The “first strike” nonsense was exposed months ago. In fact, the descriptions provided by PCGS and NGC reveal that the designation has nothing to do with the freshness of dies, so there can’t really be any fraud.
That said, the TPGs will be much better served in the long run by nurturing new collectors instead of by helping Robert Chambers take their money. What will happen to new collectors when they try to sell a "First Strike" MS-69 ASE in a couple of years. If the new collector has a bad experience (which seems likely to me) the anger will properly be directed in part against the TPG that supposedly provides some degree of protection. After all, it is the TPG that ascribes some importance to the coin as a "First Strike." I feel the same way about placing "20th Anniversary" inserts in ASE slabs as though that says something about the coins themselves. The TPGs lose credibility whenever they try to make a market instead of simply serving the market. Squandering credibility at the market entry point will diminish the collector base over the long haul.
Codder, "welcome back", by the way. Whoops, wrong "Kotter"
Seriously, though, if you have not already done so, why not contact PCGS about this issue and discuss it with them? Also, you might consider asking David Hall about it on the Q&A forum. I realize that that forum has been other than active lately, but it can't hurt to try.
<< <i>I don't see a problem. PCGS states first strikes are coins sold in the first month of release. Big deal Collectors that want that label should already be aware that it means only that. Delusional people might think the are buying the first coins off the presses But like the saying goes" there is one born every minute. " The Government should cash in on the craze and offer a first strike of the die coins or first 100 coins coin or number the coins by the batch.Then they could jack up the premium and offer the chance to buy them by lottery drawing. Now that would be a gas: >>
Not delusional. "First strike" used to be a legitimate numismatic term that meant one of the first few strikes off of a new die. The TPG's corrupted the term to mean whatever the heck they wanted it to mean. Had they put "First Month" on the slab labels, no problem. Saying "First Strike" to mean "certified in the first 30 days these things were sold" is deceptive. Tom DeLorey
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
<< <i>Coin dealers came up with the idea of special labeling for CAM, DCAM, and probably FSB and many other "to die for" labels of today. >>
You're comparing apples to oranges. There's an obvious visual difference between a cameo proof and a brilliant proof. A difference that for many proof collectors makes the coin more attractive and thus more desirable. These first strike labeled coins look just like all the other coins.
<< <i>I wonder if the clowns defending this first strike situation feel the same about artificially toned coins. >>
None of the "clowns" are defending the designation. In fact, I think it's silly. We are simply noting that nobody with even a modicum of common sense could possibly believe it meets the definition of fraud.
<< <i>A coin offered for sale with the pitch "MONSTER RAINBOW", without even suggesting it was NT, sells for huge money... >>
That's a specious analogy, and you know it.
<< <i>Also, you might consider asking David Hall about it on the Q&A forum. >>
Good idea. Codder, go post a question in the Q&A forum and ask David Hall why PCGS is engaging in fraud.
<< <i>if there weren't people out there willing to pay for these silly designations, they wouldn't make them.
if these people want to spend their money on such things, let them. To each his own. >>
Very true! And they're likely investors whose only goal is to cash in on the hpbby. Same thing with the imposters we have with the registry. If they got the bucks then it's, buy them up and max them out time! And then we have the crowd that says, GOOD JOB!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
If they DO NOT define what First Strike means they'd probably be better off legally than if they did.
As long as PCGS (or whoever) CLEARLY defines THEIR definition of "First Strike", I can't see how it can be anything other a sleazy marketing gimmick (as opposed to fraud) UNLESS their definition is so vague, ambiguous, misleading, or impossible to be verified BY ANYONE.
<< <i>First Strike coins only happen in the first month of the year or before right?
Here is how I see it:
The U.S. Mint prepares dies for the whole year and makes whatever it needs regarding the Silver, Gold, and Platinum coins. These dies are used starting late in the year for the following year. These are not the only new dies that are used all year long, so if a new die is used in June, then the first 100 or so coins off of that die should be considered "First Strike".
So actually First Strike coins happen all year long, not just before february 1st.
They should be called first Release coins!
