The Death of the Modern Business/Circulation strike coin
Manorcourtman
Posts: 8,065 ✭✭✭✭✭
I've been quiet on the Registry set debate as far as 2005 SF vs. Circulation/Business coins but now must speak my mind. There is a distinct difference between these two coins and anyone who deals with moderns knows the conditional rarity of Gem 2005 Business/circulation strike coins. I believe that if PCGS does not come up with a home for these coins in the Registry sets that we will see the death of modern graded Business strike coins as no "sane" dealer/collector will search for gem coins as there is no reward for the extended efforts it takes to find these rarities. I realize there are some who say well "they made a bazillion of these coins" and could give a rats butt about this topic. But 2005 Pop numbers already suggest that the end is near for Business/Circulation strike coins as the 05 submissions are a fraction of years past. I think it is a real shame that the "real" coins of 2005 do not have a place in the Registry sets. Just my thoughts.....Chris
0
Comments
The Mint Set SF coins are just as "real" and challenging in their own right in high grade. Just try to locate a WV(d) MS69 SF coin or a true perfect MS70 specimen.
I agree there should be a "home" for both SF and non-SF coins. Hopefully, PCGS will launch a variety set as soon as possible, so I can register my (20) different coins from 2005 as well.
Wondercoin
90+? In fact, when the top state quarter guys decide to get "serious" to try to make an upgrade to their collection - virtually all the time the first step is to "ORDER A TON OF US MINT SETS" or other US Mint Produts!! Just ask nearly any of them.
Wondercoin
Just something to think about... PCGS's denial they have a problem within their system of grading is the real problem here. I think they are scared of the potential liability, and therefore, the business strikes suffer.
I'm starting to think PCGS has to acknowledge there is a problem within their grading system, instead of saying it's the mints fault, per PCGS's own email which came in today:
"All modern sets have been updated to require 2005 coins for completion. Please note that satin finish coins and circulation strike coins are listed as either/or in the sets. The experts at PCGS have determined that there are some inconsistencies in the way these coins come from the Mint. Until these issues are resolved, either issue will be allowed."
Also, ultimately I think PCGS doesn't really care about these coins... and ultimately I think it's PCGS that will end up loosing out.
Truely sad...
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
1. The dealers are jumping ship.
2. The collecters are thinking why bother.
3. ???
<< <i>"I think it is a real shame that the "real" coins of 2005 do not have a place in the Registry sets. Just my thoughts.....Chris"
The Mint Set SF coins are just as "real" and challenging in their own right in high grade. Just try to locate a WV(d) MS69 SF coin or a true perfect MS70 specimen.
I agree there should be a "home" for both SF and non-SF coins. Hopefully, PCGS will launch a variety set as soon as possible, so I can register my (20) different coins from 2005 as well.
Wondercoin >>
Wondercoin-
I agree that conditional rarities are tough in both series. But 05 Business strikes are being spent in commerce while your "SF Mint Set" conditional rarity is still available in enclosed plastic holders and waiting to be found. How rare they are is yet to be determined?? Chris
Wondercoin
<< <i>What percent of the high grade coins from pre 2005 came from mint sets? >>
It's variable between date, mint and denomination and WonderCoin's 90% probably
doesn't miss the mark by too much. There are some coins that are virtually impossible
to find gem except in a mint set. Take a '71 quarter for example. Even finding a BU roll
of these is a herculean task because they were so poor and so unappreciated they sim-
ply weren't saved. With other coins this becomes much less true. Ikes, for example, are usu-
ally banged up in the mint set and finding clean examples is tough. There are BU rolls of
all the Ikes and a few coins will actually be gem. It is very few but for a coin like a 1974,
rolls are probably the major source. Many regular issue moderns don't appear in mint sets
at all so rolls are the only option.
One note about this answer; it depends a lot on who you ask. Collectors who primarily
seek clean coins are likely to use a much lower number like 60% and collectors who pri-
marily seek strike will use the higher numbers 90%+. Mint set coins are almost invariably
better struck and from new dies. BU roll coins can be quite poorly struck and the older
ones usually are.
people will collect them. This makes it likely there will still be rarities in the future if col-
lectors don't set them aside now. At the same time the issue is greatly confused by the
simple fact that some SF coins appear to be regular issue. Perhaps the finest of both
types will be from the mint sets.
