The debate on what to do with SF and BS coins continues.

slugfootball · February 19, 2006 9:37AM

TextBut, 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).
Text

So when things change at PCGS re SHQ's based on the top registry set holders, does this not effect
the other reg sets with a SF entry (Sac dollars) as I can't imagine PCGS doing things differently?

another two cents worth!!

rb7557 · February 19, 2006 12:50PM

<< 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?" >>

Its a shame that you felt you had to pull your set, as I also did. Mine is in the all time finest list, and I haven't pulled it from there, but I will if this situation doesn't get taken care of in fashion that is more fair to the coins, and their owners and more correctly applicable to the collections. I still have the coins registered across the street, and the only reason I didn't pull the collection there is due to the fact that the business strikes carry more weight than the sf strikes, as they should.

Doug is correct in his thinking that the weights wouldn't have to be messed with if there are more than 1 set for these coins to fall into. At the same time, if changes are made to the shq's, it's gonna have to apply to everything from the cent through the circulating $ coins. Yes, the mint really outdid themselves with this mess (marketing ploy).

Personally I think there should be a strictly circ strike set, then a circ strike set w/varieties (ie sf, humpback, hi/lo leaf, whatever), and maybe a complete set, inclusive of all the issues. At the same time I have doubts about about the sf strikes fitting into a "circ strike" set of any kind. Having read pcgs' definition of "proof dies" I find myself thinking that the sf coins may just fit into a category of "proof strikes" and be more appropriate, because they do look more like a matte finish proof issue than anything else. And as stated, they were NOT meant for circulation in the first place. Tim you gave me a lot of food for thought when you brought this up with me earlier.

As for this: 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 think that pcgs' decision to take what I consider the easy way out is turning into a liability where their credibility is concerned. Now more and more people are looking at the registry sets, and seeing the possibility of "double standards" so to speak. I would think that they would want to get this situation taken care of as soon as possible.

This is just another 2 bits of my thoughts.

TAClough · February 19, 2006 1:10PM

<< So when things change at PCGS re SHQ's based on the top registry set holders, does this not effect the other reg sets with a SF entry (Sac dollars) as I can't imagine PCGS doing things differently? >>

There is still a big IF out there, so your sentence should start "So if things change at pcgs ...." But what ever PCGS does with the sets of one denomination in regards to the satin finish coinage of 2005, it should have a ripple effect with all denominations. But before we worry about this, we need to have the population reports cleaned up (Wondercoin, MAS 3387, Datentype, Brccoins, WCQR, p8nt, RB7557, and many other), who have all helped with this endeavor, needs our thanks (Now we need PCGS to step up and actually change their data entry errors).

Wondercoin, have you had a chance to look at the definitions of a "proof die" yet? Do these crome plated dies used to strike the satin finish coinage for 2005 meet this definition? I had posted my thoughts on the effects of the either / or policy as it relates to the "supply and demand" economics of the market place, would like to hear your viewpoint on the subject and if PCGS should have the appearance of effecting the market value by their policy?

Sincerely,
Tim

RegistryCoin · February 19, 2006 1:46PM

I don't have much at stake here, as I gave up a top spot in state quarters a couple of years after the conception of the series, but after hearing that PCGS is working on this project, or these problems, I think one should at this point, at least give them the benefit of your doubt. There obviously WILL be changes. My suggestion is to take a deep breath, and give them a chance to prove themselves, then you can make judgements after changes have been made. Your good thoughts will not hurt the situation any, to be sure, and may go a long way to, at least ease your mind(s) for the time being. Just my humble opinion.

wondercoin · February 19, 2006 2:50PM

"Personally I think there should be a strictly circ strike set"

I would love that as well, but as dbldie55 said nearly 400 posts ago, if that were the case, nearly every set would be empty as the "circulation strike" sets are filled with 95%++ mint set coins from 1999-2004. But, what a cool idea to only have a state quarter MS set with coins that can only be entered from "circulation (i.e. rolls, bags).

I will follow RC's sage advice and wait to see what PCGS accomplishes in the next few weeks. And, as I mentioned before, I am totally comfortable with whatever the #1 sets jointly want to do from here on these issues - I know they have the best interests of ALL state quarter collectors in mind and will do what is right.

Wondercoin

mas3387 · February 19, 2006 9:50PM

<< I would love that as well, but as dbldie55 said nearly 400 posts ago, if that were the case, nearly every set would be empty as the "circulation strike" sets are filled with 95%++ mint set coins from 1999-2004. But, what a cool idea to only have a state quarter MS set with coins that can only be entered from "circulation (i.e. rolls, bags). >>

Don't feel the need to go and empty sets that are currently in the "circulation strike" catogory Because the claim is 95% are from mint sets.

A coin found from a Roll or Bag from 1999-2004 has been given no different designation than a coin from a 1999-2004 Mint set by PCGS, don't see the need to empty sets.

Coins in the 2005 mint sets are not the same as past mint set coins. It looks like PCGS agree's they are different as well, PCGS-Satin finish disignation-New Coin Number.

wondercoin · February 20, 2006 12:20AM

Seth: Not sure if you noticed the weekly rise in a few of the better non-SF 2005 coins, which someone just supplied to me:

KS-P MS67 + 10

WV-P MS67 + 26

I think I might be winning our "friendly wager" on that Kansas "p" remaining a $400 coin.

Wondercoin

P.S. Nothing surprised me more than this one though:

AR-P MS68 + 7 (pop rising from 7 to 14 this week!!)

CoinFame · February 20, 2006 1:27AM

Wondercoin: You might have the upper hand on this one indeed.

Edit: I see only 23 on the Pop Report for P-KS-MS67. That's the same # it was last week. Did I miss something?

The price of the coin is only as strong as the hands that holds it. In this case, that is a difficult coin to come by, so it'll be interesting to see how they are sold.

wondercoin · February 20, 2006 1:31AM

Seth: I believe the up to the minute pop numbers are found by using those figures showing in the Registry sets themselves, not the online pop report - I have found the Registry set figures usually have a couple day lead time on the on-line pop report figures.

Wondercoin

P.S. I believe WV(d) non-SF may have moved up to pop 6 in MS68 as well.

CoinFame · February 20, 2006 1:54AM

Yes, they do show up more up to the minute that way. I'm used to seeing the pop report update on Mondays, so I didn't think to check the registry. Pop 33 it is.

