As in matte proof lincolns, would the outer rims of a satin finish coin have a different, more polished appearance than the rest of the coin? No doubt the collar would be a different finish than the coining die, and as such a diagnostic........
<< <i>As in matte proof lincolns, would the outer rims of a satin finish coin have a different, more polished appearance than the rest of the coin? No doubt the collar would be a different finish than the coining die, and as such a diagnostic........ >>
Are you suggesting such a diagnostic could be used for the nickels, of course it could but where would this info be found unless no-one has done the work for the nickels. Interesting!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Uhhhhh, can't we all just get along? I think it may be possible that some dies have been used in striking biz coins that either were, or had similar characteristics to SF dies. I bet much as the French get spanked by California wines in blind taste tests that many of the self-styled experts could be fooled by a blind grading/designation test with some of each thrown in.
As a corollary I would imagine that some of the SF coins might not be quite as satiny and look similar to biz strikes...
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Uhhhhh, can't we all just get along? I think it may be possible that some dies have been used in striking biz coins that either were, or had similar characteristics to SF dies. I bet much as the French get spanked by California wines in blind taste tests that many of the self-styled experts could be fooled by a blind grading/designation test with some of each thrown in.
As a corollary I would imagine that some of the SF coins might not be quite as satiny and look similar to biz strikes... >>
I think you meant that the other way around.
But it does present a problem, similar to the striking of the 1965 to 1957 SMS nickels. There was speculation that the SMS dies were used to strike the business strikes after they lost their mirrors/reflective surfaces.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>All I see is a lot of overpriced modern crap at "take a shot" / hope for a sucker/newb prices in your eBay store. Let a no reserve auction starting at one cent settle its value. >>
Nice coin MAS, congratulations. Looks like a superb coin, I know the 09-D's average 62/63 and finding a 66 is a rare thing. As for Satin looking business strikes, to me, and I look at quite a few business strike coins, some business strike coins come with a satin look. I will also say that the majority of the super high grade 1968 coins you would swear were SMS coins. Sometimes everything just comes together, it is not common but it does happen.
If the same dies were used to strike both the SF and circulated coins, the only difference would be the strength of strike, EDS for SF strikes and MDS for the business strikes. And so....collectors are paying more for the MDS coins than the EDS coins.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>If the same dies were used to strike both the SF and circulated coins, the only difference would be the strength of strike, EDS for SF strikes and MDS for the business strikes. >>
Not necessarily. The mint could use the dies for circulation strikes first- I mean, as long as we're just making up stuff for the sake of argument, right?
<< <i>If the same dies were used to strike both the SF and circulated coins, the only difference would be the strength of strike, EDS for SF strikes and MDS for the business strikes. And so....collectors are paying more for the MDS coins than the EDS coins.
Leo >>
I’m not sure were to start commenting on the above statement. I take it that you are trying to put forth the thesis that the U.S. Mint after striking a number of “Business Strike” coins will then remove the dies and put them on a press (which requires more pressure) to strike “Satin Finish”? This makes sense.
When did the “strength of strike” start determining what is EDS, MDS or late die state?
I have to wonder if there is a little jealousy going on by the OP, that he can’t make a high grade coin or know what one is suppose to look like.
If you don't like the coin, then don't buy it. Some people just like to stick their noses into other people's business even if they have nothing of importance to add.
<< <i>If the same dies were used to strike both the SF and circulated coins, the only difference would be the strength of strike, EDS for SF strikes and MDS for the business strikes. >>
Not necessarily. The mint could use the dies for circulation strikes first- I mean, as long as we're just making up stuff for the sake of argument, right? >>
Well, there was a 1000+ thread over in the Registry forum back in January of 2006 but if that thread suggests what I'm trying to point out here, why would anyone collect both coins knowing they were struck from the same dies?
The following are some excerpts from that huge thread;
An alternate term for Business Strike or Regular Strike. A coin meant for commerce.
P.8 Are we going to accept that all of the graders can't tell if the coin is SF or regular dies?
p. 10 I read the letters to the editor in the Coin World and for years collectors have been complaining to the mint to make a high grade product and now they have done so, just had to use chrome plated dies hence the new SF category. Dr Doug - So - if not "SF" and if not "regular" business strike - then do we have a third and different "surface" to the MS state quarters as well in 2005 seen in some of these bag coins? Amazing.
