The debate on what to do with SF and BS coins continues.
wondercoin
Posts: 16,905 ✭✭✭✭✭
There are MANY reasons why I believe PCGS did the right thing. I'll name just one right now...
#1. From time to time, mechanical errors get out of the PCGS building and, say, an MS69 SF coins goes out in a non-SF holder. Last year, for example I received (4) MS69 CA(d) along with a bevy of CA(d) MS68 coins mismarked as "regular" and not-SF in one sinlge order. Each of those CA(d) coins would be worth potentially THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS as true MS69 (non-SF) coins in my opinion right now. The easier SF coins on the other hand a few hundred dollars per coin. The MS68 regular issue CA(d) would have been worth roughly a few hundred dollars per coin, while the SF trade around $15/coin. Bottom line -this mechanical error batch I mentioned alone would have netted the submittor roughly $10,000 - $15,000 in "extra" money had these coins been peddled off in the market place in the holders they were slabbed (by accident) to unsuspecting collectors.
In my case, all of the CA(d) quarters immediately went back to PCGS and they corrected all of the coins. But, as I have personally seen (and have been informed by others) in far too many cases submittors elected to sell off the mechanical error coins into the marketplace. And, those parties that received these SF coins mismarked as regular issue have serial numbers for regular issue high grade coins that are really nothing more than common SF coins. Some sellers simply sold them off because (I assume) they were too busy to take the time to correct the holders with PCGS. Perhaps others sold them specifically for the purpose of "cashing in" on the mechanical errors. Many of the highest graded (potential) mechanical errors appeared in public auction venues and fetched "4 figures" for coins that would be worth as little as $30-$50 if relabeled SF (and the "beauty" is the consignor of these coins never has to "face" the end user winning bidder at these public auctions). I have been working closely with the fellow responsible for the PCGS Price Guide in the State quarter series (as well as Sac Dollars etc) and he has compiled a list of all of the dubious public sales of these "regular issue" holders both he and I have come across.
AND, ALL I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING SO FAR HAS BEEN GOING ON BEFORE, REPEAT, BEFORE, PCGS DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT TO REQUIRE BOTH SF AND NON-SF COINS IN THE REGULAR STATE QUARTER REGISTRY SET. Could you imagine what these "mechanical errors" would be trading at if collectors could pick up pop 1 or pop 2 (mislabeled) coins and gain strong position in their rankings!!! Heck, I suspect a decent % of these collectors probably couldn't even tell the difference between SF and non-SF coins and would be buying $50 coins for thousands of dollars each without even knowing it.
I have no doubt in my mind that PCGS has protected the buying public by making it optional to include either a $50 MS69 SF coin or a $2,500 true non-SF coin in each of the (10) slots of the state quarter collection. IMHO, greedy or lazy dealers and collectors substantially contributed to the reality that it will be difficult to ever determine the true pops of many of the 2005 coinage in SF and non-SF in the future. I applaud the efforts of a number of dedicated collectors who search out the "open" registry sets and email the owners of coins they believe to be nothing more than mislabeled SF coins in their registry sets.
In the future if PCGS sets up a "variety set" of state quarters that includes the SF and non-SF coins (all 20 coins per year), it will do so to allow true collectors to have a place to list all (20) SF and non-SF coins BUT, the reality is some collectors will still be "burned" buying mislabeled coins. But, perhaps far, far fewer than those hundreds of collectors currently collecting the regular state quarter registry set coins (as history has shown that a small percentage of collectors chose the variety registry sets as compared to the regular ones and those that often do have a bit more expertise on the coins in the collection - not always, but, quite often).
Once again - good job PCGS in your decision to make it optional to include either a SF or non-SF coin in the regular issue 2005 slots.
DO YOU SUPPORT MAINTAINING THE OPTIONAL STATUS FOR SF AND NON-SF COINS IN THE 2005 REGULAR REGISTRY SETS, ESPECIALLY IF DOWN THE ROAD VARIETY SETS ARE ESTABLISHED TO INCLUDE BOTH SF AND NON-SF COINS?
