"stopped at California only because I was reluctant to add 20 coins to my set for 2005"
I believe a sentiment shared by many state quarter collectors although few actually post to these threads to avoid getting caught up in a "war zone". But, I received another phone call today from a "top 20" state quarter set holder who fully supports the optional treatment of the 2005 coins which PCGS adopted.
My take on it is adding legitimate state quarter varieties only spices things up, although I am not sure we are ready for this "urinating minuteman" from MASS just yet.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I think some great points have been raised here by all parties. You know...I know everyone has a right to his/her opinion...but the one thing that we have to keep reminding ourselves is that PCGS cannot satisfy everyone. Some people want SF coins and business strikes in the sets, some only want one or the other and some don't really give a damn either way.
The second thing that we have to remember is that WE ARE JUST COLLECTING COINS. Do you collect coins because you want to acquire each and every coin in the highest grade possible or do you collect coins because you want to fill every slot in a registry set and want to be higher than the next guy??
I see here that members are threatening to pull their sets and, don't get me wrong, they have every right to do so. It's just that I see a real negative side to the registry's existence emerging here...and it's that some of the finest collections that are assembled by some of the most experienced collectors....are no longer going to be part of the registry. It's a shame that such a neat concept of the registry can be really tainted by some much disagreement amongst the members.
A while back, PCGS decided that they would put the 65-67 SMS coins in the lincoln proof registry. They sent out an email...many people voted and walla...they are now required in the proof registry set. The MAJORITY of the people voted yes and that's what PCGS went with. I don't necessarily AGREE with that (I voted against it) but I'm not going to let it ruin the fun that I am having FUN trying to collect and build a great set!
Previous years mint sets were produced from regularly manuafactured dies under higher pressure and shorter life span hence known to collectors to be of higher quality. I search tens of thousands of state quarters each year since 1999 including mint sealed $1,000 $250 and $25 bags, bank wrapped rolls, and thousands of mint sets as well. 2005 mint sets are struck from specially prepared dies unlike in the past and the mint announced this new satin finish coin from the new chrome plated dies so hence from 2005 forward there is a distinctively different satin finish mint product than the prior year MS coins found in mint sets. The 2005 satin finish coins are obvious and not even close to the coins found in mint sealed bags and bank wrapped rolls. The only previous year state quarters the new satin finish dies come even close to resembling are some 2004-D mint set coins. It should be easy to figure out what incorrect coin numbering took place before the circulation strike coins were even released. Certainly PCGS certification data base can tell what date a serial number was assigned to a coin. I have heard that most if not all of the problem coins say satin finish on the label even though the certification number assigned on the label is for an MS coin. I think if these bad coins did not say satin finish we would see them on e-bay and to my knowledge the sellers there have legitimate coins and the few MS68 coins I see appear to be properly labeled. In any event any MS coin WCQX sells on ebay is the real deal and all of you that bought from me rest assured you have the genuine article and you will see it is vastly different looking than a miss-labeled satin finish coin. The big mistakes in labeling came from the big bulk submissions early on in the game in 2005. It would be a cake walk to track the vast majority of the labeling mistakes to these few early big batches and simply re-enter these serial numbers as satin finish. The labels probably say satin finish on them anyhow so the owners cannot sue PCGS for a refund if it is clearly stated satin finish on the holder. I am hoping only the pop report is fouled up and not the labels. WCQX
Hey Doug, you opened your set!!!! What a collection. I see you have the pop top sf coins. Congrats. And thank you for joining in on this little debate. Your comments are always interesting.
Doug can you give us your veiws on whether the shq circulation strike sets should have sf coins in them, or if they should maybe be allowed in a variety set. As you know, a pop top circ ms68 Ca-p will not bring your set up like the same coin with a ms69 sf grade. The circ strike is not as common, more expensive, but weighted the same as it's more common sf counterpart in 69. Soooooooooooo, what say ye???
Good to see you here Doug. I wish it was more often. Your coins are and always have been top notch peices. I don't think any one would question anything received by you. Good to see you and great to see your set still at the top. See you up there, well not quite up there but still on the first page. Take care DR......................WH
Thanks for your comments everyone, this is Doug WCQX weighing in. I ike the idea of making the satin finish a separate variety set especially if PCGS is able to fix the bulk of the label errors. The die hard state quarter collectors know me and the effort it takes to find high end coins from rolls and bags and I do not want mechanical errors fouling the market and it appears they are not at this time. The only thing fouling the market is that PCGS policy of either or since the SF coins are so easy to get in MS68 for $15each to keep the registry standing those that are not die hard true collectors will just buy the SF coins to keep their standing. To think for around $300 I could buy a set of SF in MS68 (10 coins) while a business strike set in 68 would be around $5K (none available right now, no KS-P in 68 yet). For those mechanical errors Mitch indicated sold for big bucks at a public auction did anyone actually look at these coins? Were the holders not labeled as satin finish? To demonstrate the difference in the rarity to my knowledge I am the only one to make a MN-P in MS68 non-satin finish and I made three of them by searching over 16,000 coins. In the 750 mint sets I went through this year there are 7,500 satin finish quarters to look thru including 750 MN-P. I found dozens of MS68 and MS69 SF MN-P and left the MS68 quality SF in the sets cause they are only worth the grading fees with no upside. The mint set coins for 2005 look totally different that these roll and bag coins. If we have a business strike set only and leave the rest as varieties then that would be best after the "clean-up" of the hundreds of miss-labeled quarters by PCGS. Those of us that watched the pop reports all year and had concurrent diiscussions about them could assist PCGS greatly if they decide to do some spring clean up before the 2006 mint set release. I emailed PCGS several times as did others while these errors were fresh and posted weekly to the pop reports each Monday. I am happy to verify whether your coins are satin finish or not for any of you that cannot tell the difference and would like my opinion. I have found many characteristics to look at to differentiate the coins. dr
Glad to see you posting on this thread. Would love to hear your thoughts on which coin should be required in the Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)? At this point we have two coins for each State and mint mark both with different PCGS coin #'s. PCGS does require coins with the same date and mint mark but with a different Designation in other sets. These same coins also have a different coin number just as the 2005 State Quarters. Example: 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)
Why is it the case here. At this point there is no slot to enter a true Circulation Strike coin. As we see with this optional *^%@ you would be forced to acquire SF coins to maintain a level that one wishes to be at within the Set Registry. If one chooses this route where does this leave the true Circulation Strike coin. Nowhere, but grading fees are still being collected for a coin with no place to go.
Doug: To be clear, my idea is to make a variety set contain all (20) different examples of the 2005 state quarters, while continuing to allow state quarter collectors to place either SF or non-SF coins in the "regular" state quarter collection. I believe Donn Murphy (co #1 set collector) fully supports this concept and he is as "die hard" as ANYONE I know. Perhaps he can also join in the discussion later this week. Just my idea - PCGS has not agreed to it.
IMHO, the pops are quite low on non-SF state quarters because no one has truly taken the time to produce them. And, I am not talking about looking at 7,500-16,000 coins out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of coins. Doug - you do a fabulous job examining coins in your spare time away from your day job. As have a few other guys, especially one very talented young man on a winter break from college that turned $12 into $1,000 on a single non-SF coin. But, a full-time effort is what it takes to turn pop 15's into pop 115's overnight (like the IND(d) MS68 top pops I mentioned earlier which went from a $700 coin to a $195 coin overnight). No one has cared to expend massive amounts of money and manpower into the non-SF coins from 2005 because, to this point, the mass demand is not present. It is mentioned that the non-SF coins in MS68 are worth around $5,000/set of 10 coins right now. Anyone who truly would like me to try to build (20) sets at $100,000 - please PM me and I can probably get one or two major coin producers to work right away on trying to produce the coins with just a modest down payment. Maybe we will produce (20) sets or maybe only (5) - but no one is asking for that prodcution to even be tried right now. I actually spoke to a major seller of these non-SF coins yesterday and he confirmed exactly what I am saying - he had no interest commiting to the purchase of a large quantity of PCGS graded non-SF coins at anywhere close to todays prices if I could produce and deliver freshly made coins of some of these states.
My point is simply this - high end SF coins (such as WV(d) MS69 and a number of other states in true MS70) are very challenging as are many non-SF coins in MS68 and better grade. Prices are where they are right now on non-SF coins (IMHO) because the mass production of them has not taken place (and may not take place for a while as there appears to be no one out there willing to agree to buy (20) coins anywhere near todays prices (for example - a KS(d) MS68 non-SF sold on ebay for over $1,000, but, I am not aware of anyone out there willing to agree to pay $750/coin for (10) -(20)coins if they were to be produced in the next (90) days. I asked a major buyer and dealer of state quarters about KS(d) MS68's just the other day - he had -0- interest in considering a lot purchase even close to the $750/coin level if I could get them produced. Anyone interested in (10)-(20) MS68 KS(d) at $750/coin - again, just PM me and we can discuss a plan to try to make that happen.
My conclusion - super high end SF 2005 coins are very challenging to locate (MS69/70) as are super high end non-SF coins (MS68/69). Everyone collecting the state quarters should enjoy their coins and collectors should have a choice whether to include an SF or non-SF coin in their registry set. Should PCGS elect to create a variety set for ALL (20) 2005 coins - the "diehards" can fight it out and if enough collectors want all (20) coins, the mass production of non-SF coins will begin and there will be ample MS67 and MS68 coins available for most collectors I believe. My comments are not intended to question the difficulty of many tough issues in the MS state quarter series which I am a huge fan of. For example, true MS69 specimens of the 2005 non-SF appear quite scarce to me as are true MS68 specimens of the 1999 coins and a host of other states in high grade. I personally think the series has huge potential for the truly scarce coins.
