It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
The differences in finish are obvious. What is not obvious is whether the Mint later struck additional coins from the 25th Anniversary Set dies and released them as bullion. I don't see how "bullion" coins from opened sets can be definitively attributed as having come from the sets, except for graded coins from sealed sets.
Another problem with opened sets is that, if the "burnished" no-mintmark coins develop a premium, they could potentially be replaced in the sets by ordinary 2011 bullion coins.
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
YES, I Agree >>
I can't! They are all away from home being graded.....
Frankly, I thought the "light finish" puck was a bunch of hog-wash. So they ran low on vapor blast juice. However, if this coin's die was prepared differently (burnished finish) than the bullion die and if the coin was minted differently (struck twice) than the bullion coin then it s/b classified differently. I believe this is more significant than the "light finish" on the puck.
I have a box of 5 unopened sets still and this doesn't not exactly have my heart pounding. *yawns* Errors should be simple and dramatic, like the 1955 double-die.
"I'll split the atom! I am the fifth dimension! I am the eighth wonder of the world!" -Gef the talking mongoose.
<< <i>I would like to see this 25th Annie bullion next to a (S) slabbed bullion to see the difference....
and....
Do all the 25th Annie bullion's have the same finish??? Then it would mark them as a finish variant exclusive to the (S) Annies >>
There are currently only two recognized non-proof ASE bullion "varieties" - the burnished W m/m collector coin and the no m/m bulk issued coin that for the first time this year is minted in both West Point and San Francisco. In both cases it is not the "finish" that is recognized by collectors; it is the burnishing or lack of burnishing of the blank before being struck by what are presumed to be dies that only differ with a W mintmark on the reverse in the case of the burnished coin. Note that West Point strikes both W m/m and no m/m non-proof silver eagles as well as the W proofs.
If in fact a differently prepared set of dies or a differently prepared silver blank are found to have been used by SF then a third ASE "variety" will have surfaced. I have 2011 (S) ASEs certified earlier by PCGS to be from SF. I see no difference in that coin than I do with the West Point minted no m/m that I also have. If there is a difference between the set's ASE no m/m coin and earlier released no m/m coins then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins.
<< <i>I would like to see this 25th Annie bullion next to a (S) slabbed bullion to see the difference....
and....
Do all the 25th Annie bullion's have the same finish??? Then it would mark them as a finish variant exclusive to the (S) Annies >>
There are currently only two recognized non-proof ASE bullion "varieties" - the burnished W m/m collector coin and the no m/m bulk issued coin that for the first time this year is minted in both West Point and San Francisco. In both cases it is not the "finish" that is recognized by collectors; it is the burnishing or lack of burnishing of the blank before being struck by what are presumed to be dies that only differ with a W mintmark on the reverse in the case of the burnished coin. Note that West Point strikes both W m/m and no m/m non-proof silver eagles as well as the W proofs.
If in fact a differently prepared set of dies or a differently prepared silver blank are found to have been used by SF then a third ASE "variety" will have surfaced. I have 2011 (S) ASEs certified earlier by PCGS to be from SF. I see no difference in that coin than I do with the West Point minted no m/m that I also have. If there is a difference between the set's ASE no m/m coin and earlier released no m/m coins then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins. >>
If there is a difference between the set's ASE no m/m coin and earlier released no m/m coins then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins.
<< <i>Best way to get an answer may be to submit question to Coin World and let them sort it out with mint. >>
<< <i>... then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins. >>
It will be curious to see this all sorted out (hopefully soon). A local dealer and I spent some time this morning to compare the no mintmark "bullion" issue from the anniv set to a sample of other burnished w-unc eagles and some "standard issue" no mintmark bullion issues from prior years and the coin from the anniv set CLEARLY looks burnished.
It's a NOT a question of "well... maybe it is..." - it is a very clear and pronounced difference. Has anyone contacted NN or CW for input?
EAC member since 2011, one third of the way through my 1793 large cent type set
Here is my 2011 Bullion example, all of them are clean and hit free for the most part. Disregard the piece of lint near the "U" in United and the "M" in America. Not your typical tubed ASE. Burnished or not?
