Every year there are various surfaces that get produced. These are mostly unintentional and occur because of differences in the way planchets and dies are produced. Including these even in the varieties set would be a nightmare even if they could be distinguished with 100% accuracy.
But the SF coins are a fairly distinct and intentional BU coin. An argument certainly exists they are a legitimate part of the series. Afterall, the mint set coins contribute many of the coins in the registry sets to date.
"If PCGS cleans up the mess with the mislabled coins, no protection will be needed."
Dan: I mentioned a page or two ago that I would feel much more comfortable if the situation was cleaned up. The clean up appears to be going well - in fact, perhaps far better than anyone could have imagined. Everything else you suggested follows after such a clean up - let's hope we get there.
FYI - My best guess is that I submitted around (100) SF state quarters to PCGS all of last year and close to that amount of non-SF coins as well. I haven't offered a SF coin for sale on my website ever. As a seller, I would likely make substantially more money if all (20) coins were required in the basic set or even if the non-SF were required only and the SF coins required elsewhere (a point mentioned here pages ago). Now, you suggest the opposite is the case. Whatever. If I couldn't take the "heat", I wouldn't have posted this thread in the first place. In any event, a fabulous clean up effort is underway now and, of course, after upwards of 500 problem coins are "cleaned up", like everyone else, I will reconsider the situation at that point.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>In any event, a fabulous clean up effort is underway now and, of course, after upwards of 500 problem coins are "cleaned up", like everyone else, I will reconsider the situation at that point. >>
Maybe I'm missing something, but has PCGS done anything to clean up the problem coins? Yes, you and others have helped, prodded and encouraged PCGS to clean up their population reports but these were not problem coins just data entery problems.
I understand and agree that the population reports is a good first step but this only deals with the coins in those "ugly" bulk Satin Finish holders that PCGS entered into their data base as non-SF. What about the "wolves in sheep clothings" that are still out there? I'm referring to the 2005 PCGS holders that are not marked as Satin Finish which indeed have a Satin Finish coin in it. Has PCGS done anything about these coins?
I for one, used to have convidence in PCGS and have bought many coins over the years sight unseen, based on the guarntee of PCGS and the belief that they were the best of the TPG. I have to admit, that that belief is starting to be questioned. I quess I will have to wait, as someone else suggested, and see if PCGS actually steps up to the plate and fixes these problems. I hope you and the other members that have written here will keep the preasure up and make sure PCGS fixes the problem coins as well as the data entery problems of the population report.
Okay, here's dumb question and pardon me if someone has already addressed it but will PCGS put the Nevada coins in SF holders if they look like satin finish? Will they only do this once the sets satin sets have been released? There are several potential implications here but I had to ask the opinion of "the board"
<< <i>Okay, here's dumb question and pardon me if someone has already addressed it but will PCGS put the Nevada coins in SF holders if they look like satin finish? Will they only do this once the sets satin sets have been released? There are several potential implications here but I had to ask the opinion of "the board" >>
Considering that the 2006 Satin Finish sets haven 't even been released yet, I think it would be hard pressed for PCGS to screw that one up. But by the way PCGS has handled 2005 Satin Finish coins, maybe the rule of the day would be "Anything Goes". I don't mean to sound cynical, but my convidence in PCGS has been going down hill ever since the posting of this thread.
Coinfame About the 05-P 67FB we talked about earlier in this thread. I have the coin in hand now, and it is indeed a business strike coin. But like you I thought from the picture on ebay that it may have been a SF that was labled wrong..
<< <i>Coinfame About the 05-P 67FB we talked about earlier in this thread. I have the coin in hand now, and it is indeed a business strike coin. But like you I thought from the picture on ebay that it may have been a SF that was labled wrong.. >>
Dan50: Thanks for the update on that dime. Even though there are only a few listed as business strike, I believe that 67FB is likely very rare and a worthy grade for your business strike set. Congratulations on a good buy!
<< <i>Okay, here's dumb question and pardon me if someone has already addressed it but will PCGS put the Nevada coins in SF holders if they look like satin finish? Will they only do this once the sets satin sets have been released? There are several potential implications here but I had to ask the opinion of "the board" >>
Guess we need to keep a watch on the Pop report? 2005 coin clean up under way, surveillance of the 2006 coins begins.
After reviewing the "so called" SF coins found in a mint bag, I agree 100% with Mark. This coin is NOT a SF coin.
<< <i>Every year there are various surfaces that get produced. These are mostly unintentional and occur because of differences in the way planchets and dies are produced. Including these even in the varieties set would be a nightmare even if they could be distinguished with 100% accuracy. >>
As cladking stated we do see some different surfaces throughout our search for coins. But none of these are intentional by the mint? SF coins are intentional and produced with specially prepared dies? Just as a Matte finish 94 / 97 Jefferson nickel and so on? so no argument on Designating a coin SF and a Circulation Strike as it has been numbered in previous years.
SF coins Need a home and Circulation strike coins need a home as well , they do have a different PCGS coin #? How can PCGS collect grading fees on coins and NOT have a place for them in the Registry Driven market that was created? Either / Or Just does not work. 2006 coins will be hitting PCGS for grading, if not already there, We need to know what the deal?
"How can PCGS collect grading fees on coins and NOT have a place for them in the Registry Driven market that was created?"
Mas - More PCGS bashing. Give it a rest. You promised 100-150 posts ago you were finished with this. I'll do the same so we can concentrate on finishing up the clean up.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I will immediately preface my remarks by saying that currently I am not in the market for coins (stupid kids all expect a college education... ). But if I were and I wanted to buy some more clad dimes, a collection I truly like, I would like to buy true MS 2005 coins not SF coins. However, I would be very fearful about making this purchase at this time because I am concerned that I would pay a hefty price for what is on the label an MS coin when, in reality, it is SF and when PCGS might, at some time, correct the error so that my coin becomes SF in their database.
PCGS apparently calls this sort of error a "mechanical error." I disagree. Personally, I think a mechanical error occurs when PCGS slabs a quarter and the database and insert call the coin a dime or when PCGS slabs a coin and the database and the insert give the wrong mintmark. In other words, I implicitly define a mechanical error as an error that is immediately obvious to even an unskilled collector. But I worry that the difference between the SF and MS coins is not something that is immediately obvious to an unskilled collector. Rather, the collector must have seen several (many?) SF coins and must keep this memory firmly in mind when he or she is trying to buy a MS coin. Yeah, I know: Everyone should be able to grade for himself or herself. But to simply state that phrase is to ignore the reality that not everyone can grade for himself or herself and many collectors do rely on PCGS (or NGC or etc.). So I think I do NOT define as a mechanical error as occuring PCGS slabbing a SF coin as MS. My view is that if a collector buys an improperly labeled SF coin as MS, then PCGS through its guarantee should stand ready to make up the diference in value in exactly the same way PCGS does whenever a coin is downgraded. Without this guarantee and in the presence of database and insert errors, I worry that PCGS's errors will diminish the demand for many modern coin sets and thereby decrease the demand for PCGS incapsulated coins.
