For those of you that actually believe the issue of SF vs. non-SF is "cut and dried", consider the import of this recent comment from Doug:
"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"
****************
Any wonder PCGS is comfortable allowing either coin in the Mint State set?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Will someone please show me a coin from a roll or a bag that looks like a satin finish coin? I am not a believer yet. I think PCGS is just gun shy or cannot tell the difference.Mark Di Lauro PMB 606 2060-D Avenida de Los Arboles Thousand Oaks, CA 91362-1361
Doug, from my experience, you can't tell them you found the coin in a roll or mint set that was sealed as i have found numerous SMS coins in original wrapped rolls from 1965-67. i once even found a 1965 cameo dime that pcgs graded 67 cam. truely from an original roll.
Anyway, I think PCGS is making this whole thing tough on themselves by bumbling around in the initial decision making process for the satin program, grading of the coins, sloppy pop and now the confusion of how to treat it for registry purposes. This is a direct indication of how the modern area is run these days at PCGS. I would just put my hands up and say use them both if i @%$#@& things up this bad too! By the way, this is how i got the nickname "Henry Kissinger" the diplomat.
Back to the bad pops for a minute. I have emailed the person that I feel had a suspect submission. I also sent him a message thru ebay. To no avail. The guy is unresponsive. I sent him a link to this thread so he wouldn't think that a scam was maybe aimed at him. Still nothing. So this morning I sent the following message to rosenbergl@collectors.com
Laura
BJ refered me to you. Here is a situation I don't quite know how to handle I have found some information regarding some "possibly" bad data entries with the shq's. Last July, I purchased a WV-p sf quarter on ebay. It was in a bulk holder and I entered it into my set. It came back without the sf designation. I then sent in pics of the obv/rev of the slab, and it was given the proper disignation in your data banks. To make a long story short, I have checked into about 120 cert #'s before and after my coin, and all of the coins come back without the sf designation. At the end of July, the KS and the WV coins had not been released for circulation. So those have to be incorrect entries. There are also questionable OR and MN certs that I think are suspect also.
I sent an email to the person that sold me the coin, explained the problem, and haven't received a response. I also informed him of the problem back when I first encountered it with my coin. As of yet, he hasn't responded to the info. I have the person's name, ebay identity, and address. I can probably get his phone # if necessary. I have the cert #'s and what they apply to. What I don't have is the submission #(s) that go with these coins. What do I do? The pops really need to be cleaned up, and there is a big effort by a few other people to get it straightened out. Any help/direction here is greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Roger Byrd
As of yet I haven't received a response. Soooo if no help by tomorrow night from Laura, and/or none from the submitter, I will p.m. Mitch or Doug, or anyone who wants to try to work on this, the guys name and ebay identity and email address.
Oh Yeah!!! mas, very nice quarter!!!! Got it in the mail today! And brothers, this ain't no sf coin!!! 1 more to go (well, until an upgrade is available that I can afford), just wondering, can you send me some patience???? Thinking I may need more than I have at this point in time
<< <i>Will someone please show me a coin from a roll or a bag that looks like a satin finish coin? I am not a believer yet. I think PCGS is just gun shy or cannot tell the difference.Mark Di Lauro PMB 606 2060-D Avenida de Los Arboles Thousand Oaks, CA 91362-1361
Doug, from my experience, you can't tell them you found the coin in a roll or mint set that was sealed as i have found numerous SMS coins in original wrapped rolls from 1965-67. i once even found a 1965 cameo dime that pcgs graded 67 cam. truely from an original roll.
Anyway, I think PCGS is making this whole thing tough on themselves by bumbling around in the initial decision making process for the satin program, grading of the coins, sloppy pop and now the confusion of how to treat it for registry purposes. This is a direct indication of how the modern area is run these days at PCGS. I would just put my hands up and say use them both if i @%$#@& things up this bad too! By the way, this is how i got the nickname "Henry Kissinger" the diplomat. >>
I used to find SMS coins in circulation all the time. It took me a few years to realize there were far too many to be accounted for by busted up SMS's. These coins were obviously being minted for circulation. Most collectors forget that the San Francisco mint was not only making SMS's in those years but also striking other denominations. Apparently they struck many of these coins from retired SMS dies.
"i have found numerous SMS coins in original wrapped rolls from 1965-67. i once even found a 1965 cameo dime that pcgs graded 67 cam. truely from an original roll."
Mark: If you have indeed found Special Mint Set coins in original bank wrapped circulation rolls of coins (as I am sure you have), then wouldn't it be likely that SF coins will also show up in rolls or bags or other Mint products?
Roger: Just email Doug or myself with the information and we can get the ball rolling.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I understand Mitch, i just have not seen anything close personally. Will some one please send me one? I hate to profess to be the Nostradamus of coins but I predicted all of the problems we have had/having before they graded their first coin.
<< <i>I understand Mitch, i just have not seen anything close personally. Will some one please send me one? I hate to profess to be the Nostradamus of coins but I predicted all of the problems we have had/having before they graded their first coin. >>
Mark, I beleive many of us had the same concerns upon opening our first mint set. This is going to be a roller coaster to correct and satisfy ALL whom this effects and have spent countless hours putting together noteworthy mint sets, SHQ set and collect "modern" circ strike (by definition) coinage to include in sets. I have yet to find an easy fix to solve all the issues invovled. Just my 2c.
Mark, I beleive many of us had the same concerns upon opening our first mint set. This is going to be a roller coaster to correct and satisfy ALL whom this effects and have spent countless hours putting together noteworthy mint sets, SHQ set and collect "modern" circ strike (by definition) coinage to include in sets. I have yet to find an easy fix to solve all the issues invovled. Just my 2c. >>
Collectors will do what collectors do. In the long run they'll clamor to have their sets registered and the services will almost certainly accept. At that point everyone will have their way but in the meantime there are going to be some who are unhappy.
This may be too complex to work out without the passage of time. I'd guess that collectors will tend to seek both and at some point in the near or distant future there will be a slot in the registries for both.
I'm sure that when I get serious about collecting these that I'll get the finest SF and the finest non-SF I can find without concern for where either came from. This will probably make some of the non-SF very rare.
Mark, I kept a few of them for examples. I'll send one to you @ the address listed above. It's kinda neat to see a frosty satin quarter with honest bag marks. When you set it next to the D-OR Business Strike, they look like great examples of their respective strike.
Edit: Come to think of it, I made the first few 66 and 67 2005 P-OR in Satin Finish because of these from the bag. Nobody would intentionally grade 66 or 67 from a mint set when there's over 1000 in 68...
Seth: Would you mind sending me down one of your coins as well please? I look forward to Mark's opinions and observations concerning your coin and perhaps I can "chime in" as well at that point.
On a side note - the "pop clean up" continues on. On the agenda for this week is about 200 corrections. Either Doug or myself can keep everyone posted.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Well, I don't play in the registry or in moderns but I will make two observations of tangential relevance.
The PCGS registry for 1936 proof nickels and cents requires both brilliant and satin proofs. No one seems to have a problem with this. Perhaps its because the distinction between types is easier than in SF vs non-SF.
In the Morgan dollar arena, proof-like coins and frosty coins can both be used interchangeably in the regular MS registry. In addition there is a DMPL/PL registry in which some (I forget the %) of non-PL coins can be used. In this regard, the distinction between semi-PL and PL or between DMPL and PL is not so clear and the price difference (especially the jump from PL to DMPL) can be great.