Flame on...
Wondercoin
P.S. Within (10) minutes of me posting this comment, I got a communication offering me a KS(d) MS68 non-SF at $700, which I passed on. So much for the $1,000+ ebay level of just a few weeks ago.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I must agree with Wondercoin on the “variety set concept.” for State Quarters. Most of the top collectors of this series have quarters in their collections that were made from mint sets. I too have looked through tens of thousands of roll coins as well as over 7,000 mint sets to find the quarters I currently have in my collection. In past years most of my P mint quarters were obtained from mint sets but a fair amount of D mint coins came from rolls as the Denver Mint produced poor quality mint set quarters until 2003 and 2004. The “look” of mint set coins and roll coins in the past has been different so what should a “true” non-SF set really contain? Any coin not labeled “Satin Finish?” A variety set registry collection would give anyone a choice of where to put their time, money and collecting efforts. Until PCGS clears up all the incorrect labeled quarters I see no reason to entertain a variety set or a non-SF set. If coins like the non-SF Minnesota P MS 70, the Oregon P MS69, the West Virginia P MS69, etc., get fixed then the question of inclusion of the Wisconsin extra leaf low and high might also come into play. If the non-SF coins I mentioned have indeed been graded properly let me apologize to the finders. They must get their rolls from a miracle source because in my experience of looking at thousands of this year's roll coins they remind me of 1999-- poor quality. Even back in 1999 the mint set coins were superior to the roll coins in almost all cases and they had a “different” look. In the future I might be interested in a variety set but right now my energies are into finding the highest quality quarters I can find for my collection whether they are SF or non-SF.
okay who wants to draw up an "action" list right here and present it to PCGS? Seriously, what would all of the bullets be:
1.) Clean up the pop report. I have not renewd my subscription for it as NGC keeps a better one and it's 100% free. PCGS fix for states would take a little database work for them but should be doable in a day or so. I will offer my advice/expertise on this matter to the best of my ability if asked. - many others could as well. Possibly we could meet and pool information.
2.) What have we decided for the registries? Add a new one and change the original now that we have a good working copy to go by?
3.) Add various varieties to round out varieties set i.e. Humpback Bison, pissing minutemen, west virginia suicide jumper and oregon loch ness monster etc. (Just kidding on the last few).
The Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) is on it's 7th year of coins to include. Up until 2005 the same coin number was given to a coin weather it was from a mint set, roll, bag, pocket change- Right?
In 2004 2 Variety coins where discovered, Wisconsin D High Leaf and Low Leaf - Right?
Coin number for a non variety Wisconsin D found in mint sets, roll, bag, pocket change 14033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin Low Leaf 814033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin High Leaf 914033 - Right?
The 2 WI Variety coins began with another # followed by the 14033 - Right?
Variety coin #'s 814033 - 914033
A Non-Satin Finish coin for 2005 follows suit with coin numbering as it had for the past 7 years Example 2005 P CA 14034 2005 D CA 14035
2005 Satin finish coins start with a 9 - Right? Example 2005 P CA 914034 2005 D CA 914035
Where else besides the PCGS Registry Forum can you get BOTH #1 MS State Quarter set holders (EYE and WCQZ), with sets frankly to die for, commenting on whether PCGS did the right thing and each one having 100% diametrically opposed opinions on the subject!! Anyone still believe this is a "simple issue"?
It's nice though that we can enjoy this thoughtful exchange of ideas. And, I have great respect for both Doug and Donn. Although I appear to disagree with Doug on this subject, I believe I have contributed more than 17% of the coins to Doug's set to this point and hope I can make additional contributions in the future (assuming I have not PO'ed Doug beyond the point of no return on this thread!)
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I support a variety set registry that would allow collectors to enter in their 20 coins including both MS and SF coins if they want to compete in that forum or just let them buy a set of SF coins each year and put them in the main registry. Let the coins in the registry speak for themselves and they cannot unless there is a place to include all 20 coins. If all 20 coins are allowed to be entered there would be less theoretical discussion on how rare MS coins are because the facts would be more evident to all.... facts I already know being a hunter of MS state quarters verses the theoretical opinions of others that have not found MS 68 coins in 2005 outside of the mint sets. I have found more MS 68 state quarters in 2005 than anyone else, no brag just fact.
ANAC's had a virtual grading monopoly for years before PCGS emerged and ANAC's never published a pop report to my knowledge. The market decided the coin value since no hard data "pop report" was available. The market will continue to decide coin values as it always has. but it is a gross miss-representation to the collecting community by showing so many high grade MS coins on the PCGS pop report when there are not.
An effort to call prior year mint set coins SF is unfounded and shame on others for trying to do that. For those of you looking for 2005 mint state coins that exceed the quality of the new 2005 Satin Finish mint sets forget about it, you are wasting your time and money. I could tell you within the first few hours of opening my first 2005 mint set that it was no contest in 2005 and no reason to look at MS coins unless you wanted regular MS coins in your set that were not from chrome plated dies. The mint has always bragged about a higher quality mint set coin than in general circulation but they were struck from regular dies using nicer planchets and higher pressure, not chrome plated dies they started in 2005. Prior to 2005 you get the highest and best coins wherever you can find them whether from rolls or bags or mint sets but in 2005 it is no longer any contest whatsoever. Prior to 2005 I agree that it ways not always the case that mint set coins would always yield the the best coins for different years and states but in 2005 it is no contest. Every state and mintmark in 2005 in SF is vastly superior and easy to find than a MS coin and the mint purposefully made this happen by the introduction of the chrome plated die and advertising it as such.
I intend to collect all 20 each year at this point anyhow having a good start on them thanks to Mitch/Donn Co. and Brian Co. big scores in the SF bulk batches and I will continue to buy these trophy SF coins from whomever finds them regardless of their opinions on what should be collected and how PCGS should handle its registry.
I hope we all remember that the coins in pristine condition will probably out last all of us anyhow as they are intended to do in the PCGS holders. I believe it is our job as stewards of the coins for future generations to adopt policy that would encourage collection of regular issue coins intended for the masses. There may be room for a pure SF set at some time in the future since it looks like the mint is enjoying its profits and may now do this chrome plated SF die into perpetuity.
I like Mark's comments as a way to move forward on this, basically fix the pop report the best we can and establish a variety set where all 20 state quarters from 2005 forward may be entered, in addition to a basic set where anything goes ie the PCGS either or policy still applies.
For the life of me I can't understand how anyone can say it's ok to have either SF or circulation strike coins in our sets. The series is listed as "circulation strike" The set composition says "circulation strike" 2006 will be the 60th year of the "Roosevelt Dime circulation strike 1946 - 2006." 40 years for the Roosevelt dime circulation strike 1965 - 2006". If you want SF coins use them in mint sets, thats what they are. But no longer is a mint set coin a circulation strike. By saying someone can use either in a set makes it unfair to the purest because of the availability of the high grade SF coins. When something is broke, FIX IT, don't just put a patch or Duct Tape the problem. If PCGS will make a registry with varieties, good enough. Put the SF coins in it, and I'll start a set myself. But don't say we can use either type, leave us pure circulation strike collectors alone and with a place to display our coins.
What do we tell future collectors? This??
" By the way you can use either coin in these slots." >>> "Oh you mean they had two circulatione strike coins starting in 2005?" >>> "No child, we just pretend like they did."
For the life of me I can't understand how anyone can say it's ok to have either SF or circulation strike coins in our sets. The series is listed as "circulation strike" The set composition says "circulation strike" 2006 will be the 60th year of the "Roosevelt Dime circulation strike 1946 - 2006." 40 years for the Roosevelt dime circulation strike 1965 - 2006". If you want SF coins use them in mint sets, thats what they are. But no longer is a mint set coin a circulation strike. By saying someone can use either in a set makes it unfair to the purest because of the availability of the high grade SF coins. When something is broke, FIX IT, don't just put a patch or Duct Tape the problem. If PCGS will make a registry with varieties, good enough. Put the SF coins in it, and I'll start a set myself. But don't say we can use either type, leave us pure circulation strike collectors alone and with a place to display our coins.
WIll said Dan
U S Navy Retired 22 years - ENC(SW) Ret. - Travling Nuclear Maintanence Contractor - Working Indian Point Nuclear plant Buchanan New York
<< <i>The Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) is on it's 7th year of coins to include. Up until 2005 the same coin number was given to a coin weather it was from a mint set, roll, bag, pocket change- Right?
In 2004 2 Variety coins where discovered, Wisconsin D High Leaf and Low Leaf - Right?
Coin number for a non variety Wisconsin D found in mint sets, roll, bag, pocket change 14033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin Low Leaf 814033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin High Leaf 914033 - Right?
The 2 WI Variety coins began with another # followed by the 14033 - Right?
Variety coin #'s 814033 - 914033
A Non-Satin Finish coin for 2005 follows suit with coin numbering as it had for the past 7 years Example 2005 P CA 14034 2005 D CA 14035
2005 Satin finish coins start with a 9 - Right? Example 2005 P CA 914034 2005 D CA 914035
Which is the variety, >>
Very well thought out point Mas. And I would have to say that the sf coins ARE the varieties by pcgs' own cert #'s. Without a doubt. I imagine (haven't checked it out myself yet but might just have to in the future) that this could be found to ring true in other sets that the sf coins don't apply to.
Doug, thank you for your thoughts on this subject. I will probably end up collecting all 20 coins per year also. I won't be able to do the sf 70's, don't have the $ for that game. But I seem to find ways to come up with coins that are respectable. Thanks to you, Mas, and datentype, who have provided me some extremely nice coins.