Thanks Mitch and Seth. To repeat I think that the OR-P in the $250 bags were not struck with chrome plated dies but the look is similar. I kept a few rolls of hi grade that were less than 67 quality so I am happy to do more research as necessary. I am not suggesting that any designation be made other than SF or MS and when in question the default will be SF. Just like the mint using proof reverse dies for some MS coins the default is still MS because they were not struck twice and do not appear as proofs similar to if the mint theoretically did mix some chrome plated dies in the MS striking process the result is still an MS coin due to the striking characteristics being MS and not SF. For example SF coins are struck better and they do not have the washingtons bust die crack, die crack from the eye-brow, or small patches of die erosion so often seen on MS coins. Consequently coins that may theoretically be struck with the MS process using left-over SF dies would likely have tiny die cracks and less striking detail and in my opinion would be classified as MS even though they looked a bit like SF. As the dies get older the difference between SF and MS becomes harder to distinguish because the surface charcteristics of the coin become more MS like as the sand blast and chrome plating start to wear down. If the mint should allow the SF dies to get worn and deteriorated and still strike coins with them for the mint sets then there will be confusion but if the mint follows its production criteria for a SF coin and replaces the die frequently as you would expect to maintain that high quality then I think the differences will remain fairly easy to tell. Seth, if you get a miss-classified batch or coin again I encourage you to return them to PCGS with a signed letter that you found them in a mint sealed bag or bank wrapped roll as the case may be and the likely result is they will check them again and give you the correct designation. They did that for me when there was confusion over the OR MS coins. Dr
P. 11Then Wondercoin reiterated Doug’s research but he uses the word, “may” For those of you that actually believe the issue of SF vs. non-SF is "cut and dried", consider the import of this recent comment from Doug:
"Thanks Mitch and Seth. To repeat I think that the OR-P in the $250 bags were not struck with chrome plated dies but the look is similar. I kept a few rolls of hi grade that were less than 67 quality so I am happy to do more research as necessary. I am not suggesting that any designation be made other than SF or MS and when in question the default will be SF. Just like the mint using proof reverse dies for some MS coins the default is still MS because they were not struck twice and do not appear as proofs similar to if the mint theoretically did mix some chrome plated dies in the MS striking process the result is still an MS coin due to the striking characteristics being MS and not SF. For example SF coins are struck better and they do not have the washingtons bust die crack, die crack from the eye-brow, or small patches of die erosion so often seen on MS coins. Consequently coins that may theoretically be struck with the MS process using left-over SF dies would likely have tiny die cracks and less striking detail and in my opinion would be classified as MS even though they looked a bit like SF. As the dies get older the difference between SF and MS becomes harder to distinguish because the surface charcteristics of the coin become more MS like as the sand blast and chrome plating start to wear down. If the mint should allow the SF dies to get worn and deteriorated and still strike coins with them for the mint sets then there will be confusion but if the mint follows its production criteria for a SF coin and replaces the die frequently as you would expect to maintain that high quality then I think the differences will remain fairly easy to tell. Seth, if you get a miss-classified batch or coin again I encourage you to return them to PCGS with a signed letter that you found them in a mint sealed bag or bank wrapped roll as the case may be and the likely result is they will check them again and give you the correct designation. They did that for me when there was confusion over the OR MS coins. dr"
****************
Any wonder PCGS is comfortable allowing either coin in the Mint State set?
Wondercoin
Cladking I used to find SMS coins in circulation all the time. It took me a few years to realize there were far too many to be accounted for by busted up SMS's. These coins were obviously being minted for circulation. Most collectors forget that the San Francisco mint was not only making SMS's in those years but also striking other denominations. Apparently they struck many of these coins from retired SMS dies. Every year there are various surfaces that get produced. These are mostly unintentional and occur because of differences in the way planchets and dies are produced. Including these even in the varieties set would be a nightmare even if they could be distinguished with 100% accuracy.
