Mitch: Varieties are just that, so fair is fair, right? With a "pointman" as you call it, a lot could be done for varieties. Obviously PCGS doesn't want to have to sift through everyone's pocket change to decide which is worthy of a variety, but there has to be a economical way to have a PR guy/enthusiast help out a little on recognized variety coins.
mas3387: Thanks! It's the right thing to do for collectors and the hobby. The "Oops, I didn't see the label but someone paid me $1,000 for a $25 coin" act is getting old. I buy that story for about 2 milliseconds.
rb7557: Thank you for your kind comments. I like money just as much as the next guy, but some things like integrity are just not for sale. I can't speak for everyone, but I would say that it's likely that this statement is true for most people posting on this thread. Whoever has a mis-labeled SF coin in a Business Strike holder needs to send it in as such and certainly shouldn't be using the cert# in a registry.
Just wondering... the final outcome was a variety set for quarters only... or were the rest of the series included? Secondly, nothing has been done to "fix" the mint state sets, which now still include these SMS coins... is that what I'm understanding through 152 posts?
Just wondering...
Thanks!
Steve
U.S. Air Force Security Forces Retired
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
Brian: That is very helpful - I just received an email which suggests perhaps (129) coins can be corrected on the pop report simply by having that (1) serial number. Efforts are underway.
Steve: DH approved a State quarter variety set which will have in it ALL (20) SF coins and the (2) WI error coins (while the regular set only requires (10) coins of the setholder's choice). No variety sets have been discussed for any other coin series.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Brian: That is very helpful - I just received an email which suggests perhaps (129) coins can be corrected on the pop report simply by having that (1) serial number. Efforts are underway.
Great Job!!!
Thanks Brian and those working behind the scenes
Just wondering if we know which other State Quarter Pop's are affected?
Thanks for the help Brian. Hopefully PCGS can take this SN and follow the seqential numbering of this batch to allow for multiple corrections. I want to see some progress on this now to establish some credibility as we start the next ball game when the 2006 mint sets are released. PCGS should have someone accountable for this that we can all direct our information to. Coin submitters that receive a mechanically miss-labeled batch should have an immediate direct line to get their submissions fixed fast and get them out on the open market and keep up with their competition. I bought many nice coins from Brian in 2005 and each one was in the new "colorific" PCGS satin finish label PCGS put on some batches at the dealers request. Brian were all or most of these suspected coin numbering errors returned to you by PCGS in the colorific holders? If so I would feel a lot better knowing that. Please reply to this thread if you can. I think that this is important for everyone to know. If they were in the colorific holders that said satin finish on them then for the reasons of Mitch's reply to the other thread a few clicks up I am confident PCGS will not let someone weasel them into non-satin finish holders. Still want that pop report cleaned up starting Monday! I look forward to buying some more monsters this year if I do not find them first! dr
Regarding the comments about the PCGS graders above I do not think that responsibility for mechanical labeling problems with the coins should be placed on the graders. Lets see what Brian has to say about the "colorific holders" that say satin finish on them. Clearly if they say satin finish on the label or the coin number is for a satin finish coin while the label does not state satin finish in either event that is a mechanical error and not the graders fault in my opinion. PCGS should follow the chain of events that leads to the holdered coin with the label already inserted and then a mecanical error specialist could verify at the end that it all matches up. I think there are actually very few grading errors out there if any or I would have seen them on the market. dr
Sorry..., but I'm very newb to the group. I viewed the (PCGS Process Grading Video) According to the video coins that have been graded, labelled, and SEALED are then ..."sent back to the grading room for a final quality check. We call this step verification. This is where another PCGS world class grader will check the orders for accuracy and consistency. No coin can leave our premises without at least two world class graders agreeing on the final grade. The final quality control checkpoint is the mechanical verification." Mechanical verification is for final checking against the paperwork. I'm still not quite following this 'mechanical error" excuse. Can someone please explain? Thanks!
Everyone of our coins was in the satin finish holders. This should make things easier for them. I believe that the other MN quarters were from someone elses submission. There is one 70 and we never got one. Hopefully we can have this all straightened out soon.
<< <i>Sorry..., but I'm very newb to the group. I viewed the (PCGS Process Grading Video) According to the video coins that have been graded, labelled, and SEALED are then ..."sent back to the grading room for a final quality check. We call this step verification. This is where another PCGS world class grader will check the orders for accuracy and consistency. No coin can leave our premises without at least two world class graders agreeing on the final grade. The final quality control checkpoint is the mechanical verification." Mechanical verification is for final checking against the paperwork. I'm still not quite following this 'mechanical error" excuse. Can someone please explain? Thanks! >>
Can't wait to see the answer to this one. Good point rollingcoins.
"Everyone of our coins was in the satin finish holders. This should make things easier for them."