<< <i>Mas - More PCGS bashing. Give it a rest. You promised 100-150 posts ago you were finished with this. I'll do the same so we can concentrate on finishing up the clean up. >>
Here we go again
Wondercoin - PCGS Bashing? Don't think so. More like looking for answers? Almost 1 year after the first Circulation Strike 2005 coin was graded we are with Either / Or. We are now moving foward with 2006 coins, We are still out in the Dark.
<< <i>Tim: And, just when I was admittedly beginning to feel comfortable about the developing situation, your post makes me feel uncomfortable again. >>
<< <i>I'll follow up with the powers that be on Monday right after the Long Beach show concludes. >>
Dear Wondercoin,
Attached is one of wolves in sheep's clothing that I was speaking of. Is this coin a satin finish? Does PCGS knows about this coin, what steps have they taken to correct it? When are they going to take steps to correct it?
I'm not trying to bash PCGS here, but for nearly one month now (just in this thread) you and other members have been trying to get PCGS to clean up just the population reports let alone the problem coins. What action if any has PCGS undertaken? If I were you or the other members, I would feel like banging my head against the wall in dis - believe. Like I said before, my hat is off to all that have tried to help PCGS out with these reports, but I'm beginning to doubt if PCGS will ever step up to the plate and take care of the problem coins.
You and I have disagreed over the fact of the either / or policy of PCGS in regards to allowing the SF coins in the circulation strike sets, but for the most part, it has been civil. I don't know MAS 3387, never met him and never bought anything from him. MAS 3387 is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else here. From his posts that I've read, it is obvious that MAS 3397 is passionate about his view point and he has made several good points against the either / or solution of PCGS. I'm really strarting to believe that PCGS realizes the problem they created with the satin finish coins and the either / or policy is just about "convenience and economics" with them (I hope I am wrong).
Please remember, in order to debate an issue, you have to be willing to listen to an opposite point of view and then articulated your comments either against or in support of. To say that you will not respond to someone's comments is again like the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.”
Tim: Fair enough. I have found your posts to be very thoughtful.
Addressing your question - I spoke with Laura lasty week at PCGS and she assured me the work was well underway to clean up the first roughly 200 "problems" and that they simply needed the blessing on Ron Guth on an issue or two. Carol even joined in the thread here providing even further reassurance things were in motion. Since the Long Beach show was all this week, I assumed Ron would be back in the office on Monday.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
but I'm beginning to doubt if PCGS will ever step up to the plate and take care of the problem coins.
I'm not sure that they won't step up and take care of this problem, but they sure seem to be taking their sweet time about it.
You and I have disagreed over the fact of the either / or policy of PCGS in regards to allowing the SF coins in the circulation strike sets, but for the most part, it has been civil. I don't know MAS 3387, never met him and never bought anything from him. MAS 3387 is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else here. From his posts that I've read, it is obvious that MAS 3397 is passionate about his view point and he has made several good points against the either / or solution of PCGS. I'm really strarting to believe that PCGS realizes the problem they created with the satin finish coins and the either / or policy is just about "convenience and economics" with them (I hope I am
Tim we don't know each other, but for what this is worth..... I have met with mas on the phone, and thru the internet. Been dealing with him for a few years now. He's a stand up guy. Honest as they come. I have purchased many coins from him, and hope to continue doing so in the future. I will hopefully have the pleasure of meeting him in person some day. As far as pcgs' addition of the sf coins to the registry, I happen to think it was all about "convenience and economics". I did happen to find a home for the ones I have. In the 05 mint set registry. I don't know if I will finish the set, but that is where they truly belong. If not there, maybe in someone else' collection.
Please remember, in order to debate an issue, you have to be willing to listen to an opposite point of view and then articulated your comments either against or in support of. To say that you will not respond to someone's comments is again like the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.”
"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"
Seth: I have examined your sample "p" mint coin you sent to me. I believe you mentioned the above submission results were from the same look coins from the same bag as the coin you sent to me? Without question, the coin you sent to me is a business strike coin and not SF. Yes, it has a "satiny" textured surface (the very same look as the special 1999 CT roll coins that achieved MS67 and MS68 grades at PCGS a few years back which I mentioned previously in this thread). These coins are lovely business strikes when they look this way. This was the point I was making a few pages back when I stated that some of the 1999 roll coins look nothing like the Mint set coins- they have this exact "satiny" textured surface as these. This "p" mint Oregon looks nothing like the "d" mint business strike OR you sent me - yet both are business strikes.
If you wanted to get technical about it - you could easily differentiate the business strike coins into the "satiny" (often found in rolls) and the hard, deeply reflective surface strikes (found generally in mint sets). Seth and Mark - you agree the "p" Mint Oregon surfaces looks nothing like the "d" mint Oregon surfaces - despite both being business strikes to be sure?
Thanks for sending me off these (2) coins Seth.
Wondercoin
P.S. With Seth's permission - if anyone else who has participated in this thread would like to examine (2) distinctly different business strike surfaced coins - I would be happy to forward on these (2) coins to you - just PM me with your address.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Mitch: Thank you for confirmation of the coin's Business Strike heritage. When examining the strike I have to agree with you. I believe these P's were struck as business strike coins and yes, they look vastly different than the "D". The look of the "P" is very nice, but weaker in the strike than the SF.
A point I would like to re-state is that I don't think the PCGS grader knew the difference as evidenced by the "Satin Finish" on the labels. In this case, I was concerned that to ask for change, it would have looked like I was trying to pull one over on them. Even though I was right, I didn't want to have any question of my honesty and integrity. In this case, based on their opinion and the look of the coin, it didn't seem like it was in my best interest to argue the point.
I doubt this particular issue will come up again for me, but if it does, we'll press them to correct it.
Mas - More PCGS bashing. Give it a rest. You promised 100-150 posts ago you were finished with this. I'll do the same so we can concentrate on finishing up the clean up.
since you really like the HumpBack Bison I thought I'd share the latest part of the heard that just arrived from ANACS in the new holder. This is the only coin Graded MS67 to the best of my Knowledge. We need that Variety set, these coins need a home as well.
Cool feature with the new slab is that you can see the date, denomination, and grade without removing them from the box.
Mas: Nice high grade slab. I also just saw a few ANACS coins from 2005 that were incredible specimens of an MS70 Kansas "p" and Oregon "d" (SF of course) to name a few. I believe some of these coins are the finest quality known specimens of these state quarters period - regardless of a holder. And, what a pleasure to see an MS70 Kansas - regardless of what finish it has on the surface!
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>In any event, a fabulous clean up effort is underway now and, of course, after upwards of 500 problem coins are "cleaned up", like everyone else, I will reconsider the situation at that point. >>
I emailed Carol yesterday and left a phone message for Laura Rosenberg the customer service manager and I have no return call or response as of yet today. I am hoping at least we get a time frame for a response so we can manage our expectations.
