A Couple of Observations about 2005 SF vs. non-SF Coins
emzee
Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭
Two observations:
1. When a PCGS holder certifies a 2005 coin as "SF", PCGS is not claiming the coin originated from a 2005 mint set (how could it know unless it was in original packaging), but rather, it is making a claim about the manufacturer's production method , which can be confirmed by looking at the coin itself. This is certainly a reasonable approach.
I see no reason why coins from 2005 mint sets should automatically warrant the "SF" designation with PCGS (although this was the mint's intention) - PCGS should look at the coin itself. Of course, a coin coming out of a roll or bag rather than from a 2005 mint set could also conceivably be called "SF".
On the other hand, when PCGS certifies a 1965-1967 coin as "SMS" , it is seemingly making a claim about the packaging that the coin was once in. PCGS claims to be able to do this without actually seeing the coin in the packaging, but can do so by simply looking at the coin in hand. As anybody who has looked closely at 1965-1967 coinage, this is impossible for all but the clairvoyant. Most but not all SMS coins are prooflike to some degree, but lots of non-SMS coins are PL as well. PCGS took an unreasonable approach in 1986 when it chose to use "SMS" as a possible designationfor 1965-1967 coins, an insignificant error at the time which has become magnified due to the rise in popularity/value of clad coinage. Better to designate the 1965-1967 as PL when warranted (or CAM or DCAM) and drop "SMS".
2. Just today, I began looking closely at the coins in sixty 2005 mint sets beginning with the D-mint state 25c. My examination method is to look sequentially at all 60 of one type, separating wheat from chaff, then moving on to the next type. When I got to the 2nd (of 5) 25c types I noted 59 coins with typical satin finish; but the other coin is an approximately ms68 example with chrome PL surfaces as seen on the D-mint mint-set 25c of recent years! I am virtually certain that the coin could not poossibly be designated "SF"by PCGS, whether I submit it with other mint set coins or with coins from BU rolls (though I intend to do the latter).
Thus IMO, bulk PCGS submitters of 2005 mint set coins could have gotten coins back in holders without "SF" designation due not to mechanical error, but rather, because the coins did not warrant "SF" designation. This is not to say larger-scale mechanical errors did not occur at PCGS regarding SF designation.
Michael
1. When a PCGS holder certifies a 2005 coin as "SF", PCGS is not claiming the coin originated from a 2005 mint set (how could it know unless it was in original packaging), but rather, it is making a claim about the manufacturer's production method , which can be confirmed by looking at the coin itself. This is certainly a reasonable approach.
I see no reason why coins from 2005 mint sets should automatically warrant the "SF" designation with PCGS (although this was the mint's intention) - PCGS should look at the coin itself. Of course, a coin coming out of a roll or bag rather than from a 2005 mint set could also conceivably be called "SF".
On the other hand, when PCGS certifies a 1965-1967 coin as "SMS" , it is seemingly making a claim about the packaging that the coin was once in. PCGS claims to be able to do this without actually seeing the coin in the packaging, but can do so by simply looking at the coin in hand. As anybody who has looked closely at 1965-1967 coinage, this is impossible for all but the clairvoyant. Most but not all SMS coins are prooflike to some degree, but lots of non-SMS coins are PL as well. PCGS took an unreasonable approach in 1986 when it chose to use "SMS" as a possible designationfor 1965-1967 coins, an insignificant error at the time which has become magnified due to the rise in popularity/value of clad coinage. Better to designate the 1965-1967 as PL when warranted (or CAM or DCAM) and drop "SMS".
2. Just today, I began looking closely at the coins in sixty 2005 mint sets beginning with the D-mint state 25c. My examination method is to look sequentially at all 60 of one type, separating wheat from chaff, then moving on to the next type. When I got to the 2nd (of 5) 25c types I noted 59 coins with typical satin finish; but the other coin is an approximately ms68 example with chrome PL surfaces as seen on the D-mint mint-set 25c of recent years! I am virtually certain that the coin could not poossibly be designated "SF"by PCGS, whether I submit it with other mint set coins or with coins from BU rolls (though I intend to do the latter).
Thus IMO, bulk PCGS submitters of 2005 mint set coins could have gotten coins back in holders without "SF" designation due not to mechanical error, but rather, because the coins did not warrant "SF" designation. This is not to say larger-scale mechanical errors did not occur at PCGS regarding SF designation.