Brian: If I understand the current situation, what I think you should do tomorrow is this - craft a letter to DH and explain to him that a significant number of your coins (129?) were in the SF holder but entered in the PCGS system as non-SF coins. Give DH the invoice # and all the information you can. Obviously, I assume, you can not give him back all the coins at this point (and I am not even sure they are needed?) Ask DH to change these coins in the system to show up as SF coins as opposed to non-SF coins. That should work and clean up (129) pop report errors in one clean swoop - no?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Brian: That is very helpful - I just received an email which suggests perhaps (129) coins can be corrected on the pop report simply by having that (1) serial number. Efforts are underway.
Great Job!!!
Thanks Brian and those working behind the scenes
Just wondering if we know which other State Quarter Pop's are affected?
I think one other is Kansas P? >>
Not sure about the ks-p, but I now know at least 2 wv-p ms69 that are wrong. And some Or-p's also. Who is taking the lead on this pop cleanup? I went back and found which coin I had a problem with earlier in the year, and came across a few new #'s. I think the submitter had his whole submission entered into the data base incorrectly. I emailed him at the time, but I guess he never handled the problem from there. Not sure that an attempt wasn't made tho.
It would be very helpful if the actual submittors took "the lead" on their own coins to fix their own problems. I did it every time I came across a problem on a coin consigned to me to sell, Seth just did it, Doug did it, etc., etc. and everyone else who has the actual Invoice #'s should do it as well. That is why I suggested Brian write to DH with all the back up information to clean up upwards of (129) coins in one simple email. IMHO - there is no easier way.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
It would be very helpful if the actual submittors took "the lead" on their own coins to fix their own problems. I did it every time I came across a problem on a coin consigned to me to sell, Seth just did it, Doug did it, etc., etc. and everyone else who has the actual Invoice #'s should do it as well. That is why I suggested Brian write to DH with all the back up information to clean up upwards of (129) coins in one simple email. IMHO - there is no easier way.
Mitch I agree with you. But I contacted the seller of my problem coin back in late July/early Aug. and the submission wasn't cleaned up then.
SO what do I do with the "possible problem cert #'s" I have came across?
<< <i>Good job!!!! Every little bit helps p8nt. >>
Anyone that has looked at the circ strike nickels knows that the 69 was a big waste of someone's money. The 67 is hard to believe, but possible. Sounds like it too was Satin Finish?? IMHO 66 is the top grade at the moment and only 3 at that...
Mitch: I agree, fixing one's own submissions is a novel concept. It's a shame that it has to be said.
I have emailed the person that sold me the quarter. I have asked that he contact pcgs with his submission # and cert #'s. I even went so far as to give him all the cert #'s I checked out today. They are all p mint quarters, mn,or,ks, and wv. Approx 120 coins. None are designated sf and range in grade ms67-9, and one ms-70. These will definately affect the ks and wv pops since they were not released at the end of July. Maybe even the or quarters. They were released 6/6/5. I purchased my problem coin on ebay on 7/17/5. I don't know what level his submission was, but the time frame involved may make the or quarter an impossibility also. I also sent him a link to this thread so he can see what's going on.
Mitch, I am going to wait a few days and give them a chance to deal with this on their own, or to let me know their thoughts. If there is no response, then I will pm you with the name and email address. I don't think it would be appropriate to post the info on an open forum.
<< <i>Anyone that has looked at the circ strike nickels knows that the 69 was a big waste of someone's money. The 67 is hard to believe, but possible. Sounds like it too was Satin Finish?? IMHO 66 is the top grade at the moment and only 3 at that... >>
It is incredibly hard to distinguish SF (or not) for the MS67 nickel. I still dont have a 100% conclusion and I even owned the coin. It is Non-SF except for the bit of "frost" look on the obverse. The reverse and center of the obverse are brilliant. I dont know if it is a Non-SF coin with some frost (like the reported 2004 coins) or if it was a defective SF die. I know the chances of getting a MS67 with a Non-SF coin are highly unlikely but someone is always coming up with a new pop-top so it is not impossible.
I just realized that the MS67 and MS69 are from the same submission. I had not seen this before and I am pretty sure now that the MS67 is in fact a SF coin.
I did some cert. verification work and it seems that this submission ranges from 60215516 to 60215591 and are all 2005 SF coins except for a few. I dont know if the seller decided to randomly toss in 4 Non-SF coins in the middle of their submission.. but to me it seems highly unlikely.
These are the coins that were not labeled SF in the submission.
If you take the time to look at each of those coins and the grades received you will see why (I think) the seller decided to sell his "mis-labeled fortunes" without having them corrected...
