There's a big difference between disagreeing with the first strike designation and accusing PCGS of fraud for using it. I happen to agree that it's nothing more than a gimmick and, at least for me, adds no value to the coin. However, as long as the criteria is clearly stated there simply is no fraud involved on the part of the TPG's using it. That is where codder stepped in it.
Codder obviously feels that the “First Strike” designation is misleading; and, based on what I’ve heard and read, he’s not the only one. His posts reveal the emotion of his disillusionment with PCGS. The TPGs will be much better served in the long run by nurturing new collectors instead of by helping Robert Chambers take their money through marketing efforts like the “First Strike.” Squandering credibility at the market entry point will diminish the collector base over the long haul. Some of us might be glad that Codder got the boot, but I’m saddened by the thought that he’ll likely leave the hobby.
So, just where is the official PCGS definiation of first strike avaliable on their web page? I can't find it. Google wasn't much of a help. It did find these however, which are in direct contradiction to the 30 day/one month rule we have heard:
PCGS lingo (note: this is an old page, not apparently accessible from the home page. The lingo page accessible from PCGS's home page no longer has a definiation of first strike.) I'll copy the old definition here: first strike A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail.
D-day coins This one notes that it is the first 200 coins actually struck which got the definiation.
So, what words are we allowed to use to describe these facts?
<< <i>So, just where is the official PCGS definiation of first strike avaliable on their web page? I can't find it. Google wasn't much of a help. It did find these however, which are in direct contradiction to the 30 day/one month rule we have heard:
PCGS lingo (note: this is an old page, not apparently accessible from the home page. The lingo page accessible from PCGS's home page no longer has a definiation of first strike.) I'll copy the old definition here: first strike A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail.
D-day coins This one notes that it is the first 200 coins actually struck which got the definiation.
So, what words are we allowed to use to describe these facts? >>
Yes, they have been backtracking and removing the accepted numismatic definition from their websites. Here was the definition listed on their Coinfacts.com website in April:
<< <i>first strike: the first coin, or one of the earliest coins, struck from a pair of dies. These are usually Prooflike, well struck and nearly perfect. >>
What took Guth and Hall so long to respond to this post? They should have stopped this guy Codder on the first day.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<<For all those cheering PCGS I'm a bit confused. I do understand that it is their playground and their rules, but to cheer this is a bit odd. I find no merit in these first strike holders. Using the acceptable terms as stated...they are nonsense at best and are no benefit to the collector community. How many collectors have bought something that is not what they believe it to be. Yeah, I know that PCGS doesn't hide their definition (which does not match the historically accepted numismatic definition) but I can assure you the dealer community is selling these as something completely different than the PCGS definition. Bottom line, it is my opinion that these "First Strike" slabs are bad for the hobby I love. I am hereby requesting that PCGS put an end to these slabs, or at a minimum place a disclaimer on the slab defining "First Strike>>
I wholeheartedly agree with Fatman. And, while the designation isn't fraudulent, it IS confusing, ambiguous, misunderstood AND certainly makes it easier for unscrupulous sellers to take advantage of collectors.
first strike A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail.
I can't help it I am a Buffaholic. 1st strike 2nd strike i want them all
"The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD GOD Almighty."
-- "And, while the designation isn't fraudulent, it IS confusing, ambiguous, misunderstood AND certainly makes it easier for unscrupulous sellers to take advantage of collectors." --
It doesn't just make it easier; it makes it possible. Edited to add: After all, it's the TPGs -- not the unscrupulous sellers -- that ascribe importance to the "First Strike" by placing the designation on the slab inserts.
<< <i>first strike A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail. >>
That's the definition in the glossary. Now, I was under the impression that the "First Strike" designation was given to a coin struck early in the life of an issue, i.e. during the first thirty days (or whatever) that the mint issues the coins regardless of how many dies the mint wears out and replaces during those first thirty days. I could certainly see how this could be confusing.
