My opinion on FDCC secondary market performance, of course backed up by real data, is that except for the brief "flash in the pan" big bucks received for the Delaware Qtr covers.......and then a market collapse.......these have been real DOGS.
Whoever the "guy across the street" is, I hope he is happy with his inventory of those FDCC's - as he will have them a LOOONG time.
<< <i>No disrespect intended to any member who thinks that the postmark on the cover suffices the same as the postmark on the OUTER MAILING PACKAGE - (therein lies the root of the issue)
Why would you think that the cover had the coin inserted on or before Feb 15?
Now if the outer mint package (even the white cardboard sealed cover container) was postmarked 2/15.....you might have a case...
But just the cover postmarked 2/15? If i'm a betting man, then I would believe the coins in those covers may not have been inserted prior to 2/15.
Let PCGS certify them as Coin Cover Coins....but not FDI. >>
I suppose the bottom line as to why PCGS will cetify the presedential coin covers with the FDI insert through the bulk department is because the the do come in mint packaging with the required post mark of FEB 15th on the SEALED package.
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
<< <i>My opinion on FDCC secondary market performance, of course backed up by real data, is that except for the brief "flash in the pan" big bucks received for the Delaware Qtr covers.......and then a market collapse.......these have been real DOGS.
Whoever the "guy across the street" is, I hope he is happy with his inventory of those FDCC's - as he will have them a LOOONG time. >>
Since PCGS is certifing the coin covers with the FDI insert it stands to reason they would be at least as good investments as the FDI coins that came from bank rolls. A PCGS MS67 FDI P & D set is going for ~$1,000. I believe you will find nicer examples come out of the coin cover sets and therefore theoretically higher grades.
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
Keep in mind that the mint sealed white cardboard cover holder DOES NOT HAVE A POSTMARK ON IT. I am very familiar with the coin covers and how they are delivered.......they only have the product number on the outer sealed white envelope.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth.
Dont count on nicer examples with the cover coins, they also have been dogs....
Just look at some of the State Qtr Covers.
They are approx the same as Mint Set Coins. Maybe a little less baggy than coins sent for rolling and boxing at outside vendors.
Dont count on any 68's. My opinion is the major TPG's have capped these at 67.
My opinion, clearly stated, is that PCGS would be making a mistake accepting these for FDI labelling. What's next, accepting 2007 Mint Set Prez Dollars for FDI labelling if the Mint makes a comment about packaging them from the first production run in Nov 2006......
FDI designation is still very new, no sense ruining the brilliance of this idea by changing the rules half way through.....
<< <i>Keep in mind that the mint sealed white cardboard cover holder DOES NOT HAVE A POSTMARK ON IT. I am very familiar with the coin covers and how they are delivered.......they only have the product number on the outer sealed white envelope.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth. >>
<< <i>We will honor the First Day of Issue, but the submission has to meet the following criteria…
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
The packages they come in (see example below) are sealed, so we do not require that they send the external shipping box. (Customers do need to leave the cover in-tact—if they remove the coins, we will not honor the First Day of Issue.) They will *not* get the post-marked cover back.
If a customer has further questions, please transfer them to Bulk. >>
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
<< <i>Keep in mind that the mint sealed white cardboard cover holder DOES NOT HAVE A POSTMARK ON IT. I am very familiar with the coin covers and how they are delivered.......they only have the product number on the outer sealed white envelope.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth. >>
He is on vacation until 4/9....
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i>Keep in mind that the mint sealed white cardboard cover holder DOES NOT HAVE A POSTMARK ON IT. I am very familiar with the coin covers and how they are delivered.......they only have the product number on the outer sealed white envelope.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth. >>
He is on vacation until 4/9.... >>
The final opinion is the will certify them with the FDI insert.....
<< <i>We will honor the First Day of Issue, but the submission has to meet the following criteria…
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
The packages they come in (see example below) are sealed, so we do not require that they send the external shipping box. (Customers do need to leave the cover in-tact—if they remove the coins, we will not honor the First Day of Issue.) They will *not* get the post-marked cover back.