I didn't realize 1976(s) Silver Mint State Washington Quarters CIRCULATED - I guess that exlains how that special mint product found its way into the CIRCULATION STRIKE MS Quarter set years ago and no one complained about it. Why the heck wasn't I checking my pocket change to pull these SILVER quarters out of circulation in 1976!!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>I didn't realize 1976(s) Silver Mint State Washington Quarters CIRCULATED - I guess that exlains how that special mint product found its way into the CIRCULATION STRIKE MS Quarter set years ago and no one complained about it. Why the heck wasn't I checking my pocket change to pull these SILVER quarters out of circulation in 1976!! >>
Just becuase they were wrong about the 1976(s) silver MS quarter doesn't mean that they are still not wrong about the Satin Finish coins of the 2005 mint sets. "If your cat has kittens in the oven, do you call them biscuit?" I was always taught that "Two wrongs don't make it right."
Also, by your argument; Why are not the proof coins included in the CIRCULATED sets?
The name of the set should have some meaning as to what the set is about. If the criteria is not about coins that were issued for commerce by being offered for circulation then take the word CIRCULATED out of the title and call it "GRADED MS OR BELOW". "Say what you mean, mean what you say".
Tim: Who said PCGS was "wrong" with their clad Wash quarter set? Indeed, I mentioned no one EVER had any problem with the Mint Set only 1976(s) Silver coin being included in the CIRCULATION set. NEVER, EVER A PROBLEM. But now, all of a sudden, primarily the "producers" of non-SF coins want them only in the regular state quarter set so collectors have to buy "$5,000" MS68 sets of last years' coins instead of $200 MS68 sets of last years' coins. Forget the freedom of choice - let's cram the "$5,000" MS68 sets of last year's coins down the throats of the collectors instead of the $200 sets under a "technicality" that was never followed in the past anyway. Oh - I get it - "two wrongs don't make a right".
Flame on....
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
It is clear to me the satin finsih coins are the variety, not the MS coins. f I were the ruler of PCGS the SF coins would be the variety as clearly shown in their coin numbering system not the regular issue coins with regular coin numbers. Given PCGS initial stance on the issue it is a compromise on the either/or in the main set instead of MS only as it should be. Having offered this compromise it is still imperative to clean up the pop report and should be relatively easy to do. For example one of the top registry sets, the Dennis Handel set shows an MS69 coin for a MN-P that is clearly one of those miss-labeled coins. How hard can it be for PCGS to get this cert number and trace to the batch that originated it and correct this whole miss-labeled batch? I think this came from Brians bulk batch and there were around 100 or so coins involved including an MS70 miss-labeled. There are many such coins in the registry itself that could be traced back and most of these errors could be corrected simply. I know that most of these are not MS coins (I can tell you who has the real deal like Rodger, John, and Steve) because I sold them the coins and other hunters finding MS 68-70 MS coins would not have sold them for SF prices. To my knowledge there is a MN-D and MS69 (been trying to buy this for stupid money) and an OR-P in MS69 (thanks Mark!) that are properly graded and the rest of the MS69 and MS70 coins on the pop reprt are errors as well as hundreds of MS68 coins. Mitch took care of his mechanical error in his MN-D batch and hats off to him for recognizing the foul coin numbers. Apparently Brian did not see the coin number foul up and I think his batches say satin finish on them now but clever fraudulent dealers may have them re-holdered in the future if PCGS does not do this clean up soon, the longer they wait the greater PCGS liability is. Yes it will be nearly impossible to continue an MS68 + average from 2005 without the ability to use mint set coins but when the going gets tough the tough get going. It takes around a week or so of spare time to go thru several hundred mint sets, and a whole year of effort to search MS coins concurrently with each new release. The MS coins are frustrating and sometimes entire boxes are flawed and scratched to the point where it is not even worth looking thru them after you paid a premium and shipping cost for the box around $60-$75 dollars. I went thru 8 boxes of KS-P and three boxes were so bad that a sample of 10 rolls were searched from each box and the rest went back to the bank... for my effort I found only two MS67 KS-P. I know that an amazing fluke box of KS-P may be out there (I found both the MS67 from one nice box) and I hope someone will find it and grade an MS68 for me to buy, I will pay $1,500 for the first one made. I have around $600 at cost invested in the KS-P effort not including my time so Mitch if you think $1,500 is too much for a KS-P in MS68 then just find me one an laugh all the way to the bank.
Flame on…. Is that the best you can do Wondercoin? That reminds me of the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.”
Let’s keep the record straight, you were the first one to mention the 1976(s) silver MS quarter and you qualified the fact that it was not a circulated coin by your last sentence “Why the heck wasn't I checking my pocket change to pull these SILVER quarters out of circulation in 1976!!” I happen to agree with you, it is not a coin produced for circulation and should not be in a CIRCULATED set (put it in the VARIETY or COMPLETE sets).
For the record, I am not one of the “producers” of non-SF coins. I happen to have a business strike 2005(P) and (D) Kennedy in MS 66 which I would like to have include in my complete set of Kennedy’s along with the Satin Finish ones but I’m running into road blocks from PCGS (by the way the 2005 business strikes that I have are MS 66). I agree $5,000 is too much to pay for a set 2005 coins, and I would never pay that much for them.
My view point is that a COMPLETE set should have both SF and non-SF, and if PCGS is going to use CIRCULATED in the title of the set then it should be limited to those coins issue for commerce (or at least struck in the same manor).
"but clever fraudulent dealers may have them re-holdered in the future if PCGS does not do this clean up soon, the longer they wait the greater PCGS liability is"
Doug: First off, let me say that your "fraudulent" comment should not be limited to just dealers - collectors seem to let loose their share of "mechanical errors" as well from what I have seen. Second, as I have said a few times already on this thread - I believe the PCGS guarantee may not apply to mechanical errors (which includes mistaken designations). Thus, the biggest losers would be the unsuspecting collectors duped into buying these mislabeled coins. It is one of the reasons I believe PCGS did the right thing making the coins optional - a lot less collectors get duped as a result.
Doug - I also never singled out KS(p) as a coin not worthy of a $1,500 price tag anywhere in this discussion. My research suggests it is likely the single toughest non-SF 2005 coin out there in high grade. In fact, my mention to the KS(p) was to merely point out that the coin in MS68 is likely not be as rare as a GA(d) MS68 when all of the dust settles - a point you probably concur with.
You mention a collector's MS69 MN(p) currently registered in his set that is clearly mislabeled - if you are right that is roughly a $75 coin hiding out in $2,500 clothes. I agree - it would not be very hard to get that serial number and correct the entire batch of coins around that serial number - cleaning it all up in one stroke. I'll email Dennis today and ask him for the serial number and I'll let you know his reaction.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Flame on…. Is that the best you can do Wondercoin? That reminds me of the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.”"
I believe it is appropriate to offer the set collectors the choice of buying $200 sets of year 2005 state quarters to fill their (10) holes instead of forcing them to buy both $200 sets as well as $5,000 sets of year 2005 state quarters to fill their (20) holes.
Wondercoin
P.S. Doug -email sent to Dennis. It looks like his mislabeled coin may be part of at least 19 or more mislabeled MN(p) coins in that same batch?
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Flame on…. Is that the best you can do Wondercoin? That reminds me of the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.” >>
Too Funny
<< <i>I believe the PCGS guarantee may not apply to mechanical errors (which includes mistaken designations). >>
I remember reading a post here about a Jefferson nickel that was given a
<< <i>mistaken designations >>
Wasn't it labeled FS and in fact if is not? Where did the steps go? or was it a "mistaken designation" that was paid out on
<< <i>Let’s keep the record straight, you were the first one to mention the 1976(s) silver MS quarter and you qualified the fact that it was not a circulated coin by your last sentence “Why the heck wasn't I checking my pocket change to pull these SILVER quarters out of circulation in 1976!!” I happen to agree with you, it is not a coin produced for circulation and should not be in a CIRCULATED set (put it in the VARIETY or COMPLETE sets). >>
Great point But it has very little importance here. It was required in the set, should it be there? However a slot was made for it. Here the case is different Either / Or? take your pick on which coin to use.
<< <i>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? >>
Michael: My comment regarding certain designations not being covered relates to coin surface designations (i.e. SMS vs. non-SMS). You may recall a situation where a 1965-67 MS Kennedy was graded CAM for example (because it was truly an SMS coin) and, best I know, the coin was not covered under the guarantee. That is not my rule - that is PCGS', whether we both agree with it or not.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Anyone who truly would like me to try to build (20) sets at $100,000 - please PM me and I can probably get one or two major coin producers to work right away on trying to produce the coins with just a modest down payment. Maybe we will produce (20) sets or maybe only (5)"
"My point is simply this - high end SF coins (such as WV(d) MS69 and a number of other states in true MS70) are very challenging as are many non-SF coins in MS68 and better grade. "
A proof 70 DCAM is a better grade coin, but that's not a business strike either.
Why is it you think anyone who dosen't see things your way is flaming you?
I simply ask ..... Why screw up the BASIC CIRCULATION STRIKE SET? And by adding the SF coins, thats EXACTLY what is going to happen. Put them into a VARIETY set where they will be right at home. And in this set you could have your choice of which coin to use. They are not now, nor will they ever be circulation strike coins.