Hindsight being 20/20, I wish I had made a huge bulk submission of SF coins. As it looks now, with them going into every set, circulation and varieties, of every denomination, my customer base would be fantastic. I would be laughing all the way to the bank.
<< <i>Hindsight being 20/20, I wish I had made a huge bulk submission of SF coins. As it looks now, with them going into every set, circulation and varieties, of every denomination, my customer base would be fantastic. I would be laughing all the way to the bank. >>
You mean you would do what many others have been doing every year after the mint sets come out? Novel idea.
Collector and Researcher of Liberty Head Nickels. ANA LM-6053
<< <i>Hindsight being 20/20, I wish I had made a huge bulk submission of SF coins. As it looks now, with them going into every set, circulation and varieties, of every denomination, my customer base would be fantastic. I would be laughing all the way to the bank. >>
I'd like to point out that business strike submissions are currently worth more than the Satin Finish, partially due to overpopulation of Satin Finish. (For State Quarters that is.) Not to mention that it costs more $$$ to cut a mint set. As easy as it may seem, you might not make the $10/hr that Doug is searching business strikes. I respect your opinion Dan, but laughing all the way to the bank isn't the case for some Satin Finish submitters/dealers who lost big this year.
By the way, you won that 2005 P 10c 67FB non Satin coin for pretty cheap. Congrats on a GREAT Win!
Thanks CoinFame.. The above comment about the SF's was in jest. Yes the ms67FB looks a lot like a SF coin in the pictures. We will know more when it's in hand. Either way it will be off the market.
<< <i>Thanks CoinFame.. The above comment about the SF's was in jest. Yes the ms67FB looks a lot like a SF coin in the pictures. We will know more when it's in hand. Either way it will be off the market. >>
Thanks Dan for the clarification. I guess I took it too literal.
I thought that dime looked SF too, but the seller seemed confident. The only problem I saw was the "Rolls from the Mint" comment in the listing. No 10c rolls come from the mint... Good to hear that you're taking care of the coin good or bad.
"Doug, from my experience, you can't tell them you found the coin in a roll or mint set that was sealed as i have found numerous SMS coins in original wrapped rolls from 1965-67. i once even found a 1965 cameo dime that pcgs graded 67 cam. truely from an original roll."
I am not aware of any other hunter with as broad of scope of search into different denominations as Mark and these types of comments are very revealing about what can and does happen when the mint does process millions and millions of coins each year. My modern coin searching expertise is centered on the state quarters.
Given Mark's example and other feedback (thank you all for your constructive comments) I can see why PCGS default to SF is appropriate if they are unsure about a coin. If the mint uses the same tubs and equipment and processes both MS and SF coins in the same mint facility sooner or later coins will end up in the wrong spot. I did not get any feed-back from other submitters about the idea of not co-mingling MS and SF batches to help prevent further mechanical errors so if you have an opinion about that I would like to hear it.
I have not found any state quarters in my MS sources this year that I think are satin finish ... only the bright OR-P batch that looked similar to SF until you examine the surfaces carefully. I still have an MS68 and a few MS67 quarters from this bright OR-P batch so if you guys are still in need of more material after examing Seth's coins let me know but I do not believe mine are SF coins. When I finish grade my finds I always use 4 x power and even if a coin looks bright by eye the differences are easy for me to see under 4x power. The crispness of the strike and the surface luster and characteristics are usually a dead give away without even looking for MS die cracks and die erosion. The luster on an MS coin flows in broader areas than the SF coin that is more matte like. Always an exception to the rule but let me give you readers a few examples. For example the WV SF coins I have seen have more of a crisp circular halo pattern around the top of the head due to the crispy strike and frosty surfaces while the MS examples I have seen have a broad sheet of luster in front of the face. The MS68 and MS69 MS OR-P coins I have also have broad sheeting luster flow both in front of the head and in front of the bust that is different than the crisp white matte like luster on the SF OR-P I have seen. I have found some amazing strikes on MS coins but the appearance is more black and reflective when the die has not been specailly prepared like an SF coin. Hope this helps. More feedback from others on how to tell the differences will be helpful.
Having fun with these other discussions too and I hope we can all stay focused on our original objective to clean up the pop report and to get the washington state quarter variety set established. dr
Just in case anyone is interested...the US Mint has online video tours which clearly describe the difference between Circulating and Numismatic (US Mint Set) coin production. US Mint Tours Select "Go to the Virtual Tour".
"Just in case anyone is interested...the US Mint has online video tours which clearly describe the difference between Circulating and Numismatic (US Mint Set) coin production. US Mint Tours Select "Go to the Virtual Tour". Thanks Rolling Coins for the link. To skip the introduction and go directly to the mint set discussion click on uncirculated in the chapter list. The highlights of this: A) Mint sets planchets are burnished, cleaned and shined to get a bright look. The specailly prpared planchets are struck with greater striking detail than those coins intended to circulate. c) The struck mint set coins are stored in anti tarnish bags before being sealed in the mylar. I did not see where the mint got into the die preparation chrome plating et al but I did not listen to the whole 20 minutes. More information on the production of the die itself for mint set (SF in 2005) vs circulating coins would also be helpful. Thanks Don!
<< <i>"Just in case anyone is interested...the US Mint has online video tours which clearly describe the difference between Circulating and Numismatic (US Mint Set) coin production. US Mint Tours Select "Go to the Virtual Tour". Thanks Rolling Coins for the link. To skip the introduction and go directly to the mint set discussion click on uncirculated in the chapter list. The highlights of this: A) Mint sets planchets are burnished, cleaned and shined to get a bright look. The specailly prpared planchets are struck with greater striking detail than those coins intended to circulate. c) The struck mint set coins are stored in anti tarnish bags before being sealed in the mylar. I did not see where the mint got into the die preparation chrome plating et al but I did not listen to the whole 20 minutes. More information on the production of the die itself for mint set (SF in 2005) vs circulating coins would also be helpful. Thanks Don! >>
Thank you very much. It's nice to see some confirmation for what's already known and to actually see a few of these machines. The burnished coins started showing up in 1986 but weren't common until much later. There is a good picture of this. There is also a fleeting glimpse of the inserting machine near the start of the video. (you can pause it) It's great to also have confirmation that each mint seals their own coin and the sets are assembled in Philly. I'm not certain this has always been true though.
I didn't know that the coins are loaded in carasols before being placed in the sets. This is very interesting information. I had thought (as a result of article in coin paper) that they were loaded in bins and pulled off the bottom and assumed automatic equipment righted them.
"Mint sets planchets are burnished, cleaned and shined to get a bright look"
Doug: Which I why I do not understand why collectors are so determined to search for "real" business strike coins in 2005, BUT in all the other years (and especially 1999), the "real" business strike roll and bag coins are of virtually no consequence - the "burnished and specially prepared mint set coin does just fine for nearly all collectors? Think about that for a moment.
I really enjoy the Ct(p) roll coin in MS68 I have in my (now #3) state quarter collection - it looks NOTHING like the typical mint set coins which typically yield nearly all the MS68 and better 1999 state quarters. When I got it in a number of years ago, you may recall my excitement to see such a "treasure" - I seem to recall I mentioned it to you and/or Donn. A true business strike MS68 1999(p) state quarter. Yet - nearly anyone cares to pursue the 1999-2004 coins in true business strike. Again, part of my personal belief that PCGS did the right thing making the coins optional for 2005 - I would change my opinion in a heartbeat if PCGS were to require in its circulation strike set ONLY "true" business strikes from rolls and bags. Just my peronal feelings on the matter. Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Doug: Which I why I do not understand why collectors are so determined to search for "real" business strike coins in 2005, BUT in all the other years (and especially 1999), the "real" business strike roll and bag coins are of virtually no consequence - the "burnished and specially prepared mint set coin does just fine for nearly all collectors? Think about that for a moment. >>
If you claim they are no different, Why two PCGS coin Numbers? And why do SF coins begin with the #9? Variety?