Wondercoin
Note - The title of this thread edited on 3/12/07, but not a word of my opening post.
#1. From time to time, mechanical errors get out of the PCGS building and, say, an MS69 SF coins goes out in a non-SF holder. Last year, for example I received (4) MS69 CA(d) along with a bevy of CA(d) MS68 coins mismarked as "regular" and not-SF in one sinlge order. Each of those CA(d) coins would be worth potentially THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS as true MS69 (non-SF) coins in my opinion right now. The easier SF coins on the other hand a few hundred dollars per coin. The MS68 regular issue CA(d) would have been worth roughly a few hundred dollars per coin, while the SF trade around $15/coin. Bottom line -this mechanical error batch I mentioned alone would have netted the submittor roughly $10,000 - $15,000 in "extra" money had these coins been peddled off in the market place in the holders they were slabbed (by accident) to unsuspecting collectors.
In my case, all of the CA(d) quarters immediately went back to PCGS and they corrected all of the coins. But, as I have personally seen (and have been informed by others) in far too many cases submittors elected to sell off the mechanical error coins into the marketplace. And, those parties that received these SF coins mismarked as regular issue have serial numbers for regular issue high grade coins that are really nothing more than common SF coins. Some sellers simply sold them off because (I assume) they were too busy to take the time to correct the holders with PCGS. Perhaps others sold them specifically for the purpose of "cashing in" on the mechanical errors. Many of the highest graded (potential) mechanical errors appeared in public auction venues and fetched "4 figures" for coins that would be worth as little as $30-$50 if relabeled SF (and the "beauty" is the consignor of these coins never has to "face" the end user winning bidder at these public auctions). I have been working closely with the fellow responsible for the PCGS Price Guide in the State quarter series (as well as Sac Dollars etc) and he has compiled a list of all of the dubious public sales of these "regular issue" holders both he and I have come across.
AND, ALL I HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING SO FAR HAS BEEN GOING ON BEFORE, REPEAT, BEFORE, PCGS DECIDED WHETHER OR NOT TO REQUIRE BOTH SF AND NON-SF COINS IN THE REGULAR STATE QUARTER REGISTRY SET. Could you imagine what these "mechanical errors" would be trading at if collectors could pick up pop 1 or pop 2 (mislabeled) coins and gain strong position in their rankings!!! Heck, I suspect a decent % of these collectors probably couldn't even tell the difference between SF and non-SF coins and would be buying $50 coins for thousands of dollars each without even knowing it.
I have no doubt in my mind that PCGS has protected the buying public by making it optional to include either a $50 MS69 SF coin or a $2,500 true non-SF coin in each of the (10) slots of the state quarter collection. IMHO, greedy or lazy dealers and collectors substantially contributed to the reality that it will be difficult to ever determine the true pops of many of the 2005 coinage in SF and non-SF in the future. I applaud the efforts of a number of dedicated collectors who search out the "open" registry sets and email the owners of coins they believe to be nothing more than mislabeled SF coins in their registry sets.
In the future if PCGS sets up a "variety set" of state quarters that includes the SF and non-SF coins (all 20 coins per year), it will do so to allow true collectors to have a place to list all (20) SF and non-SF coins BUT, the reality is some collectors will still be "burned" buying mislabeled coins. But, perhaps far, far fewer than those hundreds of collectors currently collecting the regular state quarter registry set coins (as history has shown that a small percentage of collectors chose the variety registry sets as compared to the regular ones and those that often do have a bit more expertise on the coins in the collection - not always, but, quite often).
Once again - good job PCGS in your decision to make it optional to include either a SF or non-SF coin in the regular issue 2005 slots.