Thanks P8NT for joining in this. Your help is enlightening. And Roger and Michael and John your hurculean efforts are not unnoticed either. In my opinion PCGS should not allow mixed batches of coins only all SF or all MS. I have never mixed a batch and as a submitter I do not think I would mind one little bit if mixed batches were not allowed in 2006 especially if it helps prevent confusion in the labeling. And Don "rollingcoins" I am a bit ignorant of the actual process at PCGS and now more than ever need to get a tour of the process so I can see myself. Hard to believe experienced graders would let the MS vs SF slide on the labels. Increasing the cognizance of everyone regarding the rarity of high grade MS coins should help prevent this from occuring in 2006. I provided the following information to John and others working hard behind the scenes to correct errors that should help with the MS KS-P and MS WV-P errors.
The KS-P and WV-P that appear on the October pop report (I have a hard copy) are all mistakes and fortunately no D mint grades are shown on the October pop report so I have no reason to believe there are errors with these D mints for KS and WV. The October pop report shows 9 KS-P in MS67 and none higher or lower and this serves as the bench-mark for the error. The October WV-P pop report shows 23 WV-P in MS67, 5 in MS68 and 2 in MS69 with none higher or lower so that serves as the bench mark for the error on the WV-P mints. All cert numbers for all WV-P and KS-P included in the October hard copy of the pop report are incorrect and can easily be fixed if PCGS is able to determine what serial numbers were issued on these MS KS-P and MS WV-P coins that are included in the October pop report. dr
Mitch First Brian's submission will fix over 200 coins. It affects both MN-P and MN-D. With Roger's work I think we found the rest of the MN-P problems including the MS70. It also closes holes on WV and KS. I need to see the effect of these two changes but I think that clears up all the coins with the exception of the OR. I know there are 5 MS69 OR-P still unaccounted for.
My observations from this lengthy post, which seems more complicated than it should be:
1. How did the mint garner any blame here. They are in the business of producing coins for circulation and for collectors. This they did.
2. We have had a situation like this in the past, SMS sets for 1965-67. This event should have surprised no one. PCGS should have treated these coins in the same manner that they treated the SMS coins.
3. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Treat the "Satin" coins the same as the "SMS" coins and place accordingly.
"3. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Treat the "Satin" coins the same as the "SMS" coins and place accordingly."
Andy - There is a huge difference - in 1965-67 there were NO proof sets. Which is why when Rick M. asked me my opinion quite a few years ago on where to place the 1965-67 SMS coins, I suggested (and he agreed) to place them under the Proof Registry sets. This avoided the situation of having (6) coins in the Circulation Strike sets for 1965-67 and (0) cons in the Proof sets for 1965-67. We spread them out so that both the MS and Proof sets each had (3) coins in them. Apples and oranges with the 2005 coins where there are already (10) different proof state quarters for the year.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I think if PCGS refined their categories to "Circulation Strikes" and "Collector Strikes" this would resolve and future issues. It has easier to find a "69" in proof than in mint state.
To get back to your point, "There is a huge difference - in 1965-67 there were NO proof sets", there is not really a diff. In 1965 the Mint struck coins for circulation and in 2005 thay did the same thing. They also struck coins for collectors in 1965. In 2005 they did the same thing, they just struck two versions. A coin should not be placed in one category or another simply to balance out the categories. They should be placed in the appropriate category based on the minting process. If in 2006, the mint strikes no circulation Kennedys, but does strike satins and proofs, where would you put them?
Hello all, I know this is in reference to a few comments made way back on the page 4 and 5, but as I was not a member of the forum at the time I was therefore unable to reply until now.
Mitch - I wanted to thank you for your comment, as I know it was said only in the greatest of respect, even if at times it could have been or was taken otherwise.
As for Dan50 - you are so utterly mistaken on your assumption about me its rediculous. This is not the only top pop quarter I've ever made. Yes I may have gotten lucky to have found the KS-D in MS68, but hey how many million KS-D coins did they make? Yes the coin came out of one roll (I've never seen a coin able to come from two or more rolls before) but I've gone through many many rolls of KS-D's and that was the only MS68 I found. I've probably gone through more KS quarters than the other's aside from possibly Doug and Donn.
I also wanted to voice my opinion that I think the variety set will be a great success and I highly support it since true Business Strike coins need their day in the sun. However at somepoint it would be nice to see a true Business Strike state quarter set without satin finish involved.
I also wanted to thank Mitch, Doug, John and Donn for their help and very knowledgeable insight into the state quarter business.
<< <i> 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. >>
collegeguy I don't know you, have never heard of you, and this is the first time I've seen a post from you. All I had to go on was the quote from Mitch that is listed above. $12 would equal one roll of quarters, and he seems to say you found one $1000 coin from said roll. As for making more ms68 quarters than me, THAT ONE is more than I have made. Why?? I don't do quarters, my series of choice is ROOSEVELTS.
Reread the quote and tell me how I could know you had made XXX amount of high grade quarters. Only one roll mentioned, one $1000 non-SF quarter mentioned. I wish you the best of luck with the rolls you search. That is exactly the way I find my dimes with the exception of a few from older mint sets.
"A coin should not be placed in one category or another simply to balance out the categories"
Andy: Maybe so - but, that is EXACTLY how it came about I believe.
