<< <i>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. >>
Selling coins that are not even in holders yet? Should we start a pre-sale of 2006 SF coins while we're at it
<< <i>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 >>
First, I certainly agree that subdesignating SF doesn't make sense at this point.
KS(P) MS67 x 25 sounds like a nice presale. We've all seen speculative presale go bad. There are people waiting on presale promises that were paid for 6-12 months ago. No names necessary, but it's suffice to say that a presale like that is iffy.
As far as the price up or down, well that depends on the supply/demand if it all. We all know the demand would be much greater if SF were not included in the main registry. With either/or, then the demand is only based on the variety sets. In this case, there seem to be quite a few people wanting the business strikes due to the variety set. The Pop could certainly grow, but I would have to say that it's worth a gentlemen's handshake over the $400 issue. If it were a SAC $1, it would be selling for $750. Supply/Demand.
<< <i>" 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 >>
Mitch
I need take a moment to appologize to you. Your statement hit me wrong, but that doesn't give me the right to attack you the way I did. Therefore I appologize to you, personally, and to the rest of the members here that found my statement offensive. I should have taken the time to think your comment through before I opened my mouth and inserted my foot . I do know quite a few coins in the past dropped in price, some slowly over time, and others like a rock. Your statement, therefore, was and is valid. :
Also, thank you for sharing the information from your conference call. Very informative, and it shows that there is some action being taken, even though most of us don't see it because we are not in the loop, so to speak. Please, things are confusing enough, no light and heavy sf designation. Maybe later, and as needed.
Registry Coin
Point made, and corrctly so.
Tim
civil tongues are always better Agreed
Ellewood
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?
Roger: Thank you very much for your apology, which is wholeheartedly accepted. I can see you are a very passionate collector and I look forward to exchaging ideas and thoughts with you in the future.
"Please, things are confusing enough, no light and heavy sf designation. Maybe later, and as needed."
I felt the exact same thing - these coins are not like heavy and light motto 34 Wash quarters.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Roger: Your most recent comment is well-given and has been well-received. I feel that there is no need for the: It takes guts and a special heart to admit to a mistake, and that is all it was. Thank you.
Thanks Mitch, and Registry Coin. I get pretty stubborn and hard headed at times, and sometimes I have to take a step back and rethink things. Things are not aways what they may appear to be.
I get pretty stubborn and hard headed at times, and sometimes I have to take a step back and rethink things.
Don't we all! That's why I like this place...people are really genuine around here.
I nominate Mitch to at least to ask PCGS (if not head up the panel) what they think of such an idea????? I can't imagine PCGS would turn it down...it will only make them stronger in the long run!!
<< <i>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? >>
I do not feel anything other than SF designation is needed on satin finish Variety coins. If there is so called "heavy" and "light" we can look at it as you describe some PF69DCAM's, Monster frost Vs. Normal frost? All about the Eye appeal of a coin.
<< <i>I passed on the KS(p) proposal anyway - I want to do some "hunting" myself later this month. >>
Going to accept that $10.00 per HR. (or less) Hunters Job
<< <i> Partial Quote: 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 >>
You make great points for discussion Tim. Your mention of Supply and Demand is absolutely correct. The reason not many Business Strikes were made previously, is that there wasn't a very big demand until the Variety Set was confirmed. Now there will be more made and hopefully in a good win/win balance between the makers and the buyers so that everyone receives their due.
I was hoping that someone would step up to the plate and argue one or all five points that I put in my last post.
I am still trying to figure out for myself, why PCGS went with the either / or policy when it came to what would be allowed in set purporting to be circulation strikes. I really haven't heard / read any reason that would justify PCGS decision to support this either / or policy as it relates to 2005 satin finish and circulation strike coins. PCGS is suppose to be a neutral, independent third party, should they be effecting the "supply and demand" or take into account the economics and convenience of an issue?
I guess the hardest thing I'm trying to understand, is how PCGS can consider a coin struck with a specially prepared die (even crome plated) as a regular circulation strike? The 2005 satin finish coin dies meet the definition of a "proof die", PCGS has designated a sperate and unique coin number for satin finish coins, let me put them in a set purporting to be a complete set in addition to the circulation strike coins.
I understand your position on the either/or policy and I don't disagree with your questioning of the either/or policy. I suppose the policy makers @ PCGS are the ones to ask the "Why" question to.
In this case I believe their intention is to do what is best for the most people. They have more SF coins in holders than Business Strikes. This means for them to say Business Strike only, they have to tell the owners of roughly 40,000? PCGS Graded SF coins to go pound sand. In this case, there is a small percentage of that figure graded Business Strike. The most participants in this case with the SHQ's happen to have the regular set. To make the more expensive coin required in the main set would displace the people that can afford the Satin Finish coin. They cannot afford either 10 business strikes or to do all 20 coins for the variety set. In this case, the fewer people with the most money who had the foresight to buy Business Strike coins can also afford the Variety Set. If they can't, then they still have the affordable SF coins to go in the regular registry.
