<< <i>-- "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. >>
Then why do they bring no more money than non-first strike designated coins? In the real world. TV shows don't count since they charge stupid money for everything.
<< <i>-- "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. >>
Then why do they bring no more money than non-first strike designated coins? In the real world. TV shows don't count since they charge stupid money for everything.
Russ, NCNE >>
Does something become less misleading just because there's not always a monetary effect? Who cares if in most cases they don't sell for more money? The common sense understanding of the term directly suggests they're very early strikes by the dies and implies nothing about when the mint shipped them. Whereas the PCGS meaning is completely inverted, and gives (even if unintentionally, as I'm sure is the case) the less honest a very easy tool by which to dupe people out of their money. (NOTE: I am not calling PCGS's definition of First Strikes a fraud). Look at the links Mark Feld has supplied in the various threads. Sellers are using misleading and incorrect definitions. That should bother you, even if they are not charging more than for "Later Shipped" coins. Also note that the PCGS definitions of First Strike is not easy to find, and contradictory definitions can be found on pcgs.com via google. From the PCGS home page, can anyone find thew definiton of "First Strike" within, let's say, four mouse clicks? Let's find out just how easy the definition can be found. (And this assumed the potential buyer has a meaningful chance to look it up when someone offers a "pristine from dies" First Strike coin!)
-- "Then why do they bring no more money than non-first strike designated coins? In the real world. TV shows don't count since they charge stupid money for everything." --
Of course TV shows count. Mark Salzberg said something that might be considered controversial at the NGC brunch at FUN 2006: Say what we will about shows like Coin Vault, they serve as an entry point for many collectors. [That's a paraphrase, but darned close to an actual quote.] I agree with that assessment, just as I think that the State Quarter Program has served as an entry point for many potentially serious collectors. What's the point of turning the plain meaning of "first strike" upside down? The "First Strike" programs facilitate the fleecing of collectors who most need the protection that the TPGs supposedly provide. I know that you believe that the "First Strike" designation is silly and that my protest is probably even sillier; but I happen to believe that these programs will harm the hobby in the long run.
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!!
It's an interesting thought, Terry, but I don't think so. Even if the gov't were to confiscate gold bullion -- which won't happen -- an NGC or a PCGS label won't make a bit of difference. I seriously doubt that either TPG devised the "First Strike" designation to serve this purpose.
Well, keeping this thread at the top of the page has been fun, but I'm done now. Goodnight, Carol.
Thanks, IGWT. OK, I think I understand enough to have an actual opinion.
My opinion:
If it is a fact that a coin with a First Strike designation can easily have a worse strike than one done later in the year, because it was struck at a later die stage even though it was done within the first 30 days, then the First Strike designation is misleading and possibly fraudulent IN CHARACTER. First Strike totally and completely implies a guarantee that this coin was better struck than non-First Strike coins. A coin should not get a First Strike designation unless it is guaranteed to be of a higher quality strike/done at an earlier die stage than any other non-First Strike coin.
It's like selling First Cut Blocks, implying that these blocks will have a cleaner edge because they were made when the tools were at their sharpest - WHILE the fact of the matter is that plenty of blocks later in the year will be sharper than many of the ones cut during the "First Cut" period because the tools would have been less worn. It's absurd and misleading to the buyer because of the implied guarantee. "First Strike" says "Hey, these are better struck because they were done before things got worn." But apparently, this is NOT the case, which is why it is misleading. It's just as misleading as putting out "Extra or Most Polished" when in fact many will not be more polished.
The designation means nothing without that guarantee and just adds a layer of gimmicky confusion with no real quality assurance attached. It's not like anyone can check a First Strike coin against all other non-First Strike coins so the burden should be on the creator of the First Strike designation to make a guarantee. If not, than it's just a cheap misleading gimmick. If it is a fact that there are First Strike coins that have a worse strike than coins minted during the year because they were done at a later die stage, than I believe it is fairly reasonable for someone to say it is a fraudulent form of marketing. I'm not saying the issuer is committing fraud or doing something illegal, I am saying it is reasonable for one to say the First Strike designation has an element of fraud, or deception, or misrepresentation to it - if the fact is that First Strike coins can have inferior strikes from being late-stage die strikes.
There's a falseness and a trick to it - which is the heart of fraud's definition - so how can people be deemed wrong or crazy for feeling like something inherently false is being promoted? Many First Strike coins will, apparently and effectively, be frauds to many people. Right or wrong on that matter, I think, will come down to a game of word definitions and technicalities. I don't think that's the type of position a quality and reputation leader should be in. So, I hope they change it if I am basically on the money about how many First Strike coins can and will inferior in strike to non-First Strike coins.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
Russ, are you really defending First Strike coins as not being misleading when there is obviously an implied promise that they have a better strike than non-First Strike coins? If I misunderstood your position I apologize.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
You can also think of it as a technique for putting ones fish in a barrel whether these fish are an early variety or high grade coin. I'm still guessing that most issues will never show a premium for the "first strikes". Some people may think this makes the whole concept worthless and misleading but how is it so much different than how other coins are marketed? I've never heard any dealer say his coin is from a boring year and of an unpopular series. He won't tell you that the coin might be crisp with mark free surfaces but is a dog with subdued luster in a fourth rate holder. When was the last time you saw an auction suggesting the 1804 dollar is the most popular NCLT issue of all time or that a valuable coin's design is "busy"?
All coins (products) are marketed to appeal to people on one or more levels. Many of these are emotional in nature or have little meaning except to some individuals. This one is not so very much different.