Mass I found three "snort" buffaloe in my last box of KS-P along with some magnificent coins I am expecting high grades. The die gouge is very large and right on the nose and moves out from the face so looks like a farmer blow. So obvious to the naked eye it appears that the mint must have cleaned them up some how since there were only three in the whole box. ANAC's historically has recognized varieties and PCGS years later then decides to include some and not others and I have no idea the process involved. I was able to ask David Hall personally about the washington quarter type B and C reverse varieties and why PCGS did not recognize them and David stated he did not think there was sufficient market demand for them. How about a trade of a rare snort buffalo for a hump-back! I think the hump back is cool and would like to obtain one. dr
Doug: I expect that coin to also drop 33-50% off last ebay sales price soon. No big surprise. I understand some serious "production" has also begun on 2005 non-SF state quarters in light of the exhuberant pricing that a few of the "hunters" have enjoyed. I would not be surprised if many of these MS67 and MS68 "great scarcities" enjoy much, much higher pops in the months ahead. Which will be great news to many considering the state quarter variety set later this year. And, of course, I will let you know if I get in any super dooper "business strike" 2005 state quarters.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
It doesn't look like they are in any hurry to take care of your calls Doug, have to wonder what the hold up is, since others did most of their legwork for them. Seems to me they could take care of most of the data entry problems in a day. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Doug: I expect that coin to also drop 33-50% off last ebay sales price soon. No big surprise. I understand some serious "production" has also begun on 2005 non-SF state quarters in light of the exhuberant pricing that a few of the "hunters" have enjoyed. I would not be surprised if many of these MS67 and MS68 "great scarcities" enjoy much, much higher pops in the months ahead. Which will be great news to many considering the state quarter variety set later this year. And, of course, I will let you know if I get in any super dooper "business strike" 2005 state quarters.
Mitch I have one question. Do you truly love coins, or do you just love to exploit those of us that do? Seems to me your true motivation is money, and maybe the status that comes with it, possibly the reason why you have so many high grade sets in the registry? I work my a _ _ off for the $ I have spent on my collection, and it sure doesn't give me a nice feeling to hear statements like yours.
" it sure doesn't give me a nice feeling to hear statements like yours. "
Perhaps you'll have a better feeling if and when my comment turns out to be accurate later this year. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to remember the "rare" $400 2004 MI(d) MS68 state quarters that are now trading at $18? Sorry RB - but, $425 for a KS(p) MS67 non-SF will not hold up IMHO. Many MS state quarters are great buys IMHO at todays prices - just not a number of the 2005 non-SF. Since Doug digressed and was discussing a number of things other than pop clean up (including a trade of coins) and mentioned his KS(p) "score", my comment was more than appropriate, even though it may have bothered you to think about the unthinkable - a 2005 coin possibly losing 33-50% of its value in a short period of time. Your personal attacks simply demonstrate the entire weakness of your position.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I hope we can all agree that we can disagree and still be civil about it. I don't mind debating an issue, I will read anyone's comments and then post mine. Sometimes I have even been know to change or at least modify my original position on a subject based on the dialog. Let us keep open minds and state our cases and rebutals (but please reread your post before posting, civil tongues are always better).
All this talk of price droping on MS coins sounds like it's time to put my hat on from years past and start pumping out Proof coins and Commemorative's. Hey, not to much work involved here just a bank roll.
<< <i>All this talk of price droping on MS coins sounds like it's time to put my hat on from years past and start pumping out Proof coins and Commemorative's. Hey, not to much work involved here just a bank roll. >>
In all fairness, this is a great point! I've been recently working on 2005 business strikes and have gone through 1000's of coins. When you condense 10,000 quarters down to your favorite 20 where 2 are MS67, you have some tough coins. I think Doug is generous on the $10/hr number. Not to mention that most $10/hr workers don't need to buy their job for 5 figures...
Thanks for sharing. With the reports of how easy coins can be made I was considering doing a bit of roll searching but after reading your post it sounds like it's not so easy. Besides with prices falling through the floor, as reported, I'm going Proof 70 hunting.
I have not posted much (if at all) on this lengthy post...but I have been reading each and every post and I have to say that I have learned alot. It is a shame to see people getting really pissed off at one another but I guess that always happens when peoples opinions, interests and monies are involved.
Some of you may think this is a little outlandish...but I (like many others I'm sure) wonder each and every day when and if these "issues" that arise are ever going to get solved by PCGS. Since many "members" of PCGS get frustrated (including myself) because they never have a clear cut conduit to PCGS (by that I mean our opinions and ideas being heard), why doesn't PCGS consider putting together a "panel" or a "board of collectors/dealers/members" that can help to relay our information/ideas/concerns/suggestions to those at PCGS who make the decisions? Off hand, the only conduit I feel like I have is if I go to the Questions & Answers board and wait two months for an answer...that 95% of the time does not even come. We rant and rave here on the boards about non-SF vs. SF issues, coin placement in sets, building/creating new registry variety sets, coin pop adjustments...and the list goes on....but it seems the ideas don't always make it into the ears of the important people at PCGS. I think a voted-in panel of "members" (by the members) would really make sense to me. I realize that many of you will say "just call customer service"...but come on...they can't handle all of these suggestions and make them happen. I pay $199 a year to be a member in this organization and so do 1000's of other people. I'd like to get more out of it than 8 free gradings. I'd like to see things changing...and changing because it's what the people WANT and not always whats best for PCGS. The least we could get is someone to listen to the great reasoning and ideas that arise here on the boards. I know there might be some sarcastic comments from that last sentence...but most of you will agree that some great ideas are born here on the boards. Since PCGS cannot listen to hundreds of people's opinions at the same time...they could be summarized and condensed by this panel of people and fed to PCGS for consideration. PCGS needs to give it's customers what they want...especially when it involves their registry.
Am I crazy? Or could something like this really work?
<< <i>why doesn't PCGS consider putting together a "panel" or a "board of collectors/dealers/members" that can help to relay our information/ideas/concerns/suggestions to those at PCGS who make the decisions? >>
I had a conference call with David Hall and Ron Guth this afternoon.
1. Clean up of state quarter pop reports is ongoing internally at PCGS.
2. Variety set of state quarters (including all SF and non SF coins as well as WI varieties) will launch in the near future (no 100% guarantee, but it sounded to me like a target date of roughly 15-30 days).
3. I strongly supported PCGS continuing to designate SF and non-SF on holders as opposed to suggestions PCGS appears to have received recently to simply grade 2005 coins without designating the coins at all on the holders (DH also made it clear that he wasn't the least bit concerned with any "liability" issues in grading these coins, but, only what was best for the hobby).
4. I was not in favor of adding an additional (third) designation to the coins - "Strong Satin", "Weak Satin" and non-SF, which was another idea that had been presented to PCGS.
I was very pleased to see the time and energy being expended at PCGS over this issue at the highest levels.
Comments?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Toby: And, I suspect they can not have (25) separate conference calls on a given day either. I, too, like your idea of a Committee comprised of collectors and dealers to present ideas to PCGS concerning inclusion of additional varieties in the Registry sets, etc. Doug Rall mentioned the Type B reverses of Washington Silver Quarters - I would like to see those coins recognized as well.