I also mentioned the 1976(s) (mint set only) Silver Wash quarter before, which has resided in the Clad quarter circulation strike set from Day 1 without anyone I know having a problem with it being there. This is not an exacting science as witnessed by how the 1965-67 SMS coins came to end up in the Proof Registry sets.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Mitch - I wanted to thank you for your comment, as I know it was said only in the greatest of respect, even if at times it could have been or was taken otherwise."
Collegeguy: First - welcome to the boards!! We're going to expect a lot out of you here on the boards especially with you currently being in college and many of the rest of us merely having already forgeotten just about everything we ever learned there.
********************
"especially one very talented young man on a winter break from college that turned $12 into $1,000 on a single non-SF coin."
So, what part of this statement could have been taken otherwise??
a. "one talented young man" - clearly this part shows the great respect you mentioned.
b. "on a winter break from college" - OK - I admit this part may draw question from the readers as to why in the heck a talented yound man would even consider wasting away a minute of his winter break spot checking rolls of Kansas quarters for submittable coins. As we all know, in 9/10 cases, it would simply be a grand waste of time and energy.
c. "that turned $12 into $1,000 on a single non-SF coin" - a grading fee, a special quarter from a newly minted roll of coins and presto - $1,000. A lucky find? Well - obviously. The "giants" - Donn and Doug couldn't find one from their exhaustive searches of this issue - they had to settle for a ebay bidding war with an intervening participant making the bidding even more interesting.
But, while a "lucky find" to be sure - the opportunity was "set up" by a careful plan and a premediated intent to produce this exact coin - making it unquestionable a skillful find to be sure. Welcome to the "state quarter business"!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>So, what part of this statement could have been taken otherwise?? >>
I have seen bank rolls for sale at the $12 price, when bought from places other than a bank. My mistake was thinking the $12 was the price of a roll of quarters the yuong man bought to search. Had that been the case, LUCKY, would have been exactly right. There was no disrespect intended towards this person. But with this second post providing so much more information, I can see where collegeguy would have thought I had made a joke about his skills. Never did I have that intention, like I said, I don't know him or of his work, how could I, he just made his first post on the boards.
As for me, I'm still trying to figure out this comment???
<< <i>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. >>
Glad the air has been cleared on that issue Adam "college-guy". And that is a very nice KS-D in 68 I bought from you. I found around 12 in 67 and went thru 5 boxes 10,000 coins and that was enough for me. I always try and find mine first but know when to give up and buy because the next state quarter is just around the corner and I was getting a big back-log of unsearched material as the MN-P KS-P and WV-P were keeping me very busy! In my experience no one person finds them all and more hunters in the market are always wellcome. It is a lot harder than most people realize to find these coins. It is a nice lift to get help from others. Regarding the future of the SF vs MS the way I see it is right now the SF is in its infancy and needs a good coat-tail to grab onto hence its inclusion in the main registry but my prediction is it will become so popular with the ultra high grade lovers that the SF set may want to pull away based on a grass roots effort in the future by the reverent collectors of these SF coins that may not like the idea of having to collect all the MS coins from 1999 to complete the set where their SF coins currently go. I am satisfied with the decision as it stands now to leave the SF coins as either or in the state registry but will remain open minded as the future unveils itself. No one really knows for sure if this is a long term SF deal with the mint but it may be and this is a likely candidate for a break-away registry set in the future. I do not think the mint gets blame for the SF since I read the letters to the editor in the Coin World and for years collectors have been complaining to the mint to make a high grade product and now they have done so, just had to use chrome plated dies hence the new SF category. dr
I just received the email from PCGS, which was sent out to all Registry Set collectors:
"All modern sets have been updated to require 2005 coins for completion. Please note that satin finish coins and circulation strike coins are listed as either/or in the sets. The experts at PCGS have determined that there are some inconsistencies in the way these coins come from the Mint. Until these issues are resolved, either issue will be allowed."
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>I just received the email from PCGS, which was sent out to all Registry Set collectors:
"All modern sets have been updated to require 2005 coins for completion. Please note that satin finish coins and circulation strike coins are listed as either/or in the sets. The experts at PCGS have determined that there are some inconsistencies in the way these coins come from the Mint. Until these issues are resolved, either issue will be allowed."
Wondercoin >>
I don't think I'm the only one that received a 2005 P Oregon 1000 coin bag with Satin Finish coins in it. Whether intended for circulation or not, there are Satin Finish coins in circulation because of the leftovers? that they put in bags. Just telling it like it is in reference to the "inconsistencies in the way these coins come from the Mint" portion of PCGS' statement.