<< <i>Michael: My comment regarding certain designations not being covered relates to coin surface designations (i.e. SMS vs. non-SMS). You may recall a situation where a 1965-67 MS Kennedy was graded CAM for example (because it was truly an SMS coin) and, best I know, the coin was not covered under the guarantee. That is not my rule - that is PCGS', whether we both agree with it or not. >>
Dan: I believe the basic set doesn't get "screwed up" by giving collectors the choice of the $200 version instead of the $5,000 version. In fact, I believe it was the right thing to do.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Mitch I think you are a bit out of hand with your comments about cramming $5,000 MS sets down the collectors throats. An MS68 set for $5,000 is a top set. A set of top SF coins this year would be around $15,000 if one was available considering the two unique SF70 CA-D and MN-D, only two SF70 WV-P, only two SF69 WV-D. No matter what the game SF or MS a top set is always very pricey as the market dictates, not he finder of coins. If collectors will complain about getting crammed it will be for the added expense of buying mint sets to search to continue to rate in the registry and are unable to compete by just going to the bank and finding unsearched material to take their chances with. I am getting most all of my D material free and only have to buy the P material because it is not released out west. My opinions are not formed in the pursuit of profits and money they are formed over a reverence for the coins. If there is no reverence for mint state coins in the heart of the collector let them just buy SF that are relatively cheap in MS68 and the equivelent of an MS66-67 set of MS quarters that may also be bought for around $300 a set. I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you, a mint set bulk grading master, state that our opinions that differ with yours are based upon greed. These folks with opinions have been collecting many years like myself and are not to be brushed off as greed oriented. The fact is the SF (mint set program) you and others have been so successful with for so many years may not be successful anymore unless PCGS requires SF in the basic registry set. If PCGS does not require SF in the basic registry then dealers will financially suffer, and the US mint will financially suffer but not the collector. I recognize this and have no desire that dealers should suffer because of the change and that is why I am willing to do the compromise. As long as the regular MS coins pop report is correct and MS coins get their usual spot in the registry without artificail manipulation then the market will dictate the price as it always does. A grossly miss-represented pop report and no place to register MS coins is simply unfair. In the pursuit of MS coins I am able to use my skills to get a top set. I do sell extras and earn about $10 per hour in addition to my costs but I make over $100 per hour at my day job so do not think I am greed oriented, that is just silly. If you were finding MS coins I would happily buy from you and come out ahead by working more real estate deals in my day job. With the mint set coins I need to use my wallet more than my skill. The true collector likes to use his skill more than his wallet. Yes it is true that the bulk of your sales to me as posted in your previous thread are for mint set coins having received MS69 grades in prior years in your bulk mint set orders anmd I am thankful to you that you have and continue to offer me coins when you get them. If you are able to get top MS coins for me I will buy them as well. If this mint set bulk grading program becomes obsolete in 2006 due to the new SF coins no longer required in the basic registry then your sales will fall and it will become a lot cheaper for myself and other collectors to maintain their registry positions by using their skills and not their wallets. No o doubt PCGS recognizes that and hence their position. Flame on... dr
Say the set was put back to the way it was before this Either / Or decision. Straight up Business strike coins only, Not SF coins. Which I believe we have proven that the SF coins ARE different. Wouldn't the collector still have a choice as one has had in the past? Example: $100 for an MS68? $40 for an MS67? $10 for an MS66?
I tried to pick out one point being made but couldn't decide so here goes:
<< <i>Mitch I think you are a bit out of hand with your comments about cramming $5,000 MS sets down the collectors throats. An MS68 set for $5,000 is a top set. A set of top SF coins this year would be around $15,000 if one was available considering the two unique SF70 CA-D and MN-D, only two SF70 WV-P, only two SF69 WV-D. No matter what the game SF or MS a top set is always very pricey as the market dictates, not he finder of coins. If collectors will complain about getting crammed it will be for the added expense of buying mint sets to search to continue to rate in the registry and are unable to compete by just going to the bank and finding unsearched material to take their chances with. I am getting most all of my D material free and only have to buy the P material because it is not released out west. My opinions are not formed in the pursuit of profits and money they are formed over a reverence for the coins. If there is no reverence for mint state coins in the heart of the collector let them just buy SF that are relatively cheap in MS68 and the equivelent of an MS66-67 set of MS quarters that may also be bought for around $300 a set. I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you, a mint set bulk grading master, state that our opinions that differ with yours are based upon greed. These folks with opinions have been collecting many years like myself and are not to be brushed off as greed oriented. The fact is the SF (mint set program) you and others have been so successful with for so many years may not be successful anymore unless PCGS requires SF in the basic registry set. If PCGS does not require SF in the basic registry then dealers will financially suffer, and the US mint will financially suffer but not the collector. I recognize this and have no desire that dealers should suffer because of the change and that is why I am willing to do the compromise. As long as the regular MS coins pop report is correct and MS coins get their usual spot in the registry without artificail manipulation then the market will dictate the price as it always does. A grossly miss-represented pop report and no place to register MS coins is simply unfair. In the pursuit of MS coins I am able to use my skills to get a top set. I do sell extras and earn about $10 per hour in addition to my costs but I make over $100 per hour at my day job so do not think I am greed oriented, that is just silly. If you were finding MS coins I would happily buy from you and come out ahead by working more real estate deals in my day job. With the mint set coins I need to use my wallet more than my skill. The true collector likes to use his skill more than his wallet. Yes it is true that the bulk of your sales to me as posted in your previous thread are for mint set coins having received MS69 grades in prior years in your bulk mint set orders anmd I am thankful to you that you have and continue to offer me coins when you get them. If you are able to get top MS coins for me I will buy them as well. If this mint set bulk grading program becomes obsolete in 2006 due to the new SF coins no longer required in the basic registry then your sales will fall and it will become a lot cheaper for myself and other collectors to maintain their registry positions by using their skills and not their wallets. No o doubt PCGS recognizes that and hence their position. Flame on... dr >>
Doug: Collectors can get the exact same Registry points for either $200 or $5,000. They don't need to chase MS70 SF coins unless they want to. But, for $200 they can get the same Registry points as those desiring to spend $5,000 on non-SF coins. For that reason and a host of others, I believe PCGS did the right thing making it optional. Finally, you and Donn are the two hardest working state quarter collectors I know and you do it for the love of the coins. I am gone the rest of the day - I'll post later if I get a response to my email from Dennis H.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Maybe they should require both the circulation coins and the sf coins. The best of both worlds. No one gets ripped by having the same points granted for the less expensive coin.
My main though is they should be consistant. In the Roosevelt Dimes you can't use 1965, 1966 or 1967 SMS dimes, but you can use the 2005-P and 2005-D SF coins from the mint set. The more I think about it both should be required.
This long thread sure is an interesting read.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've weighed in on anything around here. Is it hot in here or is it just me?
I think when we take all financial interest aside, it does seem like there's an injustice on the part of the "either or" approach. (A lot of people have spent a LOT of money buying their sets already, so that interest is not the same as the "what's best for the hobby" approach.) I personally make and sell Satin Finish primarily and think they're affordable for the average collector. However, the circulation strikes deserve their day in the spotlight as they are not only the title of the set, but they are incredibly difficult to obtain in high grade. However this is obtained, I would leave it to the collectors with sets in the registry to weigh in with PCGS. (A dealer should have no more say so than the next person with a set in the registry.) The bottom line is that there are two obvious versions of the same coin that deserve their own separate line in the population report and likewise deserve a separate position in the registry. After all, it doesn't say "Goodacre OR 00P" or "Millennium set OR 00D" in the registry right? There are 4 places for 2000 Sac instead of just 2. It's not easy to "fix it" for everyone right now as there are a lot of factors in play, including the fact that PCGS didn't deal with this back in March 2005... So however the registry participants want to draw up options, vote, & discuss with PCGS, fair is fair right? (Assuming PCGS would listen.)
If everyone agrees that they are separate coins with separate coin numbers and separate lines in the population report that deserve their own due place in the spotlight, then you have a place to start deciding what's next with how to do it. If both types of coins are given their due, then there's a place for everyone to collect what they want and a place to register it in their set(s).
Thanks for hearing my 2 cents in this heated discussion. It's -40F here and I needed the warm up. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<< <i>I tried to pick out one point being made but couldn't decide so here goes:
<< <i>Mitch I think you are a bit out of hand with your comments about cramming $5,000 MS sets down the collectors throats. An MS68 set for $5,000 is a top set. A set of top SF coins this year would be around $15,000 if one was available considering the two unique SF70 CA-D and MN-D, only two SF70 WV-P, only two SF69 WV-D. No matter what the game SF or MS a top set is always very pricey as the market dictates, not he finder of coins. If collectors will complain about getting crammed it will be for the added expense of buying mint sets to search to continue to rate in the registry and are unable to compete by just going to the bank and finding unsearched material to take their chances with. I am getting most all of my D material free and only have to buy the P material because it is not released out west. My opinions are not formed in the pursuit of profits and money they are formed over a reverence for the coins. If there is no reverence for mint state coins in the heart of the collector let them just buy SF that are relatively cheap in MS68 and the equivelent of an MS66-67 set of MS quarters that may also be bought for around $300 a set. I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you, a mint set bulk grading master, state that our opinions that differ with yours are based upon greed. These folks with opinions have been collecting many years like myself and are not to be brushed off as greed oriented. The fact is the SF (mint set program) you and others have been so successful with for so many years may not be successful anymore unless PCGS requires SF in the basic registry set. If PCGS does not require SF in the basic registry then dealers will financially suffer, and the US mint will financially suffer but not the collector. I recognize this and have no desire that dealers should suffer because of the change and that is why I am willing to do the compromise. As long as the regular MS coins pop report is correct and MS coins get their usual spot in the registry without artificail manipulation then the market will dictate the price as it always does. A grossly miss-represented pop report and no place to register MS coins is simply unfair. In the pursuit of MS coins I am able to use my skills to get a top set. I do sell extras and earn about $10 per hour in addition to my costs but I make over $100 per hour at my day job so do not think I am greed oriented, that is just silly. If you were finding MS coins I would happily buy from you and come out ahead by working more real estate deals in my day job. With the mint set coins I need to use my wallet more than my skill. The true collector likes to use his skill more than his wallet. Yes it is true that the bulk of your sales to me as posted in your previous thread are for mint set coins having received MS69 grades in prior years in your bulk mint set orders anmd I am thankful to you that you have and continue to offer me coins when you get them. If you are able to get top MS coins for me I will buy them as well. If this mint set bulk grading program becomes obsolete in 2006 due to the new SF coins no longer required in the basic registry then your sales will fall and it will become a lot cheaper for myself and other collectors to maintain their registry positions by using their skills and not their wallets. No o doubt PCGS recognizes that and hence their position. Flame on... dr >>
"I support a variety set registry that would allow collectors to enter in their 20 coins including both MS and SF coins if they want to compete in that forum or just let them buy a set of SF coins each year and put them in the main registry."