<< <i>Here is my 2011 Bullion example, all of them are clean and hit free for the most part. Disregard the piece of lint near the "U" in United and the "M" in America. Not your typical tubed ASE. Burnished or not? >>
Per the mint, the burnished blanks are used on the W m/m uncircs. First came out in 2006, both gold and silver, a year or two didn't see any. These W collector versions are availble from the mint in boxes, while non W bullion in monster boxes are only available to authorized dealers who sell to you and I. Is it possible that burnished blanks were use for the no m/m set coins minted in SF. Of course it is, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
If it is determined that burnished blanks were used, the only grading change I see is that such coins graded outside the set could get their own S designation (even though there is no m/m) and possibly a "struck on burnished blank" label. To do this it would have to be known fact that all or some of the coins were minted in SF using burnished blanks. It would also be necessary for a TPG to determine burnished from appearance only.
Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin.
The questions: 1. Not having seen one of the set's coins in hand, is there a visible difference between set no m/m bullion coins and "regular" no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully yes. 2. Does the difference affect all set no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully no. 3. Were all set no m/m coins minted in SF. Already answered by the mint "yes." 4. Is the difference in set coin and non-set coin due to burnished blanks or dies. either way it is a "variety" 5. And finally, if we are looking at burnished blank or a way to prove mint location, will TPGs recognize this on a label.
<< <i>The questions: 1. Not having seen one of the set's coins in hand, is there a visible difference between set no m/m bullion coins and "regular" no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully yes. 2. Does the difference affect all set no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully no. 3. Were all set no m/m coins minted in SF. Already answered by the mint "yes." 4. Is the difference in set coin and non-set coin due to burnished blanks or dies. either way it is a "variety" 5. And finally, if we are looking at burnished blank or a way to prove mint location, will TPGs recognize this on a label. >>
6. Were any burnished no-m/m dies used to strike regular bullion coins in addition to 25th Anniversary Set coins? If so, once a set is opened by the recipient there will be no way to prove that a burnished coin came from the set, and the TPG's will have to grade a "burnished" coin on appearance only (if they decide to do it at all).
A similar situation occurred with the 2000-D "prooflike" Sacagawea dollars from the Millennium Set. Most of them were clearly distinguishable from the circulation strikes.
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S"
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S" >>
dies can be burnished, but it is reported that the US mint uses burnished blanks for its W collector coins. Now if they burnished the dies to make the set coin in question that would be something unique.
Copied from a website:
burnished blank or burnished die - treatment of a coin blank or die to give it a special slightly sandy or polished look. Sometimes burnishing is done with chemicals or by special polishing. Starting in 2006 the US Mint made Silver Eagle dollar coins (with the W mint mark) with special burnished coin blanks. Under magnification you can notice a slight difference in the coin's field or background.
<< <i>Same coin, using two 100 watt clear GE reveal bulbs, at 10 n 2.
>>
Curious - this one looks burnished to me... Comparisons like this usually go better as side-by-side. I wonder what is going on. Perhaps there is a "bigger" picture here? It would be interesting if someone finds an actual die variety as has been pointed out earlier.
EAC member since 2011, one third of the way through my 1793 large cent type set
<< <i>once a set is opened by the recipient there will be no way to prove that a burnished coin came from..., and the TPG's will have to grade a "burnished" coin on appearance only >>
this is the situation for the s.f. and the w.p. no MM bullion coins currently. unless slabbed directly from a monster box with the SF strap, there is no characteristic(yet!) to distinguish them from each other.
From my own experience: burnished ASEs have a flat, matte appearance, always. Non burnished ASEs can have a flat matte finish or show lots of lustre. depends on year and method of storage.
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S" >>
Don’t feel bad. I was under the same impression after reading Manorcourtman’s response above about “die stage.” I see now he was confusing cameo or satin effect from the die with burnished blanks. I completely forgot about the fact the blanks are actually have the burnished finish on them with I believe would not be effected by “die stage" though the quality of the strike could.