Wondercoin
P.S. Mas - I received the call (unsolicited). Again, I was pleased to see the effort being expended on trying to get the difficult issue of SF and non-SF right.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I am curious how a full scale hunt for MS2005 will result. Still some unsearched material offered on e-bay for 2005 so may not be too late to find some quantity of unsearched material to look thru. No doubt the more unsearched material that gets searched the more high grade coins will be found..... the question is how efficiently this can occur so that those working full time to find them can get paid or not so it is a risk to a hunter to do this and not a slam dunk. I know this because it was my ninth $500 box of KS-P I spoke of that started this dialogue and the first eight boxes only produced two coins in 67 so like I said not always as easy to find them as it appears and I do not have results for that ninth box (five coins submitted) and as we all know PCGS can be very tough. In the past the mint sets contributed greatly to the rise of the pop report for states and mint marks that could be found in super gem in the mint sets and that is exactly what happened in Mitch's example above with the MI-D and all other D mints that year because the mint sets were so nice with the D mints that year. 2005 is a new deal without the mint sets to fall back on like in previous years so in my mind it is really an unknown how a full scale bag and roll hunt will result. Mitch in the hunt do not forget to go after the 2006 material as that will be a benefit to us MS gurus inasmuch as the more that are found the better pricing structure to the collector and everyone likes cheaper coins if they can get them, especially if they do not already own one! Personally I am not at all worried about a massive roll and bag hunt for 2005, I believe the finders that do this will have a tough time of it but I would not want to discourage them from trying. As I said earlier, the more hunters the merrier for me as I am not a profit oriented hunter myself and the more competition and the more coins found will only allow more collectors to collect all 20 each year and I think that would be helpful to the hobby and the industry and PCGS and I am in support of professional hunters like Seth and Mass and Mark and Donn and others going thru MS coins and not just mint sets. I think a greater appreciation of roll and bag coins will result from the process. As always I appreciate everyone elses opinions too, especially when we are all waiting for a PCGS rsponse to the pop report clean-up and registry issues. Carol did email me back to say the issue is entirely in Ron's hands at this time so who knows maybe there is a board policy decision involved in this so I will continue to be patient. dr
Thanks for the update on the PCGS conference call Mitch... I suspected there was important policy decision involved in this and the level of your conversation confirms that. dr
Doug/Mas/others - I assume you are also in agreement that a "heavy" and "light" SF designation for 2005 state quarters (i.e. 5 additional SF variety coins) would not be anything you guys would be interested in?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
I would like to clarify my position(s) on the Satin Finish verses Non Satin Finish issue. There are several threads on the Registry Forum that all deal with this issue. Please feel free to disagree with me on any / all view points that I will make.
1. The registry, from the arguments that have been made on the above mentioned threads; I believe that it is the consensus that a majority of the members want PCGS to clean up their population reports first, period end of sentence. Several members, yourself included, have offered information to PCGS to do this. The biggest problem the way I understand this situation, are the ‘ugly’ Satin Finish holders that do not have the coin number on it and which PCGS has entered into their data base as Non Satin Finish
2. The guarantee, PCGS needs to clearly state what their guarantee is and is not. This should be in plain language so there is no room for doubt or misunderstandings as to what is covered by the guarantee. Most members don’t want to hear about “Mechanical Errors” or any other excuses, does the guarantee provide for sight unseen transactions as the original purpose stated or not. What service is attributed to the PCGS label? If PCGS wants us (the collectors) to have faith and respect in their product then they need to stand behind it with a guarantee; that the holder is saying what coin is in the holder by the label, that the coin was evaluated by a professional unbiased third party, that the opinion of this professional third party has been verified by another grader who also is a professional unbiased third party coin grader and that the holder had been scrutinized by a Quality Control Examiner checking to make sure that the information on the holder matches up to the coin inside.
3. Circulation Strike Set in the registry, Satin Finish verses Business Strikes, I’m still not convinced that PCGS has done the right thing in allowing an either / or solution. I also have reservation that this solution is just about convenience and economics, my reasoning here is by allowing the either / or solution this will keep the value of the Business Strike coin artificially low in value because the value of a coin is based on supply and demand economics (If Business Strike coins are not required then collectors will not be competing for them). On the convenience side of my reasoning, I base this on the fact that as long as the either / or solution is in effect then PCGS is not forced to clean up the population report or getting the so called “wolves in sheep’s clothing” coins off of the market (I am referring to the satin finish coins in holder not marked as satin finish). When they are required to get the “wolves” off the market, again the value of the coin will be cheaper for PCGS to do so. Again, show me where I’m wrong? Were the Satin Finish coins of 2005 struck with a “Proof Die”? What is the definition of a “Proof Die”? For a definition, I am willing to use the one that PCGS has on it Lingo page. If the Satin Finish coins were struck with a "Proof Die" by definition, would this not disqualify them from a Circulation Strike Set?
4. PCGS has designated four different class of coins minted in 2005 and has assigned a unique coin number for each; Silver Proofs, Regular Proofs, Satin Finish and Circulation Strikes. How come within the Registry, when a set is purporting to be a complete set, only examples of three classes of 2005 coins are required instead of all four (I am referring to Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Set 1964-Present). If all four classes of coins for 2005 were required for Complete Sets, I believe that it would not fit into PCGS’s plans to keep the value of Circulation Strikes down or support the position of the either / or solution as it applies to set purporting to be Circulation Strikes.
5. Value of circulation strikes, it has been suggested that the value will go down by up to 50%. Maybe they will, remember the value of anything is determined by the principle of “supply and demand”. If more high quality circulated strike coins are found where else can the price go? But by having the either / or policy on SF verses Circulation Strikes, isn’t the demand of circulation strikes being artificially kept low causing the value to remain low? If people stop looking for high quality circulation strikes, then what will be available when PCGS does the right thing and only allow circulation strikes is set purporting to be the same.
Again, I am only throwing thoughts out here for discussion, debate and hopefully everyone can look at “both sides of the coin”.
<< <i>I am curious how a full scale hunt for MS2005 will result. Still some unsearched material offered on e-bay for 2005 so may not be too late to find some quantity of unsearched material to look thru. No doubt the more unsearched material that gets searched the more high grade coins will be found..... the question is how efficiently this can occur so that those working full time to find them can get paid or not so it is a risk to a hunter to do this and not a slam dunk. I know this because it was my ninth $500 box of KS-P I spoke of that started this dialogue and the first eight boxes only produced two coins in 67 so like I said not always as easy to find them as it appears and I do not have results for that ninth box (five coins submitted) and as we all know PCGS can be very tough. dr >>
(Partial Quote)
Doug: You and I spoke in late 2005 about the business strikes. 16,000 coins for (2) MS67 coins is my exact reason for my slow start on the hunt. Rarity is one thing, but if I threw my time in for free, it would have cost me over $1,000 in premium above the face value in order to find two coins that seem to have recently closed for around $400. (Mitch seems to think that the coin will go down in value. Now I know there are 66's in there that might be worth a few $ above grading, but my math of $800 received for $1,000+ spent tell me that the buyer of the $400 coin is getting a deal, especially when there are few in existence.