Hi Mitch. I got that PCGS email to, not sure what it means with regards to the variety set we have spoken of or what inconsistencies were found from the mint but hopefully PCGS will continue to enlighten us. I contacted BJ of the set registry and she said the following person will be assisting in the correction of the pop report as follows: "Hi Doug,Contact Laura Rosenberg, Customer Service Manager.Email: rosenbergl@collectors.com Ext: #424." I passed this info on to John who will be making contact and we are all looking forward to seeing some corrections soon. dr
Seth: I agree - back 5 or 10 pages ago on this thread - I mentioned that SF coins appearing in rolls and bags really makes the task of addressing the "special" Mint Set coins that much harder and demonstrates that the SF coins actually "circulated" - whether intentionally or not.
Doug - Sounds good. In a week or two, we can both "bug" PCGS and ask them when the agreed upon variety set will be launched.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Hi Seth. The OR-P coins in the $250 mint bags were nice bright white and minimally abraided. They reminded me of the 2000-P SC bags I received in that year. I have studied these OR-P carefully and of all the MS state quarters released in 2005 these are the closest to SF. I looked at these far a long while and it appears to me that under 4 x power the surface of the OR-P MS coins are not as finely granulated as the SF coins so I do not think the OR-P coins were produced by SF dies but that is a matter subject to opinion. It is clear that the US mint has shuffled dies around in the past for example from 1956-1964 there are MS coins around struck using a proof reverse die "type B" even though they were struck as MS coins and do not usually appear proof like. Accordingly it is possible that some satin finish dies were used to strike MS coins but they would have been struck in the normal MS manner without special pressure applied as is done for mint sets. Curious to see more opinions about this. I am supremely confident however that regularly minted SF coins were not just dumped into the $250 bags. dr
Doug - So - if not "SF" and if not "regular" business strike - then do we have a third and different "surface" to the MS state quarters as well in 2005 seen in some of these bag coins? Amazing.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Thank You for the clarification of coin type. I agree that they did not look quite as satin finish as the mint set coins, but it was hard to argue with PCGS for grading them Satin Finish and sending them back to me. The same thing happened with SAC. I had some Super-Satiny 2005P SACs out of the Mint Issued rolls... I had a 2005 P SAC MS67 $300?+ coin come back in a Satin Finish holder, not worth grading. How could I argue with PCGS when the coin looked Satin Finish? (Not that you would suggest otherwise.) It's kinda funny in hindsight that I can just see myself telling them until blue in the face how Bags/Rolls aren't supposed to yield Satin Finish, so their designation couldn't be right. That is, if they even believed my story or not. Heck, I saw it with my own eyes and it was hard to believe what I was looking at. So, I left it alone, never challenging the designations and someone received some incredible coins for peanuts.
I would agree with the idea that they might have had die swapping or possibly the left-over theory, but who knows except the mint, right?
Mitch: "3rd Variety" theory is a good one. I bet you'll get a lot of traction with that one...
Thanks Mitch and Seth. To repeat I think that the OR-P in the $250 bags were not struck with chrome plated dies but the look is similar. I kept a few rolls of hi grade that were less than 67 quality so I am happy to do more research as necessary. I am not suggesting that any designation be made other than SF or MS and when in question the default will be SF. Just like the mint using proof reverse dies for some MS coins the default is still MS because they were not struck twice and do not appear as proofs similar to if the mint theoretically did mix some chrome plated dies in the MS striking process the result is still an MS coin due to the striking characteristics being MS and not SF. For example SF coins are struck better and they do not have the washingtons bust die crack, die crack from the eye-brow, or small patches of die erosion so often seen on MS coins. Consequently coins that may theoretically be struck with the MS process using left-over SF dies would likely have tiny die cracks and less striking detail and in my opinion would be classified as MS even though they looked a bit like SF. As the dies get older the difference between SF and MS becomes harder to distinguish because the surface charcteristics of the coin become more MS like as the sand blast and chrome plating start to wear down. If the mint should allow the SF dies to get worn and deteriorated and still strike coins with them for the mint sets then there will be confusion but if the mint follows its production criteria for a SF coin and replaces the die frequently as you would expect to maintain that high quality then I think the differences will remain fairly easy to tell. Seth, if you get a miss-classified batch or coin again I encourage you to return them to PCGS with a signed letter that you found them in a mint sealed bag or bank wrapped roll as the case may be and the likely result is they will check them again and give you the correct designation. They did that for me when there was confusion over the OR MS coins. dr
Doug: Thanks for the word of advice. I guess I just figured there wasn't much chance of having the designation switched. I'd have fought it if it were SF called Circ, but in this case, the buyer is the winner. Your advice certainly gives hope if there is a next time in that situation. My hindsight is now most certainly 20/20.
Comments
mas3387: Thanks! It's the right thing to do for collectors and the hobby. The "Oops, I didn't see the label but someone paid me $1,000 for a $25 coin" act is getting old. I buy that story for about 2 milliseconds.
rb7557: Thank you for your kind comments. I like money just as much as the next guy, but some things like integrity are just not for sale. I can't speak for everyone, but I would say that it's likely that this statement is true for most people posting on this thread. Whoever has a mis-labeled SF coin in a Business Strike holder needs to send it in as such and certainly shouldn't be using the cert# in a registry.