They are two different coins - two different coin #'s
Maybe one of the top State Quarter sets don't have the true Circulation Strike coins to back him up
Michael: Regarding the differences in the 1999-2004 coinage - perhaps you have never seen what I am talking about? I know you mainly screened mint set coins in 1999 (Mark acknowledged my comment around 8 pages ago as accurate)? You "gave up" the #3 spot - I gave up having the #1 spot long ago (I've had a near perfect set of MS state quarters in my hands through 2004 minus just a few coins). We both chose the money over the coins - right? Actually, I traded away one of my most beloved finest known State Quarters for a finest known pattern Indian Cent (I admit I am a "patternholic" at times). You got a pile of cash for your DE(p) MS69. Life goes on. I have a complete set of MS67 or better grade 2005 non-SF coins - when the variety set is launched the quality of my non-SF (10) coins will be on par with my (10) SF coins. Let's get back to fixing the pop report and trying to launch the Registry set as DR suggested as well.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Michael - My point exactly - no different coin # for 1999-2004 roll coins vs. mint set coins, because no collector has even cared about the differences to this point between the two. Many probably didn't even know it existed.
I also agree with your comment about this issue being mainly about the money with many involved. Selling $5,000 sets of coins vs. $200 sets in the same grade. But - hey - we covered that 150 posts ago and you said you were finished 100 posts ago as well. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. And, I know PCGS gave coin #'s for the various 2005 coins but, there are no coin #'s for the different surface types from 1999, etc.
Back to work.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Doug: In response to your question of submitters about submitting business strikes separate from satin finish: It seems that it is a logical way to submit coins. I have made it a point not to submit them together so that there's no questions. I don't submit the SF coins in the cellos though as I like to look at the raw coin. It seems that if everyone submits their B.S./S.F. coins separately, it should be patently obvious the differences and in theory, less mistakes would be made.
3 8681 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS67 3 8682 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66 3 8683 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66 3 8684 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66 3 8685 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66 4 8686 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS66 4 8687 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS65 4 8688 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS65 4 8689 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS66 4 8690 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS66
In this particular case, the P-OR from a bag weren't convincing enough due to their more satin than satin look.
"Mint sets planchets are burnished, cleaned and shined to get a bright look"
"Doug: Which I why I do not understand why collectors are so determined to search for "real" business strike coins in 2005, BUT in all the other years (and especially 1999), the "real" business strike roll and bag coins are of virtually no consequence - the "burnished and specially prepared mint set coin does just fine for nearly all collectors? Think about that for a moment."
Hi Mitch. If PCGS had not launched a special coin number and designation for the SF mint set 2005 coins you would not see this controversy. It would be business as usual. For years the differences have been fairly clear but not as clear as in 2005 with the new SF production. I found my MO-P in 68 and ME-D in 68 in rolls and was able to compare to Mint Set found coins (to my knowledge only MASS found a MO-P in 68 in a mint set and the other 3 MO-P in 68 came from rolls (I think Seth found a MO-P roll coin too and it ended up in the Russ Howell collection). I liked my MO-P best from the roll and still have it. I traded Donn the roll coin MS68 ME-D for a coin he found thinking I had more ME-D that would grade out in 68 and they did not. I bought another ME-D in 68 from Mark and Donn's roll coin verses this coin from Mark were virtually identical just the Mark coin a bit brighter so Donn may still have a really nice ME-D in 68 from a roll in his collection. I can go back over the many years and discuss further examples including D mints in 1999 found in MS67 condition in rolls and bags still in my set (my roll coin GA-D is a monster 67 and is the best I have ever seen... never seen a 68 in the holder) but as Donn pointed out earlier in prior years the top coins do not always come from mint sets verses rolls and there has always been the ability to find the nicest coins in either arena and not in 2005 there is no competition anymore. In my opinion the collector wants the randomness of the coin universe to prevail in the excitement of the hunt and in 2005 there is no randomness to it, the SF mint sets always win. If the modern collector gets groomed now into buying mint products in lieu of the randomness of the hunt and third party grading then that will open the door for the mint to offer services currently left for the marketplace. Hypothetically the mint may just decide to encapsulate their new SF product in individual coin holders with the MS70 grade pre-assigned and charge a lot less than the hunters that find them now! I personally do not collect modern proofs because they are soo nice I really cannot consistently differentiate between MS69 and MS70 DCAM and a top collector of these once told me he could not either! I am willing to bet the mint could make these SF absolutely perfect with mega frost and strike at a fraction of the cost it takes to find them now. How much fun would that be for the mint state coin collector when the SF coins are so nice they cannot differentiate between MS69 or MS70 anymore and the circulating coins were eliminated from the hunt by a policy decision? If the circulating coins are abandoned in favor of mega SF coins there may no longer be any conditionally rare modern coins to collect in the future, especailly if the SF product continues to advance in quality as the Proof coinage has. At least by leaving the MS coins in the registry there will always be conditionally rare coins do to the randomness of the production and distribution. These are my thoughts about this SF vs MS issue and why 2005 SF sets have drawn a line in the sand for the collector to consider. dr
<< <i> I found my MO-P in 68 and ME-D in 68 in rolls and was able to compare to Mint Set found coins (to my knowledge only MASS found a MO-P in 68 in a mint set and the other 3 MO-P in 68 came from rolls (I think Seth found a MO-P roll coin too and it ended up in the Russ Howell collection). I liked my MO-P best from the roll and still have it. >>
Doug: If you're curious, I found that coin in a Mint Set just by pure luck as I didn't look at many Mint Sets in 2003. I think I was mostly roll hunting at that time.
There is a real difference between PR-69 and PR-70 but this difference is subtle and most collectors will require a lot of learning to spot it. Indeed the entire range of qual- ity for modern proofs is typically very narrow and very high. While this is great for buy- ers and collectors, it probably does suppress the popularity of collecting them in high grade.
There has been a huge range in quality of mint state moderns over the years but this range has been collapsing as well. In the very old days some of the coins were so poorly made that they had no more detail than a VG. They were struck poorly from poorly made dies which had been used long past their useful lives. In recent years most of these strike pro- blems have been addressed. Average die life has remained about the same but die steels are far superior to what they were and reliefs are mostly lower. Marking is less improved but even here you'll see fewer of the worst coins if not more of the cleanest.
Even a beginner can see the difference between two grades of unc. This situation is pretty complicated because the minting process is complicated and collector tastes are complicated. It's hard to know what effect there would be on collectors if large strides are made in improv- ing quality of mint sets, regular issues, or both. It might also be reasonable to expect it would have more impact on closed series or on-going ones like the states issues. Consider that if very high grade New Mexicos are extremely common and Alaskas can be expected to be at least superb gem then many collectors might want to go back and get the earlier issues in the same grades. This could put huge demand for the earlier coins.
