US-Philippines Registry clarifications

dalbert

I tried posting this in the Q&A forum so that it would hopefully get to David Hall and the rest of PCGS, but I got a "Not authorized to post in this forum" message. Anyway, I am going to try to post here and see what everyone thinks. Here's hoping it does make it to PCGS.


==============

Glad to see that the US-Philippines coinage has been added to the registry. However, there are a few things about it that I am unclear about/think should be reconsidered:

a) For the 50c and complete circulation strike sets, why is the 1903-S 50c included? If what I know is still correct, there are only 3 known to exist (has PCGS certified any of these?)

b) For the type set, shouldn't there be more coins in the set? Here's the analogy:

One centavo
1903-1936 -- territorial issues (with the Eagle)
1937-1944 -- Commonwealth issues (totally different designs and KM#)

Five Centavo
1903-1928 - Large size
1930-1935 - Reduced size
1937-1941 - Commonwealth
1944-1945 - Commonwealth, Copper/Nickel/Zinc

Ten Centavo
1903-1904 - Large size
1907-1935 - Reduced size
1937-1945 - Commonwealth

Twenty Centavo
1903-1905 - Large size
1907-1929 - Reduced size
1928 only - Mule (a 1 year type, and as the name implies, its different from the others -- even the Krause catalog lists it under a different KM number)
1937-1945 - Commonwealth

Fifty Centavo
1903-1905 - Large size
1905-1921 - Reduced size
1944-1945 - Commonwealth

It was nice to see that the 5 centavo had a separation between reduced size and the Copper/Nickel/Zinc versions (which I assume was based on the material used), but shouldn't there be an extra demarkation for the design? For the 20c especially, there should be an extra entry for the Mule (it is a different KM# and the design is different from the others in the series)

With the composition listed on the registry, it seems that there is no difference between reduced size issues and Commonwealth issues

Just my two cents worth. Hope they make sense

dbldie55

I am still trying to finish the one they have, don't have them add any more coins yet.

I do agree with your assessment. It appears they have lumped the reduced size with the commonwealth issues.

dalbert

That plus the 1903-S 50 centavo. I'm trying to fill up the set too. Would like the more complete set though...

Justhavingfun

Thank you, Dalbert for your thoughtful and interesting discussion.

Some additions and comments ...

(a) Regarding the 1903-S 50 centavo, scarcity shouldn't disqualify it from inclusion in the Registry Set. The 1903-S 50 centavo is every bit as much a part of the business strike series as, say, the 1913 Liberty Head Nickel and 1894-S Barber dimes are of their respective proof series. The only difference is the cost. The 1913 Liberty Head and 1894-S Barber dime are both million dollar coins. The 1903-S 50 centavo is scarcer than either of those two coins, and the last sale of the coin that I know of took place at $21,000.

You mention there are 3 1903-S 50 centavos known. I only know of 2 legitimate coins, both graded XF45 by ANACS. If there's a third specimen that's been authenticated by one of the responsible independent grading services, please tell me more.

I own one of the specimens and I've been itching in my palm to cross it to PCGS. But with the coin buried in a big safety deposit box in America and me in Asia, that's been difficult.

(b) Regarding the centavos, there are two reverse master dies for centavo series business strikes. The difference is far more visible than the difference between the Jefferson nickel reverses of 1938 and 1940. Only this time, the type 1 is the clearer, better struck variety. The stars are crystal clear. Eagle feathers extend to the wing tips. Type II, the stars are sloppy like the steps on the Jefferson nickels of 1938.

The cross over came in 1917 and I have several unc 1917's of both types, slabbed. Just a few weeks ago, in Manila, I picked up a beautiful uncirculated raw set for $130(!). So that would make a third type coin.

(c) The five centavos. You're spot on, again. But one omission: The 1918-S 5 centavo mule. This is not an error coin. The US Mint made a deliberate decision to use the 20 centavo reverse die, so the 1918-S mule is a legitimate type coin

(d) 10 centavos. Again, as in the centavos, there was an easily visible change in the reverse dies; so there in the reduced size silver centavos there should be two type coins. I'll have to check my specimens to nail down exactly when the cross over took place.

(e) The 20 is right on the mark, too. You're correct about the 1928-S mule. Like the 1918 mule, that was a deliberate Mint selection of the die, so it's not an error coin but a legitimate type coin.

(f) The 1936 50 centavo should be added as a one-year variety. Likewise, for the pesos, the two different 1936 pesos should be added as one-year varieties.

And finally, I think the US-Philippine coinage should have its own category, and not be buried under "private issues and territorial gold". Was does "private issues and territorial gold" have to do with US-Philippines, eh?

Thanks again for your good post. If you ever get to Bangkok, please sent me a private message or e-mail me at Iamjusthavingfun@hotmail.com. Maybe we can get together and powwow about this lovely, scarce US series that's on the rise.

