Thanks for your input Dan. Sounds like we are making progress. Once everyone is on the same page and actively collecting both business strikes and SF coins it will much easier for the decision to split the SF coins into a variety set if that is what we all desire at that time in the future. The future will also tell us more about what the mint will do and future decisions will be more logical and not anticipatory. I do not blame PCGS for the either or decision but now in the future we see how that has played out and there may be more surprises in store from the mint. Had PCGS asked my opinion in 2005 when this all started I could have immediately told them what was in store having made 22 of 22 in 2005 SF69 in my first submittal, and only three coins in MS69 from 1999-2004 prior to that. Back to my comments some time ago that the modern coin grader at PCGS needs to look at large quantiites of new releases to remain qualified.... but do not get me started on that...... these SF coins are so obvious when you looked at thousands of coins of both type there is no excuse for miss-classification.
Using your example about the rare MS67FB dime above if they are both required in the set and someone wants to get a point up and not pay moon money for that rare SF coin in point over superlative grade they will move toward the 67FB business strike coin and give that rarity what it deserves. Because the SF68 dimes in FB are so cheap (just sold a left-over shot SF69 FB 2006-D on ebay for around $10!) a person like yourself can compete strongly by buying the cheap grade under SF coin and put your dollars on the extra point for the business strike coin.
This levels the playing field and then market demand will reveal what the collectors really want, for example will the big league collector pay that extra $1k for a point over SF coin or will they pay the $1k for the point over business strike coin, or both? At least in the interim while this continues to play out you will not go broke on the grade under SF coins and you may find that the increase in the rare business strike values that you covet will more than off-set your pain of having to include grade under SF coins in your set.
Most coins in business strike and SF that are a grade under are very cheap in comparison to the SF and business strikes coins in grade over. Collectors like us are the ones that find the business strike rarites since most dealers (Seth, Mass, Mark, Team Mitch, etc... are exceptions) will not take the time to search thru thousands of business strike coins looking for that superlative needle in a haystack business strike coin. Hence in my opinion the collector will rule in the business strike coins while the dealers will rule in the SF coins since their pockets are usually deeper and they can afford to buy hundreds or thousands of mint sets to search thru and have the connections to dispose of them in bulk after thay have looked at them.
Under this compromise the budget concious collector can use his or her skills to get the legup business strike coins while those more wealthy and less prone to search themselves will get the leg up on the SF point over rarities by simply paying for them. The playing field will be leveled and the market can decide on prices.... a win win scenario for all including collectors and dealers alike in my opinon.
Thank you for your positive input on this issue Dan. dr
If PCGS wanted to do the “right” thing but take baby steps instead of jumping in with both feet, why don’t they start with adding slots for both “Satin Finish” and “Business Strike” coins in the Variety and Complete Sets then worry about fine tuning the Basic Sets.
I believe everyone agrees that both SF and BS coins belong in the Variety and Complete Sets so this shouldn’t be that hard of a first move for PCGS to make. This might be better then having both types in the Basic Set now just to remove one type later on.
I understand the compromise that Doug suggested about the Basic Set and I have no problem with it. But some collectors just don’t want to deal / own any of the “Satin Finish” coins so why make them.
If the Registry that PCGS has is for the Collectors, how hard would it be, I’ll just take the Statehood Quarters, to have the following sets:
1) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)
2) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-2004) Satin Finish (2005-Present)
3) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes (1999-Present)
4) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes with Varieties (1999-Present)
5) Washington Statehood Quarters, Proof (1999-Present)
6) Washington Statehood Quarters, Complete Set (1999-Present / Circulation, Satin Finish and Proof)
If these six sets were offered, the individual Collector could decide which one or all of the sets that he/she wanted to participate / compete in. What harm would it do if PCGS gave the Collector a choice? PCGS makes new sets for the Registry all the time so what is the hold up? As the sneaker commercial goes, “Just do it!”
WCQX: The high and low leaf WI-D coins were recently publicised in Coin World to be clashed dies.