So, the most people are satisfied with either/or as dictated by the # of SF coins owned by the most people vs. Business Strikes. PCGS is in the business of making people happy and if they thought more people would be benefitted the other way, I think they would have gone that way. The more people satisfied, the better their bottom line.
<< <i>In this case I believe their intention is to do what is best for the most people. They have more SF coins in holders than Business Strikes. This means for them to say Business Strike only, they have to tell the owners of roughly 40,000? PCGS Graded SF coins to go pound sand. In this case, there is a small percentage of that figure graded Business Strike. The most participants in this case with the SHQ's happen to have the regular set. To make the more expensive coin required in the main set would displace the people that can afford the Satin Finish coin. They cannot afford either 10 business strikes or to do all 20 coins for the variety set. In this case, the fewer people with the most money who had the foresight to buy Business Strike coins can also afford the Variety Set. If they can't, then they still have the affordable SF coins to go in the regular registry. >>
I'm afraid you are right. But should PCGS play politics? Why are they playing politic now and not before? Example, modern coinage is considered anything minted after 1965, right? Let us look at the SMS of 1965 - 67, when the circulation strike set (let's use Kennedy's) was set up there wasn't an either / or policy on allowing circulation strikes verses special mint sets. Even thow MS67 examples of the SMS are more common and cheaper then the circulation strike counterparts in the same grade (Bare in mind that these are both MS coins). If you wanted to look at the population report of PCGS for let's say 1967 Kennedy MS 67 circulation strike verses same year MS 67 special mint set and then compare price of both coins, go ahead it will add to my point. The rarity of a coin in high grade should not be a factor to it being required in a circulation strike set, but some how this has changed with the 2005 coinage, why? The set should be compared by "apples to apples or oranges to oranges" not "apples to oranges". Just by looking at the SMS Kennedy's of 1965-67 and SF 2005 and comparing them with thier counterpart circulation strikes, you can see how PCGS's policy of either / or is manipulating the value of the coins (This is something they sould not do, they should set up the criteria of the set and then let the chips fall where they fall and not try to influence the outcome).
You and other have commented, that PCGS is doing this for the best of the hobby, Why? Just to make it cheaper, then don't require the 1916-D dime in the circulation strike set of Mercury Dimes.
As far as the argument of "people can't aford the business strike but can aford the Satin Finish", this doesn't hold water either. If all a person can afford is a circulation strike graded MS-65 or MS-66 so what, let them use it. I see nothing wrong with someone using a MS-65 coin to file a slot in their collection if they want to, nobody said it was going to be easy to have all high grade coins, PCGS needs to let the market place determine the value of a coin through "supply and demand" and keep their nose out of the economics.
I understand your position on the either/or policy and I don't disagree with your questioning of the either/or policy. I suppose the policy makers @ PCGS are the ones to ask the "Why" question to.
In this case I believe their intention is to do what is best for the most people. They have more SF coins in holders than Business Strikes. This means for them to say Business Strike only, they have to tell the owners of roughly 40,000? PCGS Graded SF coins to go pound sand. In this case, there is a small percentage of that figure graded Business Strike. The most participants in this case with the SHQ's happen to have the regular set. To make the more expensive coin required in the main set would displace the people that can afford the Satin Finish coin. They cannot afford either 10 business strikes or to do all 20 coins for the variety set. In this case, the fewer people with the most money who had the foresight to buy Business Strike coins can also afford the Variety Set. If they can't, then they still have the affordable SF coins to go in the regular registry.
So, the most people are satisfied with either/or as dictated by the # of SF coins owned by the most people vs. Business Strikes. PCGS is in the business of making people happy and if they thought more people would be benefitted the other way, I think they would have gone that way. The more people satisfied, the better their bottom line.
That's straight from the hip. >>
That's some pretty straight shooting for a hip shot.
But I still like this:
business strike, which fits the title of the set (Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strike, 1999-present), vs this:
which is the sf strike.
But, if your sf coin is like this one:
I can understand the desire to own it. It's a beautiful coin (I actually bid on it but was beat out by another forum member, who gave me the opportunity to see it in hand, and it is sweeeeet).
I think this is the type of coin Mitch is refering to as a "heavy" sf coin. I wouldn't mind owning a complete set of these . But how do you make them match the rest of the 99-04 quarters? And could a set of these actually be built from last years release? And will there be many of these to come, or until the mint comes up with yet another method of striking the mint set coins? I personally don't think so, but if somebody was able to assemble a collection of cameod sf coins, it would be a sight to behold.