<< <i>For all those cheering PCGS I'm a bit confused. I do understand that it is their playground and their rules, but to cheer this is a bit odd. I find no merit in these first strike holders. Using the acceptable terms as stated...they are nonsense at best and are no benefit to the collector community. How many collectors have bought something that is not what they believe it to be. Yeah, I know that PCGS doesn't hide their definition (which does not match the historically accepted numismatic definition) but I can assure you the dealer community is selling these as something completely different than the PCGS definition. Bottom line, it is my opinion that these "First Strike" slabs are bad for the hobby I love. I am hereby requesting that PCGS put an end to these slabs, or at a minimum place a disclaimer on the slab defining "First Strike".. >>
I'm not so sure people are cheering the concept of the "First Strike" coins or even the banning of Codder so much as they are the fact that PCGS responded to the thread. Yes, it's not impossible that some of the concerns are legitimate but it's obvious that some are merely trying to rile people up rather than have a discussion. Certainly many have done the exact same thing and are well respected members here, but as has been pointed out, there are lines that can't be crossed.
If you read the thread you'll see that it's obvious that the intent wasn't so much to decry the practice as to rile things up. The slow response may have simply been due to the fact that Codder was losing his argument anyway.
<< <i>For all those cheering PCGS I'm a bit confused. I do understand that it is their playground and their rules, but to cheer this is a bit odd. I find no merit in these first strike holders. Using the acceptable terms as stated...they are nonsense at best and are no benefit to the collector community. How many collectors have bought something that is not what they believe it to be. Yeah, I know that PCGS doesn't hide their definition (which does not match the historically accepted numismatic definition) but I can assure you the dealer community is selling these as something completely different than the PCGS definition. Bottom line, it is my opinion that these "First Strike" slabs are bad for the hobby I love. I am hereby requesting that PCGS put an end to these slabs, or at a minimum place a disclaimer on the slab defining "First Strike".. >>
I'm not so sure people are cheering the concept of the "First Strike" coins or even the banning of Codder so much as they are the fact that PCGS responded to the thread. Yes, it's not impossible that some of the concerns are legitimate but it's obvious that some are merely trying to rile people up rather than have a discussion. Certainly many have done the exact same thing and are well respected members here, but as has been pointed out, there are lines that can't be crossed.
If you read the thread you'll see that it's obvious that the intent wasn't so much to decry the practice as to rile things up. The slow response may have simply been due to the fact that Codder was losing his argument anyway. >>
<< <i>If you read the thread you'll see that it's obvious that the intent wasn't so much to decry the practice as to rile things up. >>
CladKing, Unfortunately PCGS in their wisdom not only bammed Codder but also removed all his posts from the thread making it very difficult to read. I'll take your word for it. However, I was unaware that riling things up was frowned upon around here. You've been known to rile a bit too, I believe.
Instead of just sticking their tongue out and waving their hands with their thumbs in their ears, I sure would have liked Sir Hall and Sir Guth to actually explain why the "First Strike" designation is good for the hobby, good for PCGS, and worthy of the extra $10.
<< <i>I wonder how long before 1st strikes are part of the registry? >>
......... me too, Marty. and thanks below for this Mark. "A select number of these coins will enjoy the prestigious designation of being a "First Strike" certified coin. First Strike coins represent those first coins that are minted with brand new dies in the first month of production.
I'll pay a hundred bucks plus just to have a PRESIDENTIAL signature series with this one . Please, please, please
<< <i>Instead of just sticking their tongue out and waving their hands with their thumbs in their ears, I sure would have liked Sir Hall and Sir Guth to actually explain why the "First Strike" designation is good for the hobby, good for PCGS, and worthy of the extra $10. >>
The philosophy is much the same as a First Edition book. First Editions are not different qualitatively from subsequent printings, much like First Strike coins. There are those, myself among them, who assign extra value to First Editions of the right books. I do not assign such value to First Strike coins, but, properly documented, I can understand why the concept would work for some people.
Proudly upholding derelict standards for five decades.
