Options
What's with the John M Mercanti PCGS slabs?
frostbyte3964
Posts: 29
What is the deal with the John M Mercanti signature slabs? Just another option? Why would they be more desirable if so?
0
frostbyte3964
Posts: 29
frostbyte3964
Posts: 29
Comments
Just another label variation to me, with no price premium.
The only way a mercanti label would be worth more if it were truly hand signed. I have no idea if they exist.
<< <i>Would they be equal to a flag first strike and just different or would flag be better? >>
For all labels other than the flag, you have to be careful they read first strike. All other labels can be regular, non-first strike or they can be first strike.
Better? That's a matter of opinion. My first spouse are primarily in flag, some in Secure Plus and the rest -- a minority -- in mercanti-FS. I have my preference to move them all to secure plus for the fee but many will likely think that is overkill.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Doesn't anyone just collect coins anymore????? Cheers, RickO >>
Are you referring to the round shiny disc within the plastic shrine? Huh, I didn't even notice it was there
PCGS Registries
Box of 20
SeaEagleCoins: 11/14/54-4/5/12. Miss you Larry!
<< <i>
<< <i>Doesn't anyone just collect coins anymore????? Cheers, RickO >>
Are you referring to the round shiny disc within the plastic shrine? Huh, I didn't even notice it was there
perhaps they need a little color? say blue...
<< <i>What I don't get is why PCGS creates a separate population category for labels like that. It has nothing to do with the condition of the coin inside at all. >>
Would you like me to offer a wild speculation?
<< <i>What I don't get is why PCGS creates a separate population category for labels like that. It has nothing to do with the condition of the coin inside at all. >>
the separate pops are for first strike and the ANA and other individual releases - eg 25th anniversary set release. Mercanti labels do not have their own pop reports.
Secure Plus should be read about on the pcgs web site. it costs more to grade them that way, and as mentioned, many here would think using that service is over kill for these coins. I disagree for a couple of reasons one of which is that I'd like to see every coin use secure plus. So I'm spending more money to vote some service into standard practice -- a cost you might not want to incur.
<< <i>
<< <i>What I don't get is why PCGS creates a separate population category for labels like that. It has nothing to do with the condition of the coin inside at all. >>
Would you like me to offer a wild speculation?
If you are thinking revenue I understand but still seems there needs to be something more to justify it otherwise where will it end. They might as well break the populations out by the style of holder and label color.
I do know the POP for these Coins is 4 and they are hand-signed.
do these go for a premium over the non signed one or does the variety value combined with market forces swamp out any autograph premium?
<< <i>I can't understand why PCGS has not yet created a public category for these.
I do know the POP for these Coins is 4 and they are hand-signed.
Check out the 2013 silver eagle and the 5oz SP puck populations.
<< <i>They have the coins signed by Mint Director Moy in a POP, but why not Mercanti!? >>
You did not see Mercanti in the pops?
One might presume, for example that the 1796 quarter dollar may have been an early release, but without a piece of paper in the holder guaranteeing that fact, I had no interest. Obviously purchased by a collector with little care or interest in authenticity or collectible value. And way overpriced without "Early Releases" emblazoned upon the paper slip.
Takes many years to come to terms with the fact that a true collector buys the plastic, not the coin. Or would that be, the paper?
EC
Why is this subject reminding me of a scene in Tommy Boy?
<< <i>
<< <i>They have the coins signed by Mint Director Moy in a POP, but why not Mercanti!? >>
You did not see Mercanti in the pops? >>
no way....
unbelievable they have autograph pops.
why not just have a text description of every label and break out the pops. at least then some of the questions about "is this label real" questions might start with a cert lookup and a pop report check.