"Some people may think this makes the whole concept worthless and misleading but how is it so much different than how other coins are marketed?"
I'm not a pro on all the other ways coins are marketed but if I had to answer you I guess I would say it apparently differs from the ones where there is a difference in the coin that justifies the designation, attribution, grading, etc. To answer you further, many other coins are marketed based upon meaningful, accurate, real, or justified things that can readily be identified or live up to their desciption. How does First Strike live up to anything if you could be getting inferior strikes on worn dies made months into the process? I don't see how First Strike coins live up to the condition, definition, or strike difference or anything it implies since what constitutes a First Strike coin are coins shipped out before some other coins. In other words, First Strike coins seems to not only fall short of actually having the better strikes the designation implies, it doesn't mean anything but shipping dates. Shouldn't it have been called "Shipped Early" or something along those lines if they aren't a different or better strike in any way compared to non-First Strike coins?
Why point out or market the strike if there is nothing better or different about the strike compared to coins without the designation?
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
I fully agree that PCGS has not committed any form of fraud with this "marketing ploy"
However, as a relative newcomer to this hobby I find it both frustrating and disheartening that such marketing practices are being employed. It only hurts and further confuses the situation since PCGS has quietly removed all definitions of "First Strike" from their webpage and glossary (I couldn't find it in a quick search and haven't seen anyone else post a link yet).
I would like to hear opinions from some of the more educated board members here as to why they might have done this. Have they realized that in the long run people will realize there is no significant premium and this designation could possibly hurt the PCGS reputation? Perhaps PCGS has decided to no longer give the designation in the future? Regardless of whether they do or not, it can only make the situation more blurry by removing any clear definition.
<< <i>So, are my facts straight? It's just about shipping dates and not the obviously implied superior or earlier die-state strike condition? >>
Your facts are straight, the first strike designation is strictly dependant on shipping dates and has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the strike or the die state of the coins. If they were shipped to the mint in their original mint monster boxes every single silver eagle struck for Aug 2005 through the end of Jan 2006 was elegible for first strike slabbing.
I wouldn't call what PCGS and the other top services are doing fraudulent, because they are slabbing them strictly along the lines of how they have defined what they mean by "First Strike". (Any fraud taking place is being taken place is being committed by the aftermarket sellers.) But it might be considered slightly ethically questionable since they did kind of change or at least ignore the standard acceptable definition of what a first strike or first strikes were. Frankly It always struck me as the kind of marketing ploy one of the third tier or fly by night companies would have come up with. A gimmick that can be used to push their product and at the same time scam the unwary. Call anything shiny a MS-70, or declare over half the coins annual production a First Strike. I'm not sure which is lower.
<< <i>Russ, are you really defending First Strike coins as not being misleading when there is obviously an implied promise that they have a better strike than non-First Strike coins? If I misunderstood your position I apologize. >>
Not to talk on Russ' behalf, but I think his point is who cares what PCGS has put on the slab. They apparently are not bringing a premium. If you don't want the "First Strike" designation because you don't believe in it, don't buy it. Or, you can always buy it and have it changed into a regular holder, which is what I would likely do if I cared.
I would still like to see David or Ron explain the PCGS viewpoint on this subject. Their absence continues to amaze me and shows they have little or no interest on the subject and defending why PCGS is doing this. For that matter, their absence in general, on this forum and the Q&A forum shows me they have little or no interest in the board members here. It appears to me, from this and other situations that I have both seen and heard about, that PCGS is gonna do their own thing whether this collecting community cares or not. PCGS is losing market share as many have turned to NGC. The fact that they have removed their definitions of "First Strike" tells me they are in hiding to keep this gimmick going.
"Not to talk on Russ' behalf, but I think his point is who cares what PCGS has put on the slab."
I assumed that many collectors cared, especially the ones talking about it, for reasons ranging from caring about the integrity of the hobby to perhaps their favorite grading company. Or maybe from concerns over less seasoned people getting or reasonably feeling duped to simply being interested in talking about corporations and their marketing. Not everything has to be talked about depending upon whether or not it only directly effects you. The reason I care is because I don't like it when a company does something that either insults the intelligence or works to effectively take advantage of the lack of it.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>Not to talk on Russ' behalf, but I think his point is who cares what PCGS has put on the slab. >>
Exactly. The hue and cry has all along been that some poor schmucks are paying too much for the coins when, in fact, they bring little if any premium at all. It's a huge waste of energy to whine, piss, and moan about a meaningless slab label when there is plenty of REAL fraud in this hobby.
"Exactly. The hue and cry has all along been that some poor schmucks are paying too much for the coins when, in fact, they bring little if any premium at all."
I wasn't even aware of people paying too much for First Strike coins, so that certainly isn't the hue and cry from my end or view. The hue and cry is about there not being any difference in strike quality between First Strike and non-First Strike coins. Like I said, isn't that like selling Extra Waxed Blocks when they have just as much wax as the blocks without the Extra tagged to them? It seems dishonest and misleading to me. So, the hue and cry, from my view, is about integrity and people making a legitimate claim about deceit. Call it "First Half Shipped" or something accurate, no? I think this is a discussion about ethics, standards, and corporate honesty. There's no problem with that.
"It's a huge waste of energy to whine, piss, and moan about a meaningless slab label when there is plenty of REAL fraud in this hobby."
"Other problems are bigger" is never a reason to not discuss the merits of a complaint or issue - or else you and everyone else, myself included, should never have "wasted time" making so many of our past posts about serious issues or personal scuffs. With your logic, Russ, one should never complain about a bad day care center when there are people selling and raping kids. That doesn't cut it.