Later, Paul. >>
This is the way I see it, you've made a good point! Unless the US Mint and PCGS has a contract to send and slab the first 100 or so coins off every set of dies throughout the year or minting process of those designs, I don't see a problem. But PCGS's definition are for those coins minted before Feb 1st. Same thing holds true with all those designations of FBL, FS, FT etc, these designations are not to be given to coins that are not fully struck but they have been and it appears to be another way to mislead the hobby out of it's money. It's obvious we need some more light shed on this grading service from one of our most respected and admired leaders of our coin hobby.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Here's the message I just tried to send to David Hall:
"In light of the facts that Coin World in their latest issue has documented regarding TGP "First Strike" programs, do you feel that modifications should be made to more accurately describe coins that can not be shown, by even PCGS's new definition, to be truly "First Strike" coins. What will PCGS do to comfort purchasers of these coins that they have not been victims of a fraudulent marketing campaign?
Thank you."
Unfortunately, the thread is locked. So, since I'm sure you're on good terms with him, please forward my question thorugh your "back channels" and let's see what he says. You blowhard. >>
Codder, you should be able to send a PM to David Hall through this forum. If you truly want him to hear your message, I'd recommend modifying this sentence and making it more objective and less inflammatory:
<< What will PCGS do to comfort purchasers of these coins that they have not been victims of a fraudulent marketing campaign?>>
Now you're back to claiming that Coin World called it fraud? For those who may not read the content of this thread - Coin World did not call it fraud. Codder did.
I'll distill this down in to very simple terms that perhaps even you can understand. If PCGS had claimed that the first strike label meant that the coin was one of the first strikes off the dies, then it would be fraud. They didn't, so it isn't.
I'm not worried about being inflammatory. They should be worried about their reputation. My question is completely legitimate. The charges were made by Coin World. I just want them answered. If they boot me off the board for this question, then the board will be left to all you dealers and insiders to trade and sell coins among yourselves--or, pretty much what goes on now. >>
Codder, in this instance, the reason not to be inflammatory has nothing to do with nerve, fear, etc., but rather, to make it more likely your message will be received and heard by your audience. Nothing more; nothing less.
I have "First Strike" coins and I DID NOT buy them for the "First Strike" designation, all it means to me is that these coins were bulk graded and fell into the TPG's criteria as "First Strike" no more no less. I think the holders(label ) are uglier than hell but that is the price one pays for having to buy coins that were submitted in bulk as soon as they were released. There is no fraud you are getting exactly what you bought, the TPG sets the definition so it could be anything they want it to be.
"Well here's another nice mess you have gotten me into" Oliver Hardy 1930
Perhaps there has been an out pour of distaste to coin world from many unhappy coin collectors. I really can't see some guy sitting back in some office at CW and thinking this stuff up to write! Perhaps there has been an out cry of fraud about these TGS, how they grade coins. Perhaps it all started with coin vault, and next came the infamous 1960-D that CW editorially praised and now we have a vague definition of first strike. Are these people real or just a fiction of our imaginations but yet we do see alot of folks getting ripped off when they buy into these fiascos!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
Whether or not some company or someone, openly says or charges that it's fraud, if it goes that far, doesn't it have to be proven in a court of law? I'm having quite a laugh hearing with this thread. They did too! No they didn't! Did so! Did not! Did so! Did not! Let it go folks!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i>And yet, nowhere does the word fraud appear.
Russ, NCNE >>
I have to agree with Russ no where do the words "fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" appear in the text of the editorial. As for the designation "First Strike" caveat emptor!!!
"Well here's another nice mess you have gotten me into" Oliver Hardy 1930
By using the date stamped on the box containing the coins, the grading services are inferring that the coins are among the first produced. Yet this, too, is questionable. According to information provided by Mint officials, the boxes could contain the last coins produced before the Mint began packaging and shipping.
And usually the last coins off the dies are those that are on the top of the pile!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
<< <i><< And yet, nowhere does the word fraud appear.
Russ, NCNE >>
"But Russ, it's indisputable. -- codderWOG" >>
It's actually not a very hard hitting editorial. I'd have used words like "silly", "stupid", "sucker bet" and a whole host of other superlatives to describe this marketing gimmick. For Codder to see it as an accusation of fraud means either he has reading comprehension difficulties, or just decided he wanted to have a 100 post thread to call his own.
The term "First Strike" may not be fraud but it sure is deceiving. It should be called "First Shipped Out" or something to that effect but who would buy the coin then.
I bought an MS69 DCAM "First Strike" coin once. I only bought it because it was the only one available for the coin I was looking for a long time previous. I got the coin and it was crap. I sold it on eBay for half what I paid for it and did not even mention that it was "First Strike" in the eBay ad.