There have only been 12 Chief Engravers of the US Mint:
Robert Scot (1793 until his death in 1823)
William Kneass (1824 until his death in 1840)
Christian Gobrecht (1840 until his death in 1844)
James B. Longacre (1844 until his death in 1869)
William Barber (1869 until his death in 1879)
Charles E. Barber (1879 until his death in 1917)
George T. Morgan (1917 until his death in 1925)
John R. Sinnock (1925 until his death in 1947)
Gilroy Roberts (1948 to 1964)
Frank Gasparro (1965 to 1981)
Elizabeth Jones (1981 to 1991)
Vacant (1991 to 2006)
John Mercanti (2006 to 2010)
Vacant (2010 to present)
The idea of the Autograph service is to add value to BOTH PCGS and the coin owner.
But without a PCGS POP (unique coin number), 'the rarity' quotient is sub-par versus a known POP, its just that simple, IMHO.
Perhaps they just have not gotten around to do this POP, but it should be priority, IMHO.
Elizabeth Jones is still alive and is now signing NGC coins. I wonder if these have a POP designation?
If an autograph is part of the rarity factor and that is priced into a coin then the collector now has one more threat into the value of his coin since Mercanti, as long as he is alive I presume could be persuaded to sign some more and probably get a good fee for doing so. Of course this would dilute the rarity factor for the poor schlub that bought an earlier version. I know that happens with grading but this just adds one more threat since the availability of them will be easy to see in the pops. The more people get burned this way the more they might just find another hobby.
Thinking more I guess the grading companies would have to arrange them since they hold the labels.
<< <i>But without a PCGS POP (unique coin number), 'the rarity' quotient is sub-par versus a known POP, its just that simple, IMHO.
If an autograph is part of the rarity factor and that is priced into a coin then the collector now has one more threat into the value of his coin since Mercanti, as long as he is alive I presume could be persuaded to sign some more and probably get a good fee for doing so. Of course this would dilute the rarity factor for the poor schlub that bought an earlier version. I know that happens with grading but this just adds one more threat since the availability of them will be easy to see in the pops. The more people get burned this way the more they will find another hobby. >>
Perhaps, but in the case of error coins created by the US Mint with limited numbers of the coins (as an example only 46K of the 2008W w/ 2007 W Reverse) such a 'combination' of Grading/Slabbing/signed Label would seem desirable. It is to me.
I *just* looked and notice that the Silver Eagle Proofs DO have Mercanti POPs listed. So in the case of my MS, maybe these POPs are just behind at PCGS?
<< <i>
<< <i>But without a PCGS POP (unique coin number), 'the rarity' quotient is sub-par versus a known POP, its just that simple, IMHO.
If an autograph is part of the rarity factor and that is priced into a coin then the collector now has one more threat into the value of his coin since Mercanti, as long as he is alive I presume could be persuaded to sign some more and probably get a good fee for doing so. Of course this would dilute the rarity factor for the poor schlub that bought an earlier version. I know that happens with grading but this just adds one more threat since the availability of them will be easy to see in the pops. The more people get burned this way the more they will find another hobby. >>
Perhaps, but in the case of error coins created by the US Mint with limited numbers of the coins (as an example only 46K of the 2008W w/ 2007 W Reverse) such a 'combination' of Grading/Slabbing/signed Label would seem desirable. It is to me.
I *just* looked and notice that the Silver Eagle Proofs DO have Mercanti POPs listed. So in the case of my MS, maybe these POPs are just behind at PCGS? >>
I suppose you just reholdered them to get the label right? What if I did the same? If that is possible then how is the autograph rarity factor anything to hang your hat on?
<< <i>I am curious as to who arranges these signings and if he gets paid per signature. >>
I am in the Intellectual Property Business (Patents), so I would assume there is a nice, tight Contractual Arrangement between the parties. Perhaps check the SEC filings for some redacted version (at best)
I would assume PCGS has some the best IP Guys in the US doing this kind of work.
<< <i>If wondercoin says they are all hand signed they are. I recall the few I have looked pre-printed. Do not ask me to authenticate autographs. >>
Just look at my two coins, the signatures are not identical, its hand signed for sure.
Think about this, Mr. Mercanti is blessed in knowing his life's work is in fact a legacy that will live on long after he is gone, so why in the world would He not hand sign? I bet John Mercanti would not have it any other way!