This is a very important point. You work very diligently and patiently to find the quality coins you do and you're putting them in your collection. Spare time is relative, so I'll just say that you're a champion for finding and spending the time you do. If you share the other MS67 with another person for $400, you're being very generous. It shows that to find business strike coins worthy of that price, you have to work hard for it and be willing to lose $$$. It makes me want to go buy them up in top grade as they're quickly vanishing.
In any event, you aren't giving PCGS 16,000 coins to give you back 100 PR70 and 15,900 PR69. There's real work involved and I believe that 2005 Business Strike PCGS State Quarters in High Grade with conditional rarity will indeed command a greater price in a relatively short amount of time.
Congrats on finding all the coins you do. I'm starting a little late with Nevada, but I'm joining the fray at last.
Seth: And "that's what makes a horserace". Over on the US Coin Forum yesterday there was a thread concerning the record low MS mintage for $100 Plats from 2005 and (1) member was viewing that as a super buying opportunity while another member was pondering it as a selling opportunity.
Today, I got an email from someone asking me if I would be interested in (25) MS67 (non-SF) KS(p) state quarters from what appeared to be an 8,000 coin hoard that was being sorted. I assumed it was a proposed presale of the coins.
What is great is later this year, we will see if these KS(p) coins move up from the $400-$425 level or down. You may be right or I may be right when we revisit the issue this Summer. I'll have fun either way.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Personally I do not like the idea of any further designations on the SF coins like light or heavy et al .. let the collector use his own judgement on these eye appeal issues for now. As the SF collector group grows there may be a grass roots effort to establish sub-designations and that can be done in the future like the cameo designation if the collectors demand it. As it is now it is not a good idea to establish any sub-categories until the proficiency level increases to a point where the main SF designation is 100% accurate. Laura Rosenberg the customer service manager did call me to discuss some issues on the clean-up. She wanted to be sure the clean up did not result in any inconsistencies between coins in the field and the PCGS data base. If you follow the thread back this is a type 2 example that I knew PCGS would have a hard time with like the bison nickel. I assured her that the two large batches (POW and BRC) we are lobbying for clean-up are in SF holders and no inconsistent coin number on the holder and hence the only thing inconsistent is the data base so just clean up the data base and the coins in the field and the data base will be consistent with each other as Ron wants to be sure of. I re-emailed her a scan of a bulk SF holder so she can see for herself the proposed clean up of these two batches eliminates the inconsistency and does not create it. I asked Laura to "go upstairs" to be sure the policy makers at PCGS understand this is to clean up inconsistency and not to create it. I am happy that we still have PCGS attention and they are diligently working on this. dr
Comments
and occur because of differences in the way planchets and dies are produced. Including
these even in the varieties set would be a nightmare even if they could be distinguished
with 100% accuracy.
But the SF coins are a fairly distinct and intentional BU coin. An argument certainly exists
they are a legitimate part of the series. Afterall, the mint set coins contribute many of the
coins in the registry sets to date.
Dan: I mentioned a page or two ago that I would feel much more comfortable if the situation was cleaned up. The clean up appears to be going well - in fact, perhaps far better than anyone could have imagined. Everything else you suggested follows after such a clean up - let's hope we get there.
FYI - My best guess is that I submitted around (100) SF state quarters to PCGS all of last year and close to that amount of non-SF coins as well. I haven't offered a SF coin for sale on my website ever. As a seller, I would likely make substantially more money if all (20) coins were required in the basic set or even if the non-SF were required only and the SF coins required elsewhere (a point mentioned here pages ago). Now, you suggest the opposite is the case. Whatever. If I couldn't take the "heat", I wouldn't have posted this thread in the first place. In any event, a fabulous clean up effort is underway now and, of course, after upwards of 500 problem coins are "cleaned up", like everyone else, I will reconsider the situation at that point.
Wondercoin
You last wrote,
<< <i>In any event, a fabulous clean up effort is underway now and, of course, after upwards of 500 problem coins are "cleaned up", like everyone else, I will reconsider the situation at that point. >>
Maybe I'm missing something, but has PCGS done anything to clean up the problem coins? Yes, you and others have helped, prodded and encouraged PCGS to clean up their population reports but these were not problem coins just data entery problems.
I understand and agree that the population reports is a good first step but this only deals with the coins in those "ugly" bulk Satin Finish holders that PCGS entered into their data base as non-SF. What about the "wolves in sheep clothings" that are still out there? I'm referring to the 2005 PCGS holders that are not marked as Satin Finish which indeed have a Satin Finish coin in it. Has PCGS done anything about these coins?
I for one, used to have convidence in PCGS and have bought many coins over the years sight unseen, based on the guarntee of PCGS and the belief that they were the best of the TPG. I have to admit, that that belief is starting to be questioned. I quess I will have to wait, as someone else suggested, and see if PCGS actually steps up to the plate and fixes these problems. I hope you and the other members that have written here will keep the preasure up and make sure PCGS fixes the problem coins as well as the data entery problems of the population report.
Sincerely,
Timothy A. Clough
I'll follow up with the powers that be on Monday right after the Long Beach show concludes.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
<< <i>Okay, here's dumb question and pardon me if someone has already addressed it but will PCGS put the Nevada coins in SF holders if they look like satin finish? Will they only do this once the sets satin sets have been released? There are several potential implications here but I had to ask the opinion of "the board" >>
Considering that the 2006 Satin Finish sets haven 't even been released yet, I think it would be hard pressed for PCGS to screw that one up. But by the way PCGS has handled 2005 Satin Finish coins, maybe the rule of the day would be "Anything Goes". I don't mean to sound cynical, but my convidence in PCGS has been going down hill ever since the posting of this thread.
Good luck,
Tim
About the 05-P 67FB we talked about earlier in this thread. I have the coin in hand now, and it is indeed a business strike coin. But like you I thought from the picture on ebay that it may have been a SF that was labled wrong..
<< <i>Coinfame
About the 05-P 67FB we talked about earlier in this thread. I have the coin in hand now, and it is indeed a business strike coin. But like you I thought from the picture on ebay that it may have been a SF that was labled wrong.. >>
Dan50: Thanks for the update on that dime. Even though there are only a few listed as business strike, I believe that 67FB is likely very rare and a worthy grade for your business strike set. Congratulations on a good buy!
<< <i>Okay, here's dumb question and pardon me if someone has already addressed it but will PCGS put the Nevada coins in SF holders if they look like satin finish? Will they only do this once the sets satin sets have been released? There are several potential implications here but I had to ask the opinion of "the board" >>
Guess we need to keep a watch on the Pop report? 2005 coin clean up under way, surveillance of the 2006 coins begins.
After reviewing the "so called" SF coins found in a mint bag, I agree 100% with Mark. This coin is NOT a SF coin.