Doug: Your quote above. Also, co- #1 (Donn) supports the same concept I believe. My set is also either #3 or #4 I believe after I enter something in the 2005 slots (my set dropped down after 2005 coins became required as I have no 2005 coins entered as of yet) and I am fine with this concept as well obviously. Doug (or anyone else) - Should we ask PCGS to consider launching a State Quarter Variety set then which would include the (20) 2005 coins & the 2 high/low leaf varieties?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've weighed in on anything around here. Is it hot in here or is it just me?
I think when we take all financial interest aside, it does seem like there's an injustice on the part of the "either or" approach. (A lot of people have spent a LOT of money buying their sets already, so that interest is not the same as the "what's best for the hobby" approach.) I personally make and sell Satin Finish primarily and think they're affordable for the average collector. However, the circulation strikes deserve their day in the spotlight as they are not only the title of the set, but they are incredibly difficult to obtain in high grade. Thanks for hearing my 2 cents in this heated discussion. It's -40F here and I needed the warm up. >>
Hey, was that 2 bits or 2 cents worth of input?
Mitch, how do you cram a $5k collection down a collectors throat? The last I heard, I had a choice to buy, or not to buy, a coin. Believe me, I have had to turn down a few offers due to lack of funds. Yep, I just don't always have the $ to buy what I would like to own. But nobody has ever said I have to "buy it or else!" In fact, some sellers have said it was wise not to buy if the $ wasn't there. And guess what? They haven't quit making offerings because of previous turndowns. Hell, there is always another collector out there with the funds on hand. On top of this, some people want a set capped at 66, some 67, and others at 65. What's really being crammed????
I think the mint got greedy with the change in the mint sets. In doing so I think they really screwed the pooch. And the tpgs followed suit with their total lack of quality control, with mislabeled slabs and messed up pop's. BUT they weren't happy with just this. Now they add injury to insult by saying that the top regisry sets, comprised of harder to find, costlier and rarer coins, are now worthless. Yep, not worth the price or the work it takes to find these circ beauties. This is the essence of their decision to allow the more common, less expensive sf coins to have a greater impact on a collection than their circ counterparts. The 7th year of a 10 year program. 7 years is long time to work a set just to find the effort was meaningless, which is essencially what these lesser coins, which don't even meet the parameters of the registry, have done. Hasn't the changeup by the mint been enough? NOOOOOOO, gotta change the registry too!
Oh yeah, speaking of greed.....Do you think these mass producers of pop tops would be out there if it wasn't for guys like Doug, Mark and Michael (and others I'm sure) doing the initial work and finding a few of these ultra high grade new releases and thus setting the initial market standards? Yep, they do the work, take the initial risks, and somebody with more $, the ability to go thru more coins, comes along and takes away their little corner of the market. It's no wonder there presently isn't much of a demand for these awesome circ coins. They don't count for beans in a registry set, which is where the majority of those coins end up. And on a final note, they're also the reason we have the inflated pop's on some of the "used to be" harder coins. Thanks a lot. They're truly an added benefit to coin collecting.
BTW, I just returned an order to the other big TPG to have the same 'mechanical' errors corrected. >>
rollingcoins, meant to ask you, how did this turn out? What steps did the guys across the street do to correct your submission? And did they happen to do the right thing and cover your added expenses, which you wouldn't have incurred had they had their "feces" together?
I personally think a State Quarter variety set could be one of the cooler registry sets around actually. I personally look forward to try to tuck in #3, #4 or #5 behind Donn and Doug in such a set. Not a doubt in my mind the non-SF 2005 coins will be very, very important coins in such a set.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Sounds like we have agreement then to combine all 20 coins in a variety set and I also suppost the WI-D high and low leaf coins in this variety set. This seems to be the most equitable way to handle things. I think it is asking too much for PCGS to reverse their current position and after all the PCGS position has not changed from their original position clearly iterated as "either" "or" within a few days of the release of the new "satin finish" designation. Many of us were expecting that designation by PCGS since NGC went public with a new designation for 2005 mint sets first after the mint made a big deal of announcing the new chrome plated die. Emotions run high when peoples expectations are not managed properly. The miss-management of expectations occured not because the main registry set adhered to the PCGS either or policy announced at the beginning, It occured in my opinion because no effort was made by PCGS to include a broad enough registry where the MS coins could be accounted for, and further demeaned the MS coins by flagrantly ignoring repeated emails form collectors about the labeling errors showing up each week. It was really flagrant when MS pop's showed up for KS and WV long before the coin was even released into general circulation. The OR were also confusing because both coins MS and SF were out concurrently. My first batches of OR MS coins were miss-labeled as SF coins and Mark can speak and has spoken for himself on this subject and it suffices me to say that nearly 100% of the intial pop figures for OR in MS were mistakes. (Yes it is true, MS coins were miss-labeled as SF and SF were given the wrong coin number and showed on the pop report as MS). I believe the pop report can be cleaned up because most of us hunters have reverence for the coins and were actively involved as these mistakes were occuring. Many of you may remember when one of the two major grading services did not grade modern coins at all and look at them go now. I never used to collect modern coins and look at me now! I wish I was collecting modern coins in the days when Clapp was ordering his pristine barbers directly from the mint. Things were simpler then. Still amuses me to hear some dealers bad mouth modern coin collecting while gleefully bidding on the old time modern coin collectors stuff when it comes up for sale. Thanks Mitch for taking the heat by opening up this thread. This is my first one and I am happy to have the opportunity to voice my opinions. If you can get PCGS to clean up the pop report and allow MS coins in the registry I will certainly lend my support as it is best for all concerned including PCGS. dr
I personally think a State Quarter variety set could be one of the cooler registry sets around actually. I personally look forward to try to tuck in #3, #4 or #5 behind Donn and Doug in such a set. Not a doubt in my mind the non-SF 2005 coins will be very, very important coins in such a set.
Most of the replys to this thread have mentioned the state quarters series, but lets not forget, that is only one segment that needs to be addressed. Also the mint will sell you any coins you desire in mint bags or rolls, EXCEPT for Lincolns and Roosevelt dimes. There you have to visit a bank or buy from someone who has, and search for your own. If this makes me greedy, then I confess greed. And for a respected dealer who's sold more coins for more money than I will ever see, to refer to those of us who search XXX amount of rolls as greedy, that was uncalled for.
As for the guy who bought one roll of quarters and hit a nice coin, and made a big sale. Good for him, but you and I know thats not going to happen very often. Ask some of the well known people on these boards who go through XXX rolls. See if they think they are greedy when they find a nice coin and sell it. Sometimes we get lucky enough to find something we need in our sets, maybe with luck, a second or third one to sell to someone. But I don't think I EVER FORCED a coin on anyone. I'm not even sure how you go about FORCING a coin on someone. Unless I could use my GOOD CUSTOMER influence to decide which coins go into the registry. No, that won't work, I have no influence with anyone. And no one asks my opinion on important questions like that.
Doug: "Let the games begin". I'll email DH and let him know that both #1 MS State quarter set collectors support the concept of a State Quarter Variety set, which includes (12) variety coins right out of the box.
I believe the set may become one of the neatest registry sets out there. And, we can all do out part to educate all collectors interested in this series to study the surface strikes of the various coins and learn the differences between them. This set should be a real "shot in the arm" for the state quarter series.
Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Comments
I believe a sentiment shared by many state quarter collectors although few actually post to these threads to avoid getting caught up in a "war zone". But, I received another phone call today from a "top 20" state quarter set holder who fully supports the optional treatment of the 2005 coins which PCGS adopted.
My take on it is adding legitimate state quarter varieties only spices things up, although I am not sure we are ready for this "urinating minuteman" from MASS just yet.
Wondercoin
The second thing that we have to remember is that WE ARE JUST COLLECTING COINS. Do you collect coins because you want to acquire each and every coin in the highest grade possible or do you collect coins because you want to fill every slot in a registry set and want to be higher than the next guy??
I see here that members are threatening to pull their sets and, don't get me wrong, they have every right to do so. It's just that I see a real negative side to the registry's existence emerging here...and it's that some of the finest collections that are assembled by some of the most experienced collectors....are no longer going to be part of the registry. It's a shame that such a neat concept of the registry can be really tainted by some much disagreement amongst the members.
A while back, PCGS decided that they would put the 65-67 SMS coins in the lincoln proof registry. They sent out an email...many people voted and walla...they are now required in the proof registry set. The MAJORITY of the people voted yes and that's what PCGS went with. I don't necessarily AGREE with that (I voted against it) but I'm not going to let it ruin the fun that I am having FUN trying to collect and build a great set!
