POLL: Slabbing 2005 Regular MS Coins at PCGS?

Datentype

Any other thoughts on this topic (other than who gives a rats $%#)? I am trying to figure out whether it's economically viable to attempt ms67-ms68 level coins from rolls and whether it's worth the hassle of pcgs potentially calling the satin anyway if they are nice. This poll has evolved due to the Q & A forum below. This was of zero help.

INXS's question

"I collect SAC's will I be required to have both the Satin Finish P & D and also the Business strike P & D to complete my 2005 registry year requirements?"

D. Hall's response

"I think 2005 Satin Finishes should be part of the circualtion set. We haven't quite figured out how to handle that yet"

TAP444

if the SF coins can be interchanged in the set as a circulation strike, there is little pt in haveing
a lower grade when the SF seem to be grading higher (for the registry set)
and as of now it seems that either can be placed in the modern sets
Tim

CoinFame

<< <i>worth the hassle of pcgs potentially calling the satin anyway if they are nice. >>



I've compared high grade examples of 2005 MS to 2005 Satin. I too thought that they would be tough to distinguish the difference on the nicer coins. Even the PL-Satin or Matte-MS coins that seem like they may be tough are quite clearly Satin or MS. I've found that the best way to tell on the tough coins is to 16X loupe the coin in the field to identify the flow of the metal.

wondercoin

JUST MY 2 CENTS:

Some high quality regular issue coins appear to me to be very close in appearance to certain Satin Finish coins. For example, I have a 2005 SF PCGS-MS68RD Lincoln cent with the typical "bubbles" on the surface that looks no different than the typical 2004 PCGS-MS68RD coin (or what I suspect a roll coin cent would look like from 2005).

Even if 98% of the SF coins could be differentiated nearly all the time, it is the last 2% that would create a potential "nightmare" to collectors paying "big money" for non-SF specimens. I do believe this is a tougher issue than it would appear on the surface and should be thought out carefully by PCGS, the dealers and the collectors.

Wondercoin

DeepCoin

Due to the differences in manufacturing process, I think the MS coins (state quarters for example) will typically run about 2 points lower than the SF coins. The abundance of high quality SF coins will make a difference in the marketplace.

For myself, I am using the SF coins in my Unc sets (raw). While these are typically not big ticket coins, I suspect I am typical of the average person who is filling in Dansco sets and is not competing in the registry. Just MHO on this.

Datentype

Let's hope they have a way to distinguish the MS and SF. I think the coins that will be hard to distinguish are: D mint states and the Lincoln's. Even those will be pretty doable upon further analysis but eventually I predict there will be mistakes. As previously mentioned even SMS dies were used for 1965-67 regular circulation specimens and whose to say this won't happen this year and in the future?

I guess it won't matter too terribly to many collectors if pcgs doesn't require them both in the registry's. It's a tough call but maybe there is a new state quarter variety registry set now with up/down leaf WI-d's and the satin states from 05-08'

LindeDad

I would like to be able to find all of the state quarters in MS66 business strike for my straight MS66 set but it might be easier to find MS69's with the satin finish. Would also like to do the Kennedy's both ways. Have the regular and the variety sets there. Hint to the submitters here good coins in both are going to be wanted IMO.

wondercoin

"I think the coins that will be hard to distinguish are: D mint states and the Lincoln's."

Mark: Since we agree that from our mutual reviews of these coins that some of these coins will be hard to distinguish (perhaps in some cases even next to impossible as a practical matter) - what would you suggest PCGS do in light of that reality? For example, if someone buys a regular issue (non-Satin Finish) MN(d) in MS69 for, say, $1500 or $2000 but then (5) more get slabbed regular issue because they were indistinguishable by PCGS (or even to you or I) and were really from Mint Sets, what impact will this have on the market, the collectors buying the regular issues, dealers submitting them, etc.?

Wondercoin

dbldie55

<< <i>"I think the coins that will be hard to distinguish are: D mint states and the Lincoln's."

Mark: Since we agree that from our mutual reviews of these coins that some of these coins will be hard to distinguish (perhaps in some cases even next to impossible as a practical matter) - what would you suggest PCGS do in light of that reality? For example, if someone buys a regular issue (non-Satin Finish) MN(d) in MS69 for, say, $1500 or $2000 but then (5) more get slabbed regular issue because they were indistinguishable by PCGS (or even to you or I) and were really from Mint Sets, what impact will this have on the market, the collectors buying the regular issues, dealers submitting them, etc.?

Wondercoin >>



I don't think it should make any difference. SF should be like PL. If a coin has the finish it gets the designation, if not, it does not. From what I have seen in prior years, there is no way to tell a MS69 found in rolls from one found in Mint Sets. This would have the effect of making people not submit the roll coins I suspect, and may make it harder for people like me who like the mid grade coins that all look the same (why submit a roll coin that gets a 66 when you can submit a mint set coin that gets a 68?)