But the SF coins are a fairly distinct and intentional BU coin. An argument certainly exists they are a legitimate part of the series. Afterall, the mint set coins contribute many of the coins in the registry sets to date.
P.19 Seth, I was hoping that someone would step up to the plate and argue one or all five points that I put in my last post.
I am still trying to figure out for myself, why PCGS went with the either / or policy when it came to what would be allowed in set purporting to be circulation strikes. I really haven't heard / read any reason that would justify PCGS decision to support this either / or policy as it relates to 2005 satin finish and circulation strike coins. PCGS is suppose to be a neutral, independent third party, should they be effecting the "supply and demand" or take into account the economics and convenience of an issue?
I guess the hardest thing I'm trying to understand, is how PCGS can consider a coin struck with a specially prepared die (even crome plated) as a regular circulation strike? The 2005 satin finish coin dies meet the definition of a "proof die", PCGS has designated a sperate and unique coin number for satin finish coins, let me put them in a set purporting to be a complete set in addition to the circulation strike coins.
Tim
P. 20 Dear WCQX, Thank you, thank you. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, I don't save PCGS quarters either. I didn't mean to crap in someone else's sandbox either. I was trying to get my point across that PCGS needs to be fair and consistant, this changing rules in mid stream just ain't fair, no matter how you look at it. Like I stated in an earlier post, 2005 the mint made and PCGS clasified four unique and different classes of coins; circulation strikes, satin fiish, regular proof and silver proof. I don't mean to sound greedy, but I want all four classes of the coins in my complete set. When the mint started making silver proof in 1992 they are included so the 2005 satin finish should also be included.
I still would like someone to answer my questions, were the 2005 satin finish coins struck by proof dies (at least by definition)? And if so, why are they being allowed in circulation strike sets? Is the "supply and demand" economics of these coins being manipulated by the either / or policy?
Tim
P.21 A new queston, were these coins referred to as "different beasts" prepared with special dies or the same dies as circulation strikes?
Thank you, Tim
Tim: Was it you that pulled that good information on the differences between the Mint set coins and the non-mint set coins - in terms of the preparation of the dies, striking pressure, etc.? I think the "different beasts" analysis would incorporate that information. Do you still have it?
Wondercoin
P.S. Thanks Doug.
< Tim: Was it you that pulled that good information on the differences between the Mint set coins and the non-mint set coins - in terms of the preparation of the dies, striking pressure, etc.? I think the "different beasts" analysis would incorporate that information. Do you still have it? >>
Dear Wondercoin,
Yes, I still have that information. I also have several cousins that work(ed) in the Denver Mint, over the years, I've had several conversations with them (they complaining about some of the modern Comm that were struck there, ect). Talking with them over the years, which I realize that they can't go into detail, the same dies were used on all circulation strike coins (weather they were working on the main production floor, or on the custom floor. They would sign the dies out of the same safe for working on mint sets or for general circulation). In 2005 that changed, there are seperate dies for each with safety procedures so they don't get mixed up. Bottom line, they used to be produced with the same dies prior to 2005, it was eluded to that the mint set were struck with more pressure, although when asked I was just told that they are not allowed to say what the actual pressures are for different coins. But to me, the important thing is, are the dies the same? Should the mannor of the die dictate the status of the designation? I would still like to hear your comments to my previous questions.
<< Wondercoin, have you had a chance to look at the definitions of a "proof die" yet? Do these crome plated dies used to strike the satin finish coinage for 2005 meet this definition? I had posted my thoughts on the effects of the either / or policy as it relates to the "supply and demand" economics of the market place, would like to hear your viewpoint on the subject and if PCGS should have the appearance of effecting the market value by their policy? >>
Sincerely, Tim
P. 22 Tim: Interesting information about Denver. The most profound differences between the mint set and roll coins I have seen throughout the state quarter program are mainly Philly coins (e.g. CT(p)).