Wondercoin.
Oh yeah
Thanks ahead of time.
Good to see you here Doug. I wish it was more often. Your coins are and always have been top notch peices. I don't think any one would question anything received by you. Good to see you and great to see your set still at the top. See you up there, well not quite up there but still on the first page. Take care DR......................WH
<< <i>Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present) >>
to
<< <i>Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, MS or below Strikes (1964-Present) >>
. But unless they are going to require both the SF and non-SF for 2005, PCGS needs to keep the word "Complete" out of it's titles describing sets.
the will, to get it right on both the SF/ non-SF, as well as the 65-67 SMS coins, they should either
refuse to grade them or grade them for free.
Charging "us" for an inferior product, and we line up to give them our money... it is indeed a sad state
of affairs. Take one feather from PCGS's cap and give them a black eye instead, say I.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Glad to see you posting on this thread. Would love to hear your thoughts on which coin should be required in the Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)? At this point we have two coins for each State and mint mark both with different PCGS coin #'s. PCGS does require coins with the same date and mint mark but with a different Designation in other sets. These same coins also have a different coin number just as the 2005 State Quarters.
Example:
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)
Why is it the case here. At this point there is no slot to enter a true Circulation Strike coin. As we see with this optional *^%@ you would be forced to acquire SF coins to maintain a level that one wishes to be at within the Set Registry. If one chooses this route where does this leave the true Circulation Strike coin. Nowhere, but grading fees are still being collected for a coin with no place to go.
<< <i>I emailed PCGS several times as did others while these errors were fresh and posted weekly to the pop reports each Monday. >>
I have spoke to several other collectors who have done the same. Where did it get
By the way, Great Set Doug !!!
IMHO, the pops are quite low on non-SF state quarters because no one has truly taken the time to produce them. And, I am not talking about looking at 7,500-16,000 coins out of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of coins. Doug - you do a fabulous job examining coins in your spare time away from your day job. As have a few other guys, especially one very talented young man on a winter break from college that turned $12 into $1,000 on a single non-SF coin. But, a full-time effort is what it takes to turn pop 15's into pop 115's overnight (like the IND(d) MS68 top pops I mentioned earlier which went from a $700 coin to a $195 coin overnight). No one has cared to expend massive amounts of money and manpower into the non-SF coins from 2005 because, to this point, the mass demand is not present. It is mentioned that the non-SF coins in MS68 are worth around $5,000/set of 10 coins right now. Anyone who truly would like me to try to build (20) sets at $100,000 - please PM me and I can probably get one or two major coin producers to work right away on trying to produce the coins with just a modest down payment. Maybe we will produce (20) sets or maybe only (5) - but no one is asking for that prodcution to even be tried right now. I actually spoke to a major seller of these non-SF coins yesterday and he confirmed exactly what I am saying - he had no interest commiting to the purchase of a large quantity of PCGS graded non-SF coins at anywhere close to todays prices if I could produce and deliver freshly made coins of some of these states.
My point is simply this - high end SF coins (such as WV(d) MS69 and a number of other states in true MS70) are very challenging as are many non-SF coins in MS68 and better grade. Prices are where they are right now on non-SF coins (IMHO) because the mass production of them has not taken place (and may not take place for a while as there appears to be no one out there willing to agree to buy (20) coins anywhere near todays prices (for example - a KS(d) MS68 non-SF sold on ebay for over $1,000, but, I am not aware of anyone out there willing to agree to pay $750/coin for (10) -(20)coins if they were to be produced in the next (90) days. I asked a major buyer and dealer of state quarters about KS(d) MS68's just the other day - he had -0- interest in considering a lot purchase even close to the $750/coin level if I could get them produced. Anyone interested in (10)-(20) MS68 KS(d) at $750/coin - again, just PM me and we can discuss a plan to try to make that happen.
My conclusion - super high end SF 2005 coins are very challenging to locate (MS69/70) as are super high end non-SF coins (MS68/69). Everyone collecting the state quarters should enjoy their coins and collectors should have a choice whether to include an SF or non-SF coin in their registry set. Should PCGS elect to create a variety set for ALL (20) 2005 coins - the "diehards" can fight it out and if enough collectors want all (20) coins, the mass production of non-SF coins will begin and there will be ample MS67 and MS68 coins available for most collectors I believe. My comments are not intended to question the difficulty of many tough issues in the MS state quarter series which I am a huge fan of. For example, true MS69 specimens of the 2005 non-SF appear quite scarce to me as are true MS68 specimens of the 1999 coins and a host of other states in high grade. I personally think the series has huge potential for the truly scarce coins.
Flame on...
Wondercoin
P.S. Within (10) minutes of me posting this comment, I got a communication offering me a KS(d) MS68 non-SF at $700, which I passed on. So much for the $1,000+ ebay level of just a few weeks ago.
<< <i>Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) >>
Is now called the
<< <i>the "regular" state quarter collection >>
Another way out
1.) Clean up the pop report. I have not renewd my subscription for it as NGC keeps a better one and it's 100% free. PCGS fix for states would take a little database work for them but should be doable in a day or so. I will offer my advice/expertise on this matter to the best of my ability if asked. - many others could as well. Possibly we could meet and pool information.
2.) What have we decided for the registries? Add a new one and change the original now that we have a good working copy to go by?
3.) Add various varieties to round out varieties set i.e. Humpback Bison, pissing minutemen, west virginia suicide jumper and oregon loch ness monster etc. (Just kidding on the last few).
In 2004 2 Variety coins where discovered, Wisconsin D High Leaf and Low Leaf - Right?
Coin number for a non variety Wisconsin D found in mint sets, roll, bag, pocket change 14033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin Low Leaf 814033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin High Leaf 914033 - Right?
The 2 WI Variety coins began with another # followed by the 14033 - Right?
Variety coin #'s 814033 - 914033
A Non-Satin Finish coin for 2005 follows suit with coin numbering as it had for the past 7 years
Example
2005 P CA 14034
2005 D CA 14035
2005 Satin finish coins start with a 9 - Right?
Example
2005 P CA 914034
2005 D CA 914035
Which is the variety,
It's nice though that we can enjoy this thoughtful exchange of ideas. And, I have great respect for both Doug and Donn. Although I appear to disagree with Doug on this subject, I believe I have contributed more than 17% of the coins to Doug's set to this point and hope I can make additional contributions in the future (assuming I have not PO'ed Doug beyond the point of no return on this thread!)
Wondercoin
ANAC's had a virtual grading monopoly for years before PCGS emerged and ANAC's never published a pop report to my knowledge. The market decided the coin value since no hard data "pop report" was available. The market will continue to decide coin values as it always has. but it is a gross miss-representation to the collecting community by showing so many high grade MS coins on the PCGS pop report when there are not.
An effort to call prior year mint set coins SF is unfounded and shame on others for trying to do that. For those of you looking for 2005 mint state coins that exceed the quality of the new 2005 Satin Finish mint sets forget about it, you are wasting your time and money. I could tell you within the first few hours of opening my first 2005 mint set that it was no contest in 2005 and no reason to look at MS coins unless you wanted regular MS coins in your set that were not from chrome plated dies. The mint has always bragged about a higher quality mint set coin than in general circulation but they were struck from regular dies using nicer planchets and higher pressure, not chrome plated dies they started in 2005. Prior to 2005 you get the highest and best coins wherever you can find them whether from rolls or bags or mint sets but in 2005 it is no longer any contest whatsoever. Prior to 2005 I agree that it ways not always the case that mint set coins would always yield the the best coins for different years and states but in 2005 it is no contest. Every state and mintmark in 2005 in SF is vastly superior and easy to find than a MS coin and the mint purposefully made this happen by the introduction of the chrome plated die and advertising it as such.
I intend to collect all 20 each year at this point anyhow having a good start on them thanks to Mitch/Donn Co. and Brian Co. big scores in the SF bulk batches and I will continue to buy these trophy SF coins from whomever finds them regardless of their opinions on what should be collected and how PCGS should handle its registry.
I hope we all remember that the coins in pristine condition will probably out last all of us anyhow as they are intended to do in the PCGS holders. I believe it is our job as stewards of the coins for future generations to adopt policy that would encourage collection of regular issue coins intended for the masses. There may be room for a pure SF set at some time in the future since it looks like the mint is enjoying its profits and may now do this chrome plated SF die into perpetuity.
I like Mark's comments as a way to move forward on this, basically fix the pop report the best we can and establish a variety set where all 20 state quarters from 2005 forward may be entered, in addition to a basic set where anything goes ie the PCGS either or policy still applies.
Nice to see you at the boards, please don't be a stranger.
The series is listed as "circulation strike"
The set composition says "circulation strike"
2006 will be the 60th year of the "Roosevelt Dime circulation strike 1946 - 2006."
40 years for the Roosevelt dime circulation strike 1965 - 2006".
If you want SF coins use them in mint sets, thats what they are.
But no longer is a mint set coin a circulation strike.
By saying someone can use either in a set makes it unfair to the purest because of the availability of the high grade SF coins.
When something is broke, FIX IT, don't just put a patch or Duct Tape the problem.
If PCGS will make a registry with varieties, good enough. Put the SF coins in it, and I'll start a set myself.
But don't say we can use either type, leave us pure circulation strike collectors alone and with a place to display our coins.
What do we tell future collectors? This??
" By the way you can use either coin in these slots." >>> "Oh you mean they had two circulatione strike coins starting in 2005?" >>> "No child, we just pretend like they did."