So, here's the bottom line: what do we make of First Strike coins as it relates to the industry and collectors? That's not just a discussion about paying money or if we can find things worse in the hobby. It's a discussion about ethics, honesty, accuracy, deception, and definition. All just as important if not more so than some of the posts you and I have written - so let's stop using lame reasons to dismiss valid points and concerns - or just mere exploration to better understand the changes in this industry, hm?
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>Not to talk on Russ' behalf, but I think his point is who cares what PCGS has put on the slab. >>
Exactly. The hue and cry has all along been that some poor schmucks are paying too much for the coins when, in fact, they bring little if any premium at all. It's a huge waste of energy to whine, piss, and moan about a meaningless slab label when there is plenty of REAL fraud in this hobby.
Russ, NCNE >>
So what you are saying is that PCGS is happily taking, since these coins are typically submitted in bulk, say $1000+ extra per submitter and giving them absolutely nothing in return? And the submitters are willing to do this, just throw away money?
<< <i>So what you are saying is that PCGS is happily taking, since these coins are typically submitted in bulk, say $1000+ extra per submitter and giving them absolutely nothing in return? And the submitters are willing to do this, just throw away money? >>
Looking at that statement, I have to assume that you don't know how the bulk submission process works. After the discounted fee and even adding back in the additional for the designation, the bulk submitter is paying no more than you or I would when submitting at the modern tier level.
How much people pay is never really the issue - they can just not pay. But whether or not something is unethical, inaccurate, or deceptive is the real, bigger issue. I can produce a deceptive or dishonest campaign or product and no one lose a penny over it - but I should still be exposed and labeled for what I am. You don't necessarily judge ethics or deception by how much money someone paid.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>So what you are saying is that PCGS is happily taking, since these coins are typically submitted in bulk, say $1000+ extra per submitter and giving them absolutely nothing in return? And the submitters are willing to do this, just throw away money? >>
Looking at that statement, I have to assume that you don't know how the bulk submission process works. After the discounted fee and even adding back in the additional for the designation, the bulk submitter is paying no more than you or I would when submitting at the modern tier level.
Russ, NCNE >>
We're not comparing the fee someone sending in a small number of coins vs. one sending a bulk submission; that's just a red herring you bought up out of nowhere; certainly it cannot be implied from my post. We are comparing a submission with the First Strike fees, vs. the same submission but w/o the First Strike fees.
--"Looking at that statement, I have to assume that you don't know how the bulk submission process works. After the discounted fee and even adding back in the additional for the designation, the bulk submitter is paying no more than you or I would when submitting at the modern tier level." --
That's doubletalk. The point, of course, is that the bulk submitters are paying additional money for the designation. Why pay extra for a "meaningless" tag unless it helps them to move more product or to sell at a higher price? You must think that they're stupid.
<< <i>That's doubletalk. The point, of course, is that the bulk submitters are paying additional money for the designation. Why pay extra for a "meaningless" tag unless it helps them to move more product or to sell at a higher price? You must think that they're stupid. >>
Check realized prices on eBay - actual realized prices in real auctions, not what some sellers are asking and rarely getting. They were probably hoping for higher prices, and were getting a bit more in the beginning. But it ain't happening now.
Does PCGS or whoever slabs these things avoid reasonable charges of deception by making it CLEAR that First Strike can just mean your coin was in the first 5 million (half) out of the 10 million minted? Where is the link to this? Or do they lead people to think it is a very limited amount or earlier strike with some benefit?
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
--"Check realized prices on eBay - actual realized prices in real auctions, not what some sellers are asking and rarely getting. They were probably hoping for higher prices, and were getting a bit more in the beginning. But it ain't happening now." --
If that's true, then the "First Strike" will die. But I think there's little doubt why it was conceived.
<< <i>But I think there's little doubt why it was conceived. >>
There never was any doubt why it was conceived. To generate additional revenue. For profit companies frequently conceive marketing gimmicks to enhance revenue. Is this news?
Russ, creating something to make money isn't the problem, it's leading people to think they are getting something they aren't UNLESS there is information posted clearly stating otherise.
So, no one has a link? Where is the link where First Strike is defined, letting people know it can just mean the first half of all the coins issued for that year?
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>Russ, creating something to make money isn't the problem, it's leading people to think they are getting something they aren't UNLESS there is information posted clearly stating otherise.
So, no one has a link? Where is the link where First Strike is defined, letting people know it can just mean the first half of all the coins issued for that year? >>
<< <i>But I think there's little doubt why it was conceived. >>
There never was any doubt why it was conceived. To generate additional revenue.For profit companies frequently conceive marketing gimmicks to enhance revenue. Is this news?
Russ, NCNE >>
Gee, I already said that. Guess you said it better
OK, I've obviously asked a tough question (what is PCGS's definition of First Strike). So, I checked out what others in the field of numismatics define it as. I have to assume PCGS utilized a unique definition?