Edited to add: Here's the first one for you starting @ $325: 8386627832

WCQX · February 20, 2006 3:52AM

Michael, "A coin found from a Roll or Bag from 1999-2004 has been given no different designation than a coin from a 1999-2004 Mint set by PCGS, don't see the need to empty sets.
Coins in the 2005 mint sets are not the same as past mint set coins. It looks like PCGS agree's they are different as well, PCGS-Satin finish disignation-New Coin Number. " Mitch and others we have been over this argument several times and in my opinion it is now idiotic to debate that the 2005 satin finish sets should be placed in the same category as prior year mint sets unless you are talking about the mint sets from 1965-1967 that were denoted as "SMS" by PCGS and others. For the same reasons the mint sets of 1965-1967 are not considered circulation strikes the mint sets from 2005 are also not considered circulation strikes and further feeble attempts to make this connection are not appreciated by anyone. Thank you MASS I agree with you 100% on this issue. dr

mas3387 · February 20, 2006 4:20AM

Michael, "A coin found from a Roll or Bag from 1999-2004 has been given no different designation than a coin from a 1999-2004 Mint set by PCGS, don't see the need to empty sets.
Coins in the 2005 mint sets are not the same as past mint set coins. It looks like PCGS agree's they are different as well, PCGS-Satin finish disignation-New Coin Number. "

<< Mitch and others we have been over this argument several times and in my opinion it is now idiotic to debate that the 2005 satin finish sets should be placed in the same category as prior year mint sets unless you are talking about the mint sets from 1965-1967 that were denoted as "SMS" by PCGS and others. For the same reasons the mint sets of 1965-1967 are not considered circulation strikes the mint sets from 2005 are also not considered circulation strikes and further feeble attempts to make this connection are not appreciated by anyone. Thank you MASS I agree with you 100% on this issue. dr >>

Doug - Felt the need to re-visit the topic

<< I would love that as well, but as dbldie55 said nearly 400 posts ago, if that were the case, nearly every set would be empty as the "circulation strike" sets are filled with 95%++ mint set coins from 1999-2004. But, what a cool idea to only have a state quarter MS set with coins that can only be entered from "circulation (i.e. rolls, bags). >>

wondercoin · February 20, 2006 4:36AM

Doug: You know as well as I do that the 1999-2004 mint set coins are "different beasts" than the 1999-2004 roll coins. The fact that PCGS never did anything about it is immaterial. We discussed the differences for years - and are both fully aware of them. You also know that the circulation strike sets are primarily filled with mint set coins. But, who cares at this point - in another few weeks PCGS should launch its all inclusive variety set. And, if PCGS decides later to separate out SF from non-SF coins in other sets, so be it. Just more coins for dealers to sell collectors at that point. Nothing more to debate - let's see what progress develops in the next few weeks.

Wondercoin.

WCQX · February 20, 2006 5:39AM

Mitch "Doug: You know as well as I do that the 1999-2004 mint set coins are "different beasts" than the 1999-2004 roll coins." Yes this is true, mint sets have always been different beasts. I once put together a PCGS gem FBL set of franklin halves and currently own an unregistered complete PCGS gem set of IKE dollars and just like the state quarters and all other series there have always been different dates and mintmarks favored in the mint sets but not all of them. They did not even put 1971 and 1972 IKE's in the mint sets so a complete set of these IKE's is hybrid by definition. Yes Slug Football I recognize you as a player on IKE's from e-bay. There is no record or mention of other die finish process used in the other mint set years except 1965-1967 and now 2005-?. If the mint did not add a mint mark to the new SF coins as it did not add a mint mark with the SMS coins of 1965-1967 not even one person out there would dare to ask that these 2005 SF be included in the circulation strike set. The mint being an expert marketer added the mkint mark so they could sell twice as many coins but mint mark aside it is not a circualtion strike coin with the special finish. So in the past the mint set was just a beast and now it is a beast of a different color "finish" like 1965-1967 and all the discussion about adding a frost or cameo designation to the SF finish proves that.

Mitch "The fact that PCGS never did anything about it is immaterial." In my opinion there was nothing to do since in previous years except 1965-1967 the mint sets and business strike coinage were one and all "circulation strikes" so you could just pick the best coin you could find.

Mitch " We discussed the differences for years - and are both fully aware of them." Absolutely true the change is the special finish put on mint set coins in 2005 and not done since 1965-1967. The special finish is the new point we are now discussing that makes the 2005 mint set a beast of a different color.

Mitch "But, who cares at this point - in another few weeks PCGS should launch its all inclusive variety set." Thank you for pushing to make this happen Mitch. I want this set that contains all 20 coins and any new varieties appropriately titled as a "Complete Set" or "Complete Set With Varieties" as they do in the other series. If we can get a third set "circulation strike only" then no weighting would be required and I think 100% of our peers will be happy. We at least should start the complete set now as we have been discussing.

wondercoin · February 20, 2006 5:48AM

Doug: All sounds good.

By the way - this point may have been lost in the 400+ post discussion - the only reason the 1965-67 SMS coins were not placed in the circulation strike sets at PCGS in the first place I believe was Rick Montgomery and myself jointly agreed (and perhaps others) that it would be better for the proof Registry set to have 3 coins and the circulation strike set to have 3 coins, as opposed to 6 coins in the circulation strike set and 0 in the Proof side. I believe consideration is now being given to place the 1965-67 SMS coins in BOTH the MS and Proof Registry sets. I am not saying it is going to happen, one way or the other- I am saying it is being considered.

Wondercoin.

WCQX · February 20, 2006 6:44AM

Thanks Mitch. For those of you reading this you may not understand that I have bought coins from Mitch for many years in many series starting in the early to mid 1990's when I lived in Palm Springs and regularly attended each Long Beach show. Mitch is tough and represented the modern collector very well in the early days when other dealers would have preferred moderns stayed out of the main stream of collecting. Moderns are a wide open forum and there is no inventory controll by dealers so many dealers do not like moderns. I voice my opinion that is not always in agreement with Mitch and other collectors. Mitch has not taken my opinions personally in the past and continues to offer me coins even though we do not always agree and I do not expect others to always agree with me. Once again my thanks to Mitch for taking the heat on this post and allowing us all to voice our opinions to try and mutually solve some of the things bothering us. I hope none of my comments are considered personal attacks on any-one as they are not intended to be and I am opinionated and it is a free country. dr

TAClough · February 20, 2006 7:06AM

Dear Wondercoin,

I am glad to see that you have changed your mind and that you are still willing to have a dialog on this subject since my last post. After you posted your comment referring some members as "disingenuous" a drafted a reply but figured it would be better to sit on it and cool off before I posted it. I am pleased I did because I noticed you have edit your earlier comments and took much of it out (thank you).

You have been collecting for a number of years, and have dealt with PCGS's product more then I have. I would still value your opinion and would like to hear your comments to my prevous questions. Also you have mentioned that the 1999 - 2004 mint sets are a " "different beasts" than the 1999-2004 roll coins. A new queston, were these coins referred to as "different beasts" prepared with special dies or the same dies as circulation strikes?

Thank you,
Tim

wondercoin · February 20, 2006 7:25AM

Tim: Was it you that pulled that good information on the differences between the Mint set coins and the non-mint set coins - in terms of the preparation of the dies, striking pressure, etc.? I think the "different beasts" analysis would incorporate that information. Do you still have it?

Wondercoin

P.S. Thanks Doug.