The series is listed as "circulation strike"
The set composition says "circulation strike"
2006 will be the 60th year of the "Roosevelt Dime circulation strike 1946 - 2006."
40 years for the Roosevelt dime circulation strike 1965 - 2006".
If you want SF coins use them in mint sets, thats what they are.
But no longer is a mint set coin a circulation strike.
By saying someone can use either in a set makes it unfair to the purest because of the availability of the high grade SF coins.
When something is broke, FIX IT, don't just put a patch or Duct Tape the problem.
If PCGS will make a registry with varieties, good enough. Put the SF coins in it, and I'll start a set myself.
But don't say we can use either type, leave us pure circulation strike collectors alone and with a place to display our coins.
WIll said Dan
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
<< <i>The Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) is on it's 7th year of coins to include. Up until 2005 the same coin number was given to a coin weather it was from a mint set, roll, bag, pocket change- Right?
In 2004 2 Variety coins where discovered, Wisconsin D High Leaf and Low Leaf - Right?
Coin number for a non variety Wisconsin D found in mint sets, roll, bag, pocket change 14033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin Low Leaf 814033 - Right?
Coin number for a Wisconsin High Leaf 914033 - Right?
The 2 WI Variety coins began with another # followed by the 14033 - Right?
Variety coin #'s 814033 - 914033
A Non-Satin Finish coin for 2005 follows suit with coin numbering as it had for the past 7 years
Example
2005 P CA 14034
2005 D CA 14035
2005 Satin finish coins start with a 9 - Right?
Example
2005 P CA 914034
2005 D CA 914035
Which is the variety,
Very well thought out point Mas. And I would have to say that the sf coins ARE the varieties by pcgs' own cert #'s. Without a doubt.
I imagine (haven't checked it out myself yet but might just have to in the future) that this could be found to ring true in other sets that the sf coins don't apply to.
Doug, thank you for your thoughts on this subject. I will probably end up collecting all 20 coins per year also. I won't be able to do the sf 70's, don't have the $ for that game. But I seem to find ways to come up with coins that are respectable. Thanks to you, Mas, and datentype, who have provided me some extremely nice coins.
Wondercoin
<< <i>I didn't realize 1976(s) Silver Mint State Washington Quarters CIRCULATED - I guess that exlains how that special mint product found its way into the CIRCULATION STRIKE MS Quarter set years ago and no one complained about it. Why the heck wasn't I checking my pocket change to pull these SILVER quarters out of circulation in 1976!! >>
Just becuase they were wrong about the 1976(s) silver MS quarter doesn't mean that they are still not wrong about the Satin Finish coins of the 2005 mint sets. "If your cat has kittens in the oven, do you call them biscuit?" I was always taught that "Two wrongs don't make it right."
Also, by your argument; Why are not the proof coins included in the CIRCULATED sets?
The name of the set should have some meaning as to what the set is about. If the criteria is not about coins that were issued for commerce by being offered for circulation then take the word CIRCULATED out of the title and call it "GRADED MS OR BELOW". "Say what you mean, mean what you say".
This is just my humble opinion,
Tim
Flame on....
Wondercoin
Let’s keep the record straight, you were the first one to mention the 1976(s) silver MS quarter and you qualified the fact that it was not a circulated coin by your last sentence “Why the heck wasn't I checking my pocket change to pull these SILVER quarters out of circulation in 1976!!” I happen to agree with you, it is not a coin produced for circulation and should not be in a CIRCULATED set (put it in the VARIETY or COMPLETE sets).
For the record, I am not one of the “producers” of non-SF coins. I happen to have a business strike 2005(P) and (D) Kennedy in MS 66 which I would like to have include in my complete set of Kennedy’s along with the Satin Finish ones but I’m running into road blocks from PCGS (by the way the 2005 business strikes that I have are MS 66). I agree $5,000 is too much to pay for a set 2005 coins, and I would never pay that much for them.
My view point is that a COMPLETE set should have both SF and non-SF, and if PCGS is going to use CIRCULATED in the title of the set then it should be limited to those coins issue for commerce (or at least struck in the same manor).
Again, this is just my humble opinion,
Tim
Doug: First off, let me say that your "fraudulent" comment should not be limited to just dealers - collectors seem to let loose their share of "mechanical errors" as well from what I have seen. Second, as I have said a few times already on this thread - I believe the PCGS guarantee may not apply to mechanical errors (which includes mistaken designations). Thus, the biggest losers would be the unsuspecting collectors duped into buying these mislabeled coins. It is one of the reasons I believe PCGS did the right thing making the coins optional - a lot less collectors get duped as a result.
Doug - I also never singled out KS(p) as a coin not worthy of a $1,500 price tag anywhere in this discussion. My research suggests it is likely the single toughest non-SF 2005 coin out there in high grade. In fact, my mention to the KS(p) was to merely point out that the coin in MS68 is likely not be as rare as a GA(d) MS68 when all of the dust settles - a point you probably concur with.
You mention a collector's MS69 MN(p) currently registered in his set that is clearly mislabeled - if you are right that is roughly a $75 coin hiding out in $2,500 clothes. I agree - it would not be very hard to get that serial number and correct the entire batch of coins around that serial number - cleaning it all up in one stroke. I'll email Dennis today and ask him for the serial number and I'll let you know his reaction.
Wondercoin
I believe it is appropriate to offer the set collectors the choice of buying $200 sets of year 2005 state quarters to fill their (10) holes instead of forcing them to buy both $200 sets as well as $5,000 sets of year 2005 state quarters to fill their (20) holes.
Wondercoin
P.S. Doug -email sent to Dennis. It looks like his mislabeled coin may be part of at least 19 or more mislabeled MN(p) coins in that same batch?
<< <i>Flame on…. Is that the best you can do Wondercoin? That reminds me of the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.” >>
Too Funny
<< <i>I believe the PCGS guarantee may not apply to mechanical errors (which includes mistaken designations). >>
I remember reading a post here about a Jefferson nickel that was given a
<< <i>mistaken designations >>
Wasn't it labeled FS and in fact if is not? Where did the steps go? or was it a "mistaken designation" that was paid out on
<< <i>Let’s keep the record straight, you were the first one to mention the 1976(s) silver MS quarter and you qualified the fact that it was not a circulated coin by your last sentence “Why the heck wasn't I checking my pocket change to pull these SILVER quarters out of circulation in 1976!!” I happen to agree with you, it is not a coin produced for circulation and should not be in a CIRCULATED set (put it in the VARIETY or COMPLETE sets). >>
Great point But it has very little importance here. It was required in the set, should it be there? However a slot was made for it. Here the case is different Either / Or? take your pick on which coin to use.
<< <i>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? >>
After reading this Just makes me Wonder
Wondercoin
"My point is simply this - high end SF coins (such as WV(d) MS69 and a number of other states in true MS70) are very challenging as are many non-SF coins in MS68 and better grade. "
A proof 70 DCAM is a better grade coin, but that's not a business strike either.
Why is it you think anyone who dosen't see things your way is flaming you?
I simply ask ..... Why screw up the BASIC CIRCULATION STRIKE SET?
And by adding the SF coins, thats EXACTLY what is going to happen.
Put them into a VARIETY set where they will be right at home. And in this set you could have your choice of which coin to use.
They are not now, nor will they ever be circulation strike coins.
<< <i>Michael: My comment regarding certain designations not being covered relates to coin surface designations (i.e. SMS vs. non-SMS). You may recall a situation where a 1965-67 MS Kennedy was graded CAM for example (because it was truly an SMS coin) and, best I know, the coin was not covered under the guarantee. That is not my rule - that is PCGS', whether we both agree with it or not. >>
Wondercoin
$100 for an MS68?
$40 for an MS67?
$10 for an MS66?
<< <i>Mitch I think you are a bit out of hand with your comments about cramming $5,000 MS sets down the collectors throats. An MS68 set for $5,000 is a top set. A set of top SF coins this year would be around $15,000 if one was available considering the two unique SF70 CA-D and MN-D, only two SF70 WV-P, only two SF69 WV-D. No matter what the game SF or MS a top set is always very pricey as the market dictates, not he finder of coins. If collectors will complain about getting crammed it will be for the added expense of buying mint sets to search to continue to rate in the registry and are unable to compete by just going to the bank and finding unsearched material to take their chances with. I am getting most all of my D material free and only have to buy the P material because it is not released out west. My opinions are not formed in the pursuit of profits and money they are formed over a reverence for the coins. If there is no reverence for mint state coins in the heart of the collector let them just buy SF that are relatively cheap in MS68 and the equivelent of an MS66-67 set of MS quarters that may also be bought for around $300 a set. I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you, a mint set bulk grading master, state that our opinions that differ with yours are based upon greed. These folks with opinions have been collecting many years like myself and are not to be brushed off as greed oriented. The fact is the SF (mint set program) you and others have been so successful with for so many years may not be successful anymore unless PCGS requires SF in the basic registry set. If PCGS does not require SF in the basic registry then dealers will financially suffer, and the US mint will financially suffer but not the collector. I recognize this and have no desire that dealers should suffer because of the change and that is why I am willing to do the compromise. As long as the regular MS coins pop report is correct and MS coins get their usual spot in the registry without artificail manipulation then the market will dictate the price as it always does. A grossly miss-represented pop report and no place to register MS coins is simply unfair. In the pursuit of MS coins I am able to use my skills to get a top set. I do sell extras and earn about $10 per hour in addition to my costs but I make over $100 per hour at my day job so do not think I am greed oriented, that is just silly. If you were finding MS coins I would happily buy from you and come out ahead by working more real estate deals in my day job. With the mint set coins I need to use my wallet more than my skill. The true collector likes to use his skill more than his wallet. Yes it is true that the bulk of your sales to me as posted in your previous thread are for mint set coins having received MS69 grades in prior years in your bulk mint set orders anmd I am thankful to you that you have and continue to offer me coins when you get them. If you are able to get top MS coins for me I will buy them as well. If this mint set bulk grading program becomes obsolete in 2006 due to the new SF coins no longer required in the basic registry then your sales will fall and it will become a lot cheaper for myself and other collectors to maintain their registry positions by using their skills and not their wallets. No o doubt PCGS recognizes that and hence their position. Flame on... dr >>
Wondercoin
My main though is they should be consistant. In the Roosevelt Dimes you can't use 1965, 1966 or 1967 SMS dimes, but you can use the 2005-P and 2005-D SF coins from the mint set. The more I think about it both should be required.