<< <i>BTW, where can I find where PCGS discloses what a First Strike label represents? Can someone provide a link please. >>
John, the quote below was not found on PCGS' website, but two different sellers of the coins used the same language with respect to the first strike designation by PCGS. I will presume that PCGS is aware of the quotes, or at least that they should be.
"A select number of these coins will enjoy the prestigious designation of being a "First Strike" certified coin. First Strike coins represent those first coins that are minted with brand new dies in the first month of production. These First Strike American Buffalos will be independently graded and certified by Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), one of the nation's most reputable grading services."
<< <i>Here is one reference I found on the americanbuffalogoldcoins.com website. And another here
"A select number of these coins will enjoy the prestigious designation of being a "First Strike" certified coin. First Strike coins represent those first coins that are minted with brand new dies in the first month of production. These First Strike American Buffalos will be independently graded and certified by Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), one of the nation's most reputable grading services." >>
Just curious, how many brand new dies do you think they will use in the first month of production. And since these coins were likely minted months in advance of the release date, what month would that be?
I honestly don't know the procedures within the US Mint, but I am guessing that the date on the box only refers to the date of packaging, not the date of minting. If they minted a bunch then packaged them later, then the first struck coins were possibly not first packaged and therefore, their whole premise of designating first strike based on the date of the package is a bunch of bunk.
Here's a quote that I pulled from NGC's website at the beginning of this year. "NGC designates as first strikes bullion issue American Eagles (Gold, Silver, and Platinum) that are submitted in their original sealed mint packaging, with intact date tags indicating that they were struck and packaged prior to January 31 of the enclosed coins' dated year." At the time, PCGS defined "First Strike" in the same way, although I can't find anything on its website now.
The Mint started producing 2006 ASEs as early as August 2005; so ASEs produced for at least six months (August 2005 through January 2006) were eligible for the "First Strike" designation under the TPG standards. How many pieces might that be and what is the percentage of the total production? The meaning of "First Strike" -- as newly defined by the TPGs -- has absolutely nothing to do with die state.
<< <i>The meaning of "First Strike" -- as newly defined by the TPGs -- has absolutely nothing to do with die state. >>
And, they never claimed it did.
Russ, NCNE >>
By implication they do, imo. And that is what marketing is all about - implication. Indirect claims.
I like how ILikeMercs pointed out those three words:
Don't Buy It.
Bottom line, if you don't believe the claims, just don't support the product. I disagree with those that assert that the coin collecting world is damaged by this marketing play - there is presently such a small premium paid on the open market for this material (outside of the TV marketers' crap) that the price differential disappears with a relatively small swing in bullion price.
Much ado about nothing, save for the OP's outright accusation of fraud by our hosts. Bad form at best, pissing in your host's bed. Worth a bamming? OK with me (not that they asked )
However, the term is confusing even for seasoned collectors. The newbie, which these types of coins target, have no clue as to what they are buying. I don't care how many disclaimers are disclosed, FS has a strong connotation.
Now why would the Ferrari of the graders want to associate themselves with such a promotion is beyond me. Well, not really, it's about sales right?
I view FS as the WTC death coins which were not even at the WTC site but are promoted as such. Both are misleading to the casual collector. When dealers then around and promote the product as something which it isn't then it's a problem.
Bottomline are FS coins a benefit to the collecting community?
I've only read the first page or so of this thread so forgive me if this has been answered. I am not familiar with the marketing of First Strike coins and do not know what they are in terms of the definition the slabber is using. I just know what I always thought they were. All I have picked up from the posts I read was that it does NOT mean a coin struck early in the year on the freshest dies. This confuses me because I have always assumed, and felt very comfortable doing so (until I came across this thread), that a coin slabbed with FIRST STRIKE on it mean this coin had an unusual degree of clarity, or crispness, or depth, or something reflecting the fact that it was in the first bunch (i.e. FIRST) of coins struck (struck = strike).