If a customer has further questions, please transfer them to Bulk. >>
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
Is it just me or does it seem that this grading stuff is "shrouded in secrecy". Basically, there is all this whoopdedo regarding whether or not items can be submitted, a lack of clear cut answers, plenty of opinions, followed by posts giving second hand info from phone calls to this person or that person, then some sort of piece meal guidance later, followed by a mass of confusion.
<< We will honor the First Day of Issue, but the submission has to meet the following criteria…
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
There is a reason one of the requirements is no min grade IMHO. The history on these FD covers tells us the quality, overall, is not all that special- be it state quarter FD covers, Sac $1 FD covers, etc. On top of that, if I recall correctly, the Delaware FD cover Mint issue price was around $20 (it could have been around $15, but, I seem to recall $20). Eight years later, those covers sell for around $40-$50 retail best I can tell - probably the same amount that $20 would be worth today if it was left in the bank in a decent CD in the first place (but, if I am not mistaken, the production limit on these dollars is lower than it was on the Delaware covers?) Would it be nice if the US Mint departed from past history and actually made far nicer coins for the FD covers - of course (and I hope they do). But, obviously, PCGS is gearing up on history repeating itself - and they are being counseled these days internally by a few very smart folks with good contacts at the US Mint. Wondercoin.
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>This is good news. just got 100 sets today. There is a good chance for that MS67. Keith >>
Wow...super quick mailing by the Mint. I think we somehow got away from the original questions "Why not have a First Day of Production Label" or "First Strike Label" in lieu of the FDI for the FDCC's & get rid of the 100 minimum for bulk submission. Have PCGS charge the Standard Rate ($14) + $10 fee for First Strike (optional). If any coin qualifies for "First Strike" or "First Day of Production" labels, the FDCC's most certainly do. Just my thoughts...
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i><< We will honor the First Day of Issue, but the submission has to meet the following criteria…
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
Is that minimum 100 coins (50 FD sets) or 100 FD sets (200 coins)? >>
I was told by the bulk dept. that you cannot mix P & D coins to reach the 100 coin minimum for a bulk order. Since the coin covers come with one P & one D you need 100 coin covers containing 200 coins for a bulk order to obtain the FDI insert. You can also send in as may as you want through a regular submission. For the FDI insert it has to be a bulk order.
Never teach a pig to sing. You'll waste your time and annoy the pig
<< <i>This is good news. just got 100 sets today. There is a good chance for that MS67. Keith >>
Wow...super quick mailing by the Mint. I think we somehow got away from the original questions "Why not have a First Day of Production Label" or "First Strike Label" in lieu of the FDI for the FDCC's & get rid of the 100 minimum for bulk submission. Have PCGS charge the Standard Rate ($14) + $10 fee for First Strike (optional). If any coin qualifies for "First Strike" or "First Day of Production" labels, the FDCC's most certainly do. Just my thoughts... >>
Correction; I did not get my sets today, just ordered today and they are on Backorder keith
"I think we somehow got away from the original questions "Why not have a First Day of Production Label" or "First Strike Label" in lieu of the FDI for the FDCC's & get rid of the 100 minimum for bulk submission."
Exactly! The question isn't whether these coins get a FD of Issue I label. I wouldn't submit these coins if they were going to receive a "First Day of ISSUE" label. These coins are not the same as those coins that are currently receiving a FDI label. Any number of coins postmarked 2/15 or before is eligible for that label regardless of the date it was manufactured.
These coins deserve their own label. They deserve a label that segregates them from the mass-mailing-got-'em-at-my-bank coins-or-whatever! PCGS can keep designating any coins which are postmarked with their magic date de juer. Just give these coins the recognition that they deserve.
I, for one, don't find this series very exciting. But when I consider putting together a set of dollars that are all from their first day of production I find that is an idea that I like. I intend to do just that. I certainly don't need the PCGS labeling. But I can positively guarantee that my "First Day of Production" dollars will never be submitted unless PCGS is willing to recognize them for what they are.
I have to say that I am confused about one thing. If we pay to have a coin graded and certified, then we are asking an expert to state what the coin is. Now I can understand that we pay $10 for a First Strike Desgination since we all know it is somewhat of a falsehood and marketing gimmic. I mean bottomline, it brings more money but the US Mint says it really is a falsehood. So we pay for the extra marketing and meet the requirements of said marketing.