Michael
0
Comments
Michael: Well written. There is a respectable opinion out there that the grading services should NOT designate at all for 2005 coins they put in holders to avoid exactly this sort of thing. Of course, that would anger the "hunters" of non-SF coins.
Wondercoin
Like me.
I don't know what keeps motivating me to go down in my basement and open up - yet another - bank wrapped roll of 2005 lincolns. Talk about finding a needle in a haystack. Good lord.
AAAAARRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!
Thats at least twice that we've been refered by you as a "HUNTER" of non SF coins.
The "ROLL SEARCHERS" trying to shove their coins down the collectors throats"
It's like you are trying to drive a wedge between two different type of coin collectors.
Is it so painful for you to own up to the fact that we are collecting the TRUE CIRCULATION STRIKE COINS?
You have no problem with proof collectors. You have no problem with people buying your SF coins. You have no problem with pattern collectors. You don't even have a problem with vam or error collectors. Why all of a sudden do you need to make it seem we are anything different that we were for the last 200 years or so?
You make a point of "quoting" every time you mention " ROLL SEARCHERS."
Well I'm proud to be a "ROLL SEARCHER", as its the only way I can compete with the high priced high grade coins that it takes to build a high grade registry set.
And if I score more that one coin I need, then yes, I'll sell the extra to someone who needs it.
But I wish to inform you, the people who spend time on these boards are intelelligent enough to decide if a coin is something they "WISH" to own without worrying whether we will just mail it to them. Or appear on their doorstep one day, grab them and try to shove it down their throat.
It's not me this time,
<< <i>I see no reason why coins from 2005 mint sets should automatically warrant the "SF" designation with PCGS (although this was the mint's intention) - PCGS should look at the coin itself. Of course, a coin coming out of a roll or bag rather than from a 2005 mint set could also conceivably be called "SF". >>
How? Why and what do you base this on?
If you study the subject, 2005 mint sets were not coined on the main production floor of the mint. They were coined with special dies(crome plated) on different presses and struck with greater force. Bag or rolled coinage from the mint are struck on the main production floor, the same as the rest of the circulation strike coins for commerce.
Could the dies have been mixed up? Even if so, they would have been struck with less force. The next question I would ask, is there anyone claiming to have found a 2005 Satin Finish coin from a bag or roll? If so, I would like to see it. There are four (4) classes of coin the mint struck in 2005 which PCGS gave unique and different coin numbers to: Proof Silver, Regular Proof, Satin Finish, and Circulation Strike. Most fo the problems of the coins that PCGS have certified, that I have heard about, are SF coin labeled as SF in those "ugly" holders that don't have the coin number on it and are just data entry errors of PCGS.
I'm just not buying the excuse that they can't tell the difference, if they are under staff and overwhelmed - hire more people. I understand that they want to keep the overhead down and show a better profit for the shareholders but if their reputation fails further where is the profits going to be? Remember, these graders look at coins day in and day out, they should be able to tell the difference from circulation strikes and satin finish. What is next if graders of PCGS can't tell the difference, we are going to get our proof coins in MS labels?
Tim
EDIT TO ADD: PCGS needs to clean up their act! I don't want to hear excuses, I want the convidence back when I buy a coin in a PCGS label that I'm getting the genuine thing (the coin that is on the label). Enough pussie footing around.
Tim
Doug Rall coined the phrase in the 300+ post - go check and see. That is what he likes to be called (makes sense).
Wondercoin
Amen to that.
We have too much work in the roll/bag search and there's reports of pricies falling through the floor on MS coins
Might want to think about joining them in the no work - just cash game? I'm considering it
Michael
<< <i>Might want to think about joining them in the no work - just cash game? I'm considering it >>
No mas, I'm in to finding FB Roosies, and you won't find a more depressed mkt. than that one.
But thats my coin, and someone needs to do it. Besides, Im in it for the fun of it and the money isen't the driving force behind searching out FB dimes at this time. Filling out my set from rolls, is the only way I can afford the better grades. And once in awhile I have some left over to help the other guys keep their interest up. Even been known to give a few away, to people who are still working their sets as best they can. The series is so depressed at this point, you can't find anything on ebay of Teletrade. Maybe once a month a decent coin shows up on either, if we'er lucky.
Datentype, bushmaster, trashman, Nick, they all seem to have moved on to greener pastures, though Nick still dabbles in Roosies here and there.