If FIRST STRIKE coins are NOT coins struck the earliest, delivering a superior strike, what the heck are First Strike coins? While I am ignorant, my general feeling is that if a company is selling First Strike coins so many people are going to assume they were struck early and have better definition somehow.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
I'm not sure; I was just being sarcastic. But now that you ask, I suppose (1) we learned that use of the word "fraud" is impermissible while words like nonsense, confusing, misleading -- not to mention "circle jerk" -- are acceptable, and (2) PCGS learned that it's foolish to pin a thread that had already died when the content hurts more than helps it.
Edited to Add: Founding Father's most recent post in this thread sums up nicely why the issue isn't "nothing" to be bothered about.
I see there is another thread trying to answer my question. Relayer wrote:
<< That sounds reasonable then - struck early in the issuance AND early during the life of a die.>>
So I guess it is true then? First Strike coins ARE coins struck very early, resulting in better definition somehow? Do they ever really have better definition because of it, or are they just as good as ones later in the year that may be using newer dies? I am wondering if a coin struck in the first 30 days necessarily has a better strike than one done later in the year but with a newer die.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Take them for whatever they (first strikes, WTC, ...) indeed are to you. They mean nothing to me and I would never put a premium on them. Of course, I also don't think modern commemoratives and Mint bullion issues are really coins either. Someone else thinks they are and wants to collect them, all the power to them. Has zero effect on me and my collecting. Same goes for 70DCAM.
I see ... so the problem is that some people think First Strike means the very first coin struck from a new die, as if NO OTHER coins were struck from that die with that designation. I would not think that because I would think they could make a limited run with the benefits of an early strike, and that the quality difference would last for far more than just one coin. I would think there would be too few and they would be too expensive if it really were just the first coin struck from a new die. I can see how someone would be confused though. I can see how it would be misleading to people who aren't seasoned.
I guess I don't have a problem with it because I assumed First Strike meant First Run. If there is a time requirement to be considered First Strike, like the first 30 days or whatever, they probably should have called it First Run or something clearer.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Allow me to try to summarize. I hadn't noticed that Codder's posts were gone but for the main part they consisted of the same comments that were in his initial post that this practice is criminal. He was attacked and did respond in kind but it did not escalate a great deal. His contention initially sounded to many that he was also claim- ing that CW had claimed this was fraud. I read the article and there was no such com- ment though if the editorial appeared here it did seem to be a little harsh.
The term first strike has always meant the first strike from a fresh set of dies. The mark- ers which identify a coin as first strike can wear off very quickly. As few as a dozen strikes of a clad coin will exhibit the tiny flaws (like the strings on new tires) and the crispness of detail that new dies can impart. Silver, gold, aluminum and zinc will not erode this detail so quickly. In recent years the term "first strike" has been used by various en- tities (including the mint, I believe) to refer to coins minted early in the year or early in the production run. In a few cases the status might actually have some small meaning since the first day of striking will involve all new dies. For the main part, the way this term has been applied has little to do with the quality of coins. There might still be an importance to the status, of course, since the Cheerio dollars were "first strike". Indeed it's possible that this is going to apply to the gold buffalos as well.
In any case, it seems the point that all the detractors are missing is that there is no cert- ainty that there is any premium whatsoever accorded to these "first strikes". The whole thing is likely no more than marketing and a tempest in a teapot.
I found one sentence very interesting from this site. That being..."First Strike coins are numismatic coins."
Could grading and encapsulation of these "First Strike" coins help determine a difference between normal gold bullion and those of numismatic value?
Could this "First Strike" designation be a strategy to help protect both collectors and investors fall within the exception "loophole" precedent that was set in the Executive Order of 1933 the last time the Government confiscated gold bullion?
Maybe in this sense, "First Strike" and the coin being in the plastic slab does more than just to help protect the coin. It may also be geared to protect the collector/investor.