HOWEVER, if a coin IS definately, Mint Guarateed a First Strike Coin, marked and sold as such by the US Mint, I think the designation of this coin should be free and as part of a standard grading fee. That is what we pay for. I mean the mint makes coins that say 2007 on them, labels them and guaratees them as 2007 coins. PCGS then labels them automatically as such because it is the IDENTITY of the coin.
These coins in covers are labeled, marketed, and sold by the US Mint as First day of production. That is a key component of these 50k coins. We still pay a grading fee but WHY would we pay extra and have to submit a collossal amount of coins to get them graded for what they are???? I mean this is a CORE issue of using PCGS in the first place to confirm and slab a coin with its true identity. If a commemortive coin is put out, do we pay extra to have the commemortive recoginized?? - No. Why doesn't PCGS just label them a real coin and then charge us designation fees for the year, type of issue, demonination, personage on the coin, and commemortive???
Because that is what they are doing here. They are saying we need a special designation with an additional fee to recogonize the coin for what it is...a special 50k run of first day of production for the US Mint. That is the identity of said coin and one bloody fee of $14 dollars should recognize it..just likd 20th Anniversary was recognized! If the cover fits, must designate it!
PCGS staff this is what you are supposed to do and you are going against the definition of your service if you DON'T properly recognize what the coin is.
I don't see what all the hoopla is about. DO NOT SUBMIT THESE COIN COVERS!!!!! The mint guarantees that they are from the first day of production. Period... Why do you need a TPG to authenticate that fact with some cheesy label. The Mint packaging is nice and as long as it remains intact, the provenance of the coin as a first day of production is traceable.. Forget the fees, forget the plastic. Enjoy the coin and the cover for what it is.
COINHOG---People will leave these in the Mint packaging. Just as people leave Mint Sets, Proof Sets, Commemoratives of all sorts, and every other Mint product in it's original packaging. That doesn't change the fact that PCGS should recognize these coins and provide a specific label for those who choose to have them slabbed. Some people just like having their Mint product put into slabs....with a label that SPECIFIES what that coin is. Especially if it has a special provenance.
I think submission of these should be allowed both ways -- bulk and regular submission. If I want to get 2 sets graded, I lose out on the special designation. It doesn't change what it is regardless of how many are sent in. I don't have a problem with paying regular price for getting a few graded. If they get submitted in the coin covers, they should be able to receive the label that correctly identifies what they are and where they came from.
COINHOG---People will leave these in the Mint packaging. Just as people leave Mint Sets, Proof Sets, Commemoratives of all sorts, and every other Mint product in it's original packaging. That doesn't change the fact that PCGS should recognize these coins and provide a specific label for those who choose to have them slabbed. Some people just like having their Mint product put into slabs....with a label that SPECIFIES what that coin is. Especially if it has a special provenance. >>
Whelp, now that NGC has solved the problem of maintaining the US Mint FDCovers intact and still providing a grade, what will PCGS do as a response?
If they maintain the 'lump them all in with FDI' and not respond to NGC's innovative product, it is doubtful they grade more than 500 coins.
Of course, we will never know because they are just lumped in with the artificial created requirements of FDI coins.
With NGC now about to include the $.25 FD Covers (which goes back 10 years), this $1 Presidential Cover deal (with it's 10 year run), if ignored by PCGS, is a major concession to NGC and tantamount to a marketing coup.
I have to admit I am very excited by this 10 year product. I know it seems silly but so far discussions on these has been a lot of fun. I imagine my son taking in my coins for show and tell. I like the idea of re-energizing my history by reading up on more detail for each President. To me this is MUCH more fun and interesting then the Quarter series which I liked as well.
I think it is great the Mint is using our coinage to educate a bit. And I am a bit embarrassed on how much I have forgotten .
I should be getting my covers any day and will probably leave some sealed and get a few graded at NGC. I have seen the covers but haven't seen their terms. I only ordered two orders of 5 sets, for 10 total. So there is no way I can do PCGS and am a bit put out with their "requirements".