There are also purists who if they believe they can consistently tell a mint set coin from a roll coin could lose interest altogether. I understand this thinking since if you can tell the difference then the mint set coins would be NCLT and some don't consider a coin that doesn't circulate to be a coin at all.
Of course, you can't positively identify a mint set coin from a roll coin even with the '05 and ealier coins are much more problematical. So what happens if this changes? Already it seems likely that many are seeking one of each or only one of the two types. This will eventually cause prices and availability to diverge if it is common with collectors or becomes common.
"There are also purists who if they believe they can consistently tell a mint set coin from a roll coin could lose interest altogether" I think this is what is happening now and if the mint continues to ratchet up the SF quality more people will be able to see these differneces clearly. Thanks for the input Clad King I can see by the number of your posts that you are very interesed in the modern coins and your input is great.
"For years the differences have been fairly clear"
Doug: I agree. And, I know you love your top pop roll coin from the early years as much as anyone, as I do.
I do want to address one portion of your last comment though - you know just how hard locating MS70 SF quarters is - you were not able to slab any yourself for all of 2005 - right? On the other hand, you were able to slab a WV(d) MS69SF - just one of (2) coins slabbed total thus far. We both know there are some very difficult issues in SF for 2005 - WV(d) quarters, Bison and WW (d mint)nickels, Kennedy (d mint) half dollars (for which there are still no MS69 coins ever graded), Sac (d) coins, etc. As Donn Murphy stated a few pages ago (and I agree) - the SF 2005 coins are just as challenging in their own right as non -SF coins. Just look at your own personal state quarter set and see how many 2005 SF coins you had to go out into the market place to purchase, because your "hunt" came up empty. A full 50% of the SF coins your "hunt" fell short on - you may have had better success hunting for non-SF than you did SF? Judging from that - I would suggest the hunt is very much alive in the SF coins, as it is with non-SF coins. Fair?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
"Just look at your own personal state quarter set and see how many 2005 SF coins you had to go out into the market place to purchase, because your "hunt" came up empty. A full 50% of the SF coins your "hunt" fell short on - you may have had better success hunting for non-SF than you did SF? Judging from that - I would suggest the hunt is very much alive in the SF coins, as it is with non-SF coins. Fair?" I do not agree my hunt came up empty, just did not get the top grade for 5 of the 10 coins. I have a box of extra 69's from this empty hunt that I am holding onto because they are absolutely mark free and I am still trying to deciper the subtleness between the SF69 and SF70 grades especially amoung the more common MS69 P minted coins. I do not have a SF CA-D that is comparable to the SF70 I bought from Brian but many of the MS69 P mints I received in SF69 look as good as the MS70 I bought. The hunt is alive for SF coins but has cooled quickly (may be almost stopped now for 2005) and really cooled when PCGS virtually stopped giving the SF 70 grade in 2005 after processing the first waives of bulk submittals. Fortuanately we cannot assign our own grades or my whole set would be MS70! I like PCGS grading, it keeps me honest with myself. My comments about the future of SF hunting are hypothetical based upon what the mint could choose to do with the quality of the SF coins. The hunt for SF is alive and will remain alive and hence my prediction that this may in the future be a registry set unto itself. Those like CladKing that have an eye for that level of differentiation would probably continue to collect them like the proof even if the grading is limited between MS69 and MS70 due to a theoretical quality enhancement the mint could choose to make. In my opinion the mint cannot controll the quality of coins intended for general circualtion to the level that they can controll the SF mint set coins. I have never been a proof collector I guess I am more of the purist type that Cladking mentions in his comments. I know there are hundreds of collectors of certified modern commemorative material not intended for circulation (like the proof) and I think it is wonderful that everyone has their own tastes so they are not all just like me and competing with me for what I like. The group that collects these high quality mint products not intended for circulation that has developed their eye for this level of differentiation may not even like having to collect MS coins from 1999 forward since the quantity to be found in MS68 or better will never be enough to satisfy the demand for all those collectors while starting in 2005 the quality is now high enough to attract those mega-grade masters in a quantity high enough to meet the demand. Sorry if my comments were taken as negative toward this group. They were not intended to be. I am just trying to help you Mitch to understand the controversy here and if you read Cladking carefully articulated comments above I think they are very enlightening. I believe there should be a place in the registry for both types SF and MS because the collectors out there are different and this provides the broader forum for all to participate. dr
<< <i>The hunt is alive for SF coins but has cooled quickly (may be almost stopped now for 2005) and really cooled when PCGS virtually stopped giving the SF 70 grade in 2005 after processing the first waives of bulk submittals. >>
I agree that the hunt has significantly slowed down. The sheer #'s of 68's and the difficulty of obtaining 70 makes it cost prohibitive. I happen to be working on them as we type, so it's not over yet, but will I make another 70??? Time will tell. I am curious who else here has made non-bulk SF 70's? Doug, didn't you make one or more of yours? Did Donn do the same? (Just Curious) I can tell you that it is prohibitively difficult to repeat those coins in 70 with or without bulk submitting. IMHO it is accurate to say that the 2005 SF 70's in the pop report represent most if not all of what will be. They're not quite as common as many predicted and I believe many of them were purchased for half price based on the stagnant '05 SF70 Pop movement. Congrats to those who had the vision to pick them up when they could!!!
Doug: I was referring to your hunt coming up "empty" ONLY as it pertained to the (5) 2005 SF coins you needed to purchase in the marketplace. I understand that your overall hunt was very productive and that you have "fresh meat" in the cooler for the winter.
Seth: You better believe the hunt for incredible SF coins is alive and well. I am aware of a sizeable deal that recently went over to the "new and improved" ANACS and I believe there was one coin in particular that was quite the talk over there - a WV(d) that had a very strong shot MS70 - I believe the coin graded MS69 but it sounds like as nice a WV(d) as could possibly be located. I hope to see it next week at Long Beach. I would not be surprised to see many cool MS state quarters (properly graded) showing up in ANACS holders as well in the year ahead.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Seth the first 22 coins I sent in were all graded SF69.... the next 10 coins all SF69 including a KS-P and WV-D (pop 2 now). I nailed the whole 2005 satin finish set in MS69 by submitting only 32 coins. From 1999 thru 2004 I have only made 3-4 coins in MS69 and I search hundreds of mint sets each year. Clearly the landscape changed with the release of the 2005 mint sets. I have never attempted to do a bulk submittal. My curiosity and wallet have been intriqued about the bulk submittal coin program. Yes Mitch I am still going to collect SF and will buy SF coins in the top grades if I do not find them myself. I am curious if a collectors club member can do a bulk submittal or if you need to be a PCGS dealer? Bulk submittal seems to be the more economic and effective way to handle a several hundred mint set order that I do each year and if last year holds true the best SF results will be from the original release of mint sets in 2006 submitted in a bulk batch. dr
<< <i>Seth: You better believe the hunt for incredible SF coins is alive and well. I am aware of a sizeable deal that recently went over to the "new and improved" ANACS and I believe there was one coin in particular that was quite the talk over there - a WV(d) that had a very strong shot MS70 - I believe the coin graded MS69 but it sounds like as nice a WV(d) as could possibly be located. I hope to see it next week at Long Beach. I would not be surprised to see many cool MS state quarters (properly graded) showing up in ANACS holders as well in the year ahead. Wondercoin >>
Mitch: It's good to hear the hunt is still on. As you know if that coin is 69 material, then it's worth too much in a PCGS holder to leave it in a ANACS holder. No disrespect to ANACS, but due to PCGS Pop of only 2 currently, the market value would speak for itself. If it doesn't make the grade @ PCGS, it'll stay in a very cool new ANACS holder. Either way, it sounds like it will be a very nice coin for you to have the opportunity to see first hand!!! Keep us posted on how you like the coin. I'm sure many of us would be interested in hearing.