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
something like this would be nice:
>>
I was ‘COINB0Y' with 4812 posts and ‘Expert Collector’ ranking (Joined in 2006).
<< <i>once a set is opened by the recipient there will be no way to prove that a burnished coin came from..., and the TPG's will have to grade a "burnished" coin on appearance only >>
this is the situation for the s.f. and the w.p. no MM bullion coins currently. unless slabbed directly from a monster box with the SF strap, there is no characteristic(yet!) to distinguish them from each other. >>
Assuming TPG cannot visually determine "burnished." Monster box coins from SF were struck on non-burnished blanks as are all bulk issued ASEs. Only apparent difference is the sealing strap of the monster box. Question before the jury today is, "did SF use burnished blanks on some or all of the no m/m coins that are part of the 25th set. If not, what else could explain the member reported difference between it and the S m/m coin?"
My question "is the W unc. m/m in the set a burnished coin as are the indivdually released collector coins with the W m/m. Does anyone have an opened set with a COA that answers any of the burnish coin questions. A nice pic of the COA coin specs would be great.
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S" >>
As a small reminder, the US Mint has stated that all the Bullion coins were minted at the San Francisco facility (Tom Jurkowsky) AND the San Francisco facility also produce an "Uncirculated" coin with the "S" Mintmark. Presuming that the "S" Mint marked coin is of the same burnished quality that the 2011-W Uncirculated coin is, I think it would be safe to assume that the bullion coins were minted on burnished blanks.
But then, thats only an assumption which has absolutely no validity without US Mint verification.
PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
Would be nice to know if any are supposed to be burnished and if any are accidently burnished. I want my set to be an accident.
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
Would be nice to know if any are supposed to be burnished and if any are accidently burnished. I want my set to be an accident. >>
That depends. If 95,000 were accidently burnished, I want the other.
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA.
EAC member since 2011, one third of the way through my 1793 large cent type set
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA. >>
Not to cast any doubt on Jurkowsky's statement, but it has been my experience, that most high ranking Mint Bureaucrats have no idea what's going on with their retail or collectors sales division.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA. >>
Not to cast any doubt on Jurkowsky's statement, but it has been my experience, that most high ranking Mint Bureaucrats have no idea what's going on with their retail or collectors sales division. >>
The blind leading the blind. They must have nice country club memberships and spend their time trying to become a scratch golfer.
The rims on these are definitely more well defined than the surrounding coins in the pic's. It maybe the case were they used the same planchets for the S mint mark ASE and the non S ones. Are all the dies still made in Philly or do they each make there own now? Also were the planchets for these made in Australia or the US? I remember at one time they had to use US silver for ASE's and not sure if this is still the case.
I think we may be getting somewhere now - there is a definite impression at the bottom of the center tail feather on the 25th Anniversary ASE "Bullion" coin (all five of mine) that is not present on a real "Bullion" coin pulled from a monster box. Credit goes to "SilverHaired" - who discovered this variety and posted it on another forum. These images were taken at 20X with a Celestron microscope.
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA. >>
It then becomes word of mouth with no documented trail over the long term. Especially since the COA says something different.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>I think we may be getting somewhere now - there is a definite impression at the bottom of the center tail feather on the 25th Anniversary ASE "Bullion" coin (all five of mine) that is not present on a real "Bullion" coin pulled from a monster box. Credit goes to "SilverHaired" - who discovered this variety and posted it on another forum. These images were taken at 20X with a Celestron microscope.
<< <i>I think we may be getting somewhere now - there is a definite impression at the bottom of the center tail feather on the 25th Anniversary ASE "Bullion" coin (all five of mine) that is not present on a real "Bullion" coin pulled from a monster box. Credit goes to "SilverHaired" - who discovered this variety and posted it on another forum. These images were taken at 20X with a Celestron microscope.
>>
Hot Dang . . . A new variety . . .
Dimple Tail ! ! !
HH
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>Here are two more (different) coins to compare, from my inventory:
>>
I for one appreciate your enthusiasm but I don't think it's enough to warrant a die variety or some new discovery like the '08 rev. '07 or like the cheerios dollar but it is interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Thanks for posting.