I know it's off your radar, but Coin World issued a retraction two weeks later. See Chris Pilliod's article in The Numismatist for the cause. (not to get the discussion off-track, just to set a wrong right)
Rick I could not find any new articles prior to posting my comments about the die clash article. I know you were on the ground level of the discovery. I did search the coin world archived articles to see if anything was there to retrieve before I posted my comments and there was nothing archived. Was curious about that important article and why I could not find it in the Coin World archives while trivial information about the release of the WI quarter was there from 2002 and 2003. I am no longer a member of the ANA and have not received the numismatist in years. Tried searching the web for the Numismatist article and did not find it. Would love to see the Numismatist article or the Coin World retraction so if you have something to mail me at PO box 3227, Hayden, ID 83835 I would enjoy receiving the information and will post any new comments after reveiwing the new information. Interesting that retractions never get the same press as the original news release.... I read coin world regularly and did not see the retraction. Best regards, Doug Rall.
P.S. To those interested in the search results of business strike quarters from rolls and bags I have recent grade notification of 2003 states, ME-P MS68 x 4 (pop goes from 16 to 20 coins and I have found 1 in a mint set and 4 from rolls) , MO-P MS68 x 1 (pop goes from 4 to 5 and I have found 1 of these in a roll, 1 in a bag, and 0 in mint sets). May sound like a brag but I am trying to prove my point that either or difficulty in finding these from mint sets or rolls/bags is reasonable prior to 2005 but no comparison after that.
For 2006 there are now 291 NE-P in SF 69 and 671 NE-P in SF68 (grading mistakes, worth around $10 each). There are only four of these in business strike MS68.... I just got a fourth one graded, 160 in MS67, 127 in MS66 and some graded lower than that. Either or after 2005 simply does not work, it is percieved by collectors as a promotion of US mint GA GA products and that does not sit well with collectors.
So what is in store for 2007? In the coin world article August 27 it is reported that for the first time in over four decades the mint is no longer packaging the 2007 mint sets in mylar. Now they are using an individual plastic compartment for each coin. How many 2007 mint sets will it take to get a SF 69 set of state quarters? One, two, or ten?
In 2007 PCGS is being very tough on the business strikes and they should be, my applause to PCGS. The Idaho "carnivore quarter" featuring the Perrigrine Falcon raptor has a D mint pop of 2 coins in MS68, approximately 130 in MS67, 71 in MS66 and 74 graded lower than that. Wait until the new SF mint sets come out with each coin in an individual plastic compartment... I predict huge amounts of GA GA grades and the mint keeps gettting better now at mass producing superlative coins.
In my opinion the time has come to establish a business strike only registry for all series affected by the 2005 SF SNAFU and another registry adopting the either or strategy that in effect will contain all SF coins after 2004 since no business strikes can compete. Thanks Tim for that idea. After careful consideration I think your idea is the best, even better than requiring both SF and business strike in a basic set.
As far as a variety set is concerned for state quarters I collect them all already and it does not matter to me if PCGS establishes a variety set or not. If a variety set is established I support Tim's idea that it should be a third state quarter registry set and not force the SF or business strike collectors to buy these unless they want to participate in that third registry set. I already own PCGS graded gem WI high and low leaf, and 38 varieties of PCGS MN DDR graded MS65 or better (about half way to getting them all), various die break coins et. al. so if it desired to establish a competition in varieties just bring it on but establishing a variety set that requires a WI high and low leaf and only a single example of a MN DDR does not cut it and appears to unfairly promote the WI high and low leaf hoarders that have been waiting and baiting such an endeavor. dr
This thread mostly deals with the Statehood Quarter program; I listed the six sets that PCGS could have in the Registry as examples only.
<< <i> If the Registry that PCGS has is for the Collectors, how hard would it be, I’ll just take the Statehood Quarters, to have the following sets:
1) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)
2) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-2004) Satin Finish (2005-Present)
3) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes (1999-Present)
4) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes with Varieties (1999-Present)
5) Washington Statehood Quarters, Proof (1999-Present)
6) Washington Statehood Quarters, Complete Set (1999-Present / Circulation, Satin Finish and Proof)
If these six sets were offered, the individual Collector could decide which one or all of the sets that he/she wanted to participate / compete in. What harm would it do if PCGS gave the Collector a choice? PCGS makes new sets for the Registry all the time so what is the hold up? As the sneaker commercial goes, “Just do it!” >>
These six sets should apply to all denominations effected / infected with the new “Satin Finish” coins produced from the US Mint since 2005.