Yes a lot of coins will make it in the new ANACS holders for sure. Too bad those cool holders don't qualify you for the PCGS Registry. It'll be interesting to hear crossover rates.
Any speculation on PCGS' version of that holder???
Doug: My understanding is any Collectors' Club member can do a bulk submission just as easily as any dealer can. I think you would be perfectly suited to do a massive bulk submission - especially because once you got back a couple thousand state quarters in PCGS holders - you could then quite the day job and do what you really love - selling state quarters to collectors.
Wondercoin
P.S.
"Any speculation on PCGS' version of that holder???"
Seth - Not sure what you are asking?
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Seth the first 22 coins I sent in were all graded SF69.... the next 10 coins all SF69 including a KS-P and WV-D (pop 2 now). I nailed the whole 2005 satin finish set in MS69 by submitting only 32 coins. >>
Doug, I'm sure the coins you picked out where all top notch for the first 32 coins you submitted. I'm sure you have found more of the same quality coins as mentioned above since these first two submissions. Do you think you could go 32 for 32 today
<< <i>Seth the first 22 coins I sent in were all graded SF69.... the next 10 coins all SF69 including a KS-P and WV-D (pop 2 now). I nailed the whole 2005 satin finish set in MS69 by submitting only 32 coins. From 1999 thru 2004 I have only made 3-4 coins in MS69 and I search hundreds of mint sets each year. Clearly the landscape changed with the release of the 2005 mint sets. I have never attempted to do a bulk submittal. My curiosity and wallet have been intriqued about the bulk submittal coin program. Yes Mitch I am still going to collect SF and will buy SF coins in the top grades if I do not find them myself. I am curious if a collectors club member can do a bulk submittal or if you need to be a PCGS dealer? Bulk submittal seems to be the more economic and effective way to handle a several hundred mint set order that I do each year and if last year holds true the best SF results will be from the original release of mint sets in 2006 submitted in a bulk batch. dr >>
Doug: I remember hearing about your impressive 2005 SF submissions. Sounds like you did well.
You'd have to ask Mitch about bulk submissions. I still do it the old fashioned way. I must admit that it's been a lot harder to come up with the top grade "D" mint issues that the bulk submitters get. There are 185/0 2005 D Kennedy PCGS MS68 SF's and I have yet to make just one. The ratios have not been in favor of the regular submitter in this case. On the other hand, I've made 5 of the P KS 69SF where there's only 33. Granted, those are the extremes, but the "D" side might have yielded different #'s in a Bulk Submission IMHO. I understand that Mitch disagrees with this and we've agreed to disagree I believe.
"I would not be surprised to see many cool MS state quarters (properly graded) showing up in ANACS holders as well in the year ahead." Mitch does ANACS use the SMS or SF designations for 2005 like NGC and PCGS? I have a lot of respect for ANAC's and took my first grading course from JP Martin around 1983 in Anchorage Alaska when I lived up North in the land of Seth. I still use that loupe I got from the class and it is actaully a 3 x power and not a 4 x power I thought in my previous comments. It appears to me that the modern collector is a large market and the service that caters to this market will set themselves up for many years to come. Hopefully PCGS can keep up since my entire state quarter collection at this time resides in only PCGS holders. dr
"Doug: My understanding is any Collectors' Club member can do a bulk submission just as easily as any dealer can. I think you would be perfectly suited to do a massive bulk submission - especially because once you got back a couple thousand state quarters in PCGS holders - you could then quite the day job and do what you really love - selling state quarters to collectors. " Thanks for the info Mitch. I have gotten used to screening my coins and would never submit thousands of them. I find extras to sell in the hunt for my set coins but am not motivated to end up with a pile of low grade SF 68 coins to sell for $250 per set of 10. dr
Comments
ALL POLAR BEARS ARE LEFT-HANDED.
Nice discussing the issues with everyone here.
Wondercoin
"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"
****************
Any wonder PCGS is comfortable allowing either coin in the Mint State set?
Wondercoin
Doug, from my experience, you can't tell them you found the coin in a roll or mint set that was sealed as i have found numerous SMS coins in original wrapped rolls from 1965-67. i once even found a 1965 cameo dime that pcgs graded 67 cam. truely from an original roll.
Anyway, I think PCGS is making this whole thing tough on themselves by bumbling around in the initial decision making process for the satin program, grading of the coins, sloppy pop and now the confusion of how to treat it for registry purposes. This is a direct indication of how the modern area is run these days at PCGS. I would just put my hands up and say use them both if i @%$#@& things up this bad too! By the way, this is how i got the nickname "Henry Kissinger" the diplomat.
Laura
BJ refered me to you. Here is a situation I don't quite know how to handle
I have found some information regarding some "possibly" bad data entries with
the shq's. Last July, I purchased a WV-p sf quarter on ebay. It was
in a bulk holder and I entered it into my set. It came back without the sf
designation. I then sent in pics of the obv/rev of the slab, and it was given
the proper disignation in your data banks. To make a long story short, I
have checked into about 120 cert #'s before and after my coin, and all of
the coins come back without the sf designation. At the end of July, the
KS and the WV coins had not been released for circulation. So those have
to be incorrect entries. There are also questionable OR and MN certs that I
think are suspect also.
I sent an email to the person that sold me the coin, explained the problem, and
haven't received a response. I also informed him of the problem back when I
first encountered it with my coin. As of yet, he hasn't responded to the info.
I have the person's name, ebay identity, and address. I can probably get his
phone # if necessary. I have the cert #'s and what they apply to. What I don't have is
the submission #(s) that go with these coins. What do I do? The pops really need
to be cleaned up, and there is a big effort by a few other people to get
it straightened out. Any help/direction here is greatly appreciated.
Thank you
Roger Byrd
As of yet I haven't received a response. Soooo if no help by tomorrow night from Laura, and/or none from the submitter, I will
p.m. Mitch or Doug, or anyone who wants to try to work on this, the guys name and ebay identity and email address.
Oh Yeah!!! mas, very nice quarter!!!! Got it in the mail today!
(well, until an upgrade is available that I can afford), just wondering, can you send me some patience???? Thinking I may need more
than I have at this point in time
<< <i>collegeguy
Yeah, what he said
Nice find, if Doug's lovin' it, must be a sweet coin indeed!!!
<< <i>Will someone please show me a coin from a roll or a bag that looks like a satin finish coin? I am not a believer yet. I think PCGS is just gun shy or cannot tell the difference.Mark Di Lauro PMB 606 2060-D Avenida de Los Arboles Thousand Oaks, CA 91362-1361
Doug, from my experience, you can't tell them you found the coin in a roll or mint set that was sealed as i have found numerous SMS coins in original wrapped rolls from 1965-67. i once even found a 1965 cameo dime that pcgs graded 67 cam. truely from an original roll.
Anyway, I think PCGS is making this whole thing tough on themselves by bumbling around in the initial decision making process for the satin program, grading of the coins, sloppy pop and now the confusion of how to treat it for registry purposes. This is a direct indication of how the modern area is run these days at PCGS. I would just put my hands up and say use them both if i @%$#@& things up this bad too! By the way, this is how i got the nickname "Henry Kissinger" the diplomat. >>
I used to find SMS coins in circulation all the time. It took me a few years to realize there were
far too many to be accounted for by busted up SMS's. These coins were obviously being minted
for circulation. Most collectors forget that the San Francisco mint was not only making SMS's in
those years but also striking other denominations. Apparently they struck many of these coins
from retired SMS dies.