Beer is Proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy -Benjamin Franklin-
Comments
<< <i>OK, so where do we go from here on these coins.
There are lots of them floating around in 3 coin sets now for the taking cheap. >>
Go for it.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!!
It's the new bi-finish semi burnished variety.
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
something like this would be nice:
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Another problem with opened sets is that, if the "burnished" no-mintmark coins develop a premium, they could potentially be replaced in the sets by ordinary 2011 bullion coins.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
YES, I Agree
<< <i>
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
YES, I Agree >>
I can't! They are all away from home being graded.....
and....
Do all the 25th Annie bullion's have the same finish??? Then it would mark them as a finish variant exclusive to the (S) Annies
<< <i>I would like to see this 25th Annie bullion next to a (S) slabbed bullion to see the difference....
and....
Do all the 25th Annie bullion's have the same finish??? Then it would mark them as a finish variant exclusive to the (S) Annies >>
There are currently only two recognized non-proof ASE bullion "varieties" - the burnished W m/m collector coin and the no m/m bulk issued coin that for the first time this year is minted in both West Point and San Francisco. In both cases it is not the "finish" that is recognized by collectors; it is the burnishing or lack of burnishing of the blank before being struck by what are presumed to be dies that only differ with a W mintmark on the reverse in the case of the burnished coin. Note that West Point strikes both W m/m and no m/m non-proof silver eagles as well as the W proofs.
If in fact a differently prepared set of dies or a differently prepared silver blank are found to have been used by SF then a third ASE "variety" will have surfaced. I have 2011 (S) ASEs certified earlier by PCGS to be from SF. I see no difference in that coin than I do with the West Point minted no m/m that I also have. If there is a difference between the set's ASE no m/m coin and earlier released no m/m coins then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>I would like to see this 25th Annie bullion next to a (S) slabbed bullion to see the difference....
and....
Do all the 25th Annie bullion's have the same finish??? Then it would mark them as a finish variant exclusive to the (S) Annies >>
There are currently only two recognized non-proof ASE bullion "varieties" - the burnished W m/m collector coin and the no m/m bulk issued coin that for the first time this year is minted in both West Point and San Francisco. In both cases it is not the "finish" that is recognized by collectors; it is the burnishing or lack of burnishing of the blank before being struck by what are presumed to be dies that only differ with a W mintmark on the reverse in the case of the burnished coin. Note that West Point strikes both W m/m and no m/m non-proof silver eagles as well as the W proofs.
If in fact a differently prepared set of dies or a differently prepared silver blank are found to have been used by SF then a third ASE "variety" will have surfaced. I have 2011 (S) ASEs certified earlier by PCGS to be from SF. I see no difference in that coin than I do with the West Point minted no m/m that I also have. If there is a difference between the set's ASE no m/m coin and earlier released no m/m coins then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins. >>
If there is a difference between the set's ASE no m/m coin and earlier released no m/m coins then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins.
Yes, that is the question
<< <i>Best way to get an answer may be to submit question to Coin World and let them sort it out with mint. >>
<< <i>... then there will be proof that the set's no m/m coins were struck specifically for the set, and also differently than earlier released bullion coins. >>
i hope this is clarified quickly.
Savoy's cartoon is right on the money !! (literally).
Savoy, what is the year for this, and who is the artist?
Here it is again in case you missed it:
It's a NOT a question of "well... maybe it is..." - it is a very clear and pronounced difference. Has anyone contacted NN or CW for input?
Disregard the piece of lint near the "U" in United and the "M" in America.
Not your typical tubed ASE. Burnished or not?
and see how the market values this interesting change.
<< <i>Here is my 2011 Bullion example, all of them are clean and hit free for the most part.
Disregard the piece of lint near the "U" in United and the "M" in America.