Brian
Just wondering... the final outcome was a variety set for quarters only... or were the rest of the series included? Secondly, nothing has been done to "fix" the mint state sets, which now still include these SMS coins... is that what I'm understanding through 152 posts?
Just wondering...
Thanks!
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
Steve: DH approved a State quarter variety set which will have in it ALL (20) SF coins and the (2) WI error coins (while the regular set only requires (10) coins of the setholder's choice). No variety sets have been discussed for any other coin series.
Wondercoin
Great Job!!!
Thanks Brian and those working behind the scenes
Just wondering if we know which other State Quarter Pop's are affected?
I think one other is Kansas P?
Agreed.
Wondercoin
According to the video coins that have been graded, labelled, and SEALED are then
..."sent back to the grading room for a final quality check. We call this step verification.
This is where another PCGS world class grader will check the orders for accuracy and
consistency. No coin can leave our premises without at least two world class graders
agreeing on the final grade. The final quality control checkpoint is the mechanical
verification." Mechanical verification is for final checking against the paperwork. I'm
still not quite following this 'mechanical error" excuse. Can someone please explain?
Thanks!
verification."
No graders are at the final quality control checkpoint then? Might not be a bad idea to get a grader on that final post as well.
Wondercoin
Everyone of our coins was in the satin finish holders. This should make things easier for them. I believe that the other MN quarters were from someone elses submission. There is one 70 and we never got one. Hopefully we can have this all straightened out soon.
Brian
<< <i>Sorry..., but I'm very newb to the group. I viewed the (PCGS Process Grading Video)
According to the video coins that have been graded, labelled, and SEALED are then
..."sent back to the grading room for a final quality check. We call this step verification.
This is where another PCGS world class grader will check the orders for accuracy and
consistency. No coin can leave our premises without at least two world class graders
agreeing on the final grade. The final quality control checkpoint is the mechanical
verification." Mechanical verification is for final checking against the paperwork. I'm
still not quite following this 'mechanical error" excuse. Can someone please explain?
Thanks! >>
Brian: If I understand the current situation, what I think you should do tomorrow is this - craft a letter to DH and explain to him that a significant number of your coins (129?) were in the SF holder but entered in the PCGS system as non-SF coins. Give DH the invoice # and all the information you can. Obviously, I assume, you can not give him back all the coins at this point (and I am not even sure they are needed?) Ask DH to change these coins in the system to show up as SF coins as opposed to non-SF coins. That should work and clean up (129) pop report errors in one clean swoop - no?
Wondercoin
<< <i>Brian: That is very helpful - I just received an email which suggests perhaps (129) coins can be corrected on the pop report simply by having that (1) serial number. Efforts are underway.
Great Job!!!
Thanks Brian and those working behind the scenes
Just wondering if we know which other State Quarter Pop's are affected?
I think one other is Kansas P? >>
Not sure about the ks-p, but I now know at least 2 wv-p ms69 that are wrong. And some Or-p's also. Who is taking the lead on this pop cleanup? I went back and found which coin I had a problem with earlier in the year, and came across a few new #'s. I think the submitter had his whole submission entered into the data base incorrectly. I emailed him at the time, but I guess he never handled the problem from there. Not sure that an attempt wasn't made tho.
2005-P MS69 Bison This is obviously SF and even distinguishable from the pictures.
2005-P MS67 Bison I purchased this coin and it had a hybrid look to it. It was part SF and part not. This is the only picture of it that I still have.
I dont know if any of you followed the nickels last year but they were incredibly hard to find in nice grades. Pops right now are:
MS66 - 3
MS67 - 1
MS68 - 0
MS69 - 1
So if it could be concluded that the MS67 and MS69 are in fact SF coins it would correct the population and restore the true value of the MS66's.
Wondercoin
I will contact Ron Guth of PCGS tomorrow regarding the issue. I do believe this was our only submission that PCGS entered incorrectly.
Brian
Mitch I agree with you. But I contacted the seller of my problem coin back in late July/early Aug. and the submission wasn't cleaned up then.
SO what do I do with the "possible problem cert #'s" I have came across?
Who is it? Perhaps we can contact him, just as Brian was contacted. I am sure he will want to help out.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Good job!!!! Every little bit helps p8nt.
Anyone that has looked at the circ strike nickels knows that the 69 was a big waste of someone's money. The 67 is hard to believe, but possible. Sounds like it too was Satin Finish?? IMHO 66 is the top grade at the moment and only 3 at that...
Mitch: I agree, fixing one's own submissions is a novel concept. It's a shame that it has to be said.
Mitch, I am going to wait a few days and give them a chance to deal with this on their own, or to let me know their thoughts. If there is no response, then I will pm you with the name and email address. I don't think it would be appropriate to post the info on an open forum.