I believe what is right is right, so I hear what you're saying. Just telling it like I see it fellas. It's not a defense of their decision, just an acknowledment of their position and only a potential reason why. As I said before, you'd have to ask the policy makers to tell you for sure.
<< <i>Guys - do you believe the "monster frost" Kansas deserves a "Cameo" designation? >>
Before PCGS is asked to make a new "designation", I would like to see / read their gaurantee and see the population reports for 2005 cleaned up. By the way, has there been any movement in the actual reports yet? We are starting on month "two" and it was my understand that several hundred coins afected by the data entry error was brought to PCGS attention several weeks ago, even congress moves faster then this (when its a no brainer).
That Kansas quarter is a nice looking coin, but I will pass on recommending a seperate designation for it right now, it just has great eye apeal.
Mitch, quite honestly, I think that particular coin says all that needs to be said with it's totally awesome appearance. It doesn't need a cameo, or any other desigation other than "satin finish." If you seen it in hand, you would know what I mean. If a non collector seen it, he wouldn't necessarily know the terminology that applies to the coin, but he/she would know that it is a special coin!!! When I seen the coin on Ebay I felt the , when I seen it in hand I felt the but a lot stronger. I am just thankful that the person who owns that coin trusted me enough to mail it to left coast, from the right coast, and that it didn't get lost or damaged on the return trip. I was basically having a waiting for the owner to tell me that he received it ok and that all was well!!!
Tim: I wasn't thinking of asking for a new designation.... just asking a question. I recall seeing some "d" mint Roosies that had incredible frost as well.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Found a few others that compare to this KS, if not more of a Monster
Mas you sure make it hard to stay focused on one type of coin!!!! I probably should have got that quarter the second time it was available. The timing just wasn't right for me so I had to pass. Now, as it turned out, I have 3 coins that I didn't have then, and I think the trade off was worth it.
Since you brought up my sharing, if you have the time, you can always post a few pics of those puppies for us all to drool over! And who knows, maybe some lucky collector will end up with 1 or more of them.
<< <i>Guys - do you believe the "monster frost" Kansas deserves a "Cameo" designation? >>
Since we know that SF coins are produced with specially prepared dies just like proof coins - which are ALSO NOT produced for Circulation. I might think the SF coins could be worthy of such a designation as a proof coin can hold.
Example:
We have these for Proof coins which are NOT produced for circulation and prepared with Special dies
PR69 and PRDCAM
What about these for SF coins which are NOT produced for circulation and prepared with Special dies
In all reality, the 2005 satin finish coins should be treated for what they are. They were made with special dies, so call them special mint sets (SMS) and mark them like the coins from 1965-67 were. Examples: SMS MS67; SMS MS67CA; or SMS MS67DCAM.
The frost of the device should have the same markings, CA or DCAM. I think MF (Monster Frost) would confuse the issue. Remember, in 1965 - 67 the mint issued no regular mint sets, I think the same thing happened in 2005.
In the regular state quarter set - if collectors are free to use SF or non-SF coins - would everyone be agreeable to give the non-SF coins a one point bonus weight. This way, the MS69 non-SF coins could be used in the place of MS70 SF coins and the MS68 non-SF coins could be used in the place of MS69 SF coins and so on. This would result in many non-SF coins being used in the regular set and the user of the non-SF coins not suffering any harm in the standings. Thoughts?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
How many ms69 circulation strike coins do you think will be found in rolls to compete with the MS70's in SF this year? Or how many ms68's from rolls as compared to ms69SF from mint sets?