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
<< <i>Cladking, you mean First Strike PCGS buffalos, for example, are NOT better in quality or definition? >>
The first strike gold buffalos have the same range of quality as the others in all probability but have a slightly higher chance of being top quality. What I was referring to was the pos- sibility that the die designs were modified during the course of striking which could possibly make the "first strikes" distinct, or a very much higher probability of being distinct from the bulk of the issue.
In the normal course of minting the dies can be swapped out after just a few days so having coins minted in a given month isn't necessarily an advantage.
-- "Cladking, you mean First Strike PCGS buffalos, for example, are NOT better in quality or definition?" --
The fact that Founding Father asks this question aptly demonstrates that "First Strike" is more than a tempest in a teapot. Yes, it's "marketing," but it's an attempt to make a market (as opposed to serve the market) in a way that detracts from the credibility of the TPGs.
Edited to add:
-- "In the normal course of minting the dies can be swapped out after just a few days so having coins minted in a given month isn't necessarily an advantage." --
What that means, Founding Father, is that a coin can be designated "First Strike" even if it's the last coin struck by a pair of dies before they're retired.
Comments
There's a big difference between disagreeing with the first strike designation and accusing PCGS of fraud for using it. I happen to agree that it's nothing more than a gimmick and, at least for me, adds no value to the coin. However, as long as the criteria is clearly stated there simply is no fraud involved on the part of the TPG's using it. That is where codder stepped in it.
Russ, NCNE
PCGS lingo (note: this is an old page, not apparently accessible from the home page. The lingo page accessible from PCGS's home page no longer has a definiation of first strike.) I'll copy the old definition here:
first strike
A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail.
D-day coins This one notes that it is the first 200 coins actually struck which got the definiation.
So, what words are we allowed to use to describe these facts?
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>So, just where is the official PCGS definiation of first strike avaliable on their web page? I can't find it. Google wasn't much of a help. It did find these however, which are in direct contradiction to the 30 day/one month rule we have heard:
PCGS lingo (note: this is an old page, not apparently accessible from the home page. The lingo page accessible from PCGS's home page no longer has a definiation of first strike.) I'll copy the old definition here:
first strike
A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail.
D-day coins This one notes that it is the first 200 coins actually struck which got the definiation.
So, what words are we allowed to use to describe these facts? >>
Yes, they have been backtracking and removing the accepted numismatic definition from their websites. Here was the definition listed on their Coinfacts.com website in April:
<< <i>first strike: the first coin, or one of the earliest coins, struck from a pair of dies. These are usually Prooflike, well struck and nearly perfect. >>
The link to the glossary had now been removed.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I wholeheartedly agree with Fatman. And, while the designation isn't fraudulent, it IS confusing, ambiguous, misunderstood AND certainly makes it easier for unscrupulous sellers to take advantage of collectors.
<< <i>OK...here are the rules...and you know them already...
If you want to say what we do is "nonesense," that's OK. But if you call what we do fraud, you're outta here.
Goodbye Codder.
By the way, we think mdwoods comment,
"Coin World has a lot of gall saying anything about a marketing ploy given the reputation of some of their advertisers."
is the most appropriate of all.
Ron Guth and David Hall >>
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!! I love it!!!!
I miss all the fun when I go on vacation!
A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail.
I can't help it I am a Buffaholic. 1st strike 2nd strike i want them all
"The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD GOD Almighty."
I still don't know what constitutes a "First Strike" label?
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
It doesn't just make it easier; it makes it possible. Edited to add: After all, it's the TPGs -- not the unscrupulous sellers -- that ascribe importance to the "First Strike" by placing the designation on the slab inserts.
<< <i>first strike
A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes sometimes are characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. Almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail. >>
That's the definition in the glossary. Now, I was under the impression that the "First Strike" designation was given to a coin struck early in the life of an issue, i.e. during the first thirty days (or whatever) that the mint issues the coins regardless of how many dies the mint wears out and replaces during those first thirty days. I could certainly see how this could be confusing.