<< <i>Every year there are various surfaces that get produced. These are mostly unintentional
and occur because of differences in the way planchets and dies are produced. Including
these even in the varieties set would be a nightmare even if they could be distinguished
with 100% accuracy. >>
As cladking stated we do see some different surfaces throughout our search for coins. But none of these are intentional by the mint? SF coins are intentional and produced with specially prepared dies? Just as a Matte finish 94 / 97 Jefferson nickel and so on? so no argument on Designating a coin SF and a Circulation Strike as it has been numbered in previous years.
SF coins Need a home and Circulation strike coins need a home as well , they do have a different PCGS coin #? How can PCGS collect grading fees on coins and NOT have a place for them in the Registry Driven market that was created? Either / Or Just does not work. 2006 coins will be hitting PCGS for grading, if not already there, We need to know what the deal?
Mas - More PCGS bashing. Give it a rest. You promised 100-150 posts ago you were finished with this. I'll do the same so we can concentrate on finishing up the clean up.
Wondercoin
I will immediately preface my remarks by saying that currently I am not in the market for coins (stupid kids all expect a college education...
PCGS apparently calls this sort of error a "mechanical error." I disagree. Personally, I think a mechanical error occurs when PCGS slabs a quarter and the database and insert call the coin a dime or when PCGS slabs a coin and the database and the insert give the wrong mintmark. In other words, I implicitly define a mechanical error as an error that is immediately obvious to even an unskilled collector. But I worry that the difference between the SF and MS coins is not something that is immediately obvious to an unskilled collector. Rather, the collector must have seen several (many?) SF coins and must keep this memory firmly in mind when he or she is trying to buy a MS coin. Yeah, I know: Everyone should be able to grade for himself or herself. But to simply state that phrase is to ignore the reality that not everyone can grade for himself or herself and many collectors do rely on PCGS (or NGC or etc.). So I think I do NOT define as a mechanical error as occuring PCGS slabbing a SF coin as MS. My view is that if a collector buys an improperly labeled SF coin as MS, then PCGS through its guarantee should stand ready to make up the diference in value in exactly the same way PCGS does whenever a coin is downgraded. Without this guarantee and in the presence of database and insert errors, I worry that PCGS's errors will diminish the demand for many modern coin sets and thereby decrease the demand for PCGS incapsulated coins.
Mark
<< <i>Mas - More PCGS bashing. Give it a rest. You promised 100-150 posts ago you were finished with this. I'll do the same so we can concentrate on finishing up the clean up. >>
Here we go again
Wondercoin - PCGS Bashing? Don't think so. More like looking for answers? Almost 1 year after the first Circulation Strike 2005 coin was graded we are with Either / Or. We are now moving foward with 2006 coins, We are still out in the Dark.
<< <i>Tim: And, just when I was admittedly beginning to feel comfortable about the developing situation, your post makes me feel uncomfortable again. >>
<< <i>I'll follow up with the powers that be on Monday right after the Long Beach show concludes. >>
Dear Wondercoin,
Attached is one of wolves in sheep's clothing that I was speaking of. Is this coin a satin finish? Does PCGS knows about this coin, what steps have they taken to correct it? When are they going to take steps to correct it?
I'm not trying to bash PCGS here, but for nearly one month now (just in this thread) you and other members have been trying to get PCGS to clean up just the population reports let alone the problem coins. What action if any has PCGS undertaken? If I were you or the other members, I would feel like banging my head against the wall in dis - believe. Like I said before, my hat is off to all that have tried to help PCGS out with these reports, but I'm beginning to doubt if PCGS will ever step up to the plate and take care of the problem coins.
You and I have disagreed over the fact of the either / or policy of PCGS in regards to allowing the SF coins in the circulation strike sets, but for the most part, it has been civil. I don't know MAS 3387, never met him and never bought anything from him. MAS 3387 is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else here. From his posts that I've read, it is obvious that MAS 3397 is passionate about his view point and he has made several good points against the either / or solution of PCGS. I'm really strarting to believe that PCGS realizes the problem they created with the satin finish coins and the either / or policy is just about "convenience and economics" with them (I hope I am wrong).
Please remember, in order to debate an issue, you have to be willing to listen to an opposite point of view and then articulated your comments either against or in support of. To say that you will not respond to someone's comments is again like the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.”
Just my thoughts on the subject,
Tim
Addressing your question - I spoke with Laura lasty week at PCGS and she assured me the work was well underway to clean up the first roughly 200 "problems" and that they simply needed the blessing on Ron Guth on an issue or two. Carol even joined in the thread here providing even further reassurance things were in motion. Since the Long Beach show was all this week, I assumed Ron would be back in the office on Monday.
Wondercoin
I'm not sure that they won't step up and take care of this problem, but they sure seem to be taking their sweet time about it.
You and I have disagreed over the fact of the either / or policy of PCGS in regards to allowing the SF coins in the circulation strike sets, but for the most part, it has been civil. I don't know MAS 3387, never met him and never bought anything from him. MAS 3387 is entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else here. From his posts that I've read, it is obvious that MAS 3397 is passionate about his view point and he has made several good points against the either / or solution of PCGS. I'm really strarting to believe that PCGS realizes the problem they created with the satin finish coins and the either / or policy is just about "convenience and economics" with them (I hope I am
Tim we don't know each other, but for what this is worth..... I have met with mas on the phone, and thru the internet. Been dealing with him for a few years now. He's a stand up guy. Honest as they come. I have purchased many coins from him, and hope to continue doing so in the future. I will hopefully have the pleasure of meeting him in person some day. As far as pcgs' addition of the sf coins to the registry, I happen to think it was all about "convenience and economics". I did happen to find a home for the ones I have. In the 05 mint set registry. I don't know if I will finish the set, but that is where they truly belong. If not there, maybe in someone else' collection.
Please remember, in order to debate an issue, you have to be willing to listen to an opposite point of view and then articulated your comments either against or in support of. To say that you will not respond to someone's comments is again like the proverbial five year old, “If I can’t have my way I’m going to take my toys and go home.”
touche
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"
Seth: I have examined your sample "p" mint coin you sent to me. I believe you mentioned the above submission results were from the same look coins from the same bag as the coin you sent to me? Without question, the coin you sent to me is a business strike coin and not SF. Yes, it has a "satiny" textured surface (the very same look as the special 1999 CT roll coins that achieved MS67 and MS68 grades at PCGS a few years back which I mentioned previously in this thread). These coins are lovely business strikes when they look this way. This was the point I was making a few pages back when I stated that some of the 1999 roll coins look nothing like the Mint set coins- they have this exact "satiny" textured surface as these. This "p" mint Oregon looks nothing like the "d" mint business strike OR you sent me - yet both are business strikes.
If you wanted to get technical about it - you could easily differentiate the business strike coins into the "satiny" (often found in rolls) and the hard, deeply reflective surface strikes (found generally in mint sets). Seth and Mark - you agree the "p" Mint Oregon surfaces looks nothing like the "d" mint Oregon surfaces - despite both being business strikes to be sure?