----------------------------------
First strike A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes can be characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. First strikes are almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail. Five ... http://www.islandcoins.com/numismatic glossary.htm
First Strike A coin struck shortly after a new die is placed into service. First strike coins often are the most coveted by collectors, having sharper details and even sometimes proof-like qualities. Fish ... http://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/coin-collecting-guide.html
First Strike - An unofficial term referring to a coin struck shortly after a new die is put into use. Such coins often have prooffike surfaces and resemble proof, in certain (but not all) characteristics. http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/e-library/terms2.asp?sec=6&letter=1
First Strike An unofficial term referring to a coin struck shortly after a new die is put into use. Such coins often have prooflike surfaces and resemble proof, in certain (but not all) characteristics. http://www.cdacoinclub.org/index.php?cmd=7
First Strike The first coin, or one of the earliest coins, stuck from a pair of dies. These are usually Proof-like, well-struck and nearly perfect. Full Strike A coin that has complete details thanks to a crisp, bold stamp from the dies. http://www.morganmint.com/04_c_glossary.html
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. fishscale: nickname for the silver Three-Cents issued from 1851-1873. http://www.bestcoin.com/glossary.htm
first strike: a coin struck early in the life of a die before die wear occurs. Usually considered desirable since these coins are likely to have good solid strikes and excellent detail. http://www.coinresource.com/guide/dictionary1.htm
One of the most difficult parts of grading is distinguishing a "first strike" or proof-like" uncirculated (i.e. business strike) coin from a proof It is important to remember that "proof 'is not a grade; it is a method of manufacture. http://www.coingrading.com/isitproof1.html
Morgan sent De Francisci fifty 1921 Peace dollars and one of the first strikes of the low relief 1922 dollar, but he knew that the designer would be disappointed with the modifications. http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/features/...
Roosevelt and Saint-Gaudens intended the double eagle to be struck in high relief"though clearly not as high as the very first strikes"so each exquisite detail would be shown to full advantage. They encountered resistance, however, from the U.S. http://www.coinsite.com/CoinSite-PF/PParticles/$20sainthr.htm
a newly struck coin may adhere to the die, causing the next coin struck to have a First Strike Mirror Brockage of the coin stuck to the die; by the second strike the mirror is distorted, and later strikes are termed Struck Through A Capped Die. http://www.bhcoinclub.org/coindictionary.htm
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. http://www.pcgs.com/lingo.chtml?universeid=313&letter=0
180 1871 MS-64. Brilliant, frosty yellow gold lustre with sharp design details and considerable eye appeal. Certainly among the finest of survivors of this low-mintage date. In 1968, Stack's described this as "a lovely First Strike." ... http://www.harrybassfoundation.org/basscatalogs/BASSSALE2/...
outwards, but still showing all design details brockage A mirror image of the design from one side of a coin impressed on the opposite side - occasionally, a newly struck coin "sticks" to a die, causing the next coin struck to have a First Strike ... http://www.civil-war-token.com/glossary.htm
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<<OK, I've obviously asked a tough question (what is PCGS's definition of First Strike). So, I checked out what others in the field of numismatics define it as. I have to assume PCGS utilized a unique definition?>>
Perhaps not unique, but if not, certainly extremely unusual, ambiguous and difficult to locate.
I hope if PCGS issues coins labeled as First Strike that it is clear to everyone that this does not mean First Strike but First Big Bunch or First Big Bunch Shipped Out with Normal Strikes.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
So, Russ, in the spirit of accuracy, trust, integrity, and clarity, what do you think of changing the name from First Strike™ to First 3 Million Shipped With Normal Strikes™
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
<< <i>So, Russ, in the spirit of accuracy, trust, integrity, and clarity, what do you think of changing the name from First Strike™ to First 3 Million Shipped With Normal Strikes™ >>
<< <i><<OK, I've obviously asked a tough question (what is PCGS's definition of First Strike). So, I checked out what others in the field of numismatics define it as. I have to assume PCGS utilized a unique definition?>>
Perhaps not unique, but if not, certainly extremely unusual, ambiguous and difficult to locate. >>
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
First Strike.........as defined by PCGS...... 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 full or well struck,with crisp detail.
If die polishing is done to the die after usage.....then the die is not fresh.......!!!!!
<< <i>So, Russ, in the spirit of accuracy, trust, integrity, and clarity, what do you think of changing the name from First Strike™ to First 3 Million Shipped With Normal Strikes™ >>
I dunno...It just doesn't have that marketing "hook" if you know what I mean
If I only had a dollar for every VAM I have...err...nevermind...I do!!
Well it seems one of the only ways to get someone to respond to your post is to quote something Russ said, so....
<< <i>There never was any doubt why it was conceived. To generate additional revenue. For profit companies frequently conceive marketing gimmicks to enhance revenue. Is this news? >>
That's all fine and dandy and more power to the profit makers. BUT.....
IMO that should only apply to PCGS if they had at least left up their clear definition of what they are calling "First Strike" since that has been the defense on their behalf throughout most of this thread.
Can anyone give a good reason why PCGS would have quietly removed their description from the website including removing the common numismatic term from their glossary??? The only one I can think of is that they realized how badly the marketing gimmick was exposed and will no longer be offering this "designation" in the future.
I don't know what is worse, the gimmick or the coverup.
-- "Can anyone give a good reason why PCGS would have quietly removed their description from the website including removing the common numismatic term from their glossary??? The only one I can think of is that they realized how badly the marketing gimmick was exposed and will no longer be offering this 'designation' in the future." --
When were the definition of "first strike" and a description of the designation "First Strike" removed?
First Strike Joke™ First Million Shippers™ Alternative First Strike™ Early Bunches Of Oats™ First Strike For Dummies™ Russ Strikes™ Meaningless Strikes™ Misleading Strikeronies™ First Somethings™ Not Really First Strike™ Stop Crying About These, There Are Bigger Problems In The World, No One Has Lost Money That I Know Of Strikes™
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
When were the definition of "first strike" and a description of the designation "First Strike" removed? >>
Good question. Looking back at past threads here on the forum it looks like a while ago:
<< <i>aficionado >>
<< <i> Tuesday July 18, 2006 11:10 AM >>
<< <i>To just submit your coin within 30 days DOES NOT QAULIFY you for first strike. >>
<< <i>This is all fine, if those are the rules, but it's not stated on their website and Ron didn't know about it. >>
<< <i>silver2nd >>
<< <i> Sunday June 04, 2006 7:29 PM >>
<< <i> How does PCGS determine the first strike Designation, I can't seem to find info on the website. >>
Then from this thread...