<< <i>For all those cheering PCGS I'm a bit confused. I do understand that it is their playground and their rules, but to cheer this is a bit odd. I find no merit in these first strike holders. Using the acceptable terms as stated...they are nonsense at best and are no benefit to the collector community. How many collectors have bought something that is not what they believe it to be. Yeah, I know that PCGS doesn't hide their definition (which does not match the historically accepted numismatic definition) but I can assure you the dealer community is selling these as something completely different than the PCGS definition. Bottom line, it is my opinion that these "First Strike" slabs are bad for the hobby I love. I am hereby requesting that PCGS put an end to these slabs, or at a minimum place a disclaimer on the slab defining "First Strike".. >>
I'm not so sure people are cheering the concept of the "First Strike" coins or even the
banning of Codder so much as they are the fact that PCGS responded to the thread. Yes,
it's not impossible that some of the concerns are legitimate but it's obvious that some are
merely trying to rile people up rather than have a discussion. Certainly many have done
the exact same thing and are well respected members here, but as has been pointed out,
there are lines that can't be crossed.
If you read the thread you'll see that it's obvious that the intent wasn't so much to decry
the practice as to rile things up. The slow response may have simply been due to the fact
that Codder was losing his argument anyway.
<< <i>
<< <i>For all those cheering PCGS I'm a bit confused. I do understand that it is their playground and their rules, but to cheer this is a bit odd. I find no merit in these first strike holders. Using the acceptable terms as stated...they are nonsense at best and are no benefit to the collector community. How many collectors have bought something that is not what they believe it to be. Yeah, I know that PCGS doesn't hide their definition (which does not match the historically accepted numismatic definition) but I can assure you the dealer community is selling these as something completely different than the PCGS definition. Bottom line, it is my opinion that these "First Strike" slabs are bad for the hobby I love. I am hereby requesting that PCGS put an end to these slabs, or at a minimum place a disclaimer on the slab defining "First Strike".. >>
I'm not so sure people are cheering the concept of the "First Strike" coins or even the
banning of Codder so much as they are the fact that PCGS responded to the thread. Yes,
it's not impossible that some of the concerns are legitimate but it's obvious that some are
merely trying to rile people up rather than have a discussion. Certainly many have done
the exact same thing and are well respected members here, but as has been pointed out,
there are lines that can't be crossed.
If you read the thread you'll see that it's obvious that the intent wasn't so much to decry
the practice as to rile things up. The slow response may have simply been due to the fact
that Codder was losing his argument anyway.
good answer
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
<< <i>If you read the thread you'll see that it's obvious that the intent wasn't so much to decry
the practice as to rile things up. >>
CladKing, Unfortunately PCGS in their wisdom not only bammed Codder but also removed all his posts from the thread making it very difficult to read. I'll take your word for it. However, I was unaware that riling things up was frowned upon around here. You've been known to rile a bit too, I believe.
<< <i>I wonder how long before 1st strikes are part of the registry? >>
......... me too, Marty. and thanks below for this Mark.
"A select number of these coins will enjoy the prestigious designation of being a "First Strike" certified coin. First Strike coins represent those first coins that are minted with brand new dies in the first month of production.
I'll pay a hundred bucks plus just to have a PRESIDENTIAL signature series with this one
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Instead of just sticking their tongue out and waving their hands with their thumbs in their ears, I sure would have liked Sir Hall and Sir Guth to actually explain why the "First Strike" designation is good for the hobby, good for PCGS, and worthy of the extra $10. >>
The philosophy is much the same as a First Edition book. First Editions are not different qualitatively from subsequent printings, much like First Strike coins. There are those, myself among them, who assign extra value to First Editions of the right books. I do not assign such value to First Strike coins, but, properly documented, I can understand why the concept would work for some people.
<< <i>BTW, where can I find where PCGS discloses what a First Strike label represents? Can someone provide a link please. >>
John, the quote below was not found on PCGS' website, but two different sellers of the coins used the same language with respect to the first strike designation by PCGS. I will presume that PCGS is aware of the quotes, or at least that they should be.