My son and I would like to see set #4 for Kennedy Half Dollars for that is what we chose to collect. But if someone just wants to collect “Business Strike” coins for any series then that should be their choice and PCGS should try to make the Registry more accommodating for the individual collector (after all, they are our coins and we should be able to assembly them into the collection that we want). I fail to see what David Hall or Ron Guth are being so stubborn about, you would think more sets equal more collectors which mean more submissions (more money for PCGS).
Let the Registry be for the collectors, let us have what we want. I would like to hear what Mr. Hall or Mr. Guth has to say about this issue, hopefully they can take some constructive criticism about the lack of options they are giving us collectors in the Registry.
Not sure about the private mail function, I did not turn it off to my knowledge and will try to figure out how to turn it on. I would like to hear everyones opinions and private is ok. You can e-mail the article to douglasrall@msn.com if that is easier. Thanks Rick. dr
Let’s see now, I sent a letter to the President of PCGS on the Satin vs. BS issue on or around June 11th...still no response. No response to this, one of the longest threads ever on the Forum and the last comment on the very subject was from David Hall, Jan 26, 2006. Both men have been approached at shows with the question, and no response...Am I seeing a pattern here?
Oh yeah, for any forum member who deals with NGC management, please thank them for all of us here.
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
At least the IKE's do not have any satin finish coins in the set! Started this set a while back. Complete now with varieties but need some MS67 for show! dr
Re: WI-D High and Low leaf varieties. Got the numismatic news article from Rick that weighed in earlier on the thread whether the varities are caused by a clashed die or something else.
The Chris Pilliod article is very scientific and uses a high powered scanning electronic microscope and matallurgy principles and he rules out clashed dies because the extra leaves have far too much depth and do not match design elements on the front of the coin. The coin world article as I recall matched the extra leaves to George's hair bun curl on the obverse near the "G" of the in god we trust motto.
Having studied my WI-D varieties intently and with some limited knowledge of clashed dies I would think that if the dies were clashed more of the outline of Georges head would appear on the variety and not just the "extra leaf" sliver that lines up almost perfectly with the corn leaves. I am now more skeptical that this is a clased die from the hair bun as reported by coin world.
Chris believes this is a clandestine placement by a mint employee adding the extra leaf using the same instrument striking it once on the high leaf variety and twice on the low leaf variety on a soft die prior to it being hardened.
It seemed to me that the extra leaf could be double hubbed like the MN extra tree variety. The area that could be double hubbed appears to be the bottom edge of the lower leaf on the right side of the cornstalk that is a raised curve and is higher than most of the other design elements (like the MN double tree varities). I do not have the technology to take pictures and overlay this area of the curve to the extra leaf and maybe someone has already tried that anyhow.
Chris "also rule out a hubbing anomaly as it is virtually impossible that each curve was crafted with identical, repeating defects".... referring to the low leaf variety that actually has two of these curved lines that are virtually identical. I have not seen any MN-P extra tree varieties that have two extra trees hubbed so Chris is probably right on that point as well.
In any event I am happy to report that the WI-D hi and low leaf appear more like a variety and less like a clashed die. The mint will not admit to an intentional act but even if the extra leaf is caused from hubbing like the MN tree they are still a variety. dr
In the long run I think the Wisconsin coins will be considered types since they are intentional design differences; unofficial, but nonetheless inten- tional.
I just sent a PO'ed note to Carol on the Q&A (ha ha ha, Like they ever responed to their questions unless its sugary sweet!) forum that sez in as much to tell Ron that his lack of a two year response on this issue let alone no response to my letter, This forum,etc, etc, is an embarrassment to PCGS especially now that NGC did the right thing..If Water Sport gets banned, you now know why,,Gee I am tired of this crap!