Mark: If you have indeed found Special Mint Set coins in original bank wrapped circulation rolls of coins (as I am sure you have), then wouldn't it be likely that SF coins will also show up in rolls or bags or other Mint products?
Roger: Just email Doug or myself with the information and we can get the ball rolling.
Wondercoin
<< <i>I understand Mitch, i just have not seen anything close personally. Will some one please send me one? I hate to profess to be the Nostradamus of coins but I predicted all of the problems we have had/having before they graded their first coin. >>
Mark, I beleive many of us had the same concerns upon opening our first mint set. This is going to be a roller coaster to correct and satisfy ALL whom this effects and have spent countless hours putting together noteworthy mint sets, SHQ set and collect "modern" circ strike (by definition) coinage to include in sets. I have yet to find an easy fix to solve all the issues invovled. Just my 2c.
<< <i>
Mark, I beleive many of us had the same concerns upon opening our first mint set. This is going to be a roller coaster to correct and satisfy ALL whom this effects and have spent countless hours putting together noteworthy mint sets, SHQ set and collect "modern" circ strike (by definition) coinage to include in sets. I have yet to find an easy fix to solve all the issues invovled. Just my 2c. >>
Collectors will do what collectors do. In the long run they'll clamor to have their
sets registered and the services will almost certainly accept. At that point everyone
will have their way but in the meantime there are going to be some who are unhappy.
This may be too complex to work out without the passage of time. I'd guess that collectors
will tend to seek both and at some point in the near or distant future there will be a slot in
the registries for both.
I'm sure that when I get serious about collecting these that I'll get the finest SF and the
finest non-SF I can find without concern for where either came from. This will probably
make some of the non-SF very rare.
<< <i>Will some one please send me one? >>
Mark, I kept a few of them for examples. I'll send one to you @ the address listed above. It's kinda neat to see a frosty satin quarter with honest bag marks. When you set it next to the D-OR Business Strike, they look like great examples of their respective strike.
Edit: Come to think of it, I made the first few 66 and 67 2005 P-OR in Satin Finish because of these from the bag. Nobody would intentionally grade 66 or 67 from a mint set when there's over 1000 in 68...
On a side note - the "pop clean up" continues on. On the agenda for this week is about 200 corrections. Either Doug or myself can keep everyone posted.
Wondercoin
The PCGS registry for 1936 proof nickels and cents requires both brilliant and satin proofs. No one seems to have a problem with this. Perhaps its because the distinction between types is easier than in SF vs non-SF.
In the Morgan dollar arena, proof-like coins and frosty coins can both be used interchangeably in the regular MS registry. In addition there is a DMPL/PL registry in which some (I forget the %) of non-PL coins can be used. In this regard, the distinction between semi-PL and PL or between DMPL and PL is not so clear and the price difference (especially the jump from PL to DMPL) can be great.
CG
I would be laughing all the way to the bank.
<< <i>Hindsight being 20/20, I wish I had made a huge bulk submission of SF coins. As it looks now, with them going into every set, circulation and varieties, of every denomination, my customer base would be fantastic.
I would be laughing all the way to the bank.
You mean you would do what many others have been doing every year after the mint sets come out? Novel idea.
<< <i>Hindsight being 20/20, I wish I had made a huge bulk submission of SF coins. As it looks now, with them going into every set, circulation and varieties, of every denomination, my customer base would be fantastic.
I would be laughing all the way to the bank.
I'd like to point out that business strike submissions are currently worth more than the Satin Finish, partially due to overpopulation of Satin Finish. (For State Quarters that is.) Not to mention that it costs more $$$ to cut a mint set. As easy as it may seem, you might not make the $10/hr that Doug is searching business strikes. I respect your opinion Dan, but laughing all the way to the bank isn't the case for some Satin Finish submitters/dealers who lost big this year.
By the way, you won that 2005 P 10c 67FB non Satin coin for pretty cheap. Congrats on a GREAT Win!
Yes the ms67FB looks a lot like a SF coin in the pictures. We will know more when it's in hand.
Either way it will be off the market.
<< <i>Thanks CoinFame.. The above comment about the SF's was in jest. Yes the ms67FB looks a lot like a SF coin in the pictures. We will know more when it's in hand. Either way it will be off the market. >>
Thanks Dan for the clarification. I guess I took it too literal.
I thought that dime looked SF too, but the seller seemed confident. The only problem I saw was the "Rolls from the Mint" comment in the listing. No 10c rolls come from the mint... Good to hear that you're taking care of the coin good or bad.
I am not aware of any other hunter with as broad of scope of search into different denominations as Mark and these types of comments are very revealing about what can and does happen when the mint does process millions and millions of coins each year. My modern coin searching expertise is centered on the state quarters.
Given Mark's example and other feedback (thank you all for your constructive comments) I can see why PCGS default to SF is appropriate if they are unsure about a coin. If the mint uses the same tubs and equipment and processes both MS and SF coins in the same mint facility sooner or later coins will end up in the wrong spot. I did not get any feed-back from other submitters about the idea of not co-mingling MS and SF batches to help prevent further mechanical errors so if you have an opinion about that I would like to hear it.
I have not found any state quarters in my MS sources this year that I think are satin finish ... only the bright OR-P batch that looked similar to SF until you examine the surfaces carefully. I still have an MS68 and a few MS67 quarters from this bright OR-P batch so if you guys are still in need of more material after examing Seth's coins let me know but I do not believe mine are SF coins. When I finish grade my finds I always use 4 x power and even if a coin looks bright by eye the differences are easy for me to see under 4x power. The crispness of the strike and the surface luster and characteristics are usually a dead give away without even looking for MS die cracks and die erosion. The luster on an MS coin flows in broader areas than the SF coin that is more matte like. Always an exception to the rule but let me give you readers a few examples. For example the WV SF coins I have seen have more of a crisp circular halo pattern around the top of the head due to the crispy strike and frosty surfaces while the MS examples I have seen have a broad sheet of luster in front of the face. The MS68 and MS69 MS OR-P coins I have also have broad sheeting luster flow both in front of the head and in front of the bust that is different than the crisp white matte like luster on the SF OR-P I have seen. I have found some amazing strikes on MS coins but the appearance is more black and reflective when the die has not been specailly prepared like an SF coin. Hope this helps. More feedback from others on how to tell the differences will be helpful.
Having fun with these other discussions too and I hope we can all stay focused on our original objective to clean up the pop report and to get the washington state quarter variety set established. dr
Just in case anyone is interested...the US Mint has online video tours which clearly describe the difference between Circulating and Numismatic (US Mint Set) coin production. US Mint Tours Select "Go to the Virtual Tour".
<< <i>"Just in case anyone is interested...the US Mint has online video tours which clearly describe the difference between Circulating and Numismatic (US Mint Set) coin production. US Mint Tours Select "Go to the Virtual Tour". Thanks Rolling Coins for the link. To skip the introduction and go directly to the mint set discussion click on uncirculated in the chapter list. The highlights of this: A) Mint sets planchets are burnished, cleaned and shined to get a bright look.