Here is one reference I found on the americanbuffalogoldcoins.com website. And another here
"A select number of these coins will enjoy the prestigious designation of being a "First Strike" certified coin. First Strike coins represent those first coins that are minted with brand new dies in the first month of production. These First Strike American Buffalos will be independently graded and certified by Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), one of the nation's most reputable grading services."
Otherwise, the proper phrasing would seem to be, "ONE of the first strikeS" or even "Early Strike"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Here is one reference I found on the americanbuffalogoldcoins.com website. And another here
"A select number of these coins will enjoy the prestigious designation of being a "First Strike" certified coin. First Strike coins represent those first coins that are minted with brand new dies in the first month of production. These First Strike American Buffalos will be independently graded and certified by Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), one of the nation's most reputable grading services." >>
Just curious, how many brand new dies do you think they will use in the first month of production. And since these coins were likely minted months in advance of the release date, what month would that be?
Don't Buy It
The Mint started producing 2006 ASEs as early as August 2005; so ASEs produced for at least six months (August 2005 through January 2006) were eligible for the "First Strike" designation under the TPG standards. How many pieces might that be and what is the percentage of the total production? The meaning of "First Strike" -- as newly defined by the TPGs -- has absolutely nothing to do with die state.
<< <i>The meaning of "First Strike" -- as newly defined by the TPGs -- has absolutely nothing to do with die state. >>
And, they never claimed it did.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>The meaning of "First Strike" -- as newly defined by the TPGs -- has absolutely nothing to do with die state. >>
And, they never claimed it did.
Russ, NCNE >>
Wouldn't "First Strike" imply early die state? I don't care if they want to call 1+1=5, it isn't. ""First Strike" is an early die state.
And I never claimed that they claimed it did, so your post is irrelevant except to garner another "You da man, Russ."
Of course, as commonly understood and accepted in the field of numismatics.
<< <i>
<< <i>The meaning of "First Strike" -- as newly defined by the TPGs -- has absolutely nothing to do with die state. >>
And, they never claimed it did.
Russ, NCNE >>
By implication they do, imo. And that is what marketing is all about - implication. Indirect claims.
I like how ILikeMercs pointed out those three words:
Don't Buy It.
Bottom line, if you don't believe the claims, just don't support the product. I disagree with those that assert that the coin collecting world is damaged by this marketing play - there is presently such a small premium paid on the open market for this material (outside of the TV marketers' crap) that the price differential disappears with a relatively small swing in bullion price.
Much ado about nothing, save for the OP's outright accusation of fraud by our hosts. Bad form at best, pissing in your host's bed. Worth a bamming? OK with me (not that they asked
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
However, the term is confusing even for seasoned collectors. The newbie, which these types of coins target, have no clue as to what they are buying. I don't care how many disclaimers are disclosed, FS has a strong connotation.
Now why would the Ferrari of the graders want to associate themselves with such a promotion is beyond me. Well, not really, it's about sales right?
I view FS as the WTC death coins which were not even at the WTC site but are promoted as such. Both are misleading to the casual collector. When dealers then around and promote the product as something which it isn't then it's a problem.
Bottomline are FS coins a benefit to the collecting community?
<< <i>
Bottomline are FS coins a benefit to the collecting community? >>
Will I be bammed if I answer Honestly........??????
<< <i>I view FS as the WTC death coins which were not even at the WTC site but are promoted as such. >>
They aren't? I've always heard them described as coins that were recovered from the ruins.
<< <i>I hope everyone has learned a lesson. >>
What lesson would that be? That some people have their panties in a wad over nothing?
Russ, NCNE
If FIRST STRIKE coins are NOT coins struck the earliest, delivering a superior strike, what the heck are First Strike coins? While I am ignorant, my general feeling is that if a company is selling First Strike coins so many people are going to assume they were struck early and have better definition somehow.
.........................