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
<< <i>I would expect something to happen before the month is out. I believe PCGS' board of experts is currently reviewing the situation very carefully.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
That is great news but would it have hurt Ron G or David H to have posted something along those lines. I mean a little communication is a good thing especially if you are in a "people" business. Even if they posted, "We are still looking into the matter and are having some high level talks at this time in hopes to have an answer before the end of the year."
I am quite sure that Mr. Hall's and Mr. Guth's IQ level and business sense is right up there, this is why it has been so hard to understand why they have been silent on the issue. There has been several questions on this topic submitted on the Q & A or they could have address the issue in this thread, (they both know it is here). Thanks for passing on the info, maybe PCGS needs to hire a public relation person so issues like this gets answered in a timely fashion instead of letting people become frustrated.
Thanks again Mitchell for taking the lead and keeping us informed. I was going to re-send our accounting report that documents the SF vs business strike classification error 350+/- for 2005 and maybe I should wait a while longer and see if this issue gets resolved. To your knowledge is the panel of experts cognizant of the classification error or should I re-send that information to Ron and David and the Board et al with a nice cover letter? Any guidance is greatly appreciated, PM me if you think this may be too sensitive to discuss on the Boards. dr
<< <i>I would expect something to happen before the month is out. I believe PCGS' board of experts is currently reviewing the situation very carefully.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch, does this also include the Sacagaweas? What about the FS issue for early silver eagles?
I sent out a few emails last month directed at the state quarter series and got word back that the issues were now squarely before the PCGS experts to consider. I did not address any other series at that point as I felt "little steps" that could be accomplished were far better than myriad tasks that might take much longer for anything at all to be worked out. Obviously, Sacs, Kennedys, Roosies, Silver Eagles, etc., etc. need to also be addressed after we see how the state quarters were handled.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I see they included two spots for MN DDR (one P and one D mint) and both WI-D High and low leaf . There will be other varieties found as well. Off to a great start with this, would like to see a few more MN DDR spots that ae not satin finish. Also be open minded for new varieties to be added as more DDR of other states are found, like the WY-P DDR? dr
9/25/07 Variety Program Update We have begun the process of adding additional variety set compositions to coincide with PCGS's Variety Attribution Program. The first set added (by popular demand) is the Washington Statehood Quarters with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) which requires both the Satin Finish and Business Strike issues. As new variety sets are put online, they will be announced here.
What is up with the "Weight" given to the coins in the Washington Statehood Quarters with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) set? Why are the 1999 coins given the "weight" of 2 and none of the "Satin Finish or Business Strike" coins of later years given a higher "weight" then one? I would like to hear PCGS's answer as to why
The answer can not have anything to do with low mintages!
9/25/07 Variety Program Update We have begun the process of adding additional variety set compositions to coincide with PCGS's Variety Attribution Program. The first set added (by popular demand) is the Washington Statehood Quarters with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) which requires both the Satin Finish and Business Strike issues. As new variety sets are put online, they will be announced here.
When I personally contemplated in my mind the creation of this variety state quarter set a few years ago which included EVERYTHING (as PCGS has now done), I had (and still have) no doubt this set would be the KING of all state quarter registry sets. I tip my hat in advance to the guy who has the #1 set of these coins when the program has finished a few years from now (and that includes all the additional variety coins PCGS may be adding along the way).
Let the great divide between many of us members now pass and LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
See, I still check back with this place every once in a while. Good to see the pioneers of this post are still posting. So is it safe to say that PCGS will follow suit with the other denominations?
Congrats to all those who have pushed so hard for this. Boy are those BS coins going to skyrocket on eBay...
Great news, after what seems to be the longest thread on the CU board and a 2 year epic struggle, the States Quarters are given the SF/BS recognition they deserve. Congratulations!
I am puzzled why PCGS would addresss this issue with the States Quarters but not address the EXACT SAME ISSUE with the Sacagawea dollars. Seems to me they could have moved to correct this issue as well and thereby resolving the BS SF issue across the board.