I do not believe that the designation is tantamount to fraud. The standards for the "First Strike" designation are made public to any who chose to seek them out.
I do believe that novices are impressed by the "First Strike" designation as when I told my wife and mother that I had a "First Strike" coin, they were greatly impressed. Kind of like the gold plated state quarters. My mom called one day to ask me if the gold plated SHQ's were worth anything as she had seen some in an antique store. But at least she had the sense to ask someone. At least she had someone TO ASK. Many older people (perhaps younger people too.) don't have anyone to ask and are impressed by the "First Strike" and gold plated quarters enough to pay a premium for them. If I were not here for my mother to ask that day, I would probably have received gold plated SHQ's for Christmas. Hahaha!
No, it is not fraud. It is a gimmick. Nothing against any law going on here. Anyone who wants to do the research can do so and find out what "First Strike" means. I don't really see much of a premium going on with the designation. Maybe I don't notice it. Almost all the gold buffalo coins (sorry Russ!) on eBay are "First Strike" coins when I just checked right now.
There will always be gimmicks. My grampa taught me that years ago. He always taught me not to fall for gimmicks. But there is nothing wrong with buying "First Strikes" if you don't pay a premium for them.
Jonathan
I have been a collector for over mumbly-five years. I learn something new every day.
I'm not worried about being inflammatory. They should be worried about their reputation. My question is completely legitimate. The charges were made by Coin World. I just want them answered. If they boot me off the board for this question, then the board will be left to all you dealers and insiders to trade and sell coins among yourselves--or, pretty much what goes on now. >>
Codder,
Why the heck are you even here? Do you go to funerals of people you don't know and speak ill of the dead? Do you go to elementary schools for the free lunch program and compain about the food?
Get the heck out of here. You obviously don't like it here.
Jonathan
I have been a collector for over mumbly-five years. I learn something new every day.
"It's amazing how you can say that when you haven't read the editorial. I doubt there will be another forum member who will read that editorial and not come to the same conslusion as I have. Unless they are from PCGS, or own a bunch of "first strikes." The bottom line: by any traditional definition of first strikes, these coins are not. I've given you the deifintion of fraud. You've lost the debate and want to hide behind a word. Wow. "
I'm a forum member; I read the editorial; I did not come to the same conclusion you did.
I'm the Proud recipient of a genuine "you suck" award dated 1/24/05. I was accepted into the "Circle of Trust" on 3/9/09.
Comments
That said, the TPGs will be much better served in the long run by nurturing new collectors instead of by helping Robert Chambers take their money. What will happen to new collectors when they try to sell a "First Strike" MS-69 ASE in a couple of years. If the new collector has a bad experience (which seems likely to me) the anger will properly be directed in part against the TPG that supposedly provides some degree of protection. After all, it is the TPG that ascribes some importance to the coin as a "First Strike." I feel the same way about placing "20th Anniversary" inserts in ASE slabs as though that says something about the coins themselves. The TPGs lose credibility whenever they try to make a market instead of simply serving the market. Squandering credibility at the market entry point will diminish the collector base over the long haul.
Seriously, though, if you have not already done so, why not contact PCGS about this issue and discuss it with them? Also, you might consider asking David Hall about it on the Q&A forum. I realize that that forum has been other than active lately, but it can't hurt to try.
<< <i>I don't see a problem. PCGS states first strikes are coins sold in the first month of release. Big deal
Collectors that want that label should already be aware that it means only that.
Delusional people might think the are buying the first coins off the presses
The Government should cash in on the craze and offer a first strike of the die coins or first 100 coins coin or number the coins by the batch.Then they could jack up the premium and offer the chance to buy them by lottery drawing. Now that would be a gas
Not delusional. "First strike" used to be a legitimate numismatic term that meant one of the first few strikes off of a new die. The TPG's corrupted the term to mean whatever the heck they wanted it to mean.
Had they put "First Month" on the slab labels, no problem. Saying "First Strike" to mean "certified in the first 30 days these things were sold" is deceptive.
Tom DeLorey
<< <i>Coin dealers came up with the idea of special labeling for CAM, DCAM, and probably FSB and many other "to die for" labels of today. >>
You're comparing apples to oranges. There's an obvious visual difference between a cameo proof and a brilliant proof. A difference that for many proof collectors makes the coin more attractive and thus more desirable. These first strike labeled coins look just like all the other coins.