<< <i>Russ >>
<< <i>Precisely how has PCGS deceived or misrepresented? The criteria for this designation is very clearly stated for all to see. >>
Here is NGC's clear description of their gimmick on the website... someone HAS STILL YET TO LINK the PCGS website equivalent. It might be "clearly stated for all to see" if you are an internet forensic scientist like Russ, but apparently a lot of other folks, including myself, have a lot harder time finding this text.
I generally agree with Russ's posts 99% of the time and still think PCGS grading standards and consistency are second to none, but in this case (a moral and ethical one, not a legal one), things aren't stacking up well in PCGS' favor.
Comments
<< <i>-- "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. >>
Then why do they bring no more money than non-first strike designated coins? In the real world. TV shows don't count since they charge stupid money for everything.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>-- "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. >>
Then why do they bring no more money than non-first strike designated coins? In the real world. TV shows don't count since they charge stupid money for everything.
Russ, NCNE >>
Does something become less misleading just because there's not always a monetary effect? Who cares if in most cases they don't sell for more money? The common sense understanding of the term directly suggests they're very early strikes by the dies and implies nothing about when the mint shipped them. Whereas the PCGS meaning is completely inverted, and gives (even if unintentionally, as I'm sure is the case) the less honest a very easy tool by which to dupe people out of their money. (NOTE: I am not calling PCGS's definition of First Strikes a fraud). Look at the links Mark Feld has supplied in the various threads. Sellers are using misleading and incorrect definitions. That should bother you, even if they are not charging more than for "Later Shipped" coins. Also note that the PCGS definitions of First Strike is not easy to find, and contradictory definitions can be found on pcgs.com via google. From the PCGS home page, can anyone find thew definiton of "First Strike" within, let's say, four mouse clicks? Let's find out just how easy the definition can be found. (And this assumed the potential buyer has a meaningful chance to look it up when someone offers a "pristine from dies" First Strike coin!)
Ed. S.
(EJS)
Of course TV shows count. Mark Salzberg said something that might be considered controversial at the NGC brunch at FUN 2006: Say what we will about shows like Coin Vault, they serve as an entry point for many collectors. [That's a paraphrase, but darned close to an actual quote.] I agree with that assessment, just as I think that the State Quarter Program has served as an entry point for many potentially serious collectors. What's the point of turning the plain meaning of "first strike" upside down? The "First Strike" programs facilitate the fleecing of collectors who most need the protection that the TPGs supposedly provide. I know that you believe that the "First Strike" designation is silly and that my protest is probably even sillier; but I happen to believe that these programs will harm the hobby in the long run.
I thought this aspect of "First Strike" had some merit...
<< <i>Stripped from Coinguy's thread
<< <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
Well, keeping this thread at the top of the page has been fun, but I'm done now. Goodnight, Carol.
DON'T enter a man's house and dump on his living room floor!
My opinion:
If it is a fact that a coin with a First Strike designation can easily have a worse strike than one done later in the year, because it was struck at a later die stage even though it was done within the first 30 days, then the First Strike designation is misleading and possibly fraudulent IN CHARACTER. First Strike totally and completely implies a guarantee that this coin was better struck than non-First Strike coins. A coin should not get a First Strike designation unless it is guaranteed to be of a higher quality strike/done at an earlier die stage than any other non-First Strike coin.
It's like selling First Cut Blocks, implying that these blocks will have a cleaner edge because they were made when the tools were at their sharpest - WHILE the fact of the matter is that plenty of blocks later in the year will be sharper than many of the ones cut during the "First Cut" period because the tools would have been less worn. It's absurd and misleading to the buyer because of the implied guarantee. "First Strike" says "Hey, these are better struck because they were done before things got worn." But apparently, this is NOT the case, which is why it is misleading. It's just as misleading as putting out "Extra or Most Polished" when in fact many will not be more polished.
The designation means nothing without that guarantee and just adds a layer of gimmicky confusion with no real quality assurance attached. It's not like anyone can check a First Strike coin against all other non-First Strike coins so the burden should be on the creator of the First Strike designation to make a guarantee. If not, than it's just a cheap misleading gimmick. If it is a fact that there are First Strike coins that have a worse strike than coins minted during the year because they were done at a later die stage, than I believe it is fairly reasonable for someone to say it is a fraudulent form of marketing. I'm not saying the issuer is committing fraud or doing something illegal, I am saying it is reasonable for one to say the First Strike designation has an element of fraud, or deception, or misrepresentation to it - if the fact is that First Strike coins can have inferior strikes from being late-stage die strikes.
There's a falseness and a trick to it - which is the heart of fraud's definition - so how can people be deemed wrong or crazy for feeling like something inherently false is being promoted? Many First Strike coins will, apparently and effectively, be frauds to many people. Right or wrong on that matter, I think, will come down to a game of word definitions and technicalities. I don't think that's the type of position a quality and reputation leader should be in. So, I hope they change it if I am basically on the money about how many First Strike coins can and will inferior in strike to non-First Strike coins.
are an early variety or high grade coin. I'm still guessing that most issues will never show
a premium for the "first strikes". Some people may think this makes the whole concept
worthless and misleading but how is it so much different than how other coins are marketed?