TAClough · February 20, 2006 8:17AM

<< Tim: Was it you that pulled that good information on the differences between the Mint set coins and the non-mint set coins - in terms of the preparation of the dies, striking pressure, etc.? I think the "different beasts" analysis would incorporate that information. Do you still have it? >>

Dear Wondercoin,

Yes, I still have that information. I also have several cousins that work(ed) in the Denver Mint, over the years, I've had several conversations with them (they complaining about some of the modern Comm that were struck there, ect). Talking with them over the years, which I realize that they can't go into detail, the same dies were used on all circulation strike coins (weather they were working on the main production floor, or on the custom floor. They would sign the dies out of the same safe for working on mint sets or for general circulation). In 2005 that changed, there are seperate dies for each with safety procedures so they don't get mixed up. Bottom line, they used to be produced with the same dies prior to 2005, it was eluded to that the mint set were struck with more pressure, although when asked I was just told that they are not allowed to say what the actual pressures are for different coins. But to me, the important thing is, are the dies the same? Should the mannor of the die dictate the status of the designation? I would still like to hear your comments to my previous questions.

<< Wondercoin, have you had a chance to look at the definitions of a "proof die" yet? Do these crome plated dies used to strike the satin finish coinage for 2005 meet this definition? I had posted my thoughts on the effects of the either / or policy as it relates to the "supply and demand" economics of the market place, would like to hear your viewpoint on the subject and if PCGS should have the appearance of effecting the market value by their policy? >>

Sincerely,
Tim

wondercoin · February 20, 2006 8:53AM

Tim: Interesting information about Denver. The most profound differences between the mint set and roll coins I have seen throughout the state quarter program are mainly Philly coins (e.g. CT(p)).

Yes, it was mentioned that the mint set coins were struck with different pressure than the roll coins. Further, I seem to recall a comment about the dies being "burnished" for the mint sets?? Would these (2) distinctions result in the difference I have seen out there? Then, there is the common sense approach to the issue- if the same coin quality was being produced for mint sets and rolls with the same dies, then why are the vast, vast majority of all the finest known coins graded (best I know) only found in the mint sets? And, (assuming no difference to the dies) why do coins like the 2000(p) Maryland and Massachusetts (p) mint set coins (as well as coins from 2003(p)) often come with the sensational "distressed die" surface appearance - which I do not recall ever seeing on any roll coins in any given year or mintmark? What exactly is the difference then, because there surely is one I believe?

For that matter (just been wondering on this one for some time now), why from 1999-2003 was the Denver mint only able to produce a single MS69 PCGS coin (Mass(p), while the Philly mint hundreds of MS69 coins during those years?

Also, what definition of proof die are you using Tim - I couldn't find that post easily? And, please include the mint's discussion of the chrome plated dies so we can analyze your comment together.

Wondercoin

CoinFame · February 20, 2006 9:06AM

Mitch & Everyone:

One interesting detail I learned about the Denver Mint answered my same question about quality of coins vs Philadelphia. Denver Mint has many stories and apparently when the coins are struck, they are dropped through a hole in the concrete floor to the level below for dispersement. In the Philly mint, they don't drop them through the floor for a nice drop to the containment below...

No wonder it's hard to find them in the same grade after a 10? ft drop!!!

I understand that this is for business strike coins. I don't think mint set coins are handled that way currently.

TAClough · February 20, 2006 11:00AM

<< Mint Sets are packaged by the US Mint as sets, and include one example of each coin produced for circulation. These sets make it possible for collectors to easily acquire all regular issue coins struck during a particular year, and have been offered continually since 1947. Since 1968, all Mint Sets have included coins that were intended for circulation and received no special treatment by the Mint. The coins included in this year’s Sets were stuck from specially prepared dies.

The issuance of a Mint Set with specially struck coins is a reprise for the US Mint. During the years 1965 to 1967, following the transition from silver to copper-nickel coinage, no Proof Sets were struck. This hiatus allowed the mint to focus on the production of circulating coinage, which ballooned dramatically during those years. In lieu of the Proof Set, a hybrid style Mint Set was released which included coins struck from proof dies, but which did not receive the same standard of handling and overall quality control as proof coins issued previously. The US Mint called these Special Mint Sets. >>

NGC

<< WASHINGTON – The United States Mint announced today that it will begin selling the 2005 United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Set on May 31, 2005, at 12:00 noon (ET), and for the first time ever, the set will have a satin finish. The release for this set is three weeks earlier than in 2004, as part of the United States Mint’s commitment to making many of its products available earlier in the year, at the request of its customers.

The United States Mint has chosen the new satin finish because it is handsome and provides consistency for United States Mint uncirculated products, including the Uncirculated Coin Set, Commemorative Coins and American Eagle Silver Bullion (uncirculated) coins. The satin finish, which will be continued on uncirculated coin sets in the future, will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated.

This year’s 22-coin United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Set – available for $16.95 – includes versions of each 2005-dated circulating United States coin, bearing the Philadelphia ‘P’ and Denver ‘D’ mint mark: the Lincoln cent, the Jefferson “American Bison” and “Ocean in View” 5-cent coins (nickels) from the Westward Journey Nickel SeriesTM, the Roosevelt dime, the Kennedy half-dollar and the Golden Dollar (Note: the one-cent coin struck in Philadelphia does not bear a mint mark). The set also includes all five of the 2005-dated coins in the United States Mint’s 50 State Quarters® Program – California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas and West Virginia. Each set is packaged in polyester film and includes a Certificate of Authenticity.

Customers can purchase the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Set through the United States Mint’s secure website at www.usmint.gov, or by calling toll-free 1-800-USA-MINT (872-6468) 8:00 a.m. to midnight (ET), seven days a week. Hearing- and speech-impaired customers may order by calling 1-888-321-MINT (6468) 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (ET), Monday through Friday. Also, orders may be mailed to the United States Mint, P.O. Box 382601, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-8601.

As an added convenience, customers can participate in a Subscription Program in which specific products, such as the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Set, are charged and shipped to the customer automatically as each set is released. A shipping and handling fee of $4.95 per order will be added to all orders. Please allow approximately three to four weeks for delivery. >>

US Mint Press Release 05/16/05

Dear Wondercoin,

You will notice in the Mint's press release, paragraph two, it says: The satin finish, which will be continued on uncirculated coin sets in the future, will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated. The mint intended for the satin finish to "differentiate" between mint sets and rolls or bags for the years 2005 and beyond. PCGS recongized this, and gave them seperate numbers.

PCGS's definition of "proof Die", on PCGS's home page there is a link to a page they have titled Lingo:

<< Specially prepared dies, often sandblasted or acid-picked, that are used to strike Proof coins. Often, the fields are highly polished to a mirrorlike finish, while the recessed areas are left “rough”; on coins struck with such dies, the devices are frosted and contrast with highly reflective fields. Matte, Roman, and Satin Proof dies are not polished to a mirror-like finish. >>

My previous question dealt with :Specially prepared dies, often sandblasted or acid-picked, that are used to strike Proof coins. Matte, Roman, and Satin Proof dies are not polished to a mirror-like finish. Using this definition, do the 2005 satin finish mint set meet this criteria of being struck with "proof dies"?