<< <i>Great news, after what seems to be the longest thread on the CU board and a 2 year epic struggle, the States Quarters are given the SF/BS recognition they deserve. Congratulations!
I am puzzled why PCGS would addresss this issue with the States Quarters but not address the EXACT SAME ISSUE with the Sacagawea dollars. Seems to me they could have moved to correct this issue as well and thereby resolving the BS SF issue across the board.
>>
I believe that they most likely will address it across the board. Probably just updating one set at a time. If we didn't see many more in the upcoming weeks I would be surprised.
Such a long thread when the quarters were in question but now it seems no one cares about the Sacs or the other coins frigged up by the Mint and the SF process.
Doug - I spoke with Steve Mayer today - head of PCGS Operations.
I told him that to this day, there are still major mistakes in the pop report with respect to SF coins showing up as business strikes in the report (especially state quarters) - I assume this is still the case?
Mr. Mayer really wants to try to fix any such open mistakes - if these mistakes still exist (which I think they do) - do you have an easy to follow spreadsheet I can bring to his office documenting all such mistakes in the state quarter series? If so, I would like you to mail me a copy tomorrow please.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Man I am not sure us Lincoln folks have as many cents with the wrong designation as you quarter guys. Perhaps because we have no where near the numbers you have. What a mess. This should be cleaned up before the SF and BS strikes are added to any set, but it will still requires the collector to ID the coin and send it in (at no fee PCGS) to get it as close to accurate as possible. Maybe this is the REASON they have been so darn reluctant to fix this issue for the last 4 years. But hey, it would have been easier if they had dealt with it sooner...I guess we have been telling them "I told you so"
WS
Proud recipient of the coveted PCGS Forum "You Suck" Award Thursday July 19, 2007 11:33 PM and December 30th, 2011 at 8:50 PM.
Comments
Using your example about the rare MS67FB dime above if they are both required in the set and someone wants to get a point up and not pay moon money for that rare SF coin in point over superlative grade they will move toward the 67FB business strike coin and give that rarity what it deserves. Because the SF68 dimes in FB are so cheap (just sold a left-over shot SF69 FB 2006-D on ebay for around $10!) a person like yourself can compete strongly by buying the cheap grade under SF coin and put your dollars on the extra point for the business strike coin.
This levels the playing field and then market demand will reveal what the collectors really want, for example will the big league collector pay that extra $1k for a point over SF coin or will they pay the $1k for the point over business strike coin, or both? At least in the interim while this continues to play out you will not go broke on the grade under SF coins and you may find that the increase in the rare business strike values that you covet will more than off-set your pain of having to include grade under SF coins in your set.
Most coins in business strike and SF that are a grade under are very cheap in comparison to the SF and business strikes coins in grade over. Collectors like us are the ones that find the business strike rarites since most dealers (Seth, Mass, Mark, Team Mitch, etc... are exceptions) will not take the time to search thru thousands of business strike coins looking for that superlative needle in a haystack business strike coin. Hence in my opinion the collector will rule in the business strike coins while the dealers will rule in the SF coins since their pockets are usually deeper and they can afford to buy hundreds or thousands of mint sets to search thru and have the connections to dispose of them in bulk after thay have looked at them.
Under this compromise the budget concious collector can use his or her skills to get the legup business strike coins while those more wealthy and less prone to search themselves will get the leg up on the SF point over rarities by simply paying for them. The playing field will be leveled and the market can decide on prices.... a win win scenario for all including collectors and dealers alike in my opinon.
Thank you for your positive input on this issue Dan. dr
I believe everyone agrees that both SF and BS coins belong in the Variety and Complete Sets so this shouldn’t be that hard of a first move for PCGS to make. This might be better then having both types in the Basic Set now just to remove one type later on.
I understand the compromise that Doug suggested about the Basic Set and I have no problem with it. But some collectors just don’t want to deal / own any of the “Satin Finish” coins so why make them.
