A question for strike designation proponents

tradedollarnut

Here are two coins of the same grade. Which of these coins is valued around $60,000 and which realized only appx $5,000:

DennisH

Neither one looks FB to me.

LindeDad

Just because of the difference in the pictures the first one has to be the cheaper coin, it has a better picture.

DIMEMAN

Neither one is FB, so it has to be the date and MM.

DIMEMAN

Also, no s mint is worth 60K in a grade either one of those coins could be.

tradedollarnut

Same bat date, same bat mintmark.

This is why I would collect the 'just missed it' coins over the 'just made it' coins. Seems silly to pay 10 times as much for a coin that isn't significantly better just because of the designation on the holder.

Dan50

I'm not sure it's fair to grade the two, what with the difference in quality of the photos being what they are.

That said, the top coin has better detail in everything except the top and lower band.

Then again the top coin looks off center, with the serated edges cutting into the rims at 1 - 3 oclock.
And again down around the 4 oclock area.

You never said they were the same date/mint, just that they were the same grade.

OH you stated that while I was responding, they are the same D/M

One last note: .. It's hard to grade half a coin.

DIMEMAN

Must be a 19-S in 66, which if it is, it is overgraded and no bands.

And too high if it were 66 and did have bands!!

Jon

DIMEMAN

Getting back to your point TDN. I agree with you. I had the #1 set in 2002 and 2004 and I would not pay stupid money for the bands.

The hair detail on the obv is more important to me.

Jon

mercurydimeguy

TDN, I'm going out on a limb but I'd say both of those are 26-S's and not the 19-S. I've seen a number of 26-S's and ironically wound up buying a 62FB (not the 65's and 66's I've seen) because it REALLY had FB...not the wish bands the other coins had. The same thing could be said of 19-S's, though.

One of the reasons why I recently got fed up with submitting FB Mercs to PCGS is exactly for this reason. After I built my FB with varieties set 100% complete, I'm out and will be taking a Merc breather until PCGS does the right thing!

I looked at crap, after crap, after crap -- "wish" band coins in high grade PCGS holders. Yet, KEY date coins I was submitting with strong bands were getting no banded or graded lower.

I can't even tell you how many times I've sent in coins for "their" opinion, yet somehow (given plausible deniability) they've always been able to rationalize it.

I'm a big proponent of PCGS taking all the BS coins out of the market -- they should buy them back, reslab them appropriately and put them back in to the market place. That is the honorable thing to do, and is certainly within the parameters of their guaranty. But the guaranty is BS, because if it wasn't they'd be buying these coins back and/or they would have bought that God awful 60-D nickel back out of auction instead of JHF.

Enough said -- I feel a bit better

Here's what an FB Merc should look like:

DennisH

Wow! Now that's an FB coin!

DIMEMAN

That IS A FULL BAND Merc.

And I agree with you completely Mercurydimeguy. It's a bunch of BS. I don't care what anybody says, I think they know who's coins they are grading.

Fairlaneman

TDN you must remember that a collector can spend their money how they want even if it makes no sense.

Personally I love these No Band Dimes like this one below.




Full Bands can be cool also. A 28S Killer Coin.



Ken

Dan50

<< <i>Here's what an FB Merc should look like: >>



WOW look up full band in the dictionary, and that should be the picture beside it.

tradedollarnut

TDN you must remember that a collector can spend their money how they want even if it makes no sense.

I agree ... provided you agree that the same collector might hear snickers behind his back.

But seriously, I do agree. However, that person should have their eyes wide open and recognize that not always will there be a buyer for a coin that costs 10 times more for the minute difference in strike between the two dimes I illustrated. If I were collecting Mercs or SLQ's or Franklins [etc], I'd focus on eye appealing specimens that just missed and save my money for more coins.

Fairlaneman

<< <i>TDN you must remember that a collector can spend their money how they want even if it makes no sense.

I agree ... provided you agree that the same collector might hear snickers behind his back.

But seriously, I do agree. However, that person should have their eyes wide open and recognize that not always will there be a buyer for a coin that costs 10 times more for the minute difference in strike between the two dimes I illustrated. >>



Are you suggesting that collectors just might be getting wise about this strike designation thing that has been thrust upon them ? The buyer part is so very true. I think a few around here can attest to that.

Ken

DIMEMAN

I agree with TDN here. I would much rather have a coin with eye appeal than a ugly coin with FULL "whatever"!!!!!!!!

Jon

morgannut2

I've compromised for my birthday mint set and just got a FBL Franklin at 3 tomes the money of non fbl cost-- only it was gorgeously toned and PQ so I had to shell out another 4X more on top of the FBL premium-- Plus my agent at the sale said she might vomit on it cause it's a Franklin--even though she likes coins that are top 5% for the grade!!!! --Hope it cleans up!!

fcloud

You can't buy the holder, you need to buy the coin. If a Dime is a NO Band Dime, it doesn't matter what the holder says. There are many coins in holders with the wrong designation. I have a 1916-S AU55 that comes up full band, and a 1921-D AU50 that comes up full band when you punch in the cert numbers. These coins are clearly PCGS mechanincal errors. The same my go for the coins you show. These could be mechanical errors. You can also find some full band coins in NO Band holders (these would be PQ, until they are regraded, then they could be average).

There are a number of people who simply have enough money to buy the holder and don't care what is in the holder. And we should not need to tell them how to spend their money. If they were smart enough to earn big bucks, they should be smart enough to know how to spend it.