DO YOU SUPPORT MAINTAINING THE OPTIONAL STATUS FOR SF AND NON-SF COINS IN THE 2005 REGULAR REGISTRY SETS, ESPECIALLY IF DOWN THE ROAD VARIETY SETS ARE ESTABLISHED TO INCLUDE BOTH SF AND NON-SF COINS?
Wondercoin
Note - The title of this thread edited on 3/12/07, but not a word of my opening post.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
0
Comments
I am open to hear other viewpoints on the subject. If I later changed my mind, it wouldn't be the first time.
Wondercoin
I WAS BEING SUBTLE REGARDING MY ANNOYANCE AT YOUR PROCLIVITY TO POST THREADS IN ALL CAPS TITLES.
Bruce Scher
<< <i>Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) >>
Reading the title of the set spoken about looks to me that it should contain Circulation Strike coins. I was unaware that Satin Finish coins where produced for Circulation
So because of "mechanical errors" this set is no longer a true Circulation Strike set
If these "mechanical errors" are because the label has the wrong info how could the coin's get past the 2 verification checks that are preformed once the coin has been sealed.
<< <i>DO YOU SUPPORT MAINTAINING THE OPTIONAL STATUS FOR SF AND NON-SF COINS IN THE 2005 REGULAR REGISTRY SETS, ESPECIALLY IF DOWN THE ROAD VARIETY SETS ARE ESTABLISHED TO INCLUDE BOTH SF AND NON-SF COINS? >>
If the set is for Circulation Strike coins than it should require ALL Circulation Strike coins. Because PCGS "mechanical errors" where released, a Variety coin is now allowed in a Circulation Strike Set
I see how they have little choice. They need to be consistent across the board. Even if the set owners for one series want the SF coins out, I cannot see how they could do this and leave them in another set where the set owners want them.
So because the grading companies couldn't get it right everything slabbed non SF is questionable.
Which brings the value down.
My comments are addressed to State Quarters only.
I have to assign much of the mislabeling problems to PCGS and the new Satin Finish holders. Since they do not contain the PCGS coin number, only the certification number.
Is the seller responsible for checking each coin they sell?
Also I am glad to hear someone is working on the price guide, because it certainly is useless as it now stands. The pop report is not much better in some cases but the true collector knows which coins are not available. If anyone will sell me a MN-P MS68 Please let me know.
<< <i>So because the grading companies couldn't get it right everything slabbed non SF is questionable. Which brings the value down. >>
Maybe they wanted to collect grading Fee's for Circulation Strike coins as long as possible before they hit the button.
I would suspect Submissions of True circulation Strike coins Will drop Drastically with this news.
<< <i>If anyone will sell me a MN-P MS68 Please let me know. >>
Good luck on finding one of these for sale now
<< <i>I guess some people think the sac dollar should a one year type in the registry. >>
Cool Idea, something like the "First Strike" coins first one in is the winner
<< <i>Many of the highest graded (potential) mechanical errors appeared in public auction venues and fetched "4 figures" for coins that would be worth as little as $30-$50 >>
I would think a buyer of such coin would have the right to send it to PCGS for their Guarantee?? I remember reading a similar thread which a coin was not graded properly and PCGS paid up? Maybe
(Now, what about these instant label Pops being placed in the NGC Registries?)
peacockcoins
<< <i>A better idea would be if PCGS simply stopped mis-labeling coins and allowing these errors to escape into the market place. That said, and knowing we live in the real world, sure- PCGS making it optional for either SF or non SF State quarters is reasonable. But 'giving up' as PCGS is doing and basically admitting they can't control letting these mistakes out is akin to McDonalds giving each of their customers a shot of penicillin because they can't get their employees to wash their hands. >>
I think by saying either the MS coin or SF coin can be in the set, they are basically saying the "complete" sets are not complete, and will never be complete. It's truely a sad day when PCGS can't figure out another way to stop mechanical mistakes from leaving the building. It just goes to prove the fact that PCGS won't ever fix this basic mistake...
