In what sets should Satin Finish coins be included?
DMWJR
Posts: 6,008 ✭✭✭✭✭
To me, Satin Finish coin sets are nothing more than Special Mint Sets like the SMS coins of 65-67, and a few other miscellaneous coins in the modern series.
Currently, some are found in the basic proof sets: 1965-1967 SMS Cents through halves
Other SMS coins, such as these below, are in the circulation set, either in the basic or varieties set.
Nickels: 1994 and 1997 are in Circulation Basic sets both 1938-present and 1965-present
Halves: 1998 SMS is in Circulation Varieties set
Should the SF coins go in the basic circ, circ w/varieties, or a proof set???
Yes, I know there is a 1,000 post thread going on here with what to do with the SF coins, but maybe it hasn't been asked in this manner. I apologize if it has because I didn't bother to read the entire Wondercoin thread.
Doug
0
Comments
How on earth can ANYONE say Satin Finish coins fit this description? Much less PCGS, who is the leader of the coin world when it comes making sure our coins are correctly graded, labeled, and asures us that have not been faked, or tampered with in any way.
Is it that hard to step forward and say, "guys we may have acted in haste when letting SF coins taint the purity of the uncirculated sets?". "Trust us, we will correct this situation and strighten out the registry without delay."
The way it's handled now is, keep quite, ignore the questions asked, and pretend no one noticed, maybe it will go away.
Not as long as they allow me to be a member. This wheel will squeak until someone steps forward and answers some of the questions being asked on the Q&A forum.
Dan
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
David
<< <i> In what sets should Satin Finish coins be included? >>
To answer your question, you first need to look at the reason the U.S. Mint started making mint sets in 1947. The U.S. Mint introduced the mint set in 1947 as a convenient way for collectors to acquire “an example of each denomination from each mint produced for circulation that year.” I am not sure if they started right out of the gate including “two” examples of each so the collector could chose the better one but they stopped this practice in the late 50’s.
But the purpose of the U.S. Mint set was what? A convenient way for collectors to acquire an example of each denomination from each mint “produced for circulation that year.”
The question that I have for you, were the “Satin Finish” coins that are in the U.S. Mint’s Uncirculated Coin Sets of 2005 – Present “an example of each denomination from each mint produced for circulation that year.” If not, how can the “Satin Finish” coins be in a set purporting to be of Circulation Strikes ?
PCGS needs to have some continuity in the Registry. Example, the 1994 and 1997 SMS Jefferson nickel are part of the Jefferson Nickels Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1938-present) but the 1998-S SMS Kennedy half dollar is not part of the Kennedy Half Dollars Basic Set, Circulation Strikes (1964-Present) . How can SMS coins be required in one set but not the other?
So in my humble opinion, the “Satin Finish” coins should be in the sets purporting to be Varieties or Complete sets only.
I think you should put the SF coins where ever the SMS coins are, and the SMS coins are wrongly included in the "basic" proof set right now.
<< <i>OH NO....NOT AGAIN. >>
Yeppp maybe we can get this one to 1000
Dan
">Franklin Halves
">Kennedy Halves
Special Mint Set
A set of special coins-neither business strikes nor Proofs-first struck in limited quantities in 1965 and officially released in 1966-1967- to replace Proof sets, which were discontinued as part of the U.S. Mint’s efforts to stop coin hoarding. The quality of many of the 1965 coins was not much better than that of business strikes-but by 1967, some Special Mint Set (SMS) coins resembled Proofs. In fact, the government admitted as much when it revealed how the 1967 issues were struck. In 1968, Proof coinage resume. There have been similar issues since; the 1994 and 1997 Matte-finish Jefferson nickels, for example, are frosted SMS-type coins. There also are a few known 1964 SMS coins, these likely struck as tests in late 1964 for the new 1965 SMS strikings.
SF coins should be treated the same as SMS coins. What makes this difficult is that all SMS coins are not treated the same, and the majority (1965-1967) are probably not in the right set to start with.
OK, so non-SF in the Circ. Sets, SF's in the variety sets, SF or BS the MINT Sets(?).
Then PCGS should go back & take out the SMS coins in the Circ. Sets (Jefferson's & Kennedy's).
These coins are not proof nor intended to be proof. Proof is a process by which the coin is struck in a process unlike other coins.
Flame suit on.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
First concerning FCs comment, “One line for BS one line for SF. Both would be required”, I respectfully disagree. For me, I do not have any desire to ever collect satin coins. Therefore, please do not force them on me. I do understand that in the future, if coins are not release for general circulation, then the only way to get an example would be SFs. In this case, I may choose to add these examples. I do not have a problem with having a choice in the sets the way it is now. I do have a place for my coins, because like I said, I do not and will not collect satins. I do believe there should be a bonus for using circulating coins in circulating sets. Why is that such a difficult concept? After all, SFs are not true circulating coins, so should be discounted as so.