If the Registry that PCGS has is for the Collectors, how hard would it be, I’ll just take the Statehood Quarters, to have the following sets:
1) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)
2) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-2004) Satin Finish (2005-Present)
3) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes (1999-Present)
4) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes with Varieties (1999-Present)
5) Washington Statehood Quarters, Proof (1999-Present)
6) Washington Statehood Quarters, Complete Set (1999-Present / Circulation, Satin Finish and Proof)
If these six sets were offered, the individual Collector could decide which one or all of the sets that he/she wanted to participate / compete in. What harm would it do if PCGS gave the Collector a choice? PCGS makes new sets for the Registry all the time so what is the hold up? As the sneaker commercial goes, “Just do it!”
JMHO,
Tim
2) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-2004) Satin Finish (2005-Present)
I would also support this idea of two registry sets as another option for PCGS to consider. More than that I am indifferent about.
Another great idea, another positive suggestion. Easy for PCGS to implement as well. Good suggestion Tim! dr
And this set will cover the WI High/Low along with the MN DDR's
<< <i>4) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes with Varieties (1999-Present) >>
<< <i>But my quarter set starts in 1932? >>
I thought your birth year was 1832?
I know it's off your radar, but Coin World issued a retraction two weeks later. See Chris Pilliod's article in The Numismatist for the cause. (not to get the discussion off-track, just to set a wrong right)
P.S. To those interested in the search results of business strike quarters from rolls and bags I have recent grade notification of 2003 states, ME-P MS68 x 4 (pop goes from 16 to 20 coins and I have found 1 in a mint set and 4 from rolls) , MO-P MS68 x 1 (pop goes from 4 to 5 and I have found 1 of these in a roll, 1 in a bag, and 0 in mint sets). May sound like a brag but I am trying to prove my point that either or difficulty in finding these from mint sets or rolls/bags is reasonable prior to 2005 but no comparison after that.
For 2006 there are now 291 NE-P in SF 69 and 671 NE-P in SF68 (grading mistakes, worth around $10 each). There are only four of these in business strike MS68.... I just got a fourth one graded, 160 in MS67, 127 in MS66 and some graded lower than that. Either or after 2005 simply does not work, it is percieved by collectors as a promotion of US mint GA GA products and that does not sit well with collectors.
So what is in store for 2007? In the coin world article August 27 it is reported that for the first time in over four decades the mint is no longer packaging the 2007 mint sets in mylar. Now they are using an individual plastic compartment for each coin. How many 2007 mint sets will it take to get a SF 69 set of state quarters? One, two, or ten?
In 2007 PCGS is being very tough on the business strikes and they should be, my applause to PCGS. The Idaho "carnivore quarter" featuring the Perrigrine Falcon raptor has a D mint pop of 2 coins in MS68, approximately 130 in MS67, 71 in MS66 and 74 graded lower than that. Wait until the new SF mint sets come out with each coin in an individual plastic compartment... I predict huge amounts of GA GA grades and the mint keeps gettting better now at mass producing superlative coins.
In my opinion the time has come to establish a business strike only registry for all series affected by the 2005 SF SNAFU and another registry adopting the either or strategy that in effect will contain all SF coins after 2004 since no business strikes can compete. Thanks Tim for that idea. After careful consideration I think your idea is the best, even better than requiring both SF and business strike in a basic set.
As far as a variety set is concerned for state quarters I collect them all already and it does not matter to me if PCGS establishes a variety set or not. If a variety set is established I support Tim's idea that it should be a third state quarter registry set and not force the SF or business strike collectors to buy these unless they want to participate in that third registry set. I already own PCGS graded gem WI high and low leaf, and 38 varieties of PCGS MN DDR graded MS65 or better (about half way to getting them all), various die break coins et. al. so if it desired to establish a competition in varieties just bring it on but establishing a variety set that requires a WI high and low leaf and only a single example of a MN DDR does not cut it and appears to unfairly promote the WI high and low leaf hoarders that have been waiting and baiting such an endeavor. dr
<< <i> If the Registry that PCGS has is for the Collectors, how hard would it be, I’ll just take the Statehood Quarters, to have the following sets:
1) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)
2) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-2004) Satin Finish (2005-Present)
3) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes (1999-Present)
4) Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation & Satin Finish Strikes with Varieties (1999-Present)
5) Washington Statehood Quarters, Proof (1999-Present)
6) Washington Statehood Quarters, Complete Set (1999-Present / Circulation, Satin Finish and Proof)
If these six sets were offered, the individual Collector could decide which one or all of the sets that he/she wanted to participate / compete in. What harm would it do if PCGS gave the Collector a choice? PCGS makes new sets for the Registry all the time so what is the hold up? As the sneaker commercial goes, “Just do it!” >>
These six sets should apply to all denominations effected / infected with the new “Satin Finish” coins produced from the US Mint since 2005.