Wondercoin.
<< <i>Anyone that has looked at the circ strike nickels knows that the 69 was a big waste of someone's money. The 67 is hard to believe, but possible. Sounds like it too was Satin Finish?? IMHO 66 is the top grade at the moment and only 3 at that... >>
It is incredibly hard to distinguish SF (or not) for the MS67 nickel. I still dont have a 100% conclusion and I even owned the coin. It is Non-SF except for the bit of "frost" look on the obverse. The reverse and center of the obverse are brilliant. I dont know if it is a Non-SF coin with some frost (like the reported 2004 coins) or if it was a defective SF die. I know the chances of getting a MS67 with a Non-SF coin are highly unlikely but someone is always coming up with a new pop-top so it is not impossible.
I did some cert. verification work and it seems that this submission ranges from 60215516 to 60215591 and are all 2005 SF coins except for a few. I dont know if the seller decided to randomly toss in 4 Non-SF coins in the middle of their submission.. but to me it seems highly unlikely.
These are the coins that were not labeled SF in the submission.
60215522 2005-P MS65 SAC
60215523 2005-P MS69 Bison (The one previously mentioned)
60215524 2005-P MS67 Bison (Previously mentioned)
60215525 2005-P MS67 SAC
If you take the time to look at each of those coins and the grades received you will see why (I think) the seller decided to sell his "mis-labeled fortunes" without having them corrected...
The KS-P and WV-P that appear on the October pop report (I have a hard copy) are all mistakes and fortunately no D mint grades are shown on the October pop report so I have no reason to believe there are errors with these D mints for KS and WV. The October pop report shows 9 KS-P in MS67 and none higher or lower and this serves as the bench-mark for the error. The October WV-P pop report shows 23 WV-P in MS67, 5 in MS68 and 2 in MS69 with none higher or lower so that serves as the bench mark for the error on the WV-P mints. All cert numbers for all WV-P and KS-P included in the October hard copy of the pop report are incorrect and can easily be fixed if PCGS is able to determine what serial numbers were issued on these MS KS-P and MS WV-P coins that are included in the October pop report. dr
First Brian's submission will fix over 200 coins. It affects both MN-P and MN-D. With Roger's work I think we found the rest of the MN-P problems including the MS70. It also closes holes on WV and KS. I need to see the effect of these two changes but I think that clears up all the coins with the exception of the OR. I know there are 5 MS69 OR-P still unaccounted for.
1. How did the mint garner any blame here. They are in the business of producing coins for circulation and for collectors. This they did.
2. We have had a situation like this in the past, SMS sets for 1965-67. This event should have surprised no one. PCGS should have treated these coins
in the same manner that they treated the SMS coins.
3. There is no reason to reinvent the wheel. Treat the "Satin" coins the same as the "SMS" coins and place accordingly.
Keep life simple.
Andy
Andy - There is a huge difference - in 1965-67 there were NO proof sets. Which is why when Rick M. asked me my opinion quite a few years ago on where to place the 1965-67 SMS coins, I suggested (and he agreed) to place them under the Proof Registry sets. This avoided the situation of having (6) coins in the Circulation Strike sets for 1965-67 and (0) cons in the Proof sets for 1965-67. We spread them out so that both the MS and Proof sets each had (3) coins in them. Apples and oranges with the 2005 coins where there are already (10) different proof state quarters for the year.
Wondercoin
Andy
To get back to your point, "There is a huge difference - in 1965-67 there were NO proof sets", there is not really a diff. In 1965 the Mint struck coins for circulation and in 2005 thay did the same thing. They also struck coins for collectors in 1965. In 2005 they did the same thing, they just struck two versions. A coin should not be placed in one category or another simply to balance out the categories. They should be placed in the appropriate category based on the minting process. If in 2006, the mint strikes no circulation Kennedys, but does strike satins and proofs, where would you put them?
I know this is in reference to a few comments made way back on the page 4 and 5, but as I was not a member of the forum at the time I was therefore unable to reply until now.
Mitch - I wanted to thank you for your comment, as I know it was said only in the greatest of respect, even if at times it could have been or was taken otherwise.
As for Dan50 -
Yes I may have gotten lucky to have found the KS-D in MS68, but hey how many million KS-D coins did they make? Yes the coin came out of one roll (I've never seen a coin able to come from two or more rolls before) but I've gone through many many rolls of KS-D's and that was the only MS68 I found. I've probably gone through more KS quarters than the other's aside from possibly Doug and Donn.
I also wanted to voice my opinion that I think the variety set will be a great success and I highly support it since true Business Strike coins need their day in the sun. However at somepoint it would be nice to see a true Business Strike state quarter set without satin finish involved.
I also wanted to thank Mitch, Doug, John and Donn for their help and very knowledgeable insight into the state quarter business.
<< <i> 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. >>
collegeguy I don't know you, have never heard of you, and this is the first time I've seen a post from you.