Truely Sad.
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
Dan
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
I personally agree with mas,date, and usn. Why in the hell should I settle for a lower set rating,when its comprised of 5 circ strike coins in 68 that are no easy chore to find. And why should sms coins be allowed in these circ sets, but 65-7 sms coins are not allowed in their respective sets?
It must be nice to have double standards when needed. And then to have someone of Wondercoins stature say "It was the right thing to do" BS Lay that crap out somewhere else, any of the real collectors here won't buy it. Its the right thing to do: not to admit or handle the mistakes made by a grading service that is supposed to be "the #1 and most respected service in the industry."
I have pulled my set from the registry. 4 of the 5 ms68 05 circ 25c I own, there is no doubt they are correctly labeled. 2 of which were acquired BEFORE the mint set release. And the other coin the pop is so screwed up, it doesn't matter at this point. But to tell me that I my set is of a lesser standing (which can be construed as "lesser quality") because of more common, and lesser valued coins is wrong, any way you cut it. So to hell with their decision to cover their ass. And if my making these comments gets me ousted for awhile, then so be it.
The only right thing to do here is to recall all 05 coins and review them for correctness. That's with paid shipping both ways. But THAT doesn't fly with shockholders so well, does it? Then make all 20 coins required in the registry. And allow the 65-7 sms coins in the circ set also.
I have to wonder what this will do for pcgs later down the road. Now there will always be the shadow of doubt on these and future slabs by pcgs. And it definately kills the competetive nature of the registry, at least to those of us that want a fair playing field.
BTW, I just returned an order to the other big TPG to have the same 'mechanical' errors corrected.
Buyers of mechanical errors are not entitled to the PCGS Guaranty from what I know. Therefore, these collectors are at risk for sizeable losses when sellers fail to return to PCGS mechanical errors (mislabeled SF coins).
Second, I have heard numerous reports of SF coins showing up in rolls and bags from the Mint. Indeed, there are also reports of SF coins in 2004 mint sets as well. Not to mention, circulation strikes vs. mint set coins for all of 1999-2004 coins. A roll coin from 1999 is totally different than a mint set coin - why does no one seem to care about all of the exceedingly scarce high end rolls coins from 1999-2004 and simply treat them the same for Registry purposes along with the relatively easy Mint set coins from those years? Heck, I believe my MS68 CT(p) "roll coin" is much tougher to locate than a CT(p) MS68 from a 1999 Mint set ("vastly different in scarcity and look" too as Mark mentioned for 2005's)- even if they are equally as tough - why shouldn't both the "roll coin" CT intended for general circulation and the govt. issued mint set coin CT (which look vastly different) be both required then in the Registry just like the SF and non-SF coins of 2005 which a number of you want to be both required?
No question that a significant number of dealers woud love to see PCGS require all (20) coins - that would result in double the coins to be sold to every registry participant. And, no question a signifcant number of collectors enjoy the idea that they can chose a coin for these (10) slots - saving them potentially thousands of dollars per year not having to "double up" on every coin.
I am very comfortable with PCGS' decision in light of my personal belief that: (a) prior year roll coins and Mint set coins are essentially "totally different beasts" (does anyone think for a second that a MI(d) or TX(d) roll coin looks anything like the MS69+ examples that came from the 2004 mint sets?); (b) it is also very possible that SF coins may have been released by the Mint for general circulation
in 2005 through bags or roll sales.
This is a very interesting issue,which is why I posted the thread in the first place. Frankly, a special registry set for state quarters from rolls and bags only would be a really neat collection (and exceedingly tough in super high grade) - but, my view is the vastly different look for these coins as compared to the mint set coins began with the 1999 Delaware quarter - not the 2005 CA quarter. Does anyone disagree with this premise? I would be happy to pass around examples of the "roll coin" vs. "mint set coin" for the 1999 state quarters at Long Beach and anyone can see for themselves the "night and day" differences in look between them. Make no mistake about it - high end roll and bag coins from 1999 are equally as cool as highend roll and bag coins from 2005.