Personally, I would be surprised each time an MS69 non-SF or an MS70 SF coin was made from here. For both categories - it will require on heck of a coin and IMHO don't count on too many being slabbed in either category.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Tim "Just by looking at the SMS Kennedy's of 1965-67 and SF 2005 and comparing them with thier counterpart circulation strikes, you can see how PCGS's policy of either / or is manipulating the value of the coins (This is something they sould not do, they should set up the criteria of the set and then let the chips fall where they fall and not try to influence the outcome)." I have been studying Tim's comment for awhile. I looked at the Kennedy Half Registry it is hard to even find where the SMS coins go... they are not in the business strike set... they are in a complete set category. I am willing to compromise and tolerate the PCGS either or policy since they already made that policy and as Seth pointed out there are many people that bought based upon that expectation and it will be hard for PCGS to back out of this now. Interesting to note that the SMS coins only went three years 1965, 1966, and 1967 (please, do not get me started on the so-called 1964 SMS coin). We have no guarantee from the mint how long this SF will go either. When you look at all the new discussion about the frost level on the SF it is clear to me the SF coin is similar to the SMS and eventually PCGS agreed to use a cameo designation on the SMS too. In my opinion the SF coins should be in a complete registry set, not the basic circulation strike set, like PCGS has done in the past hence Tim's analysis above. I agreed to compromise to an either or as long as a complete set can be established and I am not going to back out on my offer of compromise either. I am not convinced PCGS should call this all 20 coin set with varieties a variety set IMHO it should be called a "complete set including varieties" because the business strike coins are not a variety but they do belong in a complete set in any event. In my opinion the new either or registry created in 2005 by a policy decision must now be re-named since it is not what it used to be having allowed specially made mint products the SF to be admitted. I would like some opinions on what the two registry sets should be named. Tim the old set where the either or coins go will probably not be named "Poor Collectors and Lazy Dealers Registry" as some of us wish ha ha ha just kidding but seriously how about some other name for the old business strike set that is no longer what it used to be such as "Either Business Strike Or Satin Finish Registry". Is that not what in fact it is now? How about "Complete Set With Varieties" for the new set? dr
I forget, also why not add a third set like the Kennedy's have several sets to complete in. Why not have a "Basic Circulation Strike Set" for the state quarter with only business strike coins and not SF or varieties? Three registry sets properly labeled "Basic Circualtion Strike" "Complete Set With Varieties" and "Either Business Strike or Satin Finish" then let the collector decide which one or all three to compete in? As I go back thru this lengthy thread this should satisfy everyone except those trying to manipulate the market through an improper labeling of the sets. With the three registry set idea dealers can sell more coins and the collector is not required to buy special mint coins if they do not want them. I do not wish to continue to registrer my coins in a set that is miss-leading to the public. Currently my number 1 state quarter set is registered under "Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999- Present)" and I feel like a liar keeping them registered there when in fact if I had not entered my SF coins I would have fallen in the ranking but being number 1 to me is not worth the lie. If there is no truthful registry for me to enter my coins I will simply withdraw them. dr
<< <i>Mas - I believe the (10) coins will all be in the variety set and the regular set will allow either/or - fully supported by the top 3 or 4 setholders. >>
Thank you, thank you. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, I don't save PCGS quarters either. I didn't mean to crap in someone else's sandbox either. I was trying to get my point across that PCGS needs to be fair and consistant, this changing rules in mid stream just ain't fair, no matter how you look at it. Like I stated in an earlier post, 2005 the mint made and PCGS clasified four unique and different classes of coins; circulation strikes, satin fiish, regular proof and silver proof. I don't mean to sound greedy, but I want all four classes of the coins in my complete set. When the mint started making silver proof in 1992 they are included so the 2005 satin finish should also be included.
I still would like someone to answer my questions, were the 2005 satin finish coins struck by proof dies (at least by definition)? And if so, why are they being allowed in circulation strike sets? Is the "supply and demand" economics of these coins being manipulated by the either / or policy?
Wondercoin, The true number 3 set agrees with Mr. Rall. I have not entered by SF coins just to claim the number 3 position. Registry ranking is not that important to me. I may be in the minority but if set ranking gives you more votes ---
Tesoro: I realize that all of the top 4 sets support the "either/or" so long as the complete set can be established (which DH told me is in the works).
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
These are the Kennedy half registry sets off the PCGS web-site following. The state quarter already has 72 business strike coins released so shouldn't we have more set options too? Our state quarter set business strike issues are nearly as many already as the Kennedy half and will be exceeded by the time the state quarter program is completed. I am a closet collector of Kennedy Halves and other modern series too by the way so please no one take my comments as demeaning to the other series as they are not intended to be. My adelphia home internet is down and I am leaving the office so no response until Monday to comments no doubt forthcoming on my last posts. I have no problem with how PCGS combines certain coins for the registry it promotes providing that a proper title is applied to each. Once again I see several other modern registry sets facing the same dillema and I think a consistent approach for PCGS in each registry is simply to name them properly so as not to miss-lead the public and its' collectors. It is very clear that the SF are not circulation strike coins and even the dealers are already starting to talk about adding a cameo or frost designation. "Either Circualtion Strike or Satin Finish" is in fact the most correct description for what PCGS has done and is in fact by definition equivilent to their "Either Or" policy. I have no problem with PCGS adding this new registry set but not thru smoke and mirrors by trying to fit it under the existing designations because this 2005 SF is a new deal and should be defined as such, not just slipped in under the old headings. Incidentally I looked at Richard Green's #1 "Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present)" and there are no SMS coins included therein. Richard goes on to write under the descritpion column for his 2005 coins that he has the 2005 in MS67 too. Can anyone really say the collector does not care about the MS coins when a number 1 set like Richard writes in that he has an MS67 example next to where his SF70SF coin is registered? I emailed Richard a thread so he can weigh in on this if he wishes. dr
"Kennedy Half Dollars Date Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present)
For the record I believe the circulation set should contain no varieties. If a new registry comes into being that would be the set to include any varieties as PCGS numbers them. I am NOT trying to force my opinion on the Statehood Quarters Collectors. I have not entered any SF coins in my registry. It was my belief that the current situation where any coin (SF or business strike) can be entered might be changed sometime in the future. The current concern was to correct the 2 error submissions first and give the Pop report some credibility.