All I had to go on was the quote from Mitch that is listed above.
$12 would equal one roll of quarters, and he seems to say you found one $1000 coin from said roll.
As for making more ms68 quarters than me, THAT ONE is more than I have made.
Why?? I don't do quarters, my series of choice is ROOSEVELTS.
Reread the quote and tell me how I could know you had made XXX amount of high grade quarters.
Only one roll mentioned, one $1000 non-SF quarter mentioned.
I wish you the best of luck with the rolls you search.
That is exactly the way I find my dimes with the exception of a few from older mint sets.
Andy: Maybe so - but, that is EXACTLY how it came about I believe.
I also mentioned the 1976(s) (mint set only) Silver Wash quarter before, which has resided in the Clad quarter circulation strike set from Day 1 without anyone I know having a problem with it being there. This is not an exacting science as witnessed by how the 1965-67 SMS coins came to end up in the Proof Registry sets.
Wondercoin
Collegeguy: First - welcome to the boards!! We're going to expect a lot out of you here on the boards especially with you currently being in college and many of the rest of us merely having already forgeotten just about everything we ever learned there.
********************
"especially one very talented young man on a winter break from college that turned $12 into $1,000 on a single non-SF coin."
So, what part of this statement could have been taken otherwise??
a. "one talented young man" - clearly this part shows the great respect you mentioned.
b. "on a winter break from college" - OK - I admit this part may draw question from the readers as to why in the heck a talented yound man would even consider wasting away a minute of his winter break spot checking rolls of Kansas quarters for submittable coins. As we all know, in 9/10 cases, it would simply be a grand waste of time and energy.
c. "that turned $12 into $1,000 on a single non-SF coin" - a grading fee, a special quarter from a newly minted roll of coins and presto - $1,000. A lucky find? Well - obviously. The "giants" - Donn and Doug couldn't find one from their exhaustive searches of this issue - they had to settle for a ebay bidding war with an intervening participant making the bidding even more interesting.
But, while a "lucky find" to be sure - the opportunity was "set up" by a careful plan and a premediated intent to produce this exact coin - making it unquestionable a skillful find to be sure. Welcome to the "state quarter business"!
Wondercoin
<< <i>So, what part of this statement could have been taken otherwise?? >>
I have seen bank rolls for sale at the $12 price, when bought from places other than a bank.
My mistake was thinking the $12 was the price of a roll of quarters the yuong man bought to search.
Had that been the case, LUCKY, would have been exactly right.
There was no disrespect intended towards this person.
But with this second post providing so much more information, I can see where collegeguy would have thought I had made a joke about his skills. Never did I have that intention, like I said, I don't know him or of his work, how could I, he just made his first post on the boards.
As for me, I'm still trying to figure out this comment???
<< <i>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. >>
"All modern sets have been updated to require 2005 coins for completion. Please note that satin finish coins and circulation strike coins are listed as either/or in the sets. The experts at PCGS have determined that there are some inconsistencies in the way these coins come from the Mint. Until these issues are resolved, either issue will be allowed."
Wondercoin
<< <i>I just received the email from PCGS, which was sent out to all Registry Set collectors:
"All modern sets have been updated to require 2005 coins for completion. Please note that satin finish coins and circulation strike coins are listed as either/or in the sets. The experts at PCGS have determined that there are some inconsistencies in the way these coins come from the Mint. Until these issues are resolved, either issue will be allowed."
Wondercoin >>
I don't think I'm the only one that received a 2005 P Oregon 1000 coin bag with Satin Finish coins in it. Whether intended for circulation or not, there are Satin Finish coins in circulation because of the leftovers? that they put in bags. Just telling it like it is in reference to the "inconsistencies in the way these coins come from the Mint" portion of PCGS' statement.
Doug - Sounds good. In a week or two, we can both "bug" PCGS and ask them when the agreed upon variety set will be launched.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
Thank You for the clarification of coin type. I agree that they did not look quite as satin finish as the mint set coins, but it was hard to argue with PCGS for grading them Satin Finish and sending them back to me. The same thing happened with SAC. I had some Super-Satiny 2005P SACs out of the Mint Issued rolls... I had a 2005 P SAC MS67 $300?+ coin come back in a Satin Finish holder, not worth grading. How could I argue with PCGS when the coin looked Satin Finish? (Not that you would suggest otherwise.) It's kinda funny in hindsight that I can just see myself telling them until blue in the face how Bags/Rolls aren't supposed to yield Satin Finish, so their designation couldn't be right. That is, if they even believed my story or not. Heck, I saw it with my own eyes and it was hard to believe what I was looking at. So, I left it alone, never challenging the designations and someone received some incredible coins for peanuts.
I would agree with the idea that they might have had die swapping or possibly the left-over theory, but who knows except the mint, right?
Mitch: "3rd Variety" theory is a good one.
Thanks Again