Thanks for sending me off these (2) coins Seth.
Wondercoin
P.S. With Seth's permission - if anyone else who has participated in this thread would like to examine (2) distinctly different business strike surfaced coins - I would be happy to forward on these (2) coins to you - just PM me with your address.
A point I would like to re-state is that I don't think the PCGS grader knew the difference as evidenced by the "Satin Finish" on the labels. In this case, I was concerned that to ask for change, it would have looked like I was trying to pull one over on them. Even though I was right, I didn't want to have any question of my honesty and integrity. In this case, based on their opinion and the look of the coin, it didn't seem like it was in my best interest to argue the point.
I doubt this particular issue will come up again for me, but if it does, we'll press them to correct it.
Thanks again Mitch & Mark.
Wondercoin
Mas - are you making the cheerleader mad again?
since you really like the HumpBack Bison I thought I'd share the latest part of the heard that just arrived from ANACS in the new holder. This is the only coin Graded MS67 to the best of my Knowledge. We need that Variety set, these coins need a home as well.
Cool feature with the new slab is that you can see the date, denomination, and grade without removing them from the box.
Michael
Wondercoin
<< <i>Now THAT is way
Thanks for sharing both the GR8 coin and New Holder.
<< <i>In any event, a fabulous clean up effort is underway now and, of course, after upwards of 500 problem coins are "cleaned up", like everyone else, I will reconsider the situation at that point. >>
Updates on the Pop Report Clean up??
Mass I found three "snort" buffaloe in my last box of KS-P along with some magnificent coins I am expecting high grades. The die gouge is very large and right on the nose and moves out from the face so looks like a farmer blow. So obvious to the naked eye it appears that the mint must have cleaned them up some how since there were only three in the whole box. ANAC's historically has recognized varieties and PCGS years later then decides to include some and not others and I have no idea the process involved. I was able to ask David Hall personally about the washington quarter type B and C reverse varieties and why PCGS did not recognize them and David stated he did not think there was sufficient market demand for them. How about a trade of a rare snort buffalo for a hump-back! I think the hump back is cool and would like to obtain one. dr
Just My 2 cents:
Doug: I expect that coin to also drop 33-50% off last ebay sales price soon. No big surprise. I understand some serious "production" has also begun on 2005 non-SF state quarters in light of the exhuberant pricing that a few of the "hunters" have enjoyed. I would not be surprised if many of these MS67 and MS68 "great scarcities" enjoy much, much higher pops in the months ahead. Which will be great news to many considering the state quarter variety set later this year. And, of course, I will let you know if I get in any super dooper "business strike" 2005 state quarters.
Wondercoin
Mitch I have one question. Do you truly love coins, or do you just love to exploit those of us that do? Seems to me your true motivation is money, and maybe the status that comes with it, possibly the reason why you have so many high grade sets in the registry? I work my
a _ _ off for the $ I have spent on my collection, and it sure doesn't give me a nice feeling to hear statements like yours.
<< <i>Do you truly love coins, or do you just love to exploit those of us that do? >>
Sorry for jumping in here, but, I've watch this thread for some time, and now I am a little peeved.
This post is rude, and unaware or uninformed!
Perhaps you'll have a better feeling if and when my comment turns out to be accurate later this year. Perhaps you haven't been around long enough to remember the "rare" $400 2004 MI(d) MS68 state quarters that are now trading at $18? Sorry RB - but, $425 for a KS(p) MS67 non-SF will not hold up IMHO. Many MS state quarters are great buys IMHO at todays prices - just not a number of the 2005 non-SF. Since Doug digressed and was discussing a number of things other than pop clean up (including a trade of coins) and mentioned his KS(p) "score", my comment was more than appropriate, even though it may have bothered you to think about the unthinkable - a 2005 coin possibly losing 33-50% of its value in a short period of time. Your personal attacks simply demonstrate the entire weakness of your position.
Wondercoin
I hope we can all agree that we can disagree and still be civil about it. I don't mind debating an issue, I will read anyone's comments and then post mine. Sometimes I have even been know to change or at least modify my original position on a subject based on the dialog. Let us keep open minds and state our cases and rebutals (but please reread your post before posting, civil tongues are always better).
Sincerely,
Tim
Have a Humpback with your name on it
This way you will be prepared for the variety set. Figured I'd bring this up so we are still talking the issue
<< <i>All this talk of price droping on MS coins sounds like it's time to put my hat on from years past and start pumping out Proof coins and Commemorative's. Hey, not to much work involved here just a bank roll. >>
In all fairness, this is a great point! I've been recently working on 2005 business strikes and have gone through 1000's of coins. When you condense 10,000 quarters down to your favorite 20 where 2 are MS67, you have some tough coins. I think Doug is generous on the $10/hr number. Not to mention that most $10/hr workers don't need to buy their job for 5 figures...
Thanks for sharing. With the reports of how easy coins can be made I was considering doing a bit of roll searching but after reading your post it sounds like it's not so easy. Besides with prices falling through the floor, as reported, I'm going Proof 70 hunting.
mas3387
Some of you may think this is a little outlandish...but I (like many others I'm sure) wonder each and every day when and if these "issues" that arise are ever going to get solved by PCGS. Since many "members" of PCGS get frustrated (including myself) because they never have a clear cut conduit to PCGS (by that I mean our opinions and ideas being heard), why doesn't PCGS consider putting together a "panel" or a "board of collectors/dealers/members" that can help to relay our information/ideas/concerns/suggestions to those at PCGS who make the decisions? Off hand, the only conduit I feel like I have is if I go to the Questions & Answers board and wait two months for an answer...that 95% of the time does not even come. We rant and rave here on the boards about non-SF vs. SF issues, coin placement in sets, building/creating new registry variety sets, coin pop adjustments...and the list goes on....but it seems the ideas don't always make it into the ears of the important people at PCGS. I think a voted-in panel of "members" (by the members) would really make sense to me. I realize that many of you will say "just call customer service"...but come on...they can't handle all of these suggestions and make them happen. I pay $199 a year to be a member in this organization and so do 1000's of other people. I'd like to get more out of it than 8 free gradings. I'd like to see things changing...and changing because it's what the people WANT and not always whats best for PCGS. The least we could get is someone to listen to the great reasoning and ideas that arise here on the boards. I know there might be some sarcastic comments from that last sentence...but most of you will agree that some great ideas are born here on the boards. Since PCGS cannot listen to hundreds of people's opinions at the same time...they could be summarized and condensed by this panel of people and fed to PCGS for consideration. PCGS needs to give it's customers what they want...especially when it involves their registry.
Am I crazy? Or could something like this really work?
Thanks for joining in, cool Idea
<< <i>why doesn't PCGS consider putting together a "panel" or a "board of collectors/dealers/members" that can help to relay our information/ideas/concerns/suggestions to those at PCGS who make the decisions? >>
1. Clean up of state quarter pop reports is ongoing internally at PCGS.
2. Variety set of state quarters (including all SF and non SF coins as well as WI varieties) will launch in the near future (no 100% guarantee, but it sounded to me like a target date of roughly 15-30 days).