Wondercoin.
So tell me, if Mass3387 or Datentype lets say comes up with a CA-P MS69 Business strike. A great pop 1 coin, worth thousands of course and I have my CA-P MS69SF Satin Finish coin. A regular run of the mill satin finish coin, nothin great a $60 coin. You mean to tell me they get the same consideration in the registry set, and your trying to tell me that this is fair. I can't believe that you of all people think that this is right. After you put in all your time and effort to make your coins and this is what you get for it, BS on that. I can see PCGS trying to cover there butts for their mistakes, but to me this is a load of crap and not very fair to the poor people that make the top pop coins. Its a shame a real shame....
E-Bay Auctionsl
I don't collect SQ's....but I sent in two 2005-P lincolns and two 2005-D lincolns that I personally handpicked out of a slew of mint sets (obviously SF). The grades came back from PCGS as 3 MS69RD's and 1 MS68RD SF. I have to admit, I went this route because IT WAS MUCH EASIER AND CHEAPER TO MAKE SATIN FINISH FOR MY SET THAN REGULAR BUSINESS STRIKE. Reading the many points in this post has made me realize that we should require both for the registry set. It is much more of a challenge to find high grade regular business strikes and that's what most of us here like...a great challenge.
It would be costly for set collectors to have to "double up" as you had mentioned but what else is there to buy? Collectors like to be able to upgrade their sets and add to them and there is virtually no chance of that for an advanced set holder, as the top grades have virtually dried up for prevoius years. I also predicted that after graders saw satin finish coins they started comparing in their heads business strikes to satin finish coins. they could not call all of the satin finish coins ms69 SF as they had to to have some 8's to spread out the population. therefore, when they are looking at business strikes they compare them and that would explain why they do not generally hand out that grade quite as easily.
<< <i>I have pulled my set from the registry. >>
the insert sealed in the slab with the coin was a way to buy coins sight un-seen. If they
can just say they got the variety wrong and reslab it for free why can't they say we got
the grade wrong and offer no compensation?
Wondercoin I know you are not PCGS, but you are connected bet you are sorry you started this great discussion.
Again I can only speak for State Quarters
Can you find out why the label says SF and the coin number does not reflect the Variety number. This is NOT a label fix (re-holder) this is a database change to assign the correct coin number. I feel confident that the majority of errors in the pop report fall into this category. There is no need to re-holder
We had pops showing on WV and KS before the business coins were even available. How sloppy was this?
Would PCGS ever considering weighing the coins as NGC does. A MS68 business is worth more than a MS69 SF.
As far as the registry I am keeping my business strikes in. If the two number one sets die (the sets and not the gentlemen) I will then put in my SF coins and become number 1 and get my star.
The sad thing is there will even less NEVADA quarters searched.
PCGS hires a Finalizer that all he does is check for errors before the coins are shipped out to the owners/submitters. Pay this Finalizer $500,000.00 a year but with this one caveat: Stipulate that for every single mistake that is returned to PCGS and found to be a mechanical error- the value difference between the coin and it's label is deducted from this Finalizer's $500,000.00 yearly gross.
If he's good he'll earn the full half mil. (And, save PCGS a ton in heartaches and cash!) If he's not so good well he just may end up working the year for a substantially less of a paycheck. It's a win-win for PCGS the collector and the Finalizer (potentially)!
That's my opinion on curing the problem.
What say you?
peacockcoins
Mark: I am glad we agree on the vastly different look for roll coins vs. mint set coins starting from day 1 of the state quarter program. And, from the "purist" standpoint - if the grading companies do not recognize these differences for the 1999-2004 coinage, then I am personally not offended that the trend continues for 2005. Yes, the fact is that the US Mint finally gave the mint set coins a special name in 2005.