<< <i>I wonder if the clowns defending this first strike situation feel the same about artificially toned coins. >>
None of the "clowns" are defending the designation. In fact, I think it's silly. We are simply noting that nobody with even a modicum of common sense could possibly believe it meets the definition of fraud.
<< <i>A coin offered for sale with the pitch "MONSTER RAINBOW", without even suggesting it was NT, sells for huge money... >>
That's a specious analogy, and you know it.
<< <i>Also, you might consider asking David Hall about it on the Q&A forum. >>
Good idea. Codder, go post a question in the Q&A forum and ask David Hall why PCGS is engaging in fraud.
Russ, NCNE
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>if there weren't people out there willing to pay for these silly designations, they wouldn't make them.
if these people want to spend their money on such things, let them. To each his own. >>
Very true! And they're likely investors whose only goal is to cash in on the hpbby. Same thing with the imposters we have with the registry. If they got the bucks then it's, buy them up and max them out time!
And then we have the crowd that says, GOOD JOB!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
As long as PCGS (or whoever) CLEARLY defines THEIR definition of "First Strike", I can't see how it can be anything other a sleazy marketing gimmick (as opposed to fraud) UNLESS their definition is so vague, ambiguous, misleading, or impossible to be verified BY ANYONE.
<< <i>First Strike coins only happen in the first month of the year or before right?
Here is how I see it:
The U.S. Mint prepares dies for the whole year and makes whatever it needs regarding the Silver, Gold, and Platinum coins. These dies are used starting late in the year for the following year. These are not the only new dies that are used all year long, so if a new die is used in June, then the first 100 or so coins off of that die should be considered "First Strike".
So actually First Strike coins happen all year long, not just before february 1st.
They should be called first Release coins!
Later, Paul. >>
This is the way I see it, you've made a good point! Unless the US Mint and PCGS has a contract to send and slab the first 100 or so coins off every set of dies throughout the year or minting process of those designs, I don't see a problem. But PCGS's definition are for those coins minted before Feb 1st. Same thing holds true with all those designations of FBL, FS, FT etc, these designations are not to be given to coins that are not fully struck but they have been and it appears to be another way to mislead the hobby out of it's money. It's obvious we need some more light shed on this grading service from one of our most respected and admired leaders of our coin hobby.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i>Hey Russ,
Here's the message I just tried to send to David Hall:
"In light of the facts that Coin World in their latest issue has documented regarding TGP "First Strike" programs, do you feel that modifications should be made to more accurately describe coins that can not be shown, by even PCGS's new definition, to be truly "First Strike" coins. What will PCGS do to comfort purchasers of these coins that they have not been victims of a fraudulent marketing campaign?
Thank you."
Unfortunately, the thread is locked. So, since I'm sure you're on good terms with him, please forward my question
thorugh your "back channels" and let's see what he says. You blowhard. >>
Codder, you should be able to send a PM to David Hall through this forum. If you truly want him to hear your message, I'd recommend modifying this sentence and making it more objective and less inflammatory:
<< What will PCGS do to comfort purchasers of these coins that they have not been victims of a fraudulent marketing campaign?>>
(Well, not really nice, more like "fun").
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I'd recommend modifying this sentence and making it more objective and less inflammatory:
<< What will PCGS do to comfort purchasers of these coins that they have not been victims of a fraudulent marketing campaign?>> >>
Now, now, Mark, let's see what kind of stones the boy has.
Russ, NCNE
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>The charges were made by Coin World. >>
Now you're back to claiming that Coin World called it fraud? For those who may not read the content of this thread - Coin World did not call it fraud. Codder did.
Russ, NCNE
I'll distill this down in to very simple terms that perhaps even you can understand. If PCGS had claimed that the first strike label meant that the coin was one of the first strikes off the dies, then it would be fraud. They didn't, so it isn't.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Mark,
I'm not worried about being inflammatory. They should be worried about their reputation. My question is completely legitimate. The charges were made by Coin World. I just want them answered. If they boot me off the board for this question, then the board will be left to all you dealers and insiders to trade and sell coins among yourselves--or, pretty much what goes on now. >>
Codder, in this instance, the reason not to be inflammatory has nothing to do with nerve, fear, etc., but rather, to make it more likely your message will be received and heard by your audience. Nothing more; nothing less.
If true AND coins were certified in January, who can argue OR take exception to it? Seems black & white to me.
If certified after 1/31, what is the process to verify the date minted?