Maybe carpal tunnel syndrome??
<< <i>I suppose you just reholdered them to get the label right? What if I did the same? If that is possible then how is the autograph rarity factor anything to hang your hat on? >>
Good question! I obviously have coins that could, in the future not be as rare?
I know that I own (2) of the (4) that were submitted by one dealer who had the bright idea to do it. I bought them on EBay for a low amount, before he realized he was the ONLY guy that did this for the Errors.
I thought PCGS was only allowing the Mercanti signatures for a limited time? Does anyone know if they plan to open autographs up again?
Since the proofs eagles have a Mercanti POP number, that may be the only way to know? I hope not.
Perhaps someone in the PCGS 'brain-trust' could tell us what we can look forward to, going forward.
Will they allow more Mercanti Signatures? I hope not at least for mine ;>
What happens when other 'US Mint' people retire, like Don Everhart for example?
Should they be getting an agent and doing hand exercises ?
<< <i>I wonder if the population numbers will be divided into signed with black ink, signed in blue ink or signed in red ink. I would like a red ink signed one as a reminder of our trillion dollar deficits. >>
That's sad and hilarious !
<< <i>John Mercanti hand signs the inserts. Also, I understand PCGS intends to create separate coin numbers/ pops for the hand signed insert slabs. Wondercoin. >>
That's great to hear, Mitch.
I wonder what the time table is going to be?
Do we just send them in to PCGS with a line request like FS, add $10 bucks I suppose?
I missed the actual time this was done, I was very busy at work in 2011-2012.
Albert Einstein
<< <i> Many buyers are being duped. Who is responsible? >>
YOU and all the collectors who THINK a label means something. What the heck does FIRST STRIKE actually mean? Certainly NOT that the coin in the capsule was the "first coin struck" or the second or the third or the 25,000th. It actually MEANS NOTHING as far as collectability is concerned. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>If wondercoin says they are all hand signed they are. I recall the few I have looked pre-printed. Do not ask me to authenticate autographs. >>
<< <i>Hmmm.
If this is the case, then why isn't the number prepublished?
Additionally, I find it really hard to fathom that Mercanti signed:
362 2006-W Silver Eagle PCGS Labels
364 2007-W Silver Eagle PCGS Labels
363 2008-W Silver Eagle PCGS Labels
1168 2011-S Silver Eagle PCGS Labels
Even if these were signed over a period of years, that's a lot of signatures.
How would one approach such a task? How many were pre-signed. Were the labels all blank except for the signature spot?
The numbers above don't even take into account the 5oz ATB Mercanti Slabs, the Gold First Spouse Proof and Uncirculated Slabs, 2014 Australian Slabs.
Why aren't coinb0y's Reverse of 2007 Silver Eagles in a population report as a unique coin number?
Is the "signature" itself different in anyway from one slab to another? >>
I gotta stand down on this as checking the 2005-W Prf Eagle Mercanti slab that I have, the signature is definitely done with a sharpie and is fully original.
That man spent a lot of time in some room signing a bunch of different things.
The name is LEE!
I have another Mercanti signed eagle.
What's this shadowed stuff above the signature?
To me it looks like the signature on the slab.
The stroke "looks" like a sharpie but that shadow signature bothers me a bit. Any ideas?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i> Why aren't coinb0y's Reverse of 2007 Silver Eagles in a population report as a unique coin number?
Is the "signature" itself different in anyway from one slab to another? >>
BINGO! Thanks 19Lyds!!
This has been bugging the heck out of me! Up until the last month or so I have been buried with work to dig further.
I know there are only (4) in existence, I have (2) of the (4) Coins.