Now TAC described the purpose of mint sets. Very eloquently by stating: A convenient way for collectors to acquire an example of each denomination from each mint “produced for circulation that year.” I still say the real problem lies with the US Mint. It is my opinion that they are not providing a convenient way to collect circulating coins. They are producing another product to turn a profit for the mint. What is the reason other than profit for the satins? I am open to be educated in a valid purpose other than profit. Now, there is really no need to debate this point, because as long as mint can sell coins (and a lot of collectors are buying them), the concerns of many collectors will continue to go on deaf ears. The real way to handle this issue is for the US Mint to do one of two things… either drop the satin finish MS coins, or produce satin coins for all coinage, including circulating/ business strike issues……
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
They use the SF dies for circulation coins as the dies start to wear, so would you consider dimes coming from rolls as not BS? I realize you state "all coinage" but many already are satin.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
So would you consider dimes coming from rolls as not BS?
In this case …Yes… It is what it is. There has been proof dimes found in mint rolls, does that make them MSs? No, a proof dime is a dime proof, and a satin dime is a dime satin (subject to some unknown standard by PCGS). Therefore, I submit that it does not really matter where it is found.
Here are my thoughts… The US Mint should be able to strike coinage with some realistic constancy. If the satin dies (during its life cycle) can not produce a coinage with a consist finish, then they should be redesigned, i.e. back to pre-satin. The controversy (in my opinion) is centered on this concept (or a widespread perception at least) that “business strikes are non satin” and “mint sets has satin finish coinage”. I submit that the US Mint should produce coinage that has consistency between mint rolls and mints sets (i.e., they should to live up the purpose that was described by TAC). If they could accomplish this degree of standard, then there would be no controversy, going forward, at least…
Will they do it? Like I said once before, a good controversy is great for sales…
My 20th Century Gold Major Design Type Set ---started : 11/17/1997 ---- completed : 1/21/2004
I know some of you don't want to face it but
Proof coins are proof coins
BS coins are BS coins
SF coins are high quality BS coins.
There is no easy solution and I'm a firmly believe that is pre 2005 mint set coins go into these sets, that is where the SF belong (on a second line of course).
But, the 1965, 1966 and 1967 SMS coins aren't allowed, so these shouldn't either. (That's my question because I know someone will say it.)
The dies were prepared as proof dies, the blanks were prepared as proof blanks but they only struck them once. I haven't seen a single cameo SF coin. When I see the SF Cameo or SF Deep Cameo, you have a slight shot at changing me over.
The U.S. Mint itself called the 1965-67 special mint sets. The U.S. Mint calls the SF sets Mint Sets. With all the complaints we hear about the Mint you would think we wouldn't complain about high quality!
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
Proof coins are proof coins
BS coins are BS coins
SF coins are high quality BS coins.
Seems to be Circ varieties are where they should be .... ALL OF THEM.....
Ok, case closed.
The other thing that has been discussed is that satin finish coins are being found in bank rolls and occasionally a mint set will turn out a coin that really appears to be a business strike (coin just didn't receive the "satiny look" for some reason). I believe that this is the REAL reason whey PCGS will not do anything about this situation. There is too much of a grey area in between business strikes and satin finish and how can they really tell where the submitter got the coin (unless it's still in the cello from the Mint)????
I wouldn't waste your time anymore people. I know Watersport has made some recent efforts to get this changed...and my guess is his letters went unanswered. If PCGS hasn't taken a stance on this issue by now...they are not going to act on it.
You can revisit this post in 3 years and I bet I'm right.
(2) It was not the mint who made this mistake, it was PCGS
(3) A letter was sent to Ron Guth on the 15th of June..begging for this issue to be resolved. No response yet. Anyone who wants a copy of the letter so they can print it and send it to PCGS as a show of support should email me at bobdodson138@hotmail.com
(4) Its not which decision PCGS will make on this issue that bothers me, heck, we would have to deal with whatever they decided. BUT THE LACK OF NO RESPONSE in 3 years demonstrates to me a total disrespect for the collecting community. I am just blown away by the silent treatment from a publicly traded company.
(4) Once I am banned from the forum you will find me selling “Screw the points, Satins belong in variety sets” T shirts at the Jan FUN show.
WS
Later, Paul.
Later, Paul.
<< <i>I have been diligently searching rolls of 2005-date Roosie rolls and I can assure you that there are some SF Dimes in these rolls. They do come with hits, so being SF Dimes and MS69FB is the norm, I have to immediately dismiss this coin for grading, even though it is considerably better then some I pull from the same roll. I will also tell you this. The comment that "When the SF dies wear down, they start using them for BS coins" This comment lies very true because the SF Dimes I find tend to look very flat compared to others. >>
Paul if you can tell the diff. between a SF/BS strike coin found in a roll, would it be wrong to think PCGS, being the EXPERTS they are, would also be able to tell the diff. and treat this the same as they have the SMS problem? After all, they have been dealing with the SMS coin problem for 42 years.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
I would add that from 2005 onward that the Satins should be the required coins in the Mint Sets.
I would also re-ask the question. If the graders can tell the difference in a MS66 and a MS67 coin. Why can't they tell the difference in Business Stike and Satin Finish?