Not your typical tubed ASE. Burnished or not? >>
Per the mint, the burnished blanks are used on the W m/m uncircs. First came out in 2006, both gold and silver, a year or two didn't see any. These W collector versions are availble from the mint in boxes, while non W bullion in monster boxes are only available to authorized dealers who sell to you and I. Is it possible that burnished blanks were use for the no m/m set coins minted in SF. Of course it is, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
If it is determined that burnished blanks were used, the only grading change I see is that such coins graded outside the set could get their own S designation (even though there is no m/m) and possibly a "struck on burnished blank" label. To do this it would have to be known fact that all or some of the coins were minted in SF using burnished blanks. It would also be necessary for a TPG to determine burnished from appearance only.
Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin.
The questions:
1. Not having seen one of the set's coins in hand, is there a visible difference between set no m/m bullion coins and "regular" no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully yes.
2. Does the difference affect all set no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully no.
3. Were all set no m/m coins minted in SF. Already answered by the mint "yes."
4. Is the difference in set coin and non-set coin due to burnished blanks or dies. either way it is a "variety"
5. And finally, if we are looking at burnished blank or a way to prove mint location, will TPGs recognize this on a label.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>The questions:
1. Not having seen one of the set's coins in hand, is there a visible difference between set no m/m bullion coins and "regular" no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully yes.
2. Does the difference affect all set no m/m bullion coins. Hopefully no.
3. Were all set no m/m coins minted in SF. Already answered by the mint "yes."
4. Is the difference in set coin and non-set coin due to burnished blanks or dies. either way it is a "variety"
5. And finally, if we are looking at burnished blank or a way to prove mint location, will TPGs recognize this on a label. >>
6. Were any burnished no-m/m dies used to strike regular bullion coins in addition to 25th Anniversary Set coins? If so, once a set is opened by the recipient there will be no way to prove that a burnished coin came from the set, and the TPG's will have to grade a "burnished" coin on appearance only (if they decide to do it at all).
A similar situation occurred with the 2000-D "prooflike" Sacagawea dollars from the Millennium Set. Most of them were clearly distinguishable from the circulation strikes.
My Adolph A. Weinman signature
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S"
<< <i>
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S" >>
dies can be burnished, but it is reported that the US mint uses burnished blanks for its W collector coins. Now if they burnished the dies to make the set coin in question that would be something unique.
Copied from a website:
burnished blank or burnished die
- treatment of a coin blank or die to give it a special slightly sandy or polished look. Sometimes burnishing is done with chemicals or by special polishing. Starting in 2006 the US Mint made Silver Eagle dollar coins (with the W mint mark) with special burnished coin blanks. Under magnification you can notice a slight difference in the coin's field or background.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Same coin, using two 100 watt clear GE reveal bulbs, at 10 n 2.
Curious - this one looks burnished to me... Comparisons like this usually go better as side-by-side. I wonder what is going on. Perhaps there is a "bigger" picture here? It would be interesting if someone finds an actual die variety as has been pointed out earlier.
<< <i>once a set is opened by the recipient there will be no way to prove that a burnished coin came from..., and the TPG's will have to grade a "burnished" coin on appearance only >>
this is the situation for the s.f. and the w.p. no MM bullion coins currently.
unless slabbed directly from a monster box with the SF strap, there is no characteristic(yet!) to distinguish them from each other.
burnished ASEs have a flat, matte appearance, always.
Non burnished ASEs can have a flat matte finish or show lots of lustre. depends on year and method of storage.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S" >>
Don’t feel bad. I was under the same impression after reading Manorcourtman’s response above about “die stage.” I see now he was confusing cameo or satin effect from the die with burnished blanks. I completely forgot about the fact the blanks are actually have the burnished finish on them with I believe would not be effected by “die stage" though the quality of the strike could.
Good catch derryb!
<< <i>
<< <i>It is disappointing that with all the dinoscopes out there no one has found some marker to differentiate between the 25th bullion and regular bullion coins.
Turn up the magnification and get back to work!! >>
something like this would be nice:
<< <i>
<< <i>once a set is opened by the recipient there will be no way to prove that a burnished coin came from..., and the TPG's will have to grade a "burnished" coin on appearance only >>
this is the situation for the s.f. and the w.p. no MM bullion coins currently.
unless slabbed directly from a monster box with the SF strap, there is no characteristic(yet!) to distinguish them from each other. >>
Assuming TPG cannot visually determine "burnished."