I've never heard any dealer say his coin is from a boring year and of an unpopular series. He
won't tell you that the coin might be crisp with mark free surfaces but is a dog with subdued
luster in a fourth rate holder. When was the last time you saw an auction suggesting the
1804 dollar is the most popular NCLT issue of all time or that a valuable coin's design is "busy"?
All coins (products) are marketed to appeal to people on one or more levels. Many of these
are emotional in nature or have little meaning except to some individuals. This one is not so
very much different.
I'm not a pro on all the other ways coins are marketed but if I had to answer you I guess I would say it apparently differs from the ones where there is a difference in the coin that justifies the designation, attribution, grading, etc. To answer you further, many other coins are marketed based upon meaningful, accurate, real, or justified things that can readily be identified or live up to their desciption. How does First Strike live up to anything if you could be getting inferior strikes on worn dies made months into the process? I don't see how First Strike coins live up to the condition, definition, or strike difference or anything it implies since what constitutes a First Strike coin are coins shipped out before some other coins. In other words, First Strike coins seems to not only fall short of actually having the better strikes the designation implies, it doesn't mean anything but shipping dates. Shouldn't it have been called "Shipped Early" or something along those lines if they aren't a different or better strike in any way compared to non-First Strike coins?
Why point out or market the strike if there is nothing better or different about the strike compared to coins without the designation?
However, as a relative newcomer to this hobby I find it both frustrating and disheartening that such marketing practices are being employed. It only hurts and further confuses the situation since PCGS has quietly removed all definitions of "First Strike" from their webpage and glossary (I couldn't find it in a quick search and haven't seen anyone else post a link yet).
I would like to hear opinions from some of the more educated board members here as to why they might have done this. Have they realized that in the long run people will realize there is no significant premium and this designation could possibly hurt the PCGS reputation? Perhaps PCGS has decided to no longer give the designation in the future? Regardless of whether they do or not, it can only make the situation more blurry by removing any clear definition.
Why...?
<< <i>So, are my facts straight? It's just about shipping dates and not the obviously implied superior or earlier die-state strike condition? >>
Your facts are straight, the first strike designation is strictly dependant on shipping dates and has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the strike or the die state of the coins. If they were shipped to the mint in their original mint monster boxes every single silver eagle struck for Aug 2005 through the end of Jan 2006 was elegible for first strike slabbing.
I wouldn't call what PCGS and the other top services are doing fraudulent, because they are slabbing them strictly along the lines of how they have defined what they mean by "First Strike". (Any fraud taking place is being taken place is being committed by the aftermarket sellers.) But it might be considered slightly ethically questionable since they did kind of change or at least ignore the standard acceptable definition of what a first strike or first strikes were. Frankly It always struck me as the kind of marketing ploy one of the third tier or fly by night companies would have come up with. A gimmick that can be used to push their product and at the same time scam the unwary. Call anything shiny a MS-70, or declare over half the coins annual production a First Strike. I'm not sure which is lower.
<< <i>Russ, are you really defending First Strike coins as not being misleading when there is obviously an implied promise that they have a better strike than non-First Strike coins? If I misunderstood your position I apologize. >>
Not to talk on Russ' behalf, but I think his point is who cares what PCGS has put on the slab. They apparently are not bringing a premium. If you don't want the "First Strike" designation because you don't believe in it, don't buy it. Or, you can always buy it and have it changed into a regular holder, which is what I would likely do if I cared.
I would still like to see David or Ron explain the PCGS viewpoint on this subject. Their absence continues to amaze me and shows they have little or no interest on the subject and defending why PCGS is doing this. For that matter, their absence in general, on this forum and the Q&A forum shows me they have little or no interest in the board members here. It appears to me, from this and other situations that I have both seen and heard about, that PCGS is gonna do their own thing whether this collecting community cares or not. PCGS is losing market share as many have turned to NGC. The fact that they have removed their definitions of "First Strike" tells me they are in hiding to keep this gimmick going.
I assumed that many collectors cared, especially the ones talking about it, for reasons ranging from caring about the integrity of the hobby to perhaps their favorite grading company. Or maybe from concerns over less seasoned people getting or reasonably feeling duped to simply being interested in talking about corporations and their marketing. Not everything has to be talked about depending upon whether or not it only directly effects you. The reason I care is because I don't like it when a company does something that either insults the intelligence or works to effectively take advantage of the lack of it.
<< <i>Not to talk on Russ' behalf, but I think his point is who cares what PCGS has put on the slab. >>
Exactly. The hue and cry has all along been that some poor schmucks are paying too much for the coins when, in fact, they bring little if any premium at all. It's a huge waste of energy to whine, piss, and moan about a meaningless slab label when there is plenty of REAL fraud in this hobby.
Russ, NCNE
I wasn't even aware of people paying too much for First Strike coins, so that certainly isn't the hue and cry from my end or view. The hue and cry is about there not being any difference in strike quality between First Strike and non-First Strike coins. Like I said, isn't that like selling Extra Waxed Blocks when they have just as much wax as the blocks without the Extra tagged to them? It seems dishonest and misleading to me. So, the hue and cry, from my view, is about integrity and people making a legitimate claim about deceit. Call it "First Half Shipped" or something accurate, no? I think this is a discussion about ethics, standards, and corporate honesty. There's no problem with that.
"It's a huge waste of energy to whine, piss, and moan about a meaningless slab label when there is plenty of REAL fraud in this hobby."