Yes, it was mentioned that the mint set coins were struck with different pressure than the roll coins. Further, I seem to recall a comment about the dies being "burnished" for the mint sets?? Would these (2) distinctions result in the difference I have seen out there? Then, there is the common sense approach to the issue- if the same coin quality was being produced for mint sets and rolls with the same dies, then why are the vast, vast majority of all the finest known coins graded (best I know) only found in the mint sets? And, (assuming no difference to the dies) why do coins like the 2000(p) Maryland and Massachusetts (p) mint set coins (as well as coins from 2003(p)) often come with the sensational "distressed die" surface appearance - which I do not recall ever seeing on any roll coins in any given year or mintmark? What exactly is the difference then, because there surely is one I believe?
For that matter (just been wondering on this one for some time now), why from 1999-2003 was the Denver mint only able to produce a single MS69 PCGS coin (Mass(p), while the Philly mint hundreds of MS69 coins during those years?
Also, what definition of proof die are you using Tim - I couldn't find that post easily? And, please include the mint's discussion of the chrome plated dies so we can analyze your comment together.
Wondercoin
p.22 "Now this specifically states that the satin finish will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated. So with this in mind, the sf coins are not the same as your normal business strike coins. So, since the sf dies are different from the business strike dies, should they be considered proof dies? Mitch what is your take on this?"
Roger: I agree it helps - until now, most collectors and the major grading services either didn't or couldn't differentitate between the two from 1999-2004. But, this is my very point - THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DIFFERENCE. THE U.S. MINT ESSENTIALLY ACKNOWLEDGES MY POSITION? Do you agree?
I truly do not see the argument that since the sf dies are different from the bag and roll business strike dies, they should be considered proof dies. They are simply the mint set circulation strike dies of 2005. If one simply wanted to argue that since the sf dies are different from the business strike roll and bag dies, they are, therefore, proof dies - then, what would prevent one from equally saying "since the SF dies are different from the Proof dies, they are, therefore, business strike dies"? Wouldn't that be equally consistent since we both know the SF coins look nothing like the PR69DC and PR70DC state quarters of 2005?
Wondercoin p.48 Ronday: I suspect the mint uses many dies to strike both the BS and SF coins. I am not sure comparing one specific die to the other conclusively determines much of anything. End of quotes.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>Well, there was a 1000+ thread over in the Registry forum back in January of 2006 but if that thread suggests what I'm trying to point out here, why would anyone collect both coins knowing they were struck from the same dies? >>
I don't know- could be for the same reason some people collect full step Jeffersons even though there is often disagreement over what actually constitutes a "full step" coin?
And here's some additional information that I found on the US Mint website and I'm really growing tired of a few of the posters in this thread so this will be it for awhile for me. uncirculated:
The term "uncirculated" may have three different meanings when applied to a coin. • First, it can refer to the particular manufacturing process by which a coin is made. • Second, it can be used as a grade when referring to a coin's degree of preservation and quality of the strike. • Or third, "uncirculated" can point to the fact that a coin has not been used in everyday commerce.
At the United States Mint, we use the term uncirculated when referring to the special coining process used to make the coin, which gives it a satin finish.
Uncirculated coins are manufactured using the same process as circulating coins, but with quality enhancements such as slightly higher coining force, early strikes from dies, special cleaning after stamping, and special packaging. Uncirculated coins may vary to some degree because of blemishes, toning, or slight imperfections. Uncirculated .
Uncirculated coins are struck like circulating coins, but with higher force, newer dies, special cleaning after stamping, and Mylar® packaging. Uncirculated coins may vary to some degree because of blemishes, toning, or slight imperfections as described below.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>And here's some additional information that I found on the US Mint website and I'm really growing tired of a few of the posters in this thread so this will be it for awhile for me. >>
Yeah- well, I'm growing tired of a few posters who seem to want to take swipes at what others choose to collect (yes- I'm talking to you). Why are you doing that?
....all this......all this......makes me glad I collect 150 year old Gold. Instead of picking through 641,560,200 coins struck, looking for a "good one'....I just need to pick one of the 85 survivors.
@braddick said:
Guys, come on. I don't believe leothelyon meant any harm. The nature of his question might be suspect, but Leo isn't.
PCGS grades well and certainly knows what a satin finish vs a business strike is and what the repercussions are when a coin is mislabeled. But, with that said, labeling/mechanical errors do occur and it is possible it was missed by the seller.
There would be no repercussions. The would claim clerical/obvious error and not pay out a penny.