The other question, that I wanted your opinion on was: I had posted my thoughts on the effects of the either / or policy as it relates to the "supply and demand" economics of the market place, would like to hear your viewpoint on the subject and if PCGS should have the appearance of effecting the market value by their policy? I would like to hear your thoughts on this question from the prospective of a collector and then of a dealer, if you wouldn't mine?

Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Tim

EDITED TO ADD: I will wait with patience for your answers, please take your time, your opinion is important.

wondercoin · February 20, 2006 5:33PM

Tim: Sorry for the delay getting back to - work needed to be done first.

I did not read what the Mint may have written on the details surrounding its production of the UNCIRCULATED coins in the Mint sets (if anything). But, by the Mint's very own language you quoted, I believe your question is answered. The Mint's produced "uncirculated" coins in the "Uncirculated coin sets".

Regarding the "either/or" approach to the regular set - I have discussed numerous times here on this thread the many reasons I support that approach. I know that #1 state quarter set holder Donn Murphy also fully supports PCGS' decision (from Day 1) to allow either/or in the regular set. Other collectors on this thread oppose the use of either/or, while still other collectors are OK with it as part of a compromise to get a variety set which requires all (10) 2005 coins' use (whatever that variety set needs to be called officially). I am not sure how market value will be affected by these actions, although a few have suggested that with the advent of the new variety set, the non-SF coins may see some increased demand right out of the box. That does make some sense to me. Obviously, from a dealer standpoint, the more coins that are required for a registry set, the more potential coins to be sold to those set participants. I believe the either/or policy therefore is a "plus" to collectors in general and a "minus" to dealers in general as less coins are required in the regular issue set. Some of that difference may be reduced if some collectors now elect to particpate in the variety set as well and go after (10) additional coins per year. While still many others collectors I believe will be content with having an example or "either/or" and will stick with the regular set. The "diehards" will likely "duke it out" in the variety set and I suspect it will become a very popular state quarter series. For me personally - I have roughly as nice a set of 2005 SF state quarters as I do non-SF state quarters (and, frankly, I expect my non-SF coins to improve even more in the near future while I do not expect such improvement on my SF coins absent PCGS grading fresh MS70SF coins). I have an extensive collection of 1932-date quarter varieties and will have whatever PCGS requires in the new variety set to be sure to compliment my early quarter varieties.

Wondercoin

Dan50 · February 20, 2006 8:18PM

<< I did not read what the Mint may have written on the details surrounding its production of the UNCIRCULATED coins in the Mint sets (if anything). But, by the Mint's very own language you quoted, I believe your question is answered. The Mint's produced "uncirculated" coins in the "Uncirculated coin sets". >>

I believe if you read the entire quote, and not just pick out the words that agree with you, we get the real picture of what the mint is saying.

<< << Mint Sets are packaged by the US Mint as sets, and include one example of each coin produced for circulation. These sets make it possible for collectors to easily acquire all regular issue coins struck during a particular year, and have been offered continually since 1947. Since 1968, all Mint Sets have included coins that were intended for circulation and received no special treatment by the Mint. The coins included in this year’s Sets were stuck from specially prepared dies. >>

<< The United States Mint has chosen the new satin finish because it is handsome and provides consistency for United States Mint uncirculated products, including the Uncirculated Coin Set, Commemorative Coins and American Eagle Silver Bullion (uncirculated) coins. The satin finish, which will be continued on uncirculated coin sets in the future, will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated >>

Now to borrow a quote from you.

<< mint set coins are "different beasts" >>

mas3387 · February 20, 2006 9:06PM

Never a Dull moment

rb7557 · February 20, 2006 10:31PM

Mint Sets are packaged by the US Mint as sets, and include one example of each coin produced for circulation. These sets make it possible for collectors to easily acquire all regular issue coins struck during a particular year, and have been offered continually since 1947. Since 1968, all Mint Sets have included coins that were intended for circulation and received no special treatment by the Mint.

I think that this assures us that 04 and older mint set coins are thus circulation strikes, and even tho they didn't circulate, there is no need to empty the registry due to a technicality.

The United States Mint has chosen the new satin finish because it is handsome and provides consistency for United States Mint uncirculated products, including the Uncirculated Coin Set, Commemorative Coins and American Eagle Silver Bullion (uncirculated) coins. The satin finish, which will be continued on uncirculated coin sets in the future, will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated

Now this specifically states that the satin finish will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated. So with this in mind, the sf coins are not the same as your normal business strike coins.

So, since the sf dies are different from the business strike dies, should they be considered proof dies? Mitch what is your take on this?

This makes our disatisfaction with the sf coins placement in the circulation sets totally justified imho. It really doesn't matter what Mr Murphy's thoughts are on the "either/or decision. Having the best of both strikes doesn't make pcgs' decision to go with the either/or stance any more correct (or less correct).

cladking · February 20, 2006 10:38PM

It would be interesting if the mint were to actually continue quality improvements in the SF until
most of the coins appear PR or PL. It would also cause most collectors to desire both issues.

rb7557 · February 20, 2006 10:54PM

Good morning cladking. That's a great thought. The sf coins with a cameo look are really stunning.

wondercoin · February 21, 2006 12:29AM

I believe we already have seen language directly from the US Mint confirming that the Mint set coins are struck differently than non-Mint set coins (different pressures, burnished planchets), as well as handled differently (see Seth's recent comment)? I have also read some language that says there is absolutely no difference between the Mint set coins and non-mint set coins. THIS WOULD MAKE FOR A VERY NICE RESEARCH PROJECT FOR SOMEONE INDEED.

Yet, experience has shown me there has been a huge difference since 1999 as far as the state quarters go. I also have early date roll coins in high grade holders that are entirely different beasts than the look of the early date mint set coins (no one took me up on my invitation to see the difference between the two at the last Loong Beach show, but, I would be happy to show anyone at the next show).

Putting all of that aside, I have now said a number of times that after the pop clean up is concluded, I would be confortable taking another look at the entire situation - perhaps special registry sets for SF coins and non-SF coins would be a good idea at that point?. PCGS has been very expansive in its decision to add new registry sets of late in a number of areas. Especially if the pops are cleaned up, I suspect there is some potential creating a number of new registry sets separating out SF and non-SF coins, which would appear to make a number of people very happy.

Wondercoin

Dan50 · February 21, 2006 1:01AM

Thats all we are asking for, a place to showcase our circulation/business strike coins. I don't think anyone objects to variety sets. They will have a choice as they always have whether they use this type set or not. But there has always been a PURE circulation/business strike set for those of us who have spent years building our registry sets for just such as this..
We love our sets, and we don't want to change them into something else at this late date in the series.
I for one like the looks of the SF coins, and would probably start a variety set with them included. But with that, we wish to keep building the basic set as we have in years past.
I believe if a poll were taken the results would show this fact overwhelmingly.

No disrespect to you is intended by anyone here IMHO.
But we would like to have our opinions heard concerning the future of our collections.

cladking · February 21, 2006 3:52AM

<< I believe we already have seen language directly from the US Mint confirming that the Mint set coins are struck differently than non-Mint set coins (different pressures, burnished planchets), as well as handled differently (see Seth's recent comment)? I have also read some language that says there is absolutely no difference between the Mint set coins and non-mint set coins. THIS WOULD MAKE FOR A VERY NICE RESEARCH PROJECT FOR SOMEONE INDEED.