Monster box coins from SF were struck on non-burnished blanks as are all bulk issued ASEs. Only apparent difference is the sealing strap of the monster box.
Question before the jury today is, "did SF use burnished blanks on some or all of the no m/m coins that are part of the 25th set. If not, what else could explain the member reported difference between it and the S m/m coin?"
My question "is the W unc. m/m in the set a burnished coin as are the indivdually released collector coins with the W m/m. Does anyone have an opened set with a COA that answers any of the burnish coin questions. A nice pic of the COA coin specs would be great.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>Now, if a limited number of burnished blanks found their way into the bigger stack used for striking these coins, then we have another "Rev. of 07" scenario but on a much smaller (and more valuable)scale due to limited mintage of the coin. >>
Damn...shows you how clueless I am...I though the DIES were burnished.
Now it makes a tad more sense that they might have sent the same blanks to be used for both the (S) and the "S" >>
As a small reminder, the US Mint has stated that all the Bullion coins were minted at the San Francisco facility (Tom Jurkowsky) AND the San Francisco facility also produce an "Uncirculated" coin with the "S" Mintmark. Presuming that the "S" Mint marked coin is of the same burnished quality that the 2011-W Uncirculated coin is, I think it would be safe to assume that the bullion coins were minted on burnished blanks.
But then, thats only an assumption which has absolutely no validity without US Mint verification.
PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
Would be nice to know if any are supposed to be burnished and if any are accidently burnished. I want my set to be an accident.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
Would be nice to know if any are supposed to be burnished and if any are accidently burnished. I want my set to be an accident. >>
That depends. If 95,000 were accidently burnished, I want the other.
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA. >>
Not to cast any doubt on Jurkowsky's statement, but it has been my experience, that most high ranking Mint Bureaucrats have no idea what's going on with their retail or collectors sales division.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA. >>
Not to cast any doubt on Jurkowsky's statement, but it has been my experience, that most high ranking Mint Bureaucrats have no idea what's going on with their retail or collectors sales division. >>
The blind leading the blind. They must have nice country club memberships and spend their time trying to become a scratch golfer.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
Ed Davidson
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS does not grade or attribute coins based upon "assumptions". They only go on hard published facts with the COA being the primary source of information. >>
But wasn't Tom Jurkowsky quoted as saying the decision about where the coins were struck was actually made after the COAs were printed, thus adding to the confusion about their origin? I haven't read the actual article (just going by what was posted above), but it casts doubt on the validity of the information contained on the the COA. >>
It then becomes word of mouth with no documented trail over the long term. Especially since the COA says something different.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I think we may be getting somewhere now - there is a definite impression at the bottom of the center tail feather on the 25th Anniversary ASE "Bullion" coin (all five of mine) that is not present on a real "Bullion" coin pulled from a monster box. Credit goes to "SilverHaired" - who discovered this variety and posted it on another forum. These images were taken at 20X with a Celestron microscope.
>>
Looks like a skeleton finger to me.
<< <i>
What do ya think?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I think we may be getting somewhere now - there is a definite impression at the bottom of the center tail feather on the 25th Anniversary ASE "Bullion" coin (all five of mine) that is not present on a real "Bullion" coin pulled from a monster box. Credit goes to "SilverHaired" - who discovered this variety and posted it on another forum. These images were taken at 20X with a Celestron microscope.
Hot Dang . . . A new variety . . .
Dimple Tail ! ! !
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
Ed Davidson
<< <i>So would that be known as the dented feather version ??
Or the Bullion being an A-cup version with the 25th version being a B-cup version.
<< <i>So would that be known as the dented feather version ??
dimple feather sounds better.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
And everyone thought the formative years cents were hard to see.
<< <i>Here are two more (different) coins to compare, from my inventory:
I for one appreciate your enthusiasm but I don't think it's enough to warrant a die variety or some new discovery like the '08 rev. '07 or like the cheerios dollar but it is interesting to see if this goes anywhere. Thanks for posting.