Not living in California is a disadvantage in being cozy with the people at PCGS. I appreciate the conversation you have started, respect your opinion and knowledge but please do not speak for me.
I know you should never raise an issue unless you have a solution and I do not have one on this matter. I have seen opinions on both sides in what should go in the circulation strikes set. I do hope there is some agreement before the 2006 mint sets are issued.
On the weighting issue Mitch there would be no need if three sets were established as I discuss above or if only two sets there is still no need under a "complete set" title as they all need to be in there anyhow so I guess we are just talking about the set currently called "Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999- Present)" if that set remains under the either / or and whether or not it gets re-named. A weight of plus one for the MS coins is appropriate for the D mints but in my opinion the P mints in SF69 are soo much more common than P mints in MS68 I would wieght those at 1.5. I know, the OR-P in MS69 with a 1.5 weight would take it over a 70 but under any weighting system anomalies will occur. I would rather see the three sets established so there would be no weighting needed. dr
<< <i>Mas - I believe the (10) coins will all be in the variety set and the regular set will allow either/or - fully supported by the top 3 or 4 setholders. >>
We had #1's opinion a few posts ago and
We now have #3's opinion
As a current set holder my vote is with WCQX and Tesoro
Not living in California is a disadvantage in being cozy with the people at PCGS. I appreciate the conversation you have started, respect your opinion and knowledge but please do not speak for me.
I agree with the above statement. I deleted my sets a month ago, WHY?, Because there is no longer a circulation strike registry to list my coins. And/or is a joke, the true circulation strike sets are a thing of the past if this is allowed to stand. I think of all the years that the business strike coins carried the hobby, only to be cast aside now like an old bottle cap. What ever happened to the old saying, "dance with the one that brought you?"
Tesoro: I have an email or two from you dated in late 1/06 (which I just reread again) that I was basing your support on.
I know #1 Donn Murphy set also weighed in much earlier on this thread fully supporting the either/or and variety set as well.
But, I stated earlier that I am comfortable revisiting the issues after the pop clean up takes place. This has been a very positive development. In fact, like you Tesoro supporting #1 Doug, I am also comfortable with whatever #1 Donn would like in this regard. Those (2) guys are the "powerhouses" of the state quarter registry and if there is mutual agreement between the #1 and #2 sets on this, I am comfortable with #3 and #4 (which I am and whichever you are I believe) entirely deferring to their mutual decision. Of course, it was better that sets 1,2,3,4 all agreed on a plan (and still might), but, if #1 and #2 mutually agree on a game plan, that is certainly fine with me (so I really do not believe there is much more for us to debate now that you see I am comfortable with whatever mutual #1's develop as you are).
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
Selling coins that are not even in holders yet? Should we start a pre-sale of 2006 SF coins while we're at it
"Should we start a pre-sale of 2006 SF coins while we're at it"
Mas - Did you forget that is exactly how 2005 SF began and led to an immediate decline in pricing for which many of the coins never recovered.
I passed on the KS(p) proposal anyway - I want to do some "hunting" myself later this month.
Wondercoin
<< <i>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 >>
First, I certainly agree that subdesignating SF doesn't make sense at this point.
KS(P) MS67 x 25 sounds like a nice presale. We've all seen speculative presale go bad. There are people waiting on presale promises that were paid for 6-12 months ago. No names necessary, but it's suffice to say that a presale like that is iffy.
As far as the price up or down, well that depends on the supply/demand if it all. We all know the demand would be much greater if SF were not included in the main registry. With either/or, then the demand is only based on the variety sets. In this case, there seem to be quite a few people wanting the business strikes due to the variety set. The Pop could certainly grow, but I would have to say that it's worth a gentlemen's handshake over the $400 issue. If it were a SAC $1, it would be selling for $750. Supply/Demand.
<< <i>" 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 >>
Mitch
I need take a moment to appologize to you. Your statement hit me wrong, but that doesn't give me the right to attack you the way I did. Therefore I appologize to you, personally, and to the rest of the members here that found my statement offensive. I should have taken the time to think your comment through before I opened my mouth and inserted my foot . I do know quite a few coins in the past dropped in price, some slowly over time, and others like a rock. Your statement, therefore, was and is valid.
Also, thank you for sharing the information from your conference call. Very informative, and it shows that there is some action being taken, even though most of us don't see it because we are not in the loop, so to speak. Please, things are confusing enough, no light and heavy sf designation. Maybe later, and as needed.
