact, I would personally buy (50) of them above the $200 level for my collection if they were made available to me before 6/30/04. No hype - just concrete evidence that it may be very possible that once many of the remaining roll coins get graded, it is possible that prices remain very solid for nice white coins, if not even possibly higher on some issues as collectors begin to see the scarcity of many of the dates in the series.
Wondercoin
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Wondercoin
What you are saying, (if I am understanding you correctly) revolves around White as it equates
to 67, which is an observation I have also made. There seems to be a bias towards toning and not
the true "merits" of the coin. I THINK I am now understanding the basis for your statement!
DLG, you have a good memory but obviously do not understand that what I offered is common
practice in dealing coins. The price that was offered was well within the parameters of "accepted
pricing". People that fill want lists for a living play middleman for a small percentage. If this is how
you choose to remember me that's your business but nothing unethical was done or would have been
done had he accepted. If you're going to make one of your very rare posts, suppose you stay on
topic and let yesterday go!
If I complained every time someone found me a coin at a 10% markup, I'd be doing so, literally,
around the clock.
clock!
Boom: Cool! Now, PLEASE go and make me a handful of white MS67's of that date!!
Wondercoin
so well?"
I just sent you two scans. To the eye they look "mostly" White however at extreme sharpness and
600 resolution everything will appear much more vivid than normal...to the human. Regardless, so far-
you're right and if Mint Set toning is part of the 67 criteria then I have excellent pieces still in Mint sets
that are White and totally nick free and it would be an injustice for them not to get the grade they
rightfully deserve because of this bias / criteria!
<< <i>I've seen a white 58(d) quarter. The coin was in a PCGS-MS67 holder and got downgraded to MS66 >>
Now there is DEFINITELY wrong with that scenario. PCGS coins are not supposed to be down-
graded!
Boom: Thanks for the scans. For what I am describing, that coin is not close. I want BLAST WHITE surfaces without a trace of color, unless the color is the natural patina of the coin having been submitted undipped. Natural patina is acceptable, of course - not light toning.
I seem to recall buying a Blast white 1956(p) quarter out of the 11/03 Heritage sale. If you go to their site, you can see a scan of a brilliant quarter from the 1956-1958 era. The "p" mint coins are a little easier to locate in brilliant - in fact, NGC graded a very, very large bulk lot of 1958(p) quarters many years ago and there are myriad (not that many, but you get the point) NCG-MS67's, some of which I suspect may "cross" when presented to PCGS. The "d" mint coins though are near impossible to locate in "true quality" MS67 BLAST WHITE, especially the 1956(d).
Wondercoin
It seems we're right back where we started. The quality to meet the 67 grade is present
here on these White coins that haven't been "altered" in any fashion. Whether the graders
assign 67 to them or not is something neither of us can say as they surely have certain guidelines
to follow. If, as in the case of the 55-D, Mint set toning is a factor well I can do nothing about that!
Maybe I'll pick out a few 67 "candidates" and send some scans. May be a in a bit though as I'm
trying to do 3 other things all at the same time(Purchases) Nice conversation, Mitch...I'll be in touch