>>

There's already plenty written on the subject but it just hasn't been assembled in a single place. Since
1968 the mint has made and processed the mint set coins very differently than the other business strikes.
The issue has been confused by the fact that whenever somone asked the mint about the coins in the mint
sets they got a canned answer which was taken to mean that they are identical to other business strikes
while all they meant was that they are mint state as well (as opposed to proof).

The mint changed their standard language for the mint sets in their offers back in 1997 but if you call you
can still get the canned answer and it is seen in other places as well.

The differences in the processes used can not be distinguished on any individual coin. Whether a quarter
is struck at 60 tons or at 75 tons can not be discerned. You can tell by looking at a coin what the approx-
imate ordinal number off the die is but brand new dies are sometimes used to strike non-mint set coins as
well. Non-mint set coins come as nice for most dates as the mint set coins.

There is a huge difference between a random sampling of mint set and non-mint set coins. The finest spec-
imen made of 90% of the moderns will come from a mint set. The average mint set strike is far better. Mark-
ing is hit and miss but most mint set coins show up at least rarely as a clean coin. Probably all of the non-mint
set coins existed clean but these generally went into circulation and no longer exist.

TAClough · February 21, 2006 4:03AM

Dear Wondercoin,

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Fixing the population reports would be a good first step for PCGS to do, I wonder when they will update their files with the information that you and others have provided them? It would be nice to see just how rare some of the circulation strikes are, that might be an incentive for other collectors to submit samples for grading.

Another question for you, do you agree that there is a difference between the 2005 satin finish strike and circulation strike coins for them both to be included seperately in a Complete Set? I don't think that the satin finish is a variety because they were struck on purpose for a desired efect (they were meant to be), unlike a DDO, high leaf, low leaf or DDR. I also think both types of strikes are different and unique from each other and in my Complete Set of Kennedy's I am allowed to have both of the 1965-67 SMS and business strikes so I would like to have both the satin finish and circulation strikes of 2005 in there as well (where they are different, I shouldn't have to chose one or the other but have both!).

I realize that this thread was originially for statehood quarters, but I believe that there will be a ripple efect within the other denominations, that is why I have posted here. As long as PCGS has the either / or policy on circulation strike sets, they are not going to allow me both types in my Complete Set like it should be.

Your comment,

<< I did not read what the Mint may have written on the details surrounding its production of the UNCIRCULATED coins in the Mint sets (if anything). But, by the Mint's very own language you quoted, I believe your question is answered. The Mint's produced "uncirculated" coins in the "Uncirculated coin sets". >>

I quoted the entire press release of the mint for you to read. In 2005, the saten fiish uncirculated coin sets, according to the Mints own press release, was to help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated. Again, 2005 bagged or rolled coins are meant to be different from the satin finish uncirculated sets. In the past, I have never read any thing from the mint other then the uncirculated sets were a means of collectors conveniently collecting a sample of all strikes meant for circulation (this changed in 2005 even PCGS recongized this and issued a unique coin number).

Sincerely,
Tim

EDIT TO ADD: Were you able to facilitate the removal of the circulation strike 1967 Kennedy graded MS67CA from the population report yet? I still notice that it is listed in the owner's set as a MS67CA. From one Kennedy collector, thanks for trying to resolve this issue.

mas3387 · February 21, 2006 8:01AM

We have heard enough information to know what the Right thing to do is as far as which coin should be used for the current Circulation Strike set.

My question:

If Satin Finish coins are Not allowed in the current State Quarter Circulation Strike set who would be #1?

<< I PERSONALLY BELIEVE PCGS DID THE RIGHT THING MAKING "SF" OR NON-SF OPTIONAL FOR STATE QUARTERS >>

cladking

I always enjoy reading your post, thanks for joining. we have heard claims that

<< nearly every set would be empty as the "circulation strike" sets are filled with 95%++ mint set coins from 1999-2004 >>

The question I have is:

If you had a 1999 - 2000 - 2001 - 2002 - 2003 - 2004 State Quarter graded by PCGS found from a roll PCGS would give this coin the same coin number as say a coin found from a Bag or Pocket change? Now take a State Quarter from a 2001 mint set send it to PCGS for grading the coin number given to the mint set coin is the same as the one given to the Roll, Bag or Pocket change coin? No difference? Sounds to me PCGS has agreed that from 1999 - 2004 all these coins are the same roll - Bag - mint set - pocket change?

2005 coins found in bags, rolls and pocket change have the same numbering sequence as 1999 - 2004 coins? No difference? 2005 mint set coins are clearly Different than the coins from 1999 - 2004. And what do you know looks like PCGS also agrees they are different, as you can see a different coin Number has been used for Satin finish coins.

wondercoin · February 21, 2006 9:08AM

"We have heard enough information to know what the Right thing to do is as far as which coin should be used for the current Circulation Strike set."

Really? You mean basically yourself as a dealer concentrating on roll coins and a few dedicated collectors (and perhaps another dealer or two)? Never mind the (100)-(200) other registry collectors who had the either/or choice FROM DAY 1 (i.e. this didn't catch anyone by surprise, or the "rug wasn't pulled out from anyone) and may be quite content not having to add double the coins each year? In am comfortable that I know what the right thing to do is and I continue to support PCGS's decision from Day 1 to allow "either/or". Mas - let's move ahead without attacking each other on "right" and "wrong"

Wondercoin

P.S. I doubt seriously either #1 collector has a hidden agenda to their position. I know better of both Doug and Donn. As I said earlier, when someone tries to make it personal, I generally sense the weakness of their position.

P.S.S. - For the 3rd or 4th time - PCGS has been very comfortable adding specialized registry sets. After they launch the "variety set" and the pop is cleaned up, I see no problem personally with a number of registry sets focused specifically on SF coins and non-SF coins. In fact, those would be fun to build out.

wondercoin · February 21, 2006 9:17AM

"Now this specifically states that the satin finish will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated. So with this in mind, the sf coins are not the same as your normal business strike coins.
So, since the sf dies are different from the business strike dies, should they be considered proof dies? Mitch what is your take on this?"

Roger: I agree it helps - until now, most collectors and the major grading services either didn't or couldn't differentitate between the two from 1999-2004. But, this is my very point - THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DIFFERENCE. THE U.S. MINT ESSENTIALLY ACKNOWLEDGES MY POSITION? Do you agree?

I truly do not see the argument that since the sf dies are different from the bag and roll business strike dies, they should be considered proof dies. They are simply the mint set circulation strike dies of 2005. If one simply wanted to argue that since the sf dies are different from the business strike roll and bag dies, they are, therefore, proof dies - then, what would prevent one from equally saying "since the SF dies are different from the Proof dies, they are, therefore, business strike dies"? Wouldn't that be equally consistent since we both know the SF coins look nothing like the PR69DC and PR70DC state quarters of 2005?