@braddick said:
Guys, come on. I don't believe leothelyon meant any harm. The nature of his question might be suspect, but Leo isn't.
PCGS grades well and certainly knows what a satin finish vs a business strike is and what the repercussions are when a coin is mislabeled. But, with that said, labeling/mechanical errors do occur and it is possible it was missed by the seller.
There would be no repercussions. The would claim clerical/obvious error and not pay out a penny.
Comments
<< <i>(Something is telling me that I should have read that 1000+ post thread over in the registry forum 3-4 years ago) >>
Maybe you should bring that post up and have your little discussion there.
<< <i>I thought there was "little reason for this thread to" be started in the first place. >>
Another big coin graded and here we go
So much for being done
<< <i>As in matte proof lincolns, would the outer rims of a satin finish coin have a different, more polished appearance than the rest of the coin? No doubt the collar would be a different finish than the coining die, and as such a diagnostic........ >>
Are you suggesting such a diagnostic could be used for the nickels, of course it could but where would this info be found unless no-one has done the work for the nickels. Interesting!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Thanks OP !!!
Oh now i get it
The OP is a nickel guy LOL Figures why this post was started
As a corollary I would imagine that some of the SF coins might not be quite as satiny and look similar to biz strikes...
Well, just Love coins, period.
<< <i>Uhhhhh, can't we all just get along? I think it may be possible that some dies have been used in striking biz coins that either were, or had similar characteristics to SF dies. I bet much as the French get spanked by California wines in blind taste tests that many of the self-styled experts could be fooled by a blind grading/designation test with some of each thrown in.
As a corollary I would imagine that some of the SF coins might not be quite as satiny and look similar to biz strikes... >>
I think you meant that the other way around.
But it does present a problem, similar to the striking of the 1965 to 1957 SMS nickels. There was speculation that the SMS dies were used to strike the business strikes after they lost their mirrors/reflective surfaces.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
2009 P Native American Sacagawea $1 PCGS MS68
<< <i>All I see is a lot of overpriced modern crap at "take a shot" / hope for a sucker/newb prices in your eBay store. Let a no reserve auction starting at one cent settle its value. >>
Your welcome
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>....is this discussion at an end yet ? >>
appears the OP has an issue that they can't understand
<< <i>If the same dies were used to strike both the SF and circulated coins, the only difference would be the strength of strike, EDS for SF strikes and MDS for the business strikes. >>
Not necessarily. The mint could use the dies for circulation strikes first- I mean, as long as we're just making up stuff for the sake of argument, right?
<< <i>If the same dies were used to strike both the SF and circulated coins, the only difference would be the strength of strike, EDS for SF strikes and MDS for the business strikes. And so....collectors are paying more for the MDS coins than the EDS coins.
Leo >>
I’m not sure were to start commenting on the above statement. I take it that you are trying to put forth the thesis that the U.S. Mint after striking a number of “Business Strike” coins will then remove the dies and put them on a press (which requires more pressure) to strike “Satin Finish”? This makes sense.
When did the “strength of strike” start determining what is EDS, MDS or late die state?
I have to wonder if there is a little jealousy going on by the OP, that he can’t make a high grade coin or know what one is suppose to look like.
If you don't like the coin, then don't buy it. Some people just like to stick their noses into other people's business even if they have nothing of importance to add.
The only thing I can add is:
<< <i>
<< <i>If the same dies were used to strike both the SF and circulated coins, the only difference would be the strength of strike, EDS for SF strikes and MDS for the business strikes. >>
Not necessarily. The mint could use the dies for circulation strikes first- I mean, as long as we're just making up stuff for the sake of argument, right?
Well, there was a 1000+ thread over in the Registry forum back in January of 2006 but if that thread suggests what I'm trying to point out here, why would anyone collect both coins knowing they were struck from the same dies?
The following are some excerpts from that huge thread;
An alternate term for Business Strike or Regular Strike. A coin meant for commerce.