Registry Coin
Point made, and corrctly so.
Tim
civil tongues are always better Agreed
Ellewood
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?
Great idea, wonder if it will ever happen?
Roger
"Please, things are confusing enough, no light and heavy sf designation. Maybe later, and as needed."
I felt the exact same thing - these coins are not like heavy and light motto 34 Wash quarters.
Wondercoin
I feel that there is no need for the:
It takes guts and a special heart to admit to a mistake, and that is all it was.
Thank you.
Don't we all!
I nominate Mitch to at least to ask PCGS (if not head up the panel) what they think of such an idea????? I can't imagine PCGS would turn it down...it will only make them stronger in the long run!!
T
<< <i>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? >>
I do not feel anything other than SF designation is needed on satin finish Variety coins. If there is so called "heavy" and "light" we can look at it as you describe some PF69DCAM's, Monster frost Vs. Normal frost? All about the Eye appeal of a coin.
<< <i>I passed on the KS(p) proposal anyway - I want to do some "hunting" myself later this month. >>
Going to accept that $10.00 per HR. (or less) Hunters Job
<< <i> Partial Quote: 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 >>
You make great points for discussion Tim. Your mention of Supply and Demand is absolutely correct. The reason not many Business Strikes were made previously, is that there wasn't a very big demand until the Variety Set was confirmed. Now there will be more made and hopefully in a good win/win balance between the makers and the buyers so that everyone receives their due.
Welcome!
I was hoping that someone would step up to the plate and argue one or all five points that I put in my last post.
I am still trying to figure out for myself, why PCGS went with the either / or policy when it came to what would be allowed in set purporting to be circulation strikes. I really haven't heard / read any reason that would justify PCGS decision to support this either / or policy as it relates to 2005 satin finish and circulation strike coins. PCGS is suppose to be a neutral, independent third party, should they be effecting the "supply and demand" or take into account the economics and convenience of an issue?
I guess the hardest thing I'm trying to understand, is how PCGS can consider a coin struck with a specially prepared die (even crome plated) as a regular circulation strike? The 2005 satin finish coin dies meet the definition of a "proof die", PCGS has designated a sperate and unique coin number for satin finish coins, let me put them in a set purporting to be a complete set in addition to the circulation strike coins.
Tim
I understand your position on the either/or policy and I don't disagree with your questioning of the either/or policy. I suppose the policy makers @ PCGS are the ones to ask the "Why" question to.
In this case I believe their intention is to do what is best for the most people. They have more SF coins in holders than Business Strikes. This means for them to say Business Strike only, they have to tell the owners of roughly 40,000? PCGS Graded SF coins to go pound sand. In this case, there is a small percentage of that figure graded Business Strike. The most participants in this case with the SHQ's happen to have the regular set. To make the more expensive coin required in the main set would displace the people that can afford the Satin Finish coin. They cannot afford either 10 business strikes or to do all 20 coins for the variety set. In this case, the fewer people with the most money who had the foresight to buy Business Strike coins can also afford the Variety Set. If they can't, then they still have the affordable SF coins to go in the regular registry.
So, the most people are satisfied with either/or as dictated by the # of SF coins owned by the most people vs. Business Strikes. PCGS is in the business of making people happy and if they thought more people would be benefitted the other way, I think they would have gone that way. The more people satisfied, the better their bottom line.
That's straight from the hip.
<< <i>In this case I believe their intention is to do what is best for the most people. They have more SF coins in holders than Business Strikes. This means for them to say Business Strike only, they have to tell the owners of roughly 40,000? PCGS Graded SF coins to go pound sand. In this case, there is a small percentage of that figure graded Business Strike. The most participants in this case with the SHQ's happen to have the regular set. To make the more expensive coin required in the main set would displace the people that can afford the Satin Finish coin. They cannot afford either 10 business strikes or to do all 20 coins for the variety set. In this case, the fewer people with the most money who had the foresight to buy Business Strike coins can also afford the Variety Set. If they can't, then they still have the affordable SF coins to go in the regular registry. >>
I'm afraid you are right. But should PCGS play politics? Why are they playing politic now and not before? Example, modern coinage is considered anything minted after 1965, right? Let us look at the SMS of 1965 - 67, when the circulation strike set (let's use Kennedy's) was set up there wasn't an either / or policy on allowing circulation strikes verses special mint sets. Even thow MS67 examples of the SMS are more common and cheaper then the circulation strike counterparts in the same grade (Bare in mind that these are both MS coins). If you wanted to look at the population report of PCGS for let's say 1967 Kennedy MS 67 circulation strike verses same year MS 67 special mint set and then compare price of both coins, go ahead it will add to my point. The rarity of a coin in high grade should not be a factor to it being required in a circulation strike set, but some how this has changed with the 2005 coinage, why? The set should be compared by "apples to apples or oranges to oranges" not "apples to oranges". Just by looking at the SMS Kennedy's of 1965-67 and SF 2005 and comparing them with thier counterpart circulation strikes, you can see how PCGS's policy of either / or is manipulating the value of the coins (This is something they sould not do, they should set up the criteria of the set and then let the chips fall where they fall and not try to influence the outcome).