We also agree that it would be very costly for the average collector to be required to collect (2) of every coin for 2005. Yes, for the majority of the collectors in the "top twenty", the cost is affordable. I am not so sure that would be the case with the majority of the bottom 50% of the collections listed? I did enjoy your comment about "what else is there to buy"? I'm sure the vast majority of dealers reading this thread would think it rediculous to buy the first (10) state quarters in top grade, let alone all (20) including the multi-thousand dollar non-SF coins.
Ellewood: There is no question in my mind that the regular issue coins are far tougher than the SF mint set coins (which grade MS68 relatively easily for those who do not know). But, IMHO, the jury is still out on just how tough the non-SF coins truly are in MS67 (and some dates MS68). Bear in mind that the coins have not been produced in significant mass quantities like some of the prior year state quarters, in part, because some producers wanted to see PCGS' final decision first before dedicating time and energy to produce these coins. Don't get me wrong - I greatly respect to toughness of these 2005 non-SF coins, but I also know what can take place when major funds, time and effort are expended on year 2000-2004 state quarters. Just one case in point - a couple years ago the 2002 IND(d) state quarter was a very low pop coin (pop 15 or 20 as I recall) in MS68 top pop grade and trading for around $700. It was considered a very challenging state to locate in MS68. I received word from a customer who told me he would buy (10) -(20) MS68 coins if I could ever find them or have them produced. Significant time, effort and capital was spent to try to produce these particular coins. The end result - I was able to buy roughly -100- PCGS-MS68 IND(d) coins in a single week shortly thereafter! This was also attempted on a number of other state quarters with the complete opposite results - my point is simply that there has not been enough energy expended to truly determine whether a coin like the KS(p) non-SF in MS68 is as rare as a GA(d) in MS68 or whether a KS(d) in non-SF MS68 is actually fairly obtainable and along the lines of the IND(d) I mentioned.
More later...
Wondercoin
As far as the IN-D coins: have not seen them but usually when a large batch of something sqweeks out of the bulk room there has been a grading compromise. Similar to the pr69dcam Ike's I have seen or what i am told about the 76-s silver IKE's in ms68 etc.... The IN-d is tough in true "historic" PCGS level ms68. I have no idea how they might grade the IN-D's now, that is why I used "historic". My guess the same coins are not going to make it now. I would love to gather up a couple of hundered state coins graded pcgs ms68 and send them back on their grading guarantee and watch them eat the cost. It's too bad they cannot talk about the standards changing at PCGS, they will not discuss it in any way. The new President. R. Guth comes across as being very professional and big on customer satisfaction and it reminds me of PCGS when R. Montgomery was President. Maybe things will change for the better? The new bulk guy is much more approachable and I doubt there will be any "good customer deals" from him.
For those who want a different registry, you should go out and start one. Nothing stopping you.
<< <i>"good customer deals" >>
This can't be true,
Why you were able to grade (a dozen?) 2004(p) Sacs in PCGS-MS69 and I was able to get in all 8/8 PCGS-MS69 2004(d) Sacs in PCGS-MS69 last year is anyones guess. While the Mint did not call the coins "SF" in 2004, clearly something different took place with the dies. No MS69's period were coming from roll or bag coins in 2004 - right?
In any event, I think we can all agree it is a much more difficult issue regarding how to treat all of the 2005 MS coins than what might otherwise appear on the surface.
Dbldie55 is raising some interesting points as well.
Wondercoin
Lincoln Cents Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1909-Present)
Jefferson Nickels Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1938-present)
Roosevelt Dimes FB, Circulation Strikes (1965-Present)
Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present)
Sacagawea Dollars, Circulation Strikes (2000-present)
Tesoro: First, thank you for your phone call this morning and email commending me for starting this thread (even though you disagree with my position). I appreciate it.