I'm not sure; I was just being sarcastic. But now that you ask, I suppose (1) we learned that use of the word "fraud" is impermissible while words like nonsense, confusing, misleading -- not to mention "circle jerk" -- are acceptable, and (2) PCGS learned that it's foolish to pin a thread that had already died when the content hurts more than helps it.
Edited to Add: Founding Father's most recent post in this thread sums up nicely why the issue isn't "nothing" to be bothered about.
<< That sounds reasonable then - struck early in the issuance AND early during the life of a die.>>
So I guess it is true then? First Strike coins ARE coins struck very early, resulting in better definition somehow? Do they ever really have better definition because of it, or are they just as good as ones later in the year that may be using newer dies? I am wondering if a coin struck in the first 30 days necessarily has a better strike than one done later in the year but with a newer die.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
I guess I don't have a problem with it because I assumed First Strike meant First Run. If there is a time requirement to be considered First Strike, like the first 30 days or whatever, they probably should have called it First Run or something clearer.
for the main part they consisted of the same comments that were in his initial post
that this practice is criminal. He was attacked and did respond in kind but it did not
escalate a great deal. His contention initially sounded to many that he was also claim-
ing that CW had claimed this was fraud. I read the article and there was no such com-
ment though if the editorial appeared here it did seem to be a little harsh.
The term first strike has always meant the first strike from a fresh set of dies. The mark-
ers which identify a coin as first strike can wear off very quickly. As few as a dozen
strikes of a clad coin will exhibit the tiny flaws (like the strings on new tires) and the
crispness of detail that new dies can impart. Silver, gold, aluminum and zinc will not erode
this detail so quickly. In recent years the term "first strike" has been used by various en-
tities (including the mint, I believe) to refer to coins minted early in the year or early in the
production run. In a few cases the status might actually have some small meaning since
the first day of striking will involve all new dies. For the main part, the way this term has
been applied has little to do with the quality of coins. There might still be an importance
to the status, of course, since the Cheerio dollars were "first strike". Indeed it's possible
that this is going to apply to the gold buffalos as well.
In any case, it seems the point that all the detractors are missing is that there is no cert-
ainty that there is any premium whatsoever accorded to these "first strikes". The whole
thing is likely no more than marketing and a tempest in a teapot.
<< <i>Here is one reference I found on the americanbuffalogoldcoins.com website. >>
I found one sentence very interesting from this site. That being..."First Strike coins are numismatic coins."
Could grading and encapsulation of these "First Strike" coins help determine a difference between normal gold bullion and those of numismatic value?
Could this "First Strike" designation be a strategy to help protect both collectors and investors fall within the exception "loophole" precedent that was set in the Executive Order of 1933 the last time the Government confiscated gold bullion?
Maybe in this sense, "First Strike" and the coin being in the plastic slab does more than just to help protect the coin. It may also be geared to protect the collector/investor.
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
My "Fun With 21D" Die State Collection - QX5 Pics Attached
-----
Proud Owner of
2 –DAMMIT BOY!!! ® Awards
<< <i>Cladking, you mean First Strike PCGS buffalos, for example, are NOT better in quality or definition? >>
The first strike gold buffalos have the same range of quality as the others in all probability
but have a slightly higher chance of being top quality. What I was referring to was the pos-
sibility that the die designs were modified during the course of striking which could possibly
make the "first strikes" distinct, or a very much higher probability of being distinct from the
bulk of the issue.
In the normal course of minting the dies can be swapped out after just a few days so having
coins minted in a given month isn't necessarily an advantage.
The fact that Founding Father asks this question aptly demonstrates that "First Strike" is more than a tempest in a teapot. Yes, it's "marketing," but it's an attempt to make a market (as opposed to serve the market) in a way that detracts from the credibility of the TPGs.
Edited to add:
-- "In the normal course of minting the dies can be swapped out after just a few days so having
coins minted in a given month isn't necessarily an advantage." --
What that means, Founding Father, is that a coin can be designated "First Strike" even if it's the last coin struck by a pair of dies before they're retired.