Thank you very much. It's nice to see some confirmation for what's already known and
to actually see a few of these machines. The burnished coins started showing up in 1986
but weren't common until much later. There is a good picture of this. There is also a fleeting
glimpse of the inserting machine near the start of the video. (you can pause it) It's great to
also have confirmation that each mint seals their own coin and the sets are assembled in Philly.
I'm not certain this has always been true though.
I didn't know that the coins are loaded in carasols before being placed in the sets. This is very
interesting information. I had thought (as a result of article in coin paper) that they were loaded
in bins and pulled off the bottom and assumed automatic equipment righted them.
Link
Doug: Which I why I do not understand why collectors are so determined to search for "real" business strike coins in 2005, BUT in all the other years (and especially 1999), the "real" business strike roll and bag coins are of virtually no consequence - the "burnished and specially prepared mint set coin does just fine for nearly all collectors? Think about that for a moment.
I really enjoy the Ct(p) roll coin in MS68 I have in my (now #3) state quarter collection - it looks NOTHING like the typical mint set coins which typically yield nearly all the MS68 and better 1999 state quarters. When I got it in a number of years ago, you may recall my excitement to see such a "treasure" - I seem to recall I mentioned it to you and/or Donn. A true business strike MS68 1999(p) state quarter. Yet - nearly anyone cares to pursue the 1999-2004 coins in true business strike. Again, part of my personal belief that PCGS did the right thing making the coins optional for 2005 - I would change my opinion in a heartbeat if PCGS were to require in its circulation strike set ONLY "true" business strikes from rolls and bags. Just my peronal feelings on the matter. Wondercoin
<< <i>Doug: Which I why I do not understand why collectors are so determined to search for "real" business strike coins in 2005, BUT in all the other years (and especially 1999), the "real" business strike roll and bag coins are of virtually no consequence - the "burnished and specially prepared mint set coin does just fine for nearly all collectors? Think about that for a moment. >>
If you claim they are no different, Why two PCGS coin Numbers?
And why do SF coins begin with the #9?
Variety?
They are two different coins - two different coin #'s
Maybe one of the top State Quarter sets don't have the true Circulation Strike coins to back him up
<< <i>my (now #3) state quarter collection >>
Your welcome, I had the #3 set and retired it last year alowing the open slot to let the others move up 1. I did not want to "compete" anymore.
Congratulations
Wondercoin
Has any of these Different look coins been given a Different coin number as we see with 2005 SF coins?
This Thread is about the $$ isn't it - Who's
I also agree with your comment about this issue being mainly about the money with many involved. Selling $5,000 sets of coins vs. $200 sets in the same grade. But - hey - we covered that 150 posts ago and you said you were finished 100 posts ago as well. I know where you stand and you know where I stand. And, I know PCGS gave coin #'s for the various 2005 coins but, there are no coin #'s for the different surface types from 1999, etc.
Back to work.
Wondercoin
<< <i>I know PCGS gave coin #'s for the various 2005 coins but, there are no coin #'s for the different surface types from 1999, etc. >>
Thank you,
Any progress on the pop report clean up?
3 8681 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS67
3 8682 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66
3 8683 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66
3 8684 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66
3 8685 2005-P 25C Oregon Satin Finish USA MS66
4 8686 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS66
4 8687 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS65
4 8688 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS65
4 8689 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS66
4 8690 2005-D 25C Oregon USA MS66
In this particular case, the P-OR from a bag weren't convincing enough due to their more satin than satin look.
"Doug: Which I why I do not understand why collectors are so determined to search for "real" business strike coins in 2005, BUT in all the other years (and especially 1999), the "real" business strike roll and bag coins are of virtually no consequence - the "burnished and specially prepared mint set coin does just fine for nearly all collectors? Think about that for a moment."
Hi Mitch. If PCGS had not launched a special coin number and designation for the SF mint set 2005 coins you would not see this controversy. It would be business as usual. For years the differences have been fairly clear but not as clear as in 2005 with the new SF production. I found my MO-P in 68 and ME-D in 68 in rolls and was able to compare to Mint Set found coins (to my knowledge only MASS found a MO-P in 68 in a mint set and the other 3 MO-P in 68 came from rolls (I think Seth found a MO-P roll coin too and it ended up in the Russ Howell collection). I liked my MO-P best from the roll and still have it. I traded Donn the roll coin MS68 ME-D for a coin he found thinking I had more ME-D that would grade out in 68 and they did not. I bought another ME-D in 68 from Mark and Donn's roll coin verses this coin from Mark were virtually identical just the Mark coin a bit brighter so Donn may still have a really nice ME-D in 68 from a roll in his collection. I can go back over the many years and discuss further examples including D mints in 1999 found in MS67 condition in rolls and bags still in my set (my roll coin GA-D is a monster 67 and is the best I have ever seen... never seen a 68 in the holder) but as Donn pointed out earlier in prior years the top coins do not always come from mint sets verses rolls and there has always been the ability to find the nicest coins in either arena and not in 2005 there is no competition anymore. In my opinion the collector wants the randomness of the coin universe to prevail in the excitement of the hunt and in 2005 there is no randomness to it, the SF mint sets always win. If the modern collector gets groomed now into buying mint products in lieu of the randomness of the hunt and third party grading then that will open the door for the mint to offer services currently left for the marketplace. Hypothetically the mint may just decide to encapsulate their new SF product in individual coin holders with the MS70 grade pre-assigned and charge a lot less than the hunters that find them now! I personally do not collect modern proofs because they are soo nice I really cannot consistently differentiate between MS69 and MS70 DCAM and a top collector of these once told me he could not either! I am willing to bet the mint could make these SF absolutely perfect with mega frost and strike at a fraction of the cost it takes to find them now. How much fun would that be for the mint state coin collector when the SF coins are so nice they cannot differentiate between MS69 or MS70 anymore and the circulating coins were eliminated from the hunt by a policy decision? If the circulating coins are abandoned in favor of mega SF coins there may no longer be any conditionally rare modern coins to collect in the future, especailly if the SF product continues to advance in quality as the Proof coinage has. At least by leaving the MS coins in the registry there will always be conditionally rare coins do to the randomness of the production and distribution. These are my thoughts about this SF vs MS issue and why 2005 SF sets have drawn a line in the sand for the collector to consider. dr
<< <i> I found my MO-P in 68 and ME-D in 68 in rolls and was able to compare to Mint Set found coins (to my knowledge only MASS found a MO-P in 68 in a mint set and the other 3 MO-P in 68 came from rolls (I think Seth found a MO-P roll coin too and it ended up in the Russ Howell collection). I liked my MO-P best from the roll and still have it. >>
Doug: If you're curious, I found that coin in a Mint Set just by pure luck as I didn't look at many Mint Sets in 2003. I think I was mostly roll hunting at that time.
<< <i>Thanks for that info Seth. Russ as I recall told me his was a roll coin that you had found but you as the finder know for sure. dr >>
You're welcome. For Sure it is a Mint Set coin.
most collectors will require a lot of learning to spot it. Indeed the entire range of qual-
ity for modern proofs is typically very narrow and very high. While this is great for buy-
ers and collectors, it probably does suppress the popularity of collecting them in high grade.
There has been a huge range in quality of mint state moderns over the years but this range
has been collapsing as well. In the very old days some of the coins were so poorly made
that they had no more detail than a VG. They were struck poorly from poorly made dies
which had been used long past their useful lives. In recent years most of these strike pro-
blems have been addressed. Average die life has remained about the same but die steels
are far superior to what they were and reliefs are mostly lower. Marking is less improved but
even here you'll see fewer of the worst coins if not more of the cleanest.
