First Strike conundrum, is it time for a change in the rules?

bumanchu

Tenth Anniversary Platiinum Set!!

No provenance?

First Strike designation on each coin in the set with provenance is not possible due to precedent.

Is it time for a rule change?

Would this be asking too much?

Are collectors going to be happy if not?

Your thoughts/observations................

I hope this doesn't go poof!

If posted elsewhere, feel free to ignore this thread!!

ricko

First strike - true first strike - cannot be determined. Early issue, perhaps, but that is meaningless. Cheers, RickO

Bear

Not if it is sent for grading, in the original

sealed Mint Package with the appropriate

date of postmark.

bumanchu

<< <i>Not if it is sent for grading, in the original

sealed Mint Package with the appropriate

date of postmark. >>




Per PCGS customer service page the cutoff for the 2007 W proof platinum is August 17, 2007.

How can a proof Platinum qualify in a 10th Anniversary set in that scenario?

Zoins

<< <i>First strike - true first strike - cannot be determined. Early issue, perhaps, but that is meaningless. Cheers, RickO >>

The first strikes from each die pair can and are determined by the US Mint but they are done so as quality assurance test pieces. After examination to validate the dies, the coins are destroyed. This means that, under one interpretation, it's possible that no production pieces are first strikes.

TrustNo1

does any TPG label the First Day Coin Covers as such when sent in for grading? Anyone know?

Zoins

<< <i>does any TPG label the First Day Coin Covers as such when sent in for grading? Anyone know? >>

NGC identifies FDCC coins as "First Day of Mintage" which is mirrors the official US Mint statement about the coins. I believe PCGS still only identifies them as First Day of Issues which is the same designation all coins available to the public on the first day get.