Since PCGS Cert #11526814 and PCGS Cert # 11526815 are both truly hand-signed, and John Mercanti is both the Silver Eagle's (2007 & 2008) Reverse Designer + the Master Engraver of both, one would think that the Mercanti signed POP for such an important (46,286 minted) would be recognized and given it unique identifier as part of the break-down of coins sent in to PCGS when it offered his signature at the very least:
(362) 2006-W Silver Eagle PCGS Mercanti signed Labels
(364) 2007-W Silver Eagle PCGS Mercanti signed Labels
(363) 2008-W Silver Eagle PCGS Mercanti signed Labels
**( 4) 2008-W Reverse 2007 Eagle Mercanti signed Labels***
(1,168) 2011-S Silver Eagle PCGS Mercanti signed Labels
I planned to inquire to see if this oversight can be rectified. I can't imagine why PCGS wouldn't want to correct this significant omission to its POP listings.
<< <i>Oops. Spoke too soon.
The stroke "looks" like a sharpie but that shadow signature bothers me a bit. Any ideas? >>
Sharpie "bleed-thru"
Guess it's the same reason with the First Strike labels.
If you have a Mercanti - Flag - First Strike super label, then you really have something.
I guess the coin would be optional
<< <i>
<< <i>Oops. Spoke too soon.
The stroke "looks" like a sharpie but that shadow signature bothers me a bit. Any ideas? >>
Sharpie "bleed-thru" >>
I'm sure you forgot the question mark (?) and I thought that myself but, in the one I shot, the ink just does not look like it is heavy enough to bleed thru.
The name is LEE!
Being sold one thing, and, it really is something less valuable, as per a data base reeks of switch and bait.
Albert Einstein
<< <i>
<< <i>What the heck does FIRST STRIKE actually mean? Certainly NOT that the coin in the capsule was the "first coin struck" or the second or the third or the 25,000th. It actually MEANS NOTHING as far as collectability is concerned. >>
Concur.
Think about the Gold Kennedy Halves. The first coins certified (ANA, sold at the mints on those two days) were merely a few 1000s out of the 40,000 that were ready for shipping at the start of sales. If it works like everything else, the coins come off the packaging line and get stacked on pallets. So the EARLIER items are lower on the pallet. And the earliest are the bottom layer of the first pallet. So the 1st 3500 they grabbed were actually the top of some random pallet, with no demonstrable order related to actual striking.
Today (well 9Nov) they've sold 66 almost 67K and thus the majority - 60% - are (potentially) provably earlier strikes than the other 40%.
So what? Each die pair is only used for a few 100 or 1000 coins. Would you prefer the 1st strike from the last die pair (who knows what order the dies were prepared in) or the last strike from the 1st die pair.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
<< <i>Steve..this was NOT posted to be lectured at..we ALL know the labeling "system" in play is tainted, we ALL know First Strike means nothing. Those have been discussed many times, on a thousand other posts. THIS thread is to get to the bottom of pure facts, and, the fact is probably 25%-40% of the Mercanti labels will NOT show as such in certification. It is misleading, IMHO, and, poses a LOT more questions than answers, at least to me. Barcodes on the ATB's prevent swift evaluation of PROPER Mercanti insert, thus, if buying, you have to do the investigations needed.
I think PCGS is in deep water over this, or, damn well should be. It's bordering on fraud and manipulation. Prices, as stated, for TRUE Mercanti inserts are a tad higher for Most ATB's(and other's, as the eagle's)....so, when a buyer gets his coins delivered, puts the numbers in, and, see's all his so-called Mercanti's are NOT those, and, have a First Strike coin number, one tends to feel a little ripped off. There is a fair amount of money involved here. If I buy the wrong Perry's Victory, for 650, and, go to resell it, and, findout it's priced at 400, that does not make me pleased. Of course, as stated, I don't buy any more Mercanti's, but, have 5 I am in the middle of getting relabeled. It's a $400 difference, value-wise, and, worth my troubles.
I am not interested in discussing PCGS labels..I AM interested in discussing false advertising of these labels.
I am going to call PCGS...and ask their "opinion" on why this is happening...should be interesting. To be honest with you, I have a feeling they were hoping nobody would notice. >>
Uhhhh.
The "F" word is not allowed on posts. Regardless of the reasoning.
The name is LEE!