Wondercoin

TAClough · February 21, 2006 11:09AM

Wondercoin,

<< I agree it helps - until now, most collectors and EVERY GRADING SERVICE either didn't or couldn't differentitate between the two from 1999-2004. But, this is my very point - THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DIFFERENCE. THE U.S. MINT ESSENTIALLY ACKNOWLEDGES MY POSITION? >>

I can't let this go, sorry, U.S. MINT ESSENTIALLY ACKNOWLEDGES MY POSITION? The mint made, hinted, stated or any other form, no such ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. To make such an accusation is like saying that the mint said the "moon is made out of cream chesse" in the same press release, it just didn't happen. The only thing the mint's press release (that I posted) acknowledged was that starting with the 2005 uncirculated sets, the mint wanted some consistency with it's products that it sells as collectables and be able to differentiate between bagged / rolled coins from the ones they sell as sets / individuals.

Do the dies used to strike the satin finish coins meet the difinition of a "proof die? This is an easy question, you either answer it no, yes or I don't know.

<< I do not see the argument that since the sf dies are different from the bag and roll business strike dies, they should be considered proof dies. >>

It shouldn't matter if the chrome plated dies used to strike the 2005 mint set are the same or different from any other die. Weather a die meets the difinition of a circulation strike, proof or any other type should only be determined by the individual die standing on its own merits and then comparing those merits to the difinition. Using PCGS's own definition, what are the elements that must be present in order to meet the criteria of a "proof die":

<< Specially prepared dies, often sandblasted or acid-picked, that are used to strike Proof coins. Often, the fields are highly polished to a mirrorlike finish, while the recessed areas are left “rough”; on coins struck with such dies, the devices are frosted and contrast with highly reflective fields. Matte, Roman, and Satin Proof dies are not polished to a mirror-like finish >>

So a coin struck with a specially prepared die, often sandblasted or acid-picked (maybe even chrome plated is still specially prepared).........Matte Proof, Roman Proof and Satin Proof dies are not polished to a mirror-like finish (does this not sound like the dies used to strike the 2005 mint sets?).

I'm willing to wait until PCGS cleans up the population reports before asking them to revisit the either / or policy as was sugested several hundred posts ago. But make no mistake, there are more members with Registry sets who would like the satin finish left out of the so called Circulation strike sets then who wants them in across the different denominations.

Wondercoin, you mentioned in your next to last post, before you edited it out, that personal attacks are a sign of a weak position. In my experience over the years of interviewing / interrogations you are right. But avoiding a question in my experience is also a sign of a weak position.

I will mention this again, for all of us on this thread, we can agree or disagree on an issue but hopefully we can be civil about it and remember that at the end of the day, we are all collectors or dealer in the same hobby. Debating an issue lets us see the other side of the viewpoint, we can stand on one side or the other, or we can take a little bit from each side in making our own decissions.

On a personel note, I betting right now that PCGS wished that they had gone out into the registry and gotten a broader perspective from the membership before they opened this can of worms with the either / or policy.

Again, just my humble opinion.
Tim

wondercoin · February 21, 2006 11:26AM

"I can't let this go, sorry, U.S. MINT ESSENTIALLY ACKNOWLEDGES MY POSITION? The mint made, hinted, stated or any other form, no such ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. To make such an accusation is like saying that the mint said the "moon is made out of cream chesse" in the same press release, it just didn't happen. The only thing the mint's press release (that I posted) acknowledged was that starting with the 2005 uncirculated sets, the mint wanted some consistency with it's products that it sells as collectables and be able to differentiate between bagged / rolled coins from the ones they sell as sets / individuals."

Tim: Words like "accusation" are really unnecessary. Let's look at that mint language:

"...help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated"

I have said all along there was a difference between the roll coins and the mint set coins, while many others have questioned that point. Now, the mint says this change in 2005 will help collectors differentiate between the (2) types. Yep, IMHO - the Mint is tacitly acknoweldging my position with this statement that there has always been a difference between the (2), however subtle. Now, with the SF coins, the Mint has provided collectors help differentiating the (2) types. As simple as that. And, I am fine if you disagree with my analysis - disagreement noted.

Second, I am far from convinced that majority of collectors of the regular state quarter set want the SF removed from the set; indeed, I believe just the opposite. But, again, I am not surprised we may have a difference of opinion on this. I have taken a great deal of time to address many issues and questions on the thread. I truly appreciate that some of you may disagree with my thoughts; that's only reasonable and what makes these boards enjoyable. But, I think we have debated this thing to death for now. Let's see where things stand when the new set is released and, hopefully, the pop report is nearly fully cleaned up. Wondercoin

slugfootball · February 21, 2006 12:02PM

IMHO we are debating the wrong issue!

Did our problems not start with PCGS’s quality control?
We expected more. The “either coin” solution is just wrong!

PCGS should probably clean up the Pop Reports for it’s own business interests.

I know what I would like to collect. If PCGS does not have a spot for me, maybe
in time I will loose interest? But most important (for the good of the hobby) I hope to
see a panel of collectors from all series be involved in the decision making process, not
just a couple of guys making decisions over the phone.

It might be as easy as a poll?

Sorry, could no longer just read the thread.

rb7557 · February 21, 2006 12:55PM

Mitch

Technically speaking, yes, there is a difference between the older mint set coins, and the roll/bag coins. Just the difference in the way they are handled makes the mint set coins better samples because they were not beat to hell. Not to mention the dies weren't used till they cracked, broke, or were just plain tired andworn out. Press pressures have been stated to be different, which I am sure makes for a better looking end product. But the main point of the arguement is that prior year mint sets did not use specially prepared dies that were totally different from the dies used to produce bag/roll coins.

I truly do not see the argument that since the sf dies are different from the bag and roll business strike dies, they should be considered proof dies. They are simply the mint set circulation strike dies of 2005. If one simply wanted to argue that since the sf dies are different from the business strike roll and bag dies, they are, therefore, proof dies - then, what would prevent one from equally saying "since the SF dies are different from the Proof dies, they are, therefore, business strike dies"? Wouldn't that be equally consistent since we both know the SF coins look nothing like the PR69DC and PR70DC state quarters of 2005?

Until the release of the 05 mint sets we had the 2 basic strikes to our coins. Business strike (unc,bu, etc) which used 1 type of die, and was used for circulating coin and for mint set coin production. Then the proof strike (cam, dcam, ucam etc) which used polished dies (specially prepared), and was used for proof coin production. The proof coins were made specifically for the collector. You also had the sms coins in the 65-7 era. I feel these coins were a hybid strike, used to appease the collector while the transition was made with the movement of proof coin production from Philly to San Fran. I am not knowlegable in the political or logistical reasons behind the move. Maybe it was a fast decision and the San Fran mint wasn't prepared to mass produce proof coins in 65. And the way government entities work, it was 3 years before they had their stuff together enough to actually do the proof coins in mass quantities.

I agree that the sf issue can be argued both ways. Realistically speaking, the sf strike doesn't fit either category, business or proof strike, for the reasons you and I, and others, have both stated. Could it be that it's time to redefine proof and business strike or dies, whichever terminology you want to use, and make way for a third kind of strike, or die, with the development of the satin finish coins? I honestly think it is, and if that's the case, then sf coins don't really fit into the circulation or proof categories. They need to be in their own individual category.