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
Why do we have to live under the PCGS shadow? Why do we have to buy coins for set registry only? Can we collect coins for ourselves?
<< <i>> I believe that if PCGS does not come up with a home for these coins in the Registry sets that we will see the death of modern graded Business strike coins as no "sane" dealer/collector will search for gem coins
Why do we have to live under the PCGS shadow? Why do we have to buy coins for set registry only? Can we collect coins for ourselves? >>
You really have to wonder. Please don't tell me the registry is the entire basis for collecting these high grade coins. That really isn't saying much for those who collect them.
"Thanks Mitch and Seth. To repeat I think that the OR-P in the $250 bags were not struck with chrome plated dies but the look is similar. I kept a few rolls of hi grade that were less than 67 quality so I am happy to do more research as necessary. I am not suggesting that any designation be made other than SF or MS and when in question the default will be SF. Just like the mint using proof reverse dies for some MS coins the default is still MS because they were not struck twice and do not appear as proofs similar to if the mint theoretically did mix some chrome plated dies in the MS striking process the result is still an MS coin due to the striking characteristics being MS and not SF. For example SF coins are struck better and they do not have the washingtons bust die crack, die crack from the eye-brow, or small patches of die erosion so often seen on MS coins. Consequently coins that may theoretically be struck with the MS process using left-over SF dies would likely have tiny die cracks and less striking detail and in my opinion would be classified as MS even though they looked a bit like SF. As the dies get older the difference between SF and MS becomes harder to distinguish because the surface charcteristics of the coin become more MS like as the sand blast and chrome plating start to wear down. If the mint should allow the SF dies to get worn and deteriorated and still strike coins with them for the mint sets then there will be confusion but if the mint follows its production criteria for a SF coin and replaces the die frequently as you would expect to maintain that high quality then I think the differences will remain fairly easy to tell. Seth, if you get a miss-classified batch or coin again I encourage you to return them to PCGS with a signed letter that you found them in a mint sealed bag or bank wrapped roll as the case may be and the likely result is they will check them again and give you the correct designation. They did that for me when there was confusion over the OR MS coins. dr"
****************
Any wonder PCGS is comfortable allowing either coin in the Mint State set?
Wondercoin
Either / OR ????
SF - In a new Variety set and Circulation/ Business strike in current "Circulation" Strike sets. The PCGS coin number on SF coins starts with a 9 - Variety coin. The Circulation coin is numbered as PCGS has done in previous years. Which is different? The SF Coin - The Variety. How can PCGS Grade coins and not have a slot for them within the Set Registry, Either / OR ????
Many know which way it should go but the powers will get their way.
I'm going to do my best to stay away from these post, it seems as a valid point gets made and it's kick to the curb or brushed over.
A bag containing some SF Oregon State quarters shows up. These SF coins where intended to be placed into 05 mint sets, a mint mistake? I would say yes. A PCGS mechanical Error, it happens. If PCGS has a hard time determining weather a coin is SF or not and can not be sure, body bag it? This is done with some so called AT coins?
I'm off to do what I do best, make coins
<< <i>"What percent of the high grade coins from pre 2005 came from mint sets?" >>
I imagine that quite a few of the high grade coins came from pre 2005 U.S. Mint Sets. But prior to 2005, coins in U.S. Mint Sets were produced in the same manor as coins for circulation so to allow them in a set purporting to be Circulation Strikes would be fair.
Coins found in the Special Mint Sets of 1965 - 1967 were produced with special dies and hence are not allowed in sets purporting to be Circulation Strikes. 2005 satin finish U.S. Mint Sets were produced with special dies, shouldn't they be disqualified from being in a set purporting to be Circulation Strikes? Should there be a double standard? Some people think so.
Unless PCGS re-evaluates it's position on this issue, I believe the title to your thread is accurate. As of yet, I have read no good arguments for allowing the either / or policy of SF verses non-SF coins in sets of Circulation Strikes, besides the fact of convenience and ecomomics (I'm not sure if these two conciderations should have any weight in the decision, but I think they have).
Tim
How about 1 of the only 2 Pop 2 2005-D SF MS70RD's?