My son and I would like to see set #4 for Kennedy Half Dollars for that is what we chose to collect. But if someone just wants to collect “Business Strike” coins for any series then that should be their choice and PCGS should try to make the Registry more accommodating for the individual collector (after all, they are our coins and we should be able to assembly them into the collection that we want). I fail to see what David Hall or Ron Guth are being so stubborn about, you would think more sets equal more collectors which mean more submissions (more money for PCGS).
Let the Registry be for the collectors, let us have what we want. I would like to hear what Mr. Hall or Mr. Guth has to say about this issue, hopefully they can take some constructive criticism about the lack of options they are giving us collectors in the Registry.
JMHO,
Tim
OK, (I wanted to PM you but you have it turned off)
I'll send you a copy.
Allow Private Messages: On Off
Let’s see now, I sent a letter to the President of PCGS on the Satin vs. BS issue on or around June 11th...still no response. No response to this, one of the longest threads ever on the Forum and the last comment on the very subject was from David Hall, Jan 26, 2006. Both men have been approached at shows with the question, and no response...Am I seeing a pattern here?
Oh yeah, for any forum member who deals with NGC management, please thank them for all of us here.
WS
Doug Rall IKE's with Varieties
The Chris Pilliod article is very scientific and uses a high powered scanning electronic microscope and matallurgy principles and he rules out clashed dies because the extra leaves have far too much depth and do not match design elements on the front of the coin. The coin world article as I recall matched the extra leaves to George's hair bun curl on the obverse near the "G" of the in god we trust motto.
Having studied my WI-D varieties intently and with some limited knowledge of clashed dies I would think that if the dies were clashed more of the outline of Georges head would appear on the variety and not just the "extra leaf" sliver that lines up almost perfectly with the corn leaves. I am now more skeptical that this is a clased die from the hair bun as reported by coin world.
Chris believes this is a clandestine placement by a mint employee adding the extra leaf using the same instrument striking it once on the high leaf variety and twice on the low leaf variety on a soft die prior to it being hardened.
It seemed to me that the extra leaf could be double hubbed like the MN extra tree variety. The area that could be double hubbed appears to be the bottom edge of the lower leaf on the right side of the cornstalk that is a raised curve and is higher than most of the other design elements (like the MN double tree varities). I do not have the technology to take pictures and overlay this area of the curve to the extra leaf and maybe someone has already tried that anyhow.
Chris "also rule out a hubbing anomaly as it is virtually impossible that each curve was crafted with identical, repeating defects".... referring to the low leaf variety that actually has two of these curved lines that are virtually identical. I have not seen any MN-P extra tree varieties that have two extra trees hubbed so Chris is probably right on that point as well.
In any event I am happy to report that the WI-D hi and low leaf appear more like a variety and less like a clashed die. The mint will not admit to an intentional act but even if the extra leaf is caused from hubbing like the MN tree they are still a variety. dr
they are intentional design differences; unofficial, but nonetheless inten-
tional.
WS
Wondercoin
<< <i>I would expect something to happen before the month is out. I believe PCGS' board of experts is currently reviewing the situation very carefully.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch,
That is great news but would it have hurt Ron G or David H to have posted something along those lines. I mean a little communication is a good thing especially if you are in a "people" business. Even if they posted, "We are still looking into the matter and are having some high level talks at this time in hopes to have an answer before the end of the year."