I think that's the real issue here, whether anyone wants to accept it or not. And as always, change is not readily acceptable by all people. Especially if you think about how this was not a gradual and slow change. One day we all anticipated the release of the 05 mint set, produced the way it had been for years. The next day, we were told of an 05 mint set to be released with a new type of die which would give mint set coins a new appearance. One which would differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated.

rb7557 · February 21, 2006 1:11PM

<< IMHO we are debating the wrong issue!

Did our problems not start with PCGS’s quality control?
We expected more. The “either coin” solution is just wrong!

PCGS should probably clean up the Pop Reports for it’s own business interests.

I know what I would like to collect. If PCGS does not have a spot for me, maybe
in time I will loose interest? But most important (for the good of the hobby) I hope to
see a panel of collectors from all series be involved in the decision making process, not
just a couple of guys making decisions over the phone.

It might be as easy as a poll?

Sorry, could no longer just read the thread. >>

Welcome to the conversation slugfootball. The more the merrier!!!

I will mention this again, for all of us on this thread, we can agree or disagree on an issue but hopefully we can be civil about it and remember that at the end of the day, we are all collectors or dealer in the same hobby. Debating an issue lets us see the other side of the viewpoint, we can stand on one side or the other, or we can take a little bit from each side in making our own decissions.

On a personel note, I betting right now that PCGS wished that they had gone out into the registry and gotten a broader perspective from the membership before they opened this can of worms with the either / or policy.

Amen!!!

wondercoin · February 21, 2006 2:48PM

"Mitch Technically speaking, yes, there is a difference between the older mint set coins, and the roll/bag coins. Just the difference in the way they are handled makes the mint set coins better samples because they were not beat to hell. Not to mention the dies weren't used till they cracked, broke, or were just plain tired andworn out. Press pressures have been stated to be different, which I am sure makes for a better looking end product. But the main point of the arguement is that prior year mint sets did not use specially prepared dies that were totally different from the dies used to produce bag/roll coins.

I truly do not see the argument that since the sf dies are different from the bag and roll business strike dies, they should be considered proof dies. They are simply the mint set circulation strike dies of 2005. If one simply wanted to argue that since the sf dies are different from the business strike roll and bag dies, they are, therefore, proof dies - then, what would prevent one from equally saying "since the SF dies are different from the Proof dies, they are, therefore, business strike dies"? Wouldn't that be equally consistent since we both know the SF coins look nothing like the PR69DC and PR70DC state quarters of 2005?

Until the release of the 05 mint sets we had the 2 basic strikes to our coins. Business strike (unc,bu, etc) which used 1 type of die, and was used for circulating coin and for mint set coin production. Then the proof strike (cam, dcam, ucam etc) which used polished dies (specially prepared), and was used for proof coin production. The proof coins were made specifically for the collector. You also had the sms coins in the 65-7 era. I feel these coins were a hybid strike, used to appease the collector while the transition was made with the movement of proof coin production from Philly to San Fran. I am not knowlegable in the political or logistical reasons behind the move. Maybe it was a fast decision and the San Fran mint wasn't prepared to mass produce proof coins in 65. And the way government entities work, it was 3 years before they had their stuff together enough to actually do the proof coins in mass quantities.

I agree that the sf issue can be argued both ways. Realistically speaking, the sf strike doesn't fit either category, business or proof strike, for the reasons you and I, and others, have both stated. Could it be that it's time to redefine proof and business strike or dies, whichever terminology you want to use, and make way for a third kind of strike, or die, with the development of the satin finish coins? I honestly think it is, and if that's the case, then sf coins don't really fit into the circulation or proof categories. They need to be in their own individual category.

I think that's the real issue here, whether anyone wants to accept it or not. And as always, change is not readily acceptable by all people. Especially if you think about how this was not a gradual and slow change. One day we all anticipated the release of the 05 mint set, produced the way it had been for years. The next day, we were told of an 05 mint set to be released with a new type of die which would give mint set coins a new appearance. One which would differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated."

Roger: This was a really excellent post.

Wondercoin

mas3387 · February 21, 2006 10:37PM

<< I PERSONALLY BELIEVE PCGS DID THE RIGHT THING MAKING "SF" OR NON-SF OPTIONAL FOR STATE QUARTERS >>

<< As I said earlier, when someone tries to make it personal, I generally sense the weakness of their position. >>

Looking at the title here this thread began as Personal? The general weakness position began from day one and continued through out this thread, I'm sorry you are taking it personal.

<< Mas - let's move ahead without attacking each other on "right" and "wrong" >>

Wondercoin call it attack if you will but you seem to always make yourself sound right or just go around.

<< Really? You mean basically yourself as a dealer concentrating on roll coins and a few dedicated collectors (and perhaps another dealer or two)? Never mind the (100)-(200) other registry collectors who had the either/or choice FROM DAY 1 (i.e. this didn't catch anyone by surprise, or the "rug wasn't pulled out from anyone) and may be quite content not having to add double the coins each year? In am comfortable that I know what the right thing to do is and I continue to support PCGS's decision from Day 1 to allow "either/or". >>

You have summed it up as to your view point as to why you are against the right thing to do, "convenience and economics"

We have enough information and the right thing to do is obvious. What we be will be, I heard this some where before.

With the hopes of a better day

mas3387 · February 21, 2006 11:00PM

Did PCGS Recognize a difference between a Roll, Bag, Mint set or pocket change coin from 1999 to 2004?

Did PCGS Recognize a difference between a roll, Bag, mint set or pocket change coin in 2005?

If the Right thing is done, would the Ranking change in the Current "Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)"?

wondercoin · February 22, 2006 12:30AM

"If the Right thing is done, would the Ranking change in the Current "Washington Statehood Quarters, Circulation Strikes (1999-Present)"?"

Mas: This is the second time you asked this --- I think this time your direct ("secret") target is actually #1 setholder Donn (who supports PCGS' decision)- isn't it? More personal attacks against anyone not seeing it your way. You lose whatever scintilla of credibility you have left with me when you engage in these continued personal attacks.

Wondercoin.

WCQX · February 22, 2006 4:52AM

In the 2/27/06 issue of Coin World I received last night I found this article written by Paul Gilkes about the "mint plans three bullion sets" for 2006 for the American Eagle coin. There will be three coins in each set with a different finish on each, proof, inverted proof, and the satin finish. Quoting from Paul's article now "According to Mint officials, the regular Uncirculated coins in the three-coin sets will carry the Satin Finish introduced on the coins in the 2005 Uncirculated Mint Set, and employed on Uncirculated American Eagle silver bullion coins and commemorative silver coins for several years. The coins exhibit fine, pebbly-looking surfaces, created on the faces of the coinage dies before striking; the dies are blasted under high pressure with a mixture of glass beads and sand. The Satin Finish may look different on individual coins based on the diameter of each coin and the size of the particles in the sand blasting media used".