Only 29 "regular" Lincoln '05's (Top Pop MS68 3/0) graded & 23 05-D's (Top Pop MS67 3/0). As long as PCGS lets them be interchangeable I'd guess there would be little need submit from the batch that will get the lower grades - if the highest grade in the registry set is the primary motivator (anyone else see something wrong with that?). Of course if one were to get a non-SF one in 69 it would certainly sell for more than the SF70's - or am I wrong.
<< <i>
I imagine that quite a few of the high grade coins came from pre 2005 U.S. Mint Sets. But prior to 2005, coins in U.S. Mint Sets were produced in the same manor as coins for circulation so to allow them in a set purporting to be Circulation Strikes would be fair.
>>
Actually no. I personally don't believe it affects their status in any way since regular
issue coins can be of equal or superior quality but they were not really made like them.
Mint set coins have long been struck on vertical presses with new dies under increased
pressure. These dies are slowed to allow more time for the strike. Dies and planchets
are prepared like others in most cases but obvious pains have been taken with them on
rare occassion and in some years. Before 1965 there was little apparent difference oth-
er than a greater likelyhood of gems in the sets but in '65 both the proof and mint sets
were discontinued to punish collectors. It was ater decided to toss collectors a bone and
after much experimentation the SMS was born. But after 1967 this same process was used
to strike mint set coins with only a few modifications. The greatest was that the dies were
no longer basined as on proof coins and the dies were no longer etched with acid to create
the cameo effect.
The mint has long been very secretive about the mint set coins and there are no pictures
in existence (at least outside the mint) of any of the equipment or processes used to make,
clean, or package these coins except for a couple of far off pictures of the drying equipment.
Inquiries to the mint always resulted in the standard line that these are regular issue and
no different than those made for commerce.
Recently it has been reported that at least some of these coins are struck twice. This would
explain the highly PL state and square rims of a very very few of these coins. If you've been
spending a long time seeking high grade coins and especially well struck coins you'll know
that for the main part there is no substitute for mint set coins. While regular business strikes
can theoretically be as high of quality the odds are just far too high against it in most cases.
PL's, coins struck by retired proof dies, Coins from retired mint set dies, basined dies, and
coins struck by new dies can all be found in circulation for many dates but the typical die can
strike more than a million coins and many dies never struck a nice gem because of poor align-
ment or other problems. This means one will look through huge numbers of most dates that were
made for circulation before finding much of anything of interest.
Mint sets are not the be all, end all of modern MS collecting however. There are some coins that
do not appear in mint sets as gems and there are numerous regular issue coins that don't appear
in mint sets at all. There are also very few of the modern varieties which appear in mint sets. Re-
latively few dies are used to make the mint sets so it's hardly surprising that relatively few vr-
ieties appear in the sets. Additionally since mint set survival rate is far higher than circulation
survival rates it assures that any variety in the mint set is likely to be common. Many of the cir-
culation varieties are rare despite far higher mintages. (or at least rare in better grades, like VG).
<< <i>Chris: But, perhaps as high as 90% of the coins in the state quarter Registry sets from 1999-2004 were also found the same way as the 2005 SF coins come packaged??
Wondercoin >>
Mr Wondercoin,
Sorry to say this, because I have alot of respect for you, but you are comparing apples to oranges with regard for this situation. Of course, many of the top pops for previous years came from mint sets. In my book, with the comparison of the 2005 coins with previous years... ie... I'm gonna go buy a ton of mint sets to look for 2005 Mint States examples doesn't compute... because the mint sets don't exist.
2005 will go down in the books as the year people pay big bucks for MS67 examples of certain issues (especially Jeffersons). Last thing I checked, there are few if an MS67 examples of Jeffersons for 2005... I doubt very many more will ever actually show up after the coins I've seen from mint rolls and bags.
I also realize a Bison MINT STATE 69 example of Jeffersons from 2005 sold last year on Teletrade for $1200. Is the coin actually a mint state coin or SMS coin isn't the question... The question is... if it isn't a mint state coin, who should pay for the mistake? The buyer or PCGS?