I am quite sure that Mr. Hall's and Mr. Guth's IQ level and business sense is right up there, this is why it has been so hard to understand why they have been silent on the issue. There has been several questions on this topic submitted on the Q & A or they could have address the issue in this thread, (they both know it is here). Thanks for passing on the info, maybe PCGS needs to hire a public relation person so issues like this gets answered in a timely fashion instead of letting people become frustrated.
JMHO,
Tim
<< <i>I would expect something to happen before the month is out. I believe PCGS' board of experts is currently reviewing the situation very carefully.
Wondercoin >>
Mitch, does this also include the Sacagaweas? What about the FS issue for early silver eagles?
I sent out a few emails last month directed at the state quarter series and got word back that the issues were now squarely before the PCGS experts to consider. I did not address any other series at that point as I felt "little steps" that could be accomplished were far better than myriad tasks that might take much longer for anything at all to be worked out. Obviously, Sacs, Kennedys, Roosies, Silver Eagles, etc., etc. need to also be addressed after we see how the state quarters were handled.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/publishedset.aspx?s=35746 New Registry Set Link
9/25/07
Variety Program Update
We have begun the process of adding additional variety set compositions to coincide with PCGS's Variety Attribution Program. The first set added (by popular demand) is the Washington Statehood Quarters with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) which requires both the Satin Finish and Business Strike issues. As new variety sets are put online, they will be announced here.
Washington Statehood Quarters with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)
Open up !!!!!!
WONDERCOINS' STATEHOOD QUARTER WITH VARIETIES SET
The answer can not have anything to do with low mintages!
But, IMHO, the varieities deserve higher weights in line with the way PCGS treates all quarter varieities beginning in 1934.
Mas - I like it better closed - no one offers me any coins or makes offers on what I have.
Wondercoin
Noticed the above coin in a set just listed:
Link
Maybe a slot needed for this coin????
<< <i>Tim: I believe the 1999's have always had double weight - no? >>
Sounds about right to me, Always been double on the 1999 States
<< <i>From Set Registry news:
9/25/07
Variety Program Update
We have begun the process of adding additional variety set compositions to coincide with PCGS's Variety Attribution Program. The first set added (by popular demand) is the Washington Statehood Quarters with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present) which requires both the Satin Finish and Business Strike issues. As new variety sets are put online, they will be announced here.
>>
Cool.
It's a great start.
What are all of those Roosie guys going to do when all they have are those Satin Finish and no Business Srikes for 2005-Date?
Dan60 and I won't have to worry!
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
Let the great divide between many of us members now pass and LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!
Wondercoin
<< <i>Let the great divide between many of us members now pass and LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!! >>
For the other denominations
The time will come
Congrats to all those who have pushed so hard for this. Boy are those BS coins going to skyrocket on eBay...
Watersport, you still here???
I am puzzled why PCGS would addresss this issue with the States Quarters but not address the EXACT SAME ISSUE with the Sacagawea dollars. Seems to me they could have moved to correct this issue as well and thereby resolving the BS SF issue across the board.
<< <i>Great news, after what seems to be the longest thread on the CU board and a 2 year epic struggle, the States Quarters are given the SF/BS recognition they deserve. Congratulations!
I am puzzled why PCGS would addresss this issue with the States Quarters but not address the EXACT SAME ISSUE with the Sacagawea dollars. Seems to me they could have moved to correct this issue as well and thereby resolving the BS SF issue across the board.
I believe that they most likely will address it across the board. Probably just updating one set at a time. If we didn't see many more in the upcoming weeks I would be surprised.
Check my ebay BIN or Make Offers!!
I told him that to this day, there are still major mistakes in the pop report with respect to SF coins showing up as business strikes in the report (especially state quarters) - I assume this is still the case?
Mr. Mayer really wants to try to fix any such open mistakes - if these mistakes still exist (which I think they do) - do you have an easy to follow spreadsheet I can bring to his office documenting all such mistakes in the state quarter series? If so, I would like you to mail me a copy tomorrow please.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Mr. Mayer really wants to try to fix any such open mistakes - >>
Let's hope Mr. Mayer can get it done. Trying to explain the pop report is getting old,
WS
Wondercoin