YES, we did see pops for WV and KS non-SF even before the non-SF coins were ever released from the mint. And, didn't it take quite an effort by collectors like yourself for those consignors to correct those mechanical errors with PCGS and their pop report? What I can not understand here is why these submittors (collectors and dealers alike) do not immediately return their coins for PCGS to correct the mechanical errors for the benefit of the hobby?
And, to address Dbldie55's point head on- the Sac Registry sets and Kennedy Half dollar registry sets for CIRCULATION strikes contain the Mint Set coins including the 2005 SF coins as well as coins sold by the Mint at substantial premiums to face value not intended for general circulation to the general public - right? Yet, no one has complained over the past few years about those Registry set collectors having to fill their holes with non-circulating coins? What about that?
Wondercoin
<< <i>And, to address Dbldie55's point head on- the Sac Registry sets and Kennedy Half dollar registry sets for CIRCULATION strikes contain the Mint Set coins including the 2005 SF coins as well as coins sold by the Mint at substantial premiums to face value not intended for general circulation to the general public - right? >>
Up until the 2005 Satin finish coins:
These coins intended for general circulation, only found in mint sets, did not have a different PCGS coin number or special designation assigned - right?
Sac dollar set:
I see two coins not intended for general circulation
2000-P 9584
2000-P Goodacre 99584
2000-D 9585
2000-D Millennium 99585
Different coin number - right?
separate slot for each - right?
They are both required in the Sacagawea Dollars Circulation Strikes , (2000-present)
2005 Satin finish coins Have a Different coin number than 2005 Circulation Strike coins - right?
But if sms coins are not allowed in one group of circulation strike sets, then they shouldn't be allowed in any of them. Or, they should be allowed in all the registry sets. Ultimately this whole mess has been created by mint, as lincolnsrule pointed out. It has just snowballed since day one, with many mistakes that followed. The big issue to me is that with the stand pcgs has taken, its a turn down a road that I feel has lessened their credibilty. The problem wasn't just in the grading room. It was in the data entry also. I personally had to clean up
a sf slab that showed up as a business strike in 69. But pcgs's failure to take an initiative here is what is totally reckless. Why should it
be up to the dealers and collectors to point out the mistakes made (and they do deserve recognition for not taking advantage of this situation) and then they get cleaned up.
Your comment about a 20 coin requirement is valid, but, you know as well as I that when there is a will, there is a way. I honestly don't think it would hurt the lower tier sets. They don't or can't collect the lower pop coins. That's not to say their dedication to their series of choice is any less than the guy that holds a #1 set.
Maybe this issue would have been better handled if the circ strikes were weighted differently than the sf strikes. I guess it remains to be seen how this is resolved. In the mean time, I am not going to put my quarters back in the registry. I would like to see others pull their coins as well. If our complaints don't get addressed through this forum or through their customer service dept, maybe when they see
their marketing ploy (registry) start to dwindle, they will wake up and rethink their position on this problem.
mas: Just because I have taken this stand, it by no means affects my next purchase from you!!!!!
over priced shiney round discs because the powers that be have had a brain fart........as
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
The current bid is $3000 Small Cent 2005D PCGS 70 RD Satin Finish
Here is a link in case any of you want to bid.2005 Satin Finish on Teletrade
Dennis
And, I tend to agree with MAS as well. I do not recall PCGS ever asked me about the Goodacre and Millenium Sacs, but, if they had originally, I believe I may have suggested that the (2) coins be permitted in a "Variety Sac set" only. They really have no place in the circulation strike registry set - do they?
But, Rb7557 - perhaps one thing has been lost in the debate here... I believe the (20) state quarters (SF and non-SF) from 2005 and the (2) WI error coins should be the first (12) additional variety coins in a brand new State Quarter variety set PCGS should launch. I think the set would be SUPER COOL and the 2005 non-SF coins would get HUGE respect within that brand new registry set. This would give the "more serious" collectors a chance to build the variety collection and the "less serious" the enjoyment of completing a regular issue set being able to chose between the non-SF and SF coins to fill holes. Does this make sense to you?