You and other have commented, that PCGS is doing this for the best of the hobby, Why? Just to make it cheaper, then don't require the 1916-D dime in the circulation strike set of Mercury Dimes.
As far as the argument of "people can't aford the business strike but can aford the Satin Finish", this doesn't hold water either. If all a person can afford is a circulation strike graded MS-65 or MS-66 so what, let them use it. I see nothing wrong with someone using a MS-65 coin to file a slot in their collection if they want to, nobody said it was going to be easy to have all high grade coins, PCGS needs to let the market place determine the value of a coin through "supply and demand" and keep their nose out of the economics.
Again, just my humble opinion,
Tim
<< <i>Hello Tim,
I understand your position on the either/or policy and I don't disagree with your questioning of the either/or policy. I suppose the policy makers @ PCGS are the ones to ask the "Why" question to.
In this case I believe their intention is to do what is best for the most people. They have more SF coins in holders than Business Strikes. This means for them to say Business Strike only, they have to tell the owners of roughly 40,000? PCGS Graded SF coins to go pound sand. In this case, there is a small percentage of that figure graded Business Strike. The most participants in this case with the SHQ's happen to have the regular set. To make the more expensive coin required in the main set would displace the people that can afford the Satin Finish coin. They cannot afford either 10 business strikes or to do all 20 coins for the variety set. In this case, the fewer people with the most money who had the foresight to buy Business Strike coins can also afford the Variety Set. If they can't, then they still have the affordable SF coins to go in the regular registry.
So, the most people are satisfied with either/or as dictated by the # of SF coins owned by the most people vs. Business Strikes. PCGS is in the business of making people happy and if they thought more people would be benefitted the other way, I think they would have gone that way. The more people satisfied, the better their bottom line.
That's straight from the hip. >>
That's some pretty straight shooting for a hip shot.
But I still like this:
business strike, which fits the title of the set (Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strike, 1999-present), vs this:
which is the sf strike.
But, if your sf coin is like this one:
I can understand the desire to own it. It's a beautiful coin (I actually bid on it but was beat out by another forum member, who gave me the opportunity to see it in hand, and it is sweeeeet).
I think this is the type of coin Mitch is refering to as a "heavy" sf coin. I wouldn't mind owning a complete set of these . But how do you make them match the rest of the 99-04 quarters? And could a set of these actually be built from last years release? And will there be many of these to come, or until the mint comes up with yet another method of striking the mint set coins? I personally don't think so, but if somebody was able to assemble a collection of cameod sf coins, it would be a sight to behold.
Hope everyone is having a GREAT weekend.
The Monster Frost of the Satin Finish coins
May be just like the Monster Frost on PR69DCAM that we hear described but just not designated, all about the coin and Eye appeal
Thanks for sharing,
Found a few others that compare to this KS, if not more of a Monster
Wondercoin
<< <i>Guys - do you believe the "monster frost" Kansas deserves a "Cameo" designation? >>
Before PCGS is asked to make a new "designation", I would like to see / read their gaurantee and see the population reports for 2005 cleaned up. By the way, has there been any movement in the actual reports yet? We are starting on month "two" and it was my understand that several hundred coins afected by the data entry error was brought to PCGS attention several weeks ago, even congress moves faster then this (when its a no brainer).
That Kansas quarter is a nice looking coin, but I will pass on recommending a seperate designation for it right now, it just has great eye apeal.
Tim
Wondercoin
Mas you sure make it hard to stay focused on one type of coin!!!!
Since you brought up my sharing, if you have the time, you can always post a few pics of those puppies for us all to drool over! And who knows, maybe some lucky collector will end up with 1 or more of them.
<< <i>Guys - do you believe the "monster frost" Kansas deserves a "Cameo" designation? >>
Since we know that SF coins are produced with specially prepared dies just like proof coins - which are ALSO NOT produced for Circulation. I might think the SF coins could be worthy of such a designation as a proof coin can hold.
Example:
We have these for Proof coins which are NOT produced for circulation and prepared with Special dies
PR69 and PRDCAM
What about these for SF coins which are NOT produced for circulation and prepared with Special dies
MS69SF and MS69SFMF
In all reality, the 2005 satin finish coins should be treated for what they are. They were made with special dies, so call them special mint sets (SMS) and mark them like the coins from 1965-67 were. Examples: SMS MS67; SMS MS67CA; or SMS MS67DCAM.