Warm regards,


Just Having Fun

dalbert

Thank you very much for the long reply. Ok, my turn to add something rather long

On the 1903-S 50c:

I am not sure if there are 2 or 3 known to exist. I'm here in the Philippines and a Philippine resident and I get 2 stories -- some say that there are 2 known, others 3. I gues the 3rd one, if it exists, is raw. Yes, I know about the counterfeits out there. Being on the board of the PNAS I've heard a wee bit too many stories and I don't know which is which now.

Now on this coin's relation to the registry:

If it is to be kept in the registry, then I think there should be a modification to the registry for a set with the 1903-S 50c. I suggest that there be a listing for a set with the 1903-S and one without. Even the 1894-S Barber Dime that you mentioned is listed in a specialized set: Barber Dimes with Varieties and 1894-S, Circulation Strikes (1892-1916) (take note the "AND 1894-S". There is a set listed that does not include the 1894-S. The same holds true for the following sets:

Liberty Nickels with 1913, Proof (1883-1913) (again the words, "WITH 1913")
St. Gaudens $20 with 1933 & Patterns Circulation Strikes (1907-1933) (again the words, "WITH 1933")

Now, to add to whats above, why isn't the 1804 Draped Bust Dollar included in the registry? Without the demarkations, there can only be 2 (or 3?) sets complete ever. Like "Private Issues and Territorial Gold" doesn't sound right for the US-Philippines series, I don't think that an unattainable set without one that includes an attainable one like the rest of the registry doesn't sound right either.

I also remember the set registry before to have the "dream" coins listed (such as the 1933 Double Eagle) but not have them count towards the completion of the set. Isn't that the better alternative? Now, should the 1903-S be left in the registry, then the set registry listing is incomplete. It needs to add the following:

1910-S 10 centavo
1907 (P) 1 peso

It doesn't matter if BOTH only have 1 confirmed to exist (at least, to the best of my knowledge). (Did I miss any more dream coins??)

Now for the rest of the comments you added

First off, THANKS for those

Now, I didn't know that the 1918-S 5c Mule was a decision by the US mint to use? I am under the impression that its totally an error like the 1943 Copper penny. The only intentional "error" of the entire series was the 1928M 20c mule. If that's the case, why are there large dated 1918-S 5c coins as well which are the intended ones? (why not strike everything with a large date?)

I really do hope someone in charge of the PCGS registry sees this discussion. That's why I tried to post it on the Q&A forum

If ever I am back over there in Bangkok, I'll let you know. Right now that isn't a place I'm planning to go back to anytime soon. I'm a little apprehensive about posting my email address on a public forum so please send me a PM if you want to chat -- I'm game :-). If and when you are back here in Manila, I shouldn't be hard to find since you go into the circles I do.

Justhavingfun

Well, dalbert, if you are a member of PNAS, then we do travel in the same circles. Abe, Jorge, and Raffy, are among the many wonderful people who have helped me accumulate a nice collection.

But turning back to registry sets; I checked my Basso and Shafer books, and you may be right about the 1918-S 5 centavo mule. I didn't find the expected reference to the war time years, and indeed, Shafer refers to it as an error.

Second, I'm perfectly comfortable with your suggestion to list the the 1903-S as in done with the 1894-S dime. But right now, I don't think there's much chance that PCGS expand the Registry Sets for US Philippines in this manner. So, in practice, it's a matter of whether or not to include it or not include it in the 50 centavo series. And other than the difficulty, I don't see any reason not to include it.

Third, I'd be in favor of including the 10-S 10 centavo and 1907 Proof peso, in their respective registry sets, too. Speaking of the 1907 proof peso, I've heard from a dealer who claims to have seen them (sold them to the current owner?) that there are actually two, one in 90% silver as with the 1906 proof pesos; the other in 75% silver, as with the 1908 proof pesos. I'd love to see those coins

I may return to Manila in September. If I do I'll enjoy meeting you -- if indeed, we haven't already met, either over a dinner with Raffy or at an auction.

Best wishes,


Just Having Fun

dalbert

Yup, the really serious collectors in the Philippines are pretty much in the same circles -- this I have seen clearly. I guess that's one reason why people keep their word -- their is a natural check and balance. From what you know about the coins, what you've said about the coins that you got from over here, and noting that you had a very impressive collection, I made a pretty sure guess that the people you dealt with were the people I did too. I'm on the PNAS board by the way -- the youngest one there, hehe (so it really shouldn't be a problem finding me) -- just mention that to Jorge or Raffy (I am assuming that you are talking about Raffy Fermin and not the lying fraud Raffy Avila).

Haven't been in the hobby long -- about 3 years only, and this is the series that became closest to my heart in that time (so if you're selling spares I'm always interested -- not necessarily capable, but interested yes -- still running my US-PI complete set at just 18%). Fell into the craze of slabbed state quarters and some other US coins, but these US-Philippines coins were the ones that really did appeal to me -- hence all of the ideas on how I'd prefer it was recognized. Is there a way PCGS people could at least read this thread and consider things here given by both of us?

On the 1907 (P) peso, I haven't heard of any of those claims. All I do know is that one exists, and I have seen it with my own 2 eyes. (I don't remember if it was the large kind like the 1906-S or the smaller one like the 1907-S. If I remember correctly it looked like its 1907 San Francisco counterpart) in the Philippine Central Bank museum. The others are all rumored to the best of my knowledge. If you could give me a lead on the dealer I probably could find out or verify that -- I'd like to see those coins too!