<< <i>I don't see what all the hoopla is about. DO NOT SUBMIT THESE COIN COVERS!!!!! The mint guarantees that they are from the first day of production. Period... Why do you need a TPG to authenticate that fact with some cheesy label. The Mint packaging is nice and as long as it remains intact, the provenance of the coin as a first day of production is traceable.. Forget the fees, forget the plastic. Enjoy the coin and the cover for what it is. >>
Maybe PCGS is protecting collectors by not adding another designation. This will protect collectors with FDIs and collectors will realize they don't need to pay $15 for two coins when they can get a coin for $1 from the bank. Is PCGS trying to tell us there is no difference in the coins?
Comments
Whoever the "guy across the street" is, I hope he is happy with his inventory of those FDCC's - as he will have them a LOOONG time.
<< <i>No disrespect intended to any member who thinks that the postmark on the cover suffices the same as the postmark on the OUTER MAILING PACKAGE - (therein lies the root of the issue)
Why would you think that the cover had the coin inserted on or before Feb 15?
Now if the outer mint package (even the white cardboard sealed cover container) was postmarked 2/15.....you might have a case...
But just the cover postmarked 2/15? If i'm a betting man, then I would believe the coins in those covers may not have been inserted prior to 2/15.
Let PCGS certify them as Coin Cover Coins....but not FDI. >>
I suppose the bottom line as to why PCGS will cetify the presedential coin covers with the FDI insert through the bulk department is because the the do come in mint packaging with the required post mark of FEB 15th on the SEALED package.
<< <i>My opinion on FDCC secondary market performance, of course backed up by real data, is that except for the brief "flash in the pan" big bucks received for the Delaware Qtr covers.......and then a market collapse.......these have been real DOGS.
Whoever the "guy across the street" is, I hope he is happy with his inventory of those FDCC's - as he will have them a LOOONG time. >>
Since PCGS is certifing the coin covers with the FDI insert it stands to reason they would be at least as good investments as the FDI coins that came from bank rolls. A PCGS MS67 FDI P & D set is going for ~$1,000. I believe you will find nicer examples come out of the coin cover sets and therefore theoretically higher grades.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth.
Just look at some of the State Qtr Covers.
They are approx the same as Mint Set Coins. Maybe a little less baggy than coins sent for rolling and boxing at outside vendors.
Dont count on any 68's. My opinion is the major TPG's have capped these at 67.
My opinion, clearly stated, is that PCGS would be making a mistake accepting these for FDI labelling. What's next, accepting 2007 Mint Set Prez Dollars for FDI labelling if the Mint makes a comment about packaging them from the first production run in Nov 2006......
FDI designation is still very new, no sense ruining the brilliance of this idea by changing the rules half way through.....
<< <i>Keep in mind that the mint sealed white cardboard cover holder DOES NOT HAVE A POSTMARK ON IT. I am very familiar with the coin covers and how they are delivered.......they only have the product number on the outer sealed white envelope.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth. >>
<< <i>We will honor the First Day of Issue, but the submission has to meet the following criteria…
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
The packages they come in (see example below) are sealed, so we do not require that they send the external shipping box. (Customers do need to leave the cover in-tact—if they remove the coins, we will not honor the First Day of Issue.) They will *not* get the post-marked cover back.
If a customer has further questions, please transfer them to Bulk. >>
<< <i>Keep in mind that the mint sealed white cardboard cover holder DOES NOT HAVE A POSTMARK ON IT. I am very familiar with the coin covers and how they are delivered.......they only have the product number on the outer sealed white envelope.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth. >>
He is on vacation until 4/9....
<< <i>
<< <i>Keep in mind that the mint sealed white cardboard cover holder DOES NOT HAVE A POSTMARK ON IT. I am very familiar with the coin covers and how they are delivered.......they only have the product number on the outer sealed white envelope.
Only the cover inside has the postmark. Again, who's to say that those coins were inserted on 2/15?
That is why there needs to be a final opinion on these by CoinKing.....Mr Guth. >>
He is on vacation until 4/9.... >>
The final opinion is the will certify them with the FDI insert.....
<< <i>We will honor the First Day of Issue, but the submission has to meet the following criteria…
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
The packages they come in (see example below) are sealed, so we do not require that they send the external shipping box. (Customers do need to leave the cover in-tact—if they remove the coins, we will not honor the First Day of Issue.) They will *not* get the post-marked cover back.