Wondercoin
peacockcoins
Mitch (I'm Roger by the way) that makes perfectly good sense to me. And I could live with this kind of registry set. But only if it applied to all the other sets that the sf coins have affected.
And, I tend to agree with MAS as well. I do not recall PCGS ever asked me about the Goodacre and Millenium Sacs, but, if they had originally, I believe I may have suggested that the (2) coins be permitted in a "Variety Sac set" only. They really have no place in the circulation strike registry set - do they?
No they really don't. Lets not leave out the "cherios" sac if a variety set comes out of this....
I agree Roger.
"What's wrong with asking PCGS to make sure the coins that are given to them to authenticate and grade aren't returned properly?"
Pat: I agree. One thing that might complicate things is if PCGS were to receive a govt. mint wrapped (or bank wrapped) roll (or smaller $ bag) of a certain denomination of 2005 coins, but, there appeared to be SF Mint set coins in the roll/bag? Frankly, defaulting "close calls" to SF would make sense to me (just like is done with 1965-67 SMS coins right now). In the rare case, you have a guy like Datentype proving his OR state quarter is truly a non-SF coin and the coin can change to non-SF (and that is great). In other cases, they are probably correct that the high end coin is a SF anyway, but, at least it is a protection against wrongfully labeled SF coins getting holdered as non-SF coins.
Dennis: It will be interesting to see if that 05(d) cent in MS70SF sells tonight. I believe I have seen it once or twice on TT before with the consignor looking for near $5,000 give or take. I would personally be surprised if PCGS grades too many more of the "d" mint 2005 coins in MS70RD. It has been very tough going of late to make either wheats or Memorials in super grade, let alone MS70RD grade.
Wondercoin
I had hoped PCGS would see that this is way to screwed up to work like it is.
But I guess stooping to ask the set builders what they think is below their lofty status.
After all it's not like we are "good customers", what with our small 5 - 10 submissions and only $200.00 membership fees.
I also know that my set wont be missed, but sometimes you have to do something you don't really want to do.
In my case it's the fact that I started a circulation strike set, and no one thats not buying my coins for me, has a right to make me change my goal just to cover their blunders.
It's been fun guys.. Dan.
I had hoped PCGS would see that this is way to screwed up to work like it is.
But I guess stooping to ask the set builders what they think is below their lofty status.
After all it's not like we are "good customers", what with our small 5 - 10 submissions and only $200.00 membership fees.
I also know that my set wont be missed, but sometimes you have to do something you don't really want to do.
In my case it's the fact that I started a circulation strike set, and no one thats not buying my coins for me, has a right to make me change my goal just to cover their blunders.
It's been fun guys.. Dan.
This is a sad state of affairs. I really wonder how many of us out there have similiar feelings but aren't saying a word?
Dan you collect what you want, and what makes you feel happy. My registry set started out by throwing the shq's into a jar!!!
I have a circulated set in a map. I had a raw set w/proofs in an album, but sold them off to help pay for the slabs I have been
buying. I tried the submission game, did ok if you count getting lucky "ok". I have gotten some very good pointers along
the way, some by a person here who has the "eye" without a doubt.
<< <i>And, I tend to agree with MAS as well. I do not recall PCGS ever asked me about the Goodacre and Millenium Sacs >>
Must be my lucky day,
<< <i>I believe the (20) state quarters (SF and non-SF) from 2005 and the (2) WI error coins should be the first (12) additional variety coins in a brand new State Quarter variety set PCGS should launch. I think the set would be SUPER COOL >>
The 12 variety coins being the 2005 SF P & D Mint along with the Wisconsin high / Low Leaf?
As we know these coins do have there own PCGS Coin Number and do deserve a slot?
<< <i>I would throw the "humpback bison" variety of MAS's into the variety set too. Look for the price to increase dramatically when PCGS decides to recognize it for the set. >>
Cool coin, sounds like fun
Box of 20