P.8 Are we going to accept that all of the graders can't tell if the coin is SF or regular dies?
p. 10 I read the letters to the editor in the Coin World and for years collectors have been complaining to the mint to make a high grade product and now they have done so, just had to use chrome plated dies hence the new SF category. Dr
Doug - So - if not "SF" and if not "regular" business strike - then do we have a third and different "surface" to the MS state quarters as well in 2005 seen in some of these bag coins? Amazing.
Thanks Mitch and Seth. To repeat I think that the OR-P in the $250 bags were not struck with chrome plated dies but the look is similar. I kept a few rolls of hi grade that were less than 67 quality so I am happy to do more research as necessary. I am not suggesting that any designation be made other than SF or MS and when in question the default will be SF. Just like the mint using proof reverse dies for some MS coins the default is still MS because they were not struck twice and do not appear as proofs similar to if the mint theoretically did mix some chrome plated dies in the MS striking process the result is still an MS coin due to the striking characteristics being MS and not SF. For example SF coins are struck better and they do not have the washingtons bust die crack, die crack from the eye-brow, or small patches of die erosion so often seen on MS coins. Consequently coins that may theoretically be struck with the MS process using left-over SF dies would likely have tiny die cracks and less striking detail and in my opinion would be classified as MS even though they looked a bit like SF. As the dies get older the difference between SF and MS becomes harder to distinguish because the surface charcteristics of the coin become more MS like as the sand blast and chrome plating start to wear down. If the mint should allow the SF dies to get worn and deteriorated and still strike coins with them for the mint sets then there will be confusion but if the mint follows its production criteria for a SF coin and replaces the die frequently as you would expect to maintain that high quality then I think the differences will remain fairly easy to tell. Seth, if you get a miss-classified batch or coin again I encourage you to return them to PCGS with a signed letter that you found them in a mint sealed bag or bank wrapped roll as the case may be and the likely result is they will check them again and give you the correct designation. They did that for me when there was confusion over the OR MS coins. Dr
P. 11Then Wondercoin reiterated Doug’s research but he uses the word, “may”
For those of you that actually believe the issue of SF vs. non-SF is "cut and dried", consider the import of this recent comment from Doug:
"Thanks Mitch and Seth. To repeat I think that the OR-P in the $250 bags were not struck with chrome plated dies but the look is similar. I kept a few rolls of hi grade that were less than 67 quality so I am happy to do more research as necessary. I am not suggesting that any designation be made other than SF or MS and when in question the default will be SF. Just like the mint using proof reverse dies for some MS coins the default is still MS because they were not struck twice and do not appear as proofs similar to if the mint theoretically did mix some chrome plated dies in the MS striking process the result is still an MS coin due to the striking characteristics being MS and not SF. For example SF coins are struck better and they do not have the washingtons bust die crack, die crack from the eye-brow, or small patches of die erosion so often seen on MS coins. Consequently coins that may theoretically be struck with the MS process using left-over SF dies would likely have tiny die cracks and less striking detail and in my opinion would be classified as MS even though they looked a bit like SF. As the dies get older the difference between SF and MS becomes harder to distinguish because the surface charcteristics of the coin become more MS like as the sand blast and chrome plating start to wear down. If the mint should allow the SF dies to get worn and deteriorated and still strike coins with them for the mint sets then there will be confusion but if the mint follows its production criteria for a SF coin and replaces the die frequently as you would expect to maintain that high quality then I think the differences will remain fairly easy to tell. Seth, if you get a miss-classified batch or coin again I encourage you to return them to PCGS with a signed letter that you found them in a mint sealed bag or bank wrapped roll as the case may be and the likely result is they will check them again and give you the correct designation. They did that for me when there was confusion over the OR MS coins. dr"
****************
Any wonder PCGS is comfortable allowing either coin in the Mint State set?
Wondercoin
Cladking
I used to find SMS coins in circulation all the time. It took me a few years to realize there were
far too many to be accounted for by busted up SMS's. These coins were obviously being minted
for circulation. Most collectors forget that the San Francisco mint was not only making SMS's in
those years but also striking other denominations. Apparently they struck many of these coins
from retired SMS dies.
Every year there are various surfaces that get produced. These are mostly unintentional
and occur because of differences in the way planchets and dies are produced. Including
these even in the varieties set would be a nightmare even if they could be distinguished
with 100% accuracy.