If a customer has further questions, please transfer them to Bulk. >>
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
There is a reason one of the requirements is no min grade IMHO. The history on these FD covers tells us the quality, overall, is not all that special- be it state quarter FD covers, Sac $1 FD covers, etc. On top of that, if I recall correctly, the Delaware FD cover Mint issue price was around $20 (it could have been around $15, but, I seem to recall $20). Eight years later, those covers sell for around $40-$50 retail best I can tell - probably the same amount that $20 would be worth today if it was left in the bank in a decent CD in the first place (but, if I am not mistaken, the production limit on these dollars is lower than it was on the Delaware covers?) Would it be nice if the US Mint departed from past history and actually made far nicer coins for the FD covers - of course (and I hope they do). But, obviously, PCGS is gearing up on history repeating itself - and they are being counseled these days internally by a few very smart folks with good contacts at the US Mint. Wondercoin.
PCGS needs to be very clear on rules on thier website.
If the info rec'd by one member is truth, FDI designation just became useless.
Secondary to that is, better buy the covers, because most of them will be gutted and they will become the rarity. How's that for a kick in the pants!
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
Is that minimum 100 coins (50 FD sets) or 100 FD sets (200 coins)?
Keith
No much of a chance. Have you bought a lottery ticket lately.
Probably better chance of winning the lottery.
<< <i>This is good news. just got 100 sets today. There is a good chance for that MS67.
Keith
Wow...super quick mailing by the Mint. I think we somehow got away from the original questions "Why not have a First Day of Production Label" or "First Strike Label" in lieu of the FDI for the FDCC's & get rid of the 100 minimum for bulk submission. Have PCGS charge the Standard Rate ($14) + $10 fee for First Strike (optional). If any coin qualifies for "First Strike" or "First Day of Production" labels, the FDCC's most certainly do. Just my thoughts...
<< <i><< We will honor the First Day of Issue, but the submission has to meet the following criteria…
Through Bulk
Minimum 100 coins
No minimum grade
Flat rate of $12/coin
Is that minimum 100 coins (50 FD sets) or 100 FD sets (200 coins)? >>
I was told by the bulk dept. that you cannot mix P & D coins to reach the 100 coin minimum for a bulk order. Since the coin covers come with one P & one D you need 100 coin covers containing 200 coins for a bulk order to obtain the FDI insert. You can also send in as may as you want through a regular submission. For the FDI insert it has to be a bulk order.
<< <i>
<< <i>This is good news. just got 100 sets today. There is a good chance for that MS67.
Keith
Wow...super quick mailing by the Mint. I think we somehow got away from the original questions "Why not have a First Day of Production Label" or "First Strike Label" in lieu of the FDI for the FDCC's & get rid of the 100 minimum for bulk submission. Have PCGS charge the Standard Rate ($14) + $10 fee for First Strike (optional). If any coin qualifies for "First Strike" or "First Day of Production" labels, the FDCC's most certainly do. Just my thoughts... >>
Correction; I did not get my sets today, just ordered today and they are on Backorder
keith
"I think we somehow got away from the original questions "Why not have a First Day of Production Label" or "First Strike Label" in lieu of the FDI for the FDCC's & get rid of the 100 minimum for bulk submission."
Exactly! The question isn't whether these coins get a FD of Issue I label. I wouldn't submit these coins if they were going to receive a "First Day of ISSUE" label. These coins are not the same as those coins that are currently receiving a FDI label. Any number of coins postmarked 2/15 or before is eligible for that label regardless of the date it was manufactured.
These coins deserve their own label. They deserve a label that segregates them from the mass-mailing-got-'em-at-my-bank coins-or-whatever! PCGS can keep designating any coins which are postmarked with their magic date de juer. Just give these coins the recognition that they deserve.
I, for one, don't find this series very exciting. But when I consider putting together a set of dollars that are all from their first day of production I find that is an idea that I like. I intend to do just that. I certainly don't need the PCGS labeling. But I can positively guarantee that my "First Day of Production" dollars will never be submitted unless PCGS is willing to recognize them for what they are.