Justhavingfun

Congratulations dalbert. For such a new collector to the series, you're building a really nice collection quickly.

But the faster the better. The US Philippine coins are gaining popularity as a US series and that is opening up the US Philippines to the whole huge US collector base.

You're over in Manila: I don't have to tell you how incredibly scarce even the MS 62s and 63s are, for the pre-1920 dates. Limited supply and sharply growing demand has an obvious implication on the prices, so if you want a chance to complete the series at today's price levels, I suggest you have at most a two-year window. Good luckk. If the coins climb to a quarter of the valuation of comparably scarce US coins, the coins you buy now will be the most profitable investment you make in your lifetime.

Best wishes,



Just Having Fun

dalbert

Thanks for the pat on the back. I've found fun on the hunt, and the 2 year goal seems to be a wee bit out of reach at the moment. Either way, I don't plan on stopping collecting anytime soon so I'm hoping the fun keeps me going. I would like to think that my coins aren't an investment for me -- rather an investment for my children (even though I don't have any yet, hehe -- been married just a little over a month).

The US-Philippines series isn't new to me, and the PCGS registry was just the next step. I did fill up the albums offered at the PNAS with some decent coins (VF+ for most hard issues -- and considering how scarce they are even that nice, I know that's something). Yes I have the 1906-S already (low grade, just FINE PLUS with a cleaned reverse, but genuine nonetheless).

TaiNoHenka

hi dalbert, hi Justhavingfun, thanks for offering lots of useful information about the US-Philippine coins. I am a very new collector of these coins, so for me, this knowledge is invaluable.

Being new, I'm far from completing any of the sets, but even so, I think there should be no exclusions, "AND's" or "WITH's". Whether it's a "Type Set", a "Proof Set" or any other kind of "Set", every coin should be included. It makes no sense for set to be called 100% complete when there's a piece missing. And with the US-Philippine series getting added on to the PCGS Set Registry, and listed in the Pop Reports, and from it's growing popularity, it's only a matter of time before the US-Philippine series is given it's own category, and it would be nice to see a new list (with the coins in their proper places...seeing the 1936 50c listed under the Pesos is confusing enough for a beginner like me) that includes all the sizes, issues, varieties, types, etc.


Warm regards,

Tainohenka

dalbert

Welcome to the great hobby! Although the definition of completeness is an issue, most coin series have coins which are not considered reqirements in order to complete the set by most standards (even the PNAS albums don't have holes for coins like the 1903-S 50c or the 1910-S 10c). It makes total sense to me to list something as complete without certain issues, since these issues are beyond reach of almost everyone else because of the scarcity. I say this because to the best of my understanding, even the registry agrees with me -- hence the reason why other sets are listed with the "dream" coins using the "WITH" (from above, check the St Gaudens $20 series and the Liberty Nickel Proofs). Some coins are just beyond collectibility.

Besides that, to the best of my knowledge the 1903-S 50c and the 1910-S 10c (and the 1907 1 peso, but I'm not sure about this) are trial strike coins -- not proofs, but not full fledged business strikes (does anyone know if they were actually monetized?) . On those two points, I think there is room to disqualify them in the completion as they were not meant for circulation at all (as an aside, the 1906-S peso qualifies, since despite its scarcity of the low hundreds, it was minted and monetized for circulation).

Another suggestion I had (which is how the set registry USED to do and still does for some issues) was list the coins in the registry but not have them count towards completion.


Calling anyone from the PCGS registry to add their 2 cents worth

TaiNoHenka

Yeah, I suspect that there will come a time when I will have a set that's almost complete and I'll run into this same issue ( chances are it will also be the same coin that's missing) and get frustrated about it too. I guess all we can do is hope this catches the attention of the guys in charge at PCGS.

dalbert

I contacted the PCGS registry people almost a year ago and it looks like they listened. The 1903-S is no longer a requirement to complete the set and a new complete type set category was listed. Here's looking forward to it!

garsmith

Hello all,
As you can maybe tell from my sig line, I married a Philippina (Civil wedding) on July 3rd, 2006. I went back to the Philippines for Christmas and New Years and we had our Roman Catholic Church wedding services on January 4th, 2007. Anyways I would like to start a Philippine coin collection for my wife and I would appreciate any guidance you could give me on reasearch and resources for Philippine coins.

First off could one of you provide a link to the PCGS registry site for Philippine coinage, I tried looking for it earlier but the only world coins I could find for Asia are Japanese coins.


Thanks,
Gareth R. Smith

dalbert

They are listed under

Set Registry > Private Issues & Territorial Gold on the lower half of the page

Not very descriptive if you ask me, since there were no US-Philippines coins issued in gold (only 1 numismatic item, a medal -- referred to as the Wilson Dollar, was issued in gold), and I wouldn't call them private issues either since they were minted by the San Francisco, Denver, Philadelphia and Manila mints.

garsmith

Thanks Dalbert, I would have never thought to look there!