Datentype

dbldie55: I have slabbed the following Lincoln's in pcgs ms69 from rolls: 3 1984-p, 1 1985-d, 1 1990-d, 2 1992, 1 1992-d, and 4 1993-d if my memory serves me correctly. From mint sets in pcgs ms69: 1 1992-d, 1 1995-d and 2 1998-d. There have been several post 1999 as well but I put those in a separate category. My point is that in my opinion the best Lincon's come from rolls pre 1999 if you can just find them without spots. The mint set coins are far and few between ms69 and questionable at that, pre 99'

Anyway, Mitch what should pcgs do? Good question but that's why they get the big bucks - to grade the stuff correctly. Why do they designate a prooflike coin satin finish if it is not? they should go coin per coin in my opinion thus putting all of the coins on a level playing field. This would seem to make it more obvious to the buyer what they are buying. Would pcgs designate other denominations in prior years, say a prooflike Morgan as satin finish just because thye have an inkling it came from a mint set and the mint told them they were satin finish coins this year? would pcgs even have differentiated them from regular MS coins if NGC had not decided to jump the gun and call them SMS?

wondercoin

"Anyway, Mitch what should pcgs do? Good question but that's why they get the big bucks"

Mark: I know it is a good question, because when I look at a Satin Finish "d" mint Lincoln cent that is virtually indistinguishable from the non-Satin Finish Lincoln type (as some appear to be), I am concerned that coins may get mixed up in the wrong columns of the pop report over time. Other than that, from a dealer standpoint, of course, I will likely sell more coins if PCGS requires (20) different state quarters for every collection as opposed to just (10).

Wondercoin

pf70collector

Does PCGS require to submit the entire mint packaging to get the satin finish designation like NGC?. At least PCGS will know the coins came from mint packaging even if it does not have a satin finish. Maybe they should redesignate these coins as from mint packaging or from rolls. This will really then become confusing.

clackamas

<< <i>Does PCGS require to submit the entire mint packaging to get the satin finish designation like NGC?. At least PCGS will know the coins came from mint packaging even if it does not have a satin finish. Maybe they should redesignate these coins as from mint packaging or from rolls. This will really then become confusing. >>



Getting the satin designation is not the problem. Its getting coins that are not satin graded as satin. Frankly I would love it if I had a coin graded MS69 without the satin designation.

mdwoods

A non satin MS69 would certainly command a substantial premium over a SF MS69 coin.

wondercoin

"Does PCGS require to submit the entire mint packaging to get the satin finish designation like NGC?. At least PCGS will know the coins came from mint packaging even if it does not have a satin finish. Maybe they should redesignate these coins as from mint packaging or from rolls. This will really then become confusing."

I do not believe so. And, as is agreed on this thread, MOST coins are easily determined to be SF, whether inside or outside govt. plastic. The problem comes in with SF coins cut out of mint sets and submitted as regular issue coins - some of these coins (repeat, some) might be assigned the non-SF (more valuable) designation because they appear to be regular issue, even after close inspection.

Wondercoin

Datentype

Thanks for all of the info derived from this thread. Close as I can tell after weeding out the people who don't collect modern coins there is indeed a demand for true ms coins in pcgs holders. Now, as Mitch had said, we will see how they grade them from the rolls. This might be fairly aggravating for the D mint coins but now is the time to send them in if you want the real deal. They will be reviewing so many that they will be quite familiar with the look if that's how they tell? What worries me more is down the road when someone slips a few satins in with the ms coins for entertainment. ...........stay tuned.

Those of you that have played the sms game know they can grade it either way on any day of the week. The worst story is a guy who had bought a 1965 ms67 Roosey from me (from a roll) and had put it in his set. When they switched to the FB designation he sent in his set and they put the coin in an sms holder and instead of it being worth $200+ it was worth $15 and last i checked with him they would not reimburse him or change the coin back - yep my buddies!

Another story that is more along the comedy lines is a super primo 1966 Washington that I personally pulled from a roll and pcgs graded it sms67. I sent it back to Rick Montgomery (old pcgs President) and he put it in an ms67 holder where it belonged. I liked it so much i decided to partner on a possible upgrade with a well know modern Wash dealer in hopes to upgrade to a pop 1 coin. We tried it a few times and it came back sms a couple of times and then it had to be reholdered a couple of times. The last I know of it had been breathed on so many times during the grading and sealing process that it developed a haze and was sold a s a regular ms67 years back. Does anyone else have any sms vs. ms stories? i have a few others to tap potentially.

pf70collector

It seems to me there will be less justification for paying higher prices for the MS high graded coins if you submit a satin mint packaged coin as a regular businness strike coin and its get slabbed that way. The business strike would be harder to find in high grades as usual, while the mint packaged coins would be easier in higher grades. I have a complete PCGS MS 66-68 State Quarter set from 1999-2004. I may hold off in completing this set for a while, though I have ordered the mint sets and will continue to do so and will cherry pic the best from these sets and submit them to PCGS. but I am in no rush.