HOWEVER, if a coin IS definately, Mint Guarateed a First Strike Coin, marked and sold as such by the US Mint, I think the designation of this coin should be free and as part of a standard grading fee. That is what we pay for. I mean the mint makes coins that say 2007 on them, labels them and guaratees them as 2007 coins. PCGS then labels them automatically as such because it is the IDENTITY of the coin.
These coins in covers are labeled, marketed, and sold by the US Mint as First day of production. That is a key component of these 50k coins. We still pay a grading fee but WHY would we pay extra and have to submit a collossal amount of coins to get them graded for what they are???? I mean this is a CORE issue of using PCGS in the first place to confirm and slab a coin with its true identity. If a commemortive coin is put out, do we pay extra to have the commemortive recoginized?? - No. Why doesn't PCGS just label them a real coin and then charge us designation fees for the year, type of issue, demonination, personage on the coin, and commemortive???
Because that is what they are doing here. They are saying we need a special designation with an additional fee to recogonize the coin for what it is...a special 50k run of first day of production for the US Mint. That is the identity of said coin and one bloody fee of $14 dollars should recognize it..just likd 20th Anniversary was recognized! If the cover fits, must designate it!
PCGS staff this is what you are supposed to do and you are going against the definition of your service if you DON'T properly recognize what the coin is.
Just my .45 cents
Swest
COINHOG---People will leave these in the Mint packaging. Just as people leave Mint Sets, Proof Sets, Commemoratives of all sorts, and every other Mint product in it's original packaging. That doesn't change the fact that PCGS should recognize these coins and provide a specific label for those who choose to have them slabbed. Some people just like having their Mint product put into slabs....with a label that SPECIFIES what that coin is. Especially if it has a special provenance.
I think submission of these should be allowed both ways -- bulk and regular submission. If I want to get 2 sets graded, I lose out on the special designation. It doesn't change what it is regardless of how many are sent in. I don't have a problem with paying regular price for getting a few graded. If they get submitted in the coin covers, they should be able to receive the label that correctly identifies what they are and where they came from.
<< <i>SWEST--- Well said.
COINHOG---People will leave these in the Mint packaging. Just as people leave Mint Sets, Proof Sets, Commemoratives of all sorts, and every other Mint product in it's original packaging. That doesn't change the fact that PCGS should recognize these coins and provide a specific label for those who choose to have them slabbed. Some people just like having their Mint product put into slabs....with a label that SPECIFIES what that coin is. Especially if it has a special provenance. >>
Thanks!!
Swest
If they maintain the 'lump them all in with FDI' and not respond to NGC's innovative product, it is doubtful they grade more than 500 coins.
Of course, we will never know because they are just lumped in with the artificial created requirements of FDI coins.
With NGC now about to include the $.25 FD Covers (which goes back 10 years), this $1 Presidential Cover deal (with it's 10 year run), if ignored by PCGS, is a major concession to NGC and tantamount to a marketing coup.
I have to admit I am very excited by this 10 year product. I know it seems silly but so far discussions on these has been a lot of fun. I imagine my son taking in my coins for show and tell. I like the idea of re-energizing my history by reading up on more detail for each President. To me this is MUCH more fun and interesting then the Quarter series which I liked as well.
I think it is great the Mint is using our coinage to educate a bit. And I am a bit embarrassed on how much I have forgotten
I should be getting my covers any day and will probably leave some sealed and get a few graded at NGC. I have seen the covers but haven't seen their terms. I only ordered two orders of 5 sets, for 10 total. So there is no way I can do PCGS and am a bit put out with their "requirements".
Swest
<< <i>I don't see what all the hoopla is about. DO NOT SUBMIT THESE COIN COVERS!!!!! The mint guarantees that they are from the first day of production. Period... Why do you need a TPG to authenticate that fact with some cheesy label. The Mint packaging is nice and as long as it remains intact, the provenance of the coin as a first day of production is traceable.. Forget the fees, forget the plastic. Enjoy the coin and the cover for what it is. >>
Maybe PCGS is protecting collectors by not adding another designation. This will protect collectors with FDIs and collectors will realize they don't need to pay $15 for two coins when they can get a coin for $1 from the bank. Is PCGS trying to tell us there is no difference in the coins?