I just can't understand why you, of all people, would agree with this complete failure to change... some people on this website have stated there are ONLY two kinds of coins minted by the US Mint... mint state and proof. I completely disagree with this out-dated concept. I believe in 2005, the mint manufactured three types of coins... MS, SMS and proofs. Each should have their own place in the registry or not at all. The decision to allow either the MS or SMS coin in the registry for 2005 was done with one thing in mind... the bottom line of PCGS.
Caveat this with... If I have misunderstood you, then I appologize. However, as someone who knows you tend to sell top dogs within the registry, I just can't understand why you want to limit your potential sales by allowing PCGS to continue with this decision.
End of Rant!
Peace!
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
I will say this - I have been extremely pleased at what appears to be the great progress underway to clean up a huge % of the problem SF coins holdered incorrectly as non-SF coins. To the extent the lions' share of all of these coins do get cleaned up from the pop report as I now expect to happen, a major concern of mine will have been resolved.
Wondercoin
I know all about that! Its happening before my very eyes in the Roosevelt series!
2005 circ strike pops:
P mint:
MS66FB = 2
MS67FB = 2
MS68FB = 0
D mint:
MS66FB = 1
MS67FB = 0
MS68FB = 0
Roosie collectors are frustrated. Need I say more?
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
<< <i>the SF and non-SF coins are often mislabeled by the services >>
That is exactly my point... if PCGS can't fix their mistake in the grading process, is it the buyer of the coin that should ultimately lose? PCGS is the big boy on the block. If they can't figure out the differences between SMS and MS coins, then they need a new finalizer. A coin, especially a Jefferson, that drops into the pop reports as a MS69 should have made all kinds of bells go off within the PCGS organization.
I realize PCGS has to get the pop reports right for this date... but the pop reports have always been a mess... and that won't ever change.
I just thought as someone who deals in the pop tops, you would have fought the other way.
Steve
In memory of the USAF Security Forces lost: A1C Elizabeth N. Jacobson, 9/28/05; SSgt Brian McElroy, 1/22/06; TSgt Jason Norton, 1/22/06; A1C Lee Chavis, 10/14/06; SSgt John Self, 5/14/07; A1C Jason Nathan, 6/23/07; SSgt Travis Griffin, 4/3/08; 1Lt Joseph Helton, 9/8/09; SrA Nicholas J. Alden, 3/3/2011. God Bless them and all those who have lost loved ones in this war. I will never forget their loss.
Is this why PCGS just crossed my NGC 2005 NON SATIN into a PCGS SATIN! and the darn thing crossed at 68!
Actually, the rumor is that Satins were produced as an experiment in 2004 for circulation. So when is this going to be proven, who knows! But the same story is circulating that 2005 Satins were also made for general circ.
Anyway, I have about 10 of the 52 PCGS Graded 2005 Business Strikes. Note that 1/2 or 25 coins graded are ONLY graded MS 64. At this rate, I think I will hang on to my 5 MS 64's because if someone soon does not start flooding PCGS with 2005 Business Strike rolls for grading , they just might be worth something!
WS
Also, mistakes ARE going to happen from time to time.
Even machines make mistakes, thats why for every machine ever made theres a bunch of repairmen some where waiting to fix them.
I'm sure PCGS is going to do everything they can to strighten out the fact that some coins got through with the wrong tags.
Remember, some of the SMS coins from 65 - 67 ended up being put into circulation. That diden't cause a panic like some would have us believe this time around will.
And it strikes as odd that some of the ones bad-mouthing the circulation strike coins from 99-04, are the same ones that made big bucks selling us those coins back then. Oh yeah, they loved them back then.
I for one don't think this is for my own good. I don't think anyone on this forum is pushing for the SF coins into the basic sets for my protection.
I trust PCGS to get this mess cleared up so we can have our basic sets and our circulation/business strike coins.
If SATIN FINISH and SMS were not a hybrid, they would not be listed as SATIN FINISH and SMS on the holder.
<< <i>If SATIN FINISH and SMS were not a hybrid, they would not be listed as SATIN FINISH and SMS on the holder. >>
Also have a new coin number starting with the Number 9, Variety?
Must be a difference
I listened to claims of a so called different look to coins from previous years on the State Quarter front in regard to mint set coin VS. roll or bag.
Has any of these Different look coins been given a Different coin number as we see with 2005 SF coins?
It's nice to be able to get the top man's opinion on questions we have.
Or at least know they are thinking it over.