"Other problems are bigger" is never a reason to not discuss the merits of a complaint or issue - or else you and everyone else, myself included, should never have "wasted time" making so many of our past posts about serious issues or personal scuffs. With your logic, Russ, one should never complain about a bad day care center when there are people selling and raping kids. That doesn't cut it.
So, here's the bottom line: what do we make of First Strike coins as it relates to the industry and collectors? That's not just a discussion about paying money or if we can find things worse in the hobby. It's a discussion about ethics, honesty, accuracy, deception, and definition. All just as important if not more so than some of the posts you and I have written - so let's stop using lame reasons to dismiss valid points and concerns - or just mere exploration to better understand the changes in this industry, hm?
<< <i>
<< <i>Not to talk on Russ' behalf, but I think his point is who cares what PCGS has put on the slab. >>
Exactly. The hue and cry has all along been that some poor schmucks are paying too much for the coins when, in fact, they bring little if any premium at all. It's a huge waste of energy to whine, piss, and moan about a meaningless slab label when there is plenty of REAL fraud in this hobby.
Russ, NCNE >>
So what you are saying is that PCGS is happily taking, since these coins are typically submitted in bulk, say $1000+ extra per submitter and giving them absolutely nothing in return? And the submitters are willing to do this, just throw away money?
Ed. S.
(EJS)
<< <i>So what you are saying is that PCGS is happily taking, since these coins are typically submitted in bulk, say $1000+ extra per submitter and giving them absolutely nothing in return? And the submitters are willing to do this, just throw away money? >>
Looking at that statement, I have to assume that you don't know how the bulk submission process works. After the discounted fee and even adding back in the additional for the designation, the bulk submitter is paying no more than you or I would when submitting at the modern tier level.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>
<< <i>So what you are saying is that PCGS is happily taking, since these coins are typically submitted in bulk, say $1000+ extra per submitter and giving them absolutely nothing in return? And the submitters are willing to do this, just throw away money? >>
Looking at that statement, I have to assume that you don't know how the bulk submission process works. After the discounted fee and even adding back in the additional for the designation, the bulk submitter is paying no more than you or I would when submitting at the modern tier level.
Russ, NCNE >>
We're not comparing the fee someone sending in a small number of coins vs. one sending a bulk submission; that's just a red herring you bought up out of nowhere; certainly it cannot be implied from my post. We are comparing a submission with the First Strike fees, vs. the same submission but w/o the First Strike fees.
Ed. S.
(EJS)
That's doubletalk. The point, of course, is that the bulk submitters are paying additional money for the designation. Why pay extra for a "meaningless" tag unless it helps them to move more product or to sell at a higher price? You must think that they're stupid.
<< <i>That's doubletalk. The point, of course, is that the bulk submitters are paying additional money for the designation. Why pay extra for a "meaningless" tag unless it helps them to move more product or to sell at a higher price? You must think that they're stupid. >>
Check realized prices on eBay - actual realized prices in real auctions, not what some sellers are asking and rarely getting. They were probably hoping for higher prices, and were getting a bit more in the beginning. But it ain't happening now.
Russ, NCNE
Does PCGS or whoever slabs these things avoid reasonable charges of deception by making it CLEAR that First Strike can just mean your coin was in the first 5 million (half) out of the 10 million minted? Where is the link to this? Or do they lead people to think it is a very limited amount or earlier strike with some benefit?
If that's true, then the "First Strike" will die. But I think there's little doubt why it was conceived.
<< <i>But I think there's little doubt why it was conceived. >>
There never was any doubt why it was conceived. To generate additional revenue. For profit companies frequently conceive marketing gimmicks to enhance revenue. Is this news?
Russ, NCNE
CoinWorld apparently thought so; but that only takes us back to where Codder began.
So, no one has a link? Where is the link where First Strike is defined, letting people know it can just mean the first half of all the coins issued for that year?
<< <i>Russ, creating something to make money isn't the problem, it's leading people to think they are getting something they aren't UNLESS there is information posted clearly stating otherise.
So, no one has a link? Where is the link where First Strike is defined, letting people know it can just mean the first half of all the coins issued for that year? >>
There's some definitions on this web page...Keyword Search "First Strike definition coins"
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>
<< <i>But I think there's little doubt why it was conceived. >>
There never was any doubt why it was conceived. To generate additional revenue.For profit companies frequently conceive marketing gimmicks to enhance revenue. Is this news?
Russ, NCNE >>
Gee, I already said that. Guess you said it better
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
Why is it hard to find what they mean by First Strike, and do they let people know that may just mean the first half of all made?
<< <i>MAD4MORGANS, thanks, but I was looking for what the slabbing companies who issue the designation say.
Why is it hard to find what they mean by First Strike, and do they let people know that may just mean the first half of all made? >>
What you seek may be there...
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
----------------------------------
First strike
A coin struck early in the life of a die. First strikes can be characterized by striated or mirror-like fields if the die was polished. First strikes are almost always fully or well struck, with crisp detail.
Five ...
http://www.islandcoins.com/numismatic glossary.htm
First Strike
A coin struck shortly after a new die is placed into service. First strike coins often are the most coveted by collectors, having sharper details and even sometimes proof-like qualities.
Fish ...
http://www.us-coin-values-advisor.com/coin-collecting-guide.html
First Strike
- An unofficial term referring to a coin struck shortly after a new die is put into use. Such coins often have prooffike surfaces and resemble proof, in certain (but not all) characteristics.
http://www.fleur-de-coin.com/e-library/terms2.asp?sec=6&letter=1
First Strike
An unofficial term referring to a coin struck shortly after a new die is put into use. Such coins often have prooflike surfaces and resemble proof, in certain (but not all) characteristics.
http://www.cdacoinclub.org/index.php?cmd=7
First Strike
The first coin, or one of the earliest coins, stuck from a pair of dies. These are usually Proof-like, well-struck and nearly perfect.