Even a beginner can see the difference between two grades of unc. This situation is pretty
complicated because the minting process is complicated and collector tastes are complicated.
It's hard to know what effect there would be on collectors if large strides are made in improv-
ing quality of mint sets, regular issues, or both. It might also be reasonable to expect it would
have more impact on closed series or on-going ones like the states issues. Consider that if
very high grade New Mexicos are extremely common and Alaskas can be expected to be at
least superb gem then many collectors might want to go back and get the earlier issues in the
same grades. This could put huge demand for the earlier coins.
There are also purists who if they believe they can consistently tell a mint set coin from a roll
coin could lose interest altogether. I understand this thinking since if you can tell the difference
then the mint set coins would be NCLT and some don't consider a coin that doesn't circulate to
be a coin at all.
Of course, you can't positively identify a mint set coin from a roll coin even with the '05 and
ealier coins are much more problematical. So what happens if this changes? Already it seems
likely that many are seeking one of each or only one of the two types. This will eventually
cause prices and availability to diverge if it is common with collectors or becomes common.
coin could lose interest altogether" I think this is what is happening now and if the mint continues to ratchet up the SF quality more people will be able to see these differneces clearly. Thanks for the input Clad King I can see by the number of your posts that you are very interesed in the modern coins and your input is great.
Doug: I agree. And, I know you love your top pop roll coin from the early years as much as anyone, as I do.
I do want to address one portion of your last comment though - you know just how hard locating MS70 SF quarters is - you were not able to slab any yourself for all of 2005 - right? On the other hand, you were able to slab a WV(d) MS69SF - just one of (2) coins slabbed total thus far. We both know there are some very difficult issues in SF for 2005 - WV(d) quarters, Bison and WW (d mint)nickels, Kennedy (d mint) half dollars (for which there are still no MS69 coins ever graded), Sac (d) coins, etc. As Donn Murphy stated a few pages ago (and I agree) - the SF 2005 coins are just as challenging in their own right as non -SF coins. Just look at your own personal state quarter set and see how many 2005 SF coins you had to go out into the market place to purchase, because your "hunt" came up empty. A full 50% of the SF coins your "hunt" fell short on - you may have had better success hunting for non-SF than you did SF? Judging from that - I would suggest the hunt is very much alive in the SF coins, as it is with non-SF coins. Fair?
Wondercoin
<< <i>The hunt is alive for SF coins but has cooled quickly (may be almost stopped now for 2005) and really cooled when PCGS virtually stopped giving the SF 70 grade in 2005 after processing the first waives of bulk submittals. >>
I agree that the hunt has significantly slowed down. The sheer #'s of 68's and the difficulty of obtaining 70 makes it cost prohibitive. I happen to be working on them as we type, so it's not over yet, but will I make another 70??? Time will tell. I am curious who else here has made non-bulk SF 70's? Doug, didn't you make one or more of yours? Did Donn do the same? (Just Curious) I can tell you that it is prohibitively difficult to repeat those coins in 70 with or without bulk submitting. IMHO it is accurate to say that the 2005 SF 70's in the pop report represent most if not all of what will be. They're not quite as common as many predicted and I believe many of them were purchased for half price based on the stagnant '05 SF70 Pop movement. Congrats to those who had the vision to pick them up when they could!!!
Seth: You better believe the hunt for incredible SF coins is alive and well. I am aware of a sizeable deal that recently went over to the "new and improved" ANACS and I believe there was one coin in particular that was quite the talk over there - a WV(d) that had a very strong shot MS70 - I believe the coin graded MS69 but it sounds like as nice a WV(d) as could possibly be located. I hope to see it next week at Long Beach. I would not be surprised to see many cool MS state quarters (properly graded) showing up in ANACS holders as well in the year ahead.
Wondercoin
<< <i>Seth: You better believe the hunt for incredible SF coins is alive and well. I am aware of a sizeable deal that recently went over to the "new and improved" ANACS and I believe there was one coin in particular that was quite the talk over there - a WV(d) that had a very strong shot MS70 - I believe the coin graded MS69 but it sounds like as nice a WV(d) as could possibly be located. I hope to see it next week at Long Beach. I would not be surprised to see many cool MS state quarters (properly graded) showing up in ANACS holders as well in the year ahead. Wondercoin >>
Mitch: It's good to hear the hunt is still on. As you know if that coin is 69 material, then it's worth too much in a PCGS holder to leave it in a ANACS holder. No disrespect to ANACS, but due to PCGS Pop of only 2 currently, the market value would speak for itself. If it doesn't make the grade @ PCGS, it'll stay in a very cool new ANACS holder. Either way, it sounds like it will be a very nice coin for you to have the opportunity to see first hand!!! Keep us posted on how you like the coin. I'm sure many of us would be interested in hearing.
Yes a lot of coins will make it in the new ANACS holders for sure. Too bad those cool holders don't qualify you for the PCGS Registry. It'll be interesting to hear crossover rates.
Any speculation on PCGS' version of that holder???
Wondercoin
P.S.
"Any speculation on PCGS' version of that holder???"
Seth - Not sure what you are asking?
<< <i>Seth the first 22 coins I sent in were all graded SF69.... the next 10 coins all SF69 including a KS-P and WV-D (pop 2 now). I nailed the whole 2005 satin finish set in MS69 by submitting only 32 coins. >>
Doug,
I'm sure the coins you picked out where all top notch for the first 32 coins you submitted. I'm sure you have found more of the same quality coins as mentioned above since these first two submissions. Do you think you could go 32 for 32 today
Michael
<< <i>Seth the first 22 coins I sent in were all graded SF69.... the next 10 coins all SF69 including a KS-P and WV-D (pop 2 now). I nailed the whole 2005 satin finish set in MS69 by submitting only 32 coins. From 1999 thru 2004 I have only made 3-4 coins in MS69 and I search hundreds of mint sets each year. Clearly the landscape changed with the release of the 2005 mint sets. I have never attempted to do a bulk submittal. My curiosity and wallet have been intriqued about the bulk submittal coin program. Yes Mitch I am still going to collect SF and will buy SF coins in the top grades if I do not find them myself. I am curious if a collectors club member can do a bulk submittal or if you need to be a PCGS dealer? Bulk submittal seems to be the more economic and effective way to handle a several hundred mint set order that I do each year and if last year holds true the best SF results will be from the original release of mint sets in 2006 submitted in a bulk batch. dr >>
Doug: I remember hearing about your impressive 2005 SF submissions. Sounds like you did well.
You'd have to ask Mitch about bulk submissions. I still do it the old fashioned way. I must admit that it's been a lot harder to come up with the top grade "D" mint issues that the bulk submitters get. There are 185/0 2005 D Kennedy PCGS MS68 SF's and I have yet to make just one. The ratios have not been in favor of the regular submitter in this case. On the other hand, I've made 5 of the P KS 69SF where there's only 33. Granted, those are the extremes, but the "D" side might have yielded different #'s in a Bulk Submission IMHO. I understand that Mitch disagrees with this and we've agreed to disagree I believe.
<< <i> Wondercoin P.S. "Any speculation on PCGS' version of that holder???" Seth - Not sure what you are asking? >>
I'm wondering if PCGS will be doing a similar holder that shows the rim, floats, impervious, etc???