But the SF coins are a fairly distinct and intentional BU coin. An argument certainly exists
they are a legitimate part of the series. Afterall, the mint set coins contribute many of the
coins in the registry sets to date.
P.19 Seth, I was hoping that someone would step up to the plate and argue one or all five points that I put in my last post.
I am still trying to figure out for myself, why PCGS went with the either / or policy when it came to what would be allowed in set purporting to be circulation strikes. I really haven't heard / read any reason that would justify PCGS decision to support this either / or policy as it relates to 2005 satin finish and circulation strike coins. PCGS is suppose to be a neutral, independent third party, should they be effecting the "supply and demand" or take into account the economics and convenience of an issue?
I guess the hardest thing I'm trying to understand, is how PCGS can consider a coin struck with a specially prepared die (even crome plated) as a regular circulation strike? The 2005 satin finish coin dies meet the definition of a "proof die", PCGS has designated a sperate and unique coin number for satin finish coins, let me put them in a set purporting to be a complete set in addition to the circulation strike coins.
Tim
P. 20 Dear WCQX, Thank you, thank you. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, I don't save PCGS quarters either. I didn't mean to crap in someone else's sandbox either. I was trying to get my point across that PCGS needs to be fair and consistant, this changing rules in mid stream just ain't fair, no matter how you look at it. Like I stated in an earlier post, 2005 the mint made and PCGS clasified four unique and different classes of coins; circulation strikes, satin fiish, regular proof and silver proof. I don't mean to sound greedy, but I want all four classes of the coins in my complete set. When the mint started making silver proof in 1992 they are included so the 2005 satin finish should also be included.
I still would like someone to answer my questions, were the 2005 satin finish coins struck by proof dies (at least by definition)? And if so, why are they being allowed in circulation strike sets? Is the "supply and demand" economics of these coins being manipulated by the either / or policy?
Tim
P.21 A new queston, were these coins referred to as "different beasts" prepared with special dies or the same dies as circulation strikes?
Thank you,
Tim
Tim: Was it you that pulled that good information on the differences between the Mint set coins and the non-mint set coins - in terms of the preparation of the dies, striking pressure, etc.? I think the "different beasts" analysis would incorporate that information. Do you still have it?
Wondercoin
P.S. Thanks Doug.
< Tim: Was it you that pulled that good information on the differences between the Mint set coins and the non-mint set coins - in terms of the preparation of the dies, striking pressure, etc.? I think the "different beasts" analysis would incorporate that information. Do you still have it? >>
Dear Wondercoin,
Yes, I still have that information. I also have several cousins that work(ed) in the Denver Mint, over the years, I've had several conversations with them (they complaining about some of the modern Comm that were struck there, ect). Talking with them over the years, which I realize that they can't go into detail, the same dies were used on all circulation strike coins (weather they were working on the main production floor, or on the custom floor. They would sign the dies out of the same safe for working on mint sets or for general circulation). In 2005 that changed, there are seperate dies for each with safety procedures so they don't get mixed up. Bottom line, they used to be produced with the same dies prior to 2005, it was eluded to that the mint set were struck with more pressure, although when asked I was just told that they are not allowed to say what the actual pressures are for different coins. But to me, the important thing is, are the dies the same? Should the mannor of the die dictate the status of the designation? I would still like to hear your comments to my previous questions.
<< Wondercoin, have you had a chance to look at the definitions of a "proof die" yet? Do these crome plated dies used to strike the satin finish coinage for 2005 meet this definition? I had posted my thoughts on the effects of the either / or policy as it relates to the "supply and demand" economics of the market place, would like to hear your viewpoint on the subject and if PCGS should have the appearance of effecting the market value by their policy? >>
Sincerely,
Tim
P. 22 Tim: Interesting information about Denver. The most profound differences between the mint set and roll coins I have seen throughout the state quarter program are mainly Philly coins (e.g. CT(p)).