The inverted proof has frosted fields and mirrored devices so should be easy to differentiate.

I am reading Tim's comments on proof dies above and there are some similarities here. Paul made no mention of chrome plating the satin finish die but that infomation was in the media somewhere last May I recall when the mint was making announcements. If Tim or someone with more tecnical knowledge on die production could reach Paul at Coin World more information may be available from Paul's contacts with "mint officials" so we can get better technical knowlege on the Satin Finish die preparation verses circulating coin die preparation so we can objectively analyze the difference. Paul at Coin World may be a very good source of information for us on this. More knowledge more power. dr

TAClough · February 22, 2006 6:35AM

Dear WCQX,

I remember reading something about the the preparation of the satin dies for 2005, I'm thinking it was an article in Coinage Mag. There was something about the dies being sandblasted with glass beeds and fine sand and then being chrome plated. I will still look for that article, but I will attach another article:

Sincerely,
Tim

<< Sunday July 24, 2005 “The Columbus Dispatch” >>

New mint sets

The U.S. Mint has created a new class of collectible coins with the release of this year’s satin-finish mint sets.

Traditionally the mint releases coins in two finishes: Uncirculated and proof. Uncirculated coins are struck on cleaned but unpolished blanks by production quality dies. These coins, struck by the billions, are shipped in gigantic plastic bins to Federal Reserve Banks where they are counted, rolled and sent to individual banks. The coins tend to end up a bit scuffy.

For decades, the mint has created special sets of uncirculated coins for collectors. These sets, which have sold at a small premium, contain uncirculated coins that were plucked from bins at the mint. As a rule, they look a little better than the uncirculated coins obtainable at banks.
Proof coins are struck one at a time on polished blanks by polished dies. Proof coins have frosted designs and mirrorlike fields. They are the zenith of the minter’s art and are prized by collectors.

This year, the mint has added satin-finish coins to the mix. The coins in this year’s uncirculated coin sets — called mint sets by collectors — have a satin finish. Dies used to strike these special coins have been sandblasted with a fine mixture of sand and glass.

Coins struck with the dies have a pleasing satiny sheen rather than the brilliance of regular uncirculated and proof coins.

This year’s mint set includes an impressive 22 coins — 11 from the Denver mint and 11 from Philadelphia. The set has two cents, two buffalo-reverse nickels, two Pacific-reverse nickels, two dimes, two half dollars, two Sacagawea dollars and 10 state quarters.

The set can be ordered for $16.95 from the mint at www.usmint.gov or 1-800-USAMINT.

Send a question to Coin Comment, P.O. Box 82125, Columbus, Ohio 43202. For a reply, enclose a self-addressed, stamped, business-sized envelope.

WCQX · February 22, 2006 8:46AM

Thank you for the additional information Tim. This sand-blasting of mint set dies for a special effect is definately a beast of a different color than previous years. I was wondering where PCGS found all those high grade silver eagles they gave to new collector club members one year and I still have mine. As stated in the 2/27 issue coin world article these silver eagles were given a satin finish. Had no idea the Satin Finish was old hat to the mint, just new on the regular mint sets. I too recall the chrome plated die article somewhere but did not save it. In my opinion the sand blasting produces a beast of a different color and the chrome plating probably just prolongs the life of the die but more information is desired if we can find it. I am already satisfied in the conclusion that we have a beast of a different color here. dr

wondercoin · February 22, 2006 9:17AM

"Coins struck with the dies have a pleasing satiny sheen rather than the brilliance of regular uncirculated and proof coins."

I believe the US Mint struck BOTH satiny and brilliant Buffalo Commem Dollars as well for its Mint State coins - no difference has ever been recognized by any of the grading companies I believe and no different coin numbers either. The coins are "different beasts" to be sure -yet, both get lumped together under the MS Buffalo Dollar coin number. Has anyone else seen the (2) MS surface differences on the Buffalo Dollar Commems?

Wondercoin.

TAClough · February 22, 2006 9:50AM

Dear WCQX,

Satin Proofs, Matte Proofs and Roman Proofs all go back to the 1800's - early 1900's with the U.S. Mint, they are nothing new. Even back in July 2005, the “The Columbus Dispatch” recognized that the 2005 uncirculated sets were of a different bread when they wrote "The U.S. Mint has created a new class of collectible coins with the release of this year’s satin-finish mint sets." PCGS even made the same determination when they issued a unique coin number for the satin finish coins. I am at a loss why PCGS ever put these satin finish coins in a set purporting to be of Circulation Strikes in the first place, even the Mint's Press Release of May 16, 2005, stated that these were different from rolled or bagged coins meant for circulation, on purpose (no mistake about it). The Mint wanted it's numismatics production to all have the same quality, hence United States Mint uncirculated sets, Uncirculated American Eagles, Uncirculated commemorative coins and medals will all have the satin finish from 2005 on so as to differentiate between them and coins meant for commerce.

The more I think about it, NGC made the right designation for the 2005 Uncirculated set when they call the coins "Special Mint Sets" or SMS because they have more in common with the SMS coinage of 1965-67 then of a circulation strike. If PCGS wants to be consistant with it's either / or policy then they would allow the 1994 and 1997 Matte Jefferson to be used in place of the regular MS version (I imagine that would go over like a fart in church).

Maybe 2005 will be just like 1965-67 and 1982-83, and no uncirculated sets being produced? I have asked several times if the dies used to make the 2005 satin finish coins meet the difinition of a "proof die" and no one is able or willing to give me an answer. I wouldn't mine itf you would look at the difinition, then the merits of the die in question and give your opinion. If in fact, the 2005 satin finish coins were struck with a "proof die", would that disqualify these coins from an uncirculated set? Should it?

Sincerely,
Tim

wondercoin · February 22, 2006 10:41AM

"The more I think about it, NGC made the right designation for the 2005 Uncirculated set when they call the coins "Special Mint Sets" or SMS because they have more in common with the SMS coinage of 1965-67 then of a circulation strike. If PCGS wants to be consistant with it's either / or policy then they would allow the 1994 and 1997 Matte Jefferson to be used in place of the regular MS version (I imagine that would go over like a fart in church)."

Tim: I am puzzled by your position? If NGC did the "right" thing calling them "SMS" and I believe you also think the coins may have been produced with proof dies on top of that, then why did NGC also place the coins in the circulation strike state quarter registry set just as PCGS did, which I believe they did?

Tim - I also have an unanswered question - anyone also notice the(2) different versions of MS Buffalo Dollars struck by the Mint in 2001 - satiny and non-satin? It looks like they had that "technology" back in 2001 to be sure and may aid in understanding the subtle differences in appearance of even coins like the TX(d) and MI(d) quarters from 2004 Mint sets vs. rolls (including the possible understanding of why roughly 45 TX(d) and MI(d) quarters slabbed MS69 from mint sets alone while 1999-2003 yielded but (1) MS69 for all (25) Denver mint issues combined.

Interesting and fun stuff here guys

Wondercoin

The debate on what to do with SF and BS coins continues.

Comments