This long thread sure is an interesting read.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
I think when we take all financial interest aside, it does seem like there's an injustice on the part of the "either or" approach. (A lot of people have spent a LOT of money buying their sets already, so that interest is not the same as the "what's best for the hobby" approach.) I personally make and sell Satin Finish primarily and think they're affordable for the average collector. However, the circulation strikes deserve their day in the spotlight as they are not only the title of the set, but they are incredibly difficult to obtain in high grade. However this is obtained, I would leave it to the collectors with sets in the registry to weigh in with PCGS. (A dealer should have no more say so than the next person with a set in the registry.) The bottom line is that there are two obvious versions of the same coin that deserve their own separate line in the population report and likewise deserve a separate position in the registry. After all, it doesn't say "Goodacre OR 00P" or "Millennium set OR 00D" in the registry right? There are 4 places for 2000 Sac instead of just 2. It's not easy to "fix it" for everyone right now as there are a lot of factors in play, including the fact that PCGS didn't deal with this back in March 2005... So however the registry participants want to draw up options, vote, & discuss with PCGS, fair is fair right? (Assuming PCGS would listen.)
If everyone agrees that they are separate coins with separate coin numbers and separate lines in the population report that deserve their own due place in the spotlight, then you have a place to start deciding what's next with how to do it. If both types of coins are given their due, then there's a place for everyone to collect what they want and a place to register it in their set(s).
Thanks for hearing my 2 cents in this heated discussion. It's -40F here and I needed the warm up.
<< <i>I tried to pick out one point being made but couldn't decide so here goes:
<< <i>Mitch I think you are a bit out of hand with your comments about cramming $5,000 MS sets down the collectors throats. An MS68 set for $5,000 is a top set. A set of top SF coins this year would be around $15,000 if one was available considering the two unique SF70 CA-D and MN-D, only two SF70 WV-P, only two SF69 WV-D. No matter what the game SF or MS a top set is always very pricey as the market dictates, not he finder of coins. If collectors will complain about getting crammed it will be for the added expense of buying mint sets to search to continue to rate in the registry and are unable to compete by just going to the bank and finding unsearched material to take their chances with. I am getting most all of my D material free and only have to buy the P material because it is not released out west. My opinions are not formed in the pursuit of profits and money they are formed over a reverence for the coins. If there is no reverence for mint state coins in the heart of the collector let them just buy SF that are relatively cheap in MS68 and the equivelent of an MS66-67 set of MS quarters that may also be bought for around $300 a set. I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black when you, a mint set bulk grading master, state that our opinions that differ with yours are based upon greed. These folks with opinions have been collecting many years like myself and are not to be brushed off as greed oriented. The fact is the SF (mint set program) you and others have been so successful with for so many years may not be successful anymore unless PCGS requires SF in the basic registry set. If PCGS does not require SF in the basic registry then dealers will financially suffer, and the US mint will financially suffer but not the collector. I recognize this and have no desire that dealers should suffer because of the change and that is why I am willing to do the compromise. As long as the regular MS coins pop report is correct and MS coins get their usual spot in the registry without artificail manipulation then the market will dictate the price as it always does. A grossly miss-represented pop report and no place to register MS coins is simply unfair. In the pursuit of MS coins I am able to use my skills to get a top set. I do sell extras and earn about $10 per hour in addition to my costs but I make over $100 per hour at my day job so do not think I am greed oriented, that is just silly. If you were finding MS coins I would happily buy from you and come out ahead by working more real estate deals in my day job. With the mint set coins I need to use my wallet more than my skill. The true collector likes to use his skill more than his wallet. Yes it is true that the bulk of your sales to me as posted in your previous thread are for mint set coins having received MS69 grades in prior years in your bulk mint set orders anmd I am thankful to you that you have and continue to offer me coins when you get them. If you are able to get top MS coins for me I will buy them as well. If this mint set bulk grading program becomes obsolete in 2006 due to the new SF coins no longer required in the basic registry then your sales will fall and it will become a lot cheaper for myself and other collectors to maintain their registry positions by using their skills and not their wallets. No o doubt PCGS recognizes that and hence their position. Flame on... dr >>
Doug: Your quote above. Also, co- #1 (Donn) supports the same concept I believe. My set is also either #3 or #4 I believe after I enter something in the 2005 slots (my set dropped down after 2005 coins became required as I have no 2005 coins entered as of yet) and I am fine with this concept as well obviously. Doug (or anyone else) - Should we ask PCGS to consider launching a State Quarter Variety set then which would include the (20) 2005 coins & the 2 high/low leaf varieties?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've weighed in on anything around here. Is it hot in here or is it just me?
I think when we take all financial interest aside, it does seem like there's an injustice on the part of the "either or" approach. (A lot of people have spent a LOT of money buying their sets already, so that interest is not the same as the "what's best for the hobby" approach.) I personally make and sell Satin Finish primarily and think they're affordable for the average collector. However, the circulation strikes deserve their day in the spotlight as they are not only the title of the set, but they are incredibly difficult to obtain in high grade.
Thanks for hearing my 2 cents in this heated discussion. It's -40F here and I needed the warm up.
Hey, was that 2 bits or 2 cents worth of input?
Mitch, how do you cram a $5k collection down a collectors throat? The last I heard, I had a choice to buy, or not to buy, a coin. Believe me, I have had to turn down a few offers due to lack of funds. Yep, I just don't always have the $ to buy what I would like to own. But nobody has ever said I have to "buy it or else!" In fact, some sellers have said it was wise not to buy if the $ wasn't there. And guess what? They haven't quit making offerings because of previous turndowns. Hell, there is always another collector out there with the funds on hand. On top of this, some people want a set capped at 66, some 67, and others at 65. What's really being crammed????
I think the mint got greedy with the change in the mint sets. In doing so I think they really screwed the pooch. And the tpgs followed suit with their total lack of quality control, with mislabeled slabs and messed up pop's. BUT they weren't happy with just this. Now they add injury to insult by saying that the top regisry sets, comprised of harder to find, costlier and rarer coins, are now worthless. Yep, not worth the price or the work it takes to find these circ beauties. This is the essence of their decision to allow the more common, less expensive sf coins to have a greater impact on a collection than their circ counterparts. The 7th year of a 10 year program. 7 years is long time to work a set just to find the effort was meaningless, which is essencially what these lesser coins, which don't even meet the parameters of the registry, have done. Hasn't the changeup by the mint been enough? NOOOOOOO, gotta change the registry too!
Oh yeah, speaking of greed.....Do you think these mass producers of pop tops would be out there if it wasn't for guys like Doug, Mark and Michael (and others I'm sure) doing the initial work and finding a few of these ultra high grade new releases and thus setting the initial market standards? Yep, they do the work, take the initial risks, and somebody with more $, the ability to go thru more coins, comes along and takes away their little corner of the market. It's no wonder there presently isn't much of a demand for these awesome circ coins. They don't count for beans in a registry set, which is where the majority of those coins end up. And on a final note, they're also the reason we have the inflated pop's on some of the "used to be" harder coins. Thanks a lot. They're truly an added benefit to coin collecting.
<< <i>I agree with rb.
BTW, I just returned an order to the other big TPG to have the same 'mechanical' errors corrected. >>
rollingcoins, meant to ask you, how did this turn out? What steps did the guys across the street do to correct your submission?
And did they happen to do the right thing and cover your added expenses, which you wouldn't have incurred had they had their
"feces" together?
Wondercoin
Most of the replys to this thread have mentioned the state quarters series, but lets not forget, that is only one segment that needs to be addressed.
Also the mint will sell you any coins you desire in mint bags or rolls, EXCEPT for Lincolns and Roosevelt dimes. There you have to visit a bank or buy from someone who has,
and search for your own. If this makes me greedy, then I confess greed. And for a respected dealer who's sold more coins for more money than I will ever see, to refer to those of us who search XXX amount of rolls as greedy, that was uncalled for.
As for the guy who bought one roll of quarters and hit a nice coin, and made a big sale. Good for him, but you and I know thats not going to happen very often. Ask some of the well known people on these boards who go through XXX rolls. See if they think they are greedy when they find a nice coin and sell it.
Sometimes we get lucky enough to find something we need in our sets, maybe with luck, a second or third one to sell to someone.
But I don't think I EVER FORCED a coin on anyone. I'm not even sure how you go about FORCING a coin on someone. Unless I could use my GOOD CUSTOMER influence to decide which coins go into the registry.
No, that won't work, I have no influence with anyone. And no one asks my opinion on important questions like that.
I believe the set may become one of the neatest registry sets out there. And, we can all do out part to educate all collectors interested in this series to study the surface strikes of the various coins and learn the differences between them. This set should be a real "shot in the arm" for the state quarter series.
Wondercoin.