The frost of the device should have the same markings, CA or DCAM. I think MF (Monster Frost) would confuse the issue. Remember, in 1965 - 67 the mint issued no regular mint sets, I think the same thing happened in 2005.
Tim
In the regular state quarter set - if collectors are free to use SF or non-SF coins - would everyone be agreeable to give the non-SF coins a one point bonus weight. This way, the MS69 non-SF coins could be used in the place of MS70 SF coins and the MS68 non-SF coins could be used in the place of MS69 SF coins and so on. This would result in many non-SF coins being used in the regular set and the user of the non-SF coins not suffering any harm in the standings. Thoughts?
Wondercoin
Some facts
SF 70 coins – I count 24 MS70 quarters (6 CA-P, 1 CA-D, 6 MN-P, 1 MN-D 8 OR-P and 2 WV-P) I count 2 MS69 business strikes MS69 (1- MN-D 1 OR-P)
SF69 coins over 900 MS68 coins less than 65.
IMHO true weight is more than 1. If you look at NGC weight a MS68 is worth more than a MS69 SF.
Wondercoin
Or how many ms68's from rolls as compared to ms69SF from mint sets?
Wondercoin
No need for weighting if the coins are ONLY eligible for their respective sets
Circulation Strike
Circulation Strike with Varieties (WI High/Low - Satin Finish) HumpBack Bison (in the near future)
Wondercoin
<< <i>Mas - I believe the (10) coins will all be in the variety set and the regular set will allow either/or - fully supported by the top 3 or 4 setholders. >>
We have #1's opinion
Thank you, thank you. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, I don't save PCGS quarters either. I didn't mean to crap in someone else's sandbox either. I was trying to get my point across that PCGS needs to be fair and consistant, this changing rules in mid stream just ain't fair, no matter how you look at it. Like I stated in an earlier post, 2005 the mint made and PCGS clasified four unique and different classes of coins; circulation strikes, satin fiish, regular proof and silver proof. I don't mean to sound greedy, but I want all four classes of the coins in my complete set. When the mint started making silver proof in 1992 they are included so the 2005 satin finish should also be included.
I still would like someone to answer my questions, were the 2005 satin finish coins struck by proof dies (at least by definition)? And if so, why are they being allowed in circulation strike sets? Is the "supply and demand" economics of these coins being manipulated by the either / or policy?
Tim
<< <i>Line up boys, I think we are going to get bent over here. >>
Care to elaborate?
Tim
Doug: Sounds good. What do you think about a one point added weight on the non-SF coins? Just a thought.
Wondercoin
Wondercoin
"Kennedy Half Dollars Date Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present)
Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present)
Kennedy Half Dollars with Varieties, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present)
Kennedy Half Dollars, Proof (1964-Present)
Kennedy Half Dollars Complete Set (1964-Present)"
Not living in California is a disadvantage in being cozy with the people at PCGS. I appreciate the conversation you have started, respect your opinion and knowledge but please do not speak for me.
I know you should never raise an issue unless you have a solution and I do not have one on this matter. I have seen opinions on both sides in what should go in the circulation strikes set. I do hope there is some agreement before the 2006 mint sets are issued.
<< <i>Mas - I believe the (10) coins will all be in the variety set and the regular set will allow either/or - fully supported by the top 3 or 4 setholders. >>
We had #1's opinion a few posts ago and
We now have #3's opinion
As a current set holder my vote is with WCQX and Tesoro
I agree with the above statement. I deleted my sets a month ago, WHY?, Because there is no longer a circulation strike registry to list my coins.
And/or is a joke, the true circulation strike sets are a thing of the past if this is allowed to stand. I think of all the years that the business strike coins carried the hobby, only to be cast aside now like an old bottle cap. What ever happened to the old saying, "dance with the one that brought you?"
I know #1 Donn Murphy set also weighed in much earlier on this thread fully supporting the either/or and variety set as well.
But, I stated earlier that I am comfortable revisiting the issues after the pop clean up takes place. This has been a very positive development. In fact, like you Tesoro supporting #1 Doug, I am also comfortable with whatever #1 Donn would like in this regard. Those (2) guys are the "powerhouses" of the state quarter registry and if there is mutual agreement between the #1 and #2 sets on this, I am comfortable with #3 and #4 (which I am and whichever you are I believe) entirely deferring to their mutual decision. Of course, it was better that sets 1,2,3,4 all agreed on a plan (and still might), but, if #1 and #2 mutually agree on a game plan, that is certainly fine with me (so I really do not believe there is much more for us to debate now that you see I am comfortable with whatever mutual #1's develop as you are).
Wondercoin