Full Strike
A coin that has complete details thanks to a crisp, bold stamp from the dies.
http://www.morganmint.com/04_c_glossary.html
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.
fishscale: nickname for the silver Three-Cents issued from 1851-1873.
http://www.bestcoin.com/glossary.htm
first strike: a coin struck early in the life of a die before die wear occurs. Usually considered desirable since these coins are likely to have good solid strikes and excellent detail.
http://www.coinresource.com/guide/dictionary1.htm
One of the most difficult parts of grading is distinguishing a "first strike" or proof-like" uncirculated (i.e. business strike) coin from a proof It is important to remember that "proof 'is not a grade; it is a method of manufacture.
http://www.coingrading.com/isitproof1.html
Morgan sent De Francisci fifty 1921 Peace dollars and one of the first strikes of the low relief 1922 dollar, but he knew that the designer would be disappointed with the modifications.
http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/features/...
Roosevelt and Saint-Gaudens intended the double eagle to be struck in high relief"though clearly not as high as the very first strikes"so each exquisite detail would be shown to full advantage. They encountered resistance, however, from the U.S.
http://www.coinsite.com/CoinSite-PF/PParticles/$20sainthr.htm
a newly struck coin may adhere to the die, causing the next coin struck to have a First Strike Mirror Brockage of the coin stuck to the die; by the second strike the mirror is distorted, and later strikes are termed Struck Through A Capped Die.
http://www.bhcoinclub.org/coindictionary.htm
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.
http://www.pcgs.com/lingo.chtml?universeid=313&letter=0
180 1871 MS-64. Brilliant, frosty yellow gold lustre with sharp design details and considerable eye appeal. Certainly among the finest of survivors of this low-mintage date. In 1968, Stack's described this as "a lovely First Strike." ...
http://www.harrybassfoundation.org/basscatalogs/BASSSALE2/...
outwards, but still showing all design details brockage A mirror image of the design from one side of a coin impressed on the opposite side - occasionally, a newly struck coin "sticks" to a die, causing the next coin struck to have a First Strike ...
http://www.civil-war-token.com/glossary.htm
Perhaps not unique, but if not, certainly extremely unusual, ambiguous and difficult to locate.
<< <i>So, Russ, in the spirit of accuracy, trust, integrity, and clarity, what do you think of changing the name from First Strike™ to First 3 Million Shipped With Normal Strikes™ >>
<< <i><<OK, I've obviously asked a tough question (what is PCGS's definition of First Strike). So, I checked out what others in the field of numismatics define it as. I have to assume PCGS utilized a unique definition?>>
Perhaps not unique, but if not, certainly extremely unusual, ambiguous and difficult to locate.
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
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 full or well struck,with crisp detail.
If die polishing is done to the die after usage.....then the die is not fresh.......!!!!!
<< <i>So, Russ, in the spirit of accuracy, trust, integrity, and clarity, what do you think of changing the name from First Strike™ to First 3 Million Shipped With Normal Strikes™ >>
I dunno...It just doesn't have that marketing "hook" if you know what I mean
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>There never was any doubt why it was conceived. To generate additional revenue. For profit companies frequently conceive marketing gimmicks to enhance revenue. Is this news? >>
That's all fine and dandy and more power to the profit makers. BUT.....
IMO that should only apply to PCGS if they had at least left up their clear definition of what they are calling "First Strike" since that has been the defense on their behalf throughout most of this thread.
Can anyone give a good reason why PCGS would have quietly removed their description from the website including removing the common numismatic term from their glossary???
The only one I can think of is that they realized how badly the marketing gimmick was exposed and will no longer be offering this "designation" in the future.
I don't know what is worse, the gimmick or the coverup.
When were the definition of "first strike" and a description of the designation "First Strike" removed?
First Strike Joke™
First Million Shippers™
Alternative First Strike™
Early Bunches Of Oats™
First Strike For Dummies™
Russ Strikes™
Meaningless Strikes™
Misleading Strikeronies™
First Somethings™
Not Really First Strike™
Stop Crying About These, There Are Bigger Problems In The World, No One Has Lost Money That I Know Of Strikes™
<< <i>
When were the definition of "first strike" and a description of the designation "First Strike" removed? >>
Good question. Looking back at past threads here on the forum it looks like a while ago:
<< <i>aficionado >>
<< <i> Tuesday July 18, 2006 11:10 AM >>
<< <i>To just submit your coin within 30 days DOES NOT QAULIFY you for first strike. >>
<< <i>This is all fine, if those are the rules, but it's not stated on their website and Ron didn't know about it. >>
<< <i>silver2nd >>
<< <i> Sunday June 04, 2006 7:29 PM >>
<< <i> How does PCGS determine the first strike Designation, I can't seem to find info on the website. >>
Then from this thread...
<< <i>Russ >>
<< <i>Precisely how has PCGS deceived or misrepresented? The criteria for this designation is very clearly stated for all to see. >>
Here is NGC's clear description of their gimmick on the website... someone HAS STILL YET TO LINK the PCGS website equivalent.
It might be "clearly stated for all to see" if you are an internet forensic scientist like Russ, but apparently a lot of other folks, including myself, have a lot harder time finding this text.
I generally agree with Russ's posts 99% of the time and still think PCGS grading standards and consistency are second to none, but in this case (a moral and ethical one, not a legal one), things aren't stacking up well in PCGS' favor.