3. I strongly supported PCGS continuing to designate SF and non-SF on holders as opposed to suggestions PCGS appears to have received recently to simply grade 2005 coins without designating the coins at all on the holders (DH also made it clear that he wasn't the least bit concerned with any "liability" issues in grading these coins, but, only what was best for the hobby).
4. I was not in favor of adding an additional (third) designation to the coins - "Strong Satin", "Weak Satin" and non-SF, which was another idea that had been presented to PCGS.
I was very pleased to see the time and energy being expended at PCGS over this issue at the highest levels.
Comments?
Wondercoin
My point exactly Mitch. I cannot have conference calls with HRH and Ron Guth. Neither can 99.9% of the people here!
<< <i>My point exactly Mitch. I cannot have conference calls with HRH and Ron Guth. Neither can 99.9% of the people here! >>
looks like the
<< <i>"panel" or a "board of collectors/dealers/members" >>
has been formed or has it been all along
Wondercoin
P.S. Mas - I received the call (unsolicited). Again, I was pleased to see the effort being expended on trying to get the difficult issue of SF and non-SF right.
Wondercoin
I would like to clarify my position(s) on the Satin Finish verses Non Satin Finish issue. There are several threads on the Registry Forum that all deal with this issue. Please feel free to disagree with me on any / all view points that I will make.
1. The registry, from the arguments that have been made on the above mentioned threads; I believe that it is the consensus that a majority of the members want PCGS to clean up their population reports first, period end of sentence. Several members, yourself included, have offered information to PCGS to do this. The biggest problem the way I understand this situation, are the ‘ugly’ Satin Finish holders that do not have the coin number on it and which PCGS has entered into their data base as Non Satin Finish
2. The guarantee, PCGS needs to clearly state what their guarantee is and is not. This should be in plain language so there is no room for doubt or misunderstandings as to what is covered by the guarantee. Most members don’t want to hear about “Mechanical Errors” or any other excuses, does the guarantee provide for sight unseen transactions as the original purpose stated or not. What service is attributed to the PCGS label? If PCGS wants us (the collectors) to have faith and respect in their product then they need to stand behind it with a guarantee; that the holder is saying what coin is in the holder by the label, that the coin was evaluated by a professional unbiased third party, that the opinion of this professional third party has been verified by another grader who also is a professional unbiased third party coin grader and that the holder had been scrutinized by a Quality Control Examiner checking to make sure that the information on the holder matches up to the coin inside.
3. Circulation Strike Set in the registry, Satin Finish verses Business Strikes, I’m still not convinced that PCGS has done the right thing in allowing an either / or solution. I also have reservation that this solution is just about convenience and economics, my reasoning here is by allowing the either / or solution this will keep the value of the Business Strike coin artificially low in value because the value of a coin is based on supply and demand economics (If Business Strike coins are not required then collectors will not be competing for them). On the convenience side of my reasoning, I base this on the fact that as long as the either / or solution is in effect then PCGS is not forced to clean up the population report or getting the so called “wolves in sheep’s clothing” coins off of the market (I am referring to the satin finish coins in holder not marked as satin finish). When they are required to get the “wolves” off the market, again the value of the coin will be cheaper for PCGS to do so. Again, show me where I’m wrong? Were the Satin Finish coins of 2005 struck with a “Proof Die”? What is the definition of a “Proof Die”? For a definition, I am willing to use the one that PCGS has on it Lingo page. If the Satin Finish coins were struck with a "Proof Die" by definition, would this not disqualify them from a Circulation Strike Set?
4. PCGS has designated four different class of coins minted in 2005 and has assigned a unique coin number for each; Silver Proofs, Regular Proofs, Satin Finish and Circulation Strikes. How come within the Registry, when a set is purporting to be a complete set, only examples of three classes of 2005 coins are required instead of all four (I am referring to Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Set 1964-Present). If all four classes of coins for 2005 were required for Complete Sets, I believe that it would not fit into PCGS’s plans to keep the value of Circulation Strikes down or support the position of the either / or solution as it applies to set purporting to be Circulation Strikes.
5. Value of circulation strikes, it has been suggested that the value will go down by up to 50%. Maybe they will, remember the value of anything is determined by the principle of “supply and demand”. If more high quality circulated strike coins are found where else can the price go? But by having the either / or policy on SF verses Circulation Strikes, isn’t the demand of circulation strikes being artificially kept low causing the value to remain low? If people stop looking for high quality circulation strikes, then what will be available when PCGS does the right thing and only allow circulation strikes is set purporting to be the same.
Again, I am only throwing thoughts out here for discussion, debate and hopefully everyone can look at “both sides of the coin”.
Sincerely,
Tim
<< <i>I am curious how a full scale hunt for MS2005 will result. Still some unsearched material offered on e-bay for 2005 so may not be too late to find some quantity of unsearched material to look thru. No doubt the more unsearched material that gets searched the more high grade coins will be found..... the question is how efficiently this can occur so that those working full time to find them can get paid or not so it is a risk to a hunter to do this and not a slam dunk. I know this because it was my ninth $500 box of KS-P I spoke of that started this dialogue and the first eight boxes only produced two coins in 67 so like I said not always as easy to find them as it appears and I do not have results for that ninth box (five coins submitted) and as we all know PCGS can be very tough. dr >>
(Partial Quote)
Doug: You and I spoke in late 2005 about the business strikes. 16,000 coins for (2) MS67 coins is my exact reason for my slow start on the hunt. Rarity is one thing, but if I threw my time in for free, it would have cost me over $1,000 in premium above the face value in order to find two coins that seem to have recently closed for around $400. (Mitch seems to think that the coin will go down in value. Now I know there are 66's in there that might be worth a few $ above grading, but my math of $800 received for $1,000+ spent tell me that the buyer of the $400 coin is getting a deal, especially when there are few in existence.
This is a very important point. You work very diligently and patiently to find the quality coins you do and you're putting them in your collection. Spare time is relative, so I'll just say that you're a champion for finding and spending the time you do. If you share the other MS67 with another person for $400, you're being very generous. It shows that to find business strike coins worthy of that price, you have to work hard for it and be willing to lose $$$. It makes me want to go buy them up in top grade as they're quickly vanishing.
In any event, you aren't giving PCGS 16,000 coins to give you back 100 PR70 and 15,900 PR69. There's real work involved and I believe that 2005 Business Strike PCGS State Quarters in High Grade with conditional rarity will indeed command a greater price in a relatively short amount of time.
Congrats on finding all the coins you do. I'm starting a little late with Nevada, but I'm joining the fray at last.
Today, I got an email from someone asking me if I would be interested in (25) MS67 (non-SF) KS(p) state quarters from what appeared to be an 8,000 coin hoard that was being sorted. I assumed it was a proposed presale of the coins.
What is great is later this year, we will see if these KS(p) coins move up from the $400-$425 level or down. You may be right or I may be right when we revisit the issue this Summer. I'll have fun either way.
Wondercoin