Yes, it was mentioned that the mint set coins were struck with different pressure than the roll coins. Further, I seem to recall a comment about the dies being "burnished" for the mint sets?? Would these (2) distinctions result in the difference I have seen out there? Then, there is the common sense approach to the issue- if the same coin quality was being produced for mint sets and rolls with the same dies, then why are the vast, vast majority of all the finest known coins graded (best I know) only found in the mint sets? And, (assuming no difference to the dies) why do coins like the 2000(p) Maryland and Massachusetts (p) mint set coins (as well as coins from 2003(p)) often come with the sensational "distressed die" surface appearance - which I do not recall ever seeing on any roll coins in any given year or mintmark? What exactly is the difference then, because there surely is one I believe?
For that matter (just been wondering on this one for some time now), why from 1999-2003 was the Denver mint only able to produce a single MS69 PCGS coin (Mass(p), while the Philly mint hundreds of MS69 coins during those years?
Also, what definition of proof die are you using Tim - I couldn't find that post easily? And, please include the mint's discussion of the chrome plated dies so we can analyze your comment together.
Wondercoin
p.22 "Now this specifically states that the satin finish will also help collectors differentiate between Uncirculated Coins in the United States Mint Uncirculated Coin Sets and those coins in bags and rolls that have never circulated. So with this in mind, the sf coins are not the same as your normal business strike coins.
So, since the sf dies are different from the business strike dies, should they be considered proof dies? Mitch what is your take on this?"
Roger: I agree it helps - until now, most collectors and the major grading services either didn't or couldn't differentitate between the two from 1999-2004. But, this is my very point - THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A DIFFERENCE. THE U.S. MINT ESSENTIALLY ACKNOWLEDGES MY POSITION? Do you agree?
I truly do not see the argument that since the sf dies are different from the bag and roll business strike dies, they should be considered proof dies. They are simply the mint set circulation strike dies of 2005. If one simply wanted to argue that since the sf dies are different from the business strike roll and bag dies, they are, therefore, proof dies - then, what would prevent one from equally saying "since the SF dies are different from the Proof dies, they are, therefore, business strike dies"? Wouldn't that be equally consistent since we both know the SF coins look nothing like the PR69DC and PR70DC state quarters of 2005?
Wondercoin
p.48 Ronday: I suspect the mint uses many dies to strike both the BS and SF coins. I am not sure comparing one specific die to the other conclusively determines much of anything. End of quotes.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Well, there was a 1000+ thread over in the Registry forum back in January of 2006 but if that thread suggests what I'm trying to point out here, why would anyone collect both coins knowing they were struck from the same dies? >>
I don't know- could be for the same reason some people collect full step Jeffersons even though there is often disagreement over what actually constitutes a "full step" coin?
You think maybe?
uncirculated:
The term "uncirculated" may have three different meanings when applied to a coin.
• First, it can refer to the particular manufacturing process by which a coin is made.
• Second, it can be used as a grade when referring to a coin's degree of preservation and quality of the strike.
• Or third, "uncirculated" can point to the fact that a coin has not been used in everyday commerce.
At the United States Mint, we use the term uncirculated when referring to the special coining process used to make the coin, which gives it a satin finish.
Uncirculated coins are manufactured using the same process as circulating coins, but with quality enhancements such as slightly higher coining force, early strikes from dies, special cleaning after stamping, and special packaging. Uncirculated coins may vary to some degree because of blemishes, toning, or slight imperfections.
Uncirculated .
Uncirculated coins are struck like circulating coins, but with higher force, newer dies, special cleaning after stamping, and Mylar® packaging. Uncirculated coins may vary to some degree because of blemishes, toning, or slight imperfections as described below.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>And here's some additional information that I found on the US Mint website and I'm really growing tired of a few of the posters in this thread so this will be it for awhile for me. >>
Yeah- well, I'm growing tired of a few posters who seem to want to take swipes at what others choose to collect (yes- I'm talking to you). Why are you doing that?
You would think the OP would bring up the post he really has an issue with and sling it on that one
<< <i>I'm really growing tired of a few of the posters in this thread so this will be it for awhile for me. >>
C YA
not in any way to downplay the scarcity of the high grade nickel though...just a matter of personal collecting goals.
I dont think Id have the patience to do a high grade set of Jeffs.
There would be no repercussions. The would claim clerical/obvious error and not pay out a penny.
14-year-old thread alert