<< <i>If certified after 1/31, what is the process to verify the date minted? >>
Postmark.
Russ, NCNE
NGC - "FIRST STRIKES"
BOTH WITH CLEARLY DEFINED RULES TO GET THE DESIGNATION (I BELIEVE NGC EVEN POSTS ITS RULES ON THEIR WEBSITE)
BOTH BEING MAJOR ADVERTISERS / CONTRIBUTORS TO COIN WORLD
PUBLICATION
I HIGHLY DOUBT COIN WORLD WOULD BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO LEVEL ANY CHARGES AGAINST PCGS OR NGC EVEN CLOSE TO AN ACCUSATION OF FRAUD.
WONDERCOIN
PS - NOW I HEAR AN "EDITORIAL" ONLY
BST successful dealings with:MsMorrisine, goldman86
<< <i>I HIGHLY DOUBT COIN WORLD WOULD BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO LEVEL ANY CHARGES AGAINST PCGS OR NGC EVEN CLOSE TO AN ACCUSATION OF FRAUD. >>
They didn't. Codder is the only one who has used the word "fraud" to describe the first strike designation. The word does not appear in the editorial.
Russ, NCNE
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Hey Russ, are you really "anal"?
<< <i>Hey Russ, are you really "anal"? >>
It's not my fault. My mommy potty trained me backwards.
Russ, NCNE
Let it go folks!
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>And yet, nowhere does the word fraud appear.
Russ, NCNE >>
"But Russ, it's indisputable. -- codderWOG"
<< <i>And yet, nowhere does the word fraud appear.
Russ, NCNE >>
I have to agree with Russ no where do the words "fraud, deceit or misrepresentation" appear in the text of the editorial. As for the designation "First Strike" caveat emptor!!!
BST successful dealings with:MsMorrisine, goldman86
It was ok when Clinton had one for "IS".
More likely Tanner520.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
<< <i><< And yet, nowhere does the word fraud appear.
Russ, NCNE >>
"But Russ, it's indisputable. -- codderWOG" >>
It's actually not a very hard hitting editorial. I'd have used words like "silly", "stupid", "sucker bet" and a whole host of other superlatives to describe this marketing gimmick. For Codder to see it as an accusation of fraud means either he has reading comprehension difficulties, or just decided he wanted to have a 100 post thread to call his own.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Now, who else wants to join the circle jerk with Russ? >>
Are you allowed to say 'circle jerk' in the forum?
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
<< <i>"But Leo, they don't use the word fraud anywhere." They just describe it in paragraph after paragraph.
Now, who else wants to join the circle jerk with Russ? >>
it would appear you are all set to be the pivot man.
<< <i>Coin World has a lot of gall saying anything about a marketing ploy given the reputation of some of their advertisers. >>
Right on!
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
Box of 20
First post to this thread and it's a doozy. Now, go stand next to goose.
your sorry assed attempts to badger me and lump me into some made up group of "followers" show what a complete and utter moron you are.
I don't collect modern or toned stuff AT ALL. Never have and never will.
You're the only fraud here.
I do not believe that the designation is tantamount to fraud. The standards for the "First Strike" designation are made public to any who chose to seek them out.
I do believe that novices are impressed by the "First Strike" designation as when I told my wife and mother that I had a "First Strike" coin, they were greatly impressed. Kind of like the gold plated state quarters. My mom called one day to ask me if the gold plated SHQ's were worth anything as she had seen some in an antique store. But at least she had the sense to ask someone. At least she had someone TO ASK. Many older people (perhaps younger people too.) don't have anyone to ask and are impressed by the "First Strike" and gold plated quarters enough to pay a premium for them. If I were not here for my mother to ask that day, I would probably have received gold plated SHQ's for Christmas. Hahaha!
No, it is not fraud. It is a gimmick. Nothing against any law going on here. Anyone who wants to do the research can do so and find out what "First Strike" means. I don't really see much of a premium going on with the designation. Maybe I don't notice it. Almost all the gold buffalo coins (sorry Russ!) on eBay are "First Strike" coins when I just checked right now.
There will always be gimmicks. My grampa taught me that years ago. He always taught me not to fall for gimmicks. But there is nothing wrong with buying "First Strikes" if you don't pay a premium for them.
Jonathan
<< <i>Mark,
I'm not worried about being inflammatory. They should be worried about their reputation. My question is completely legitimate. The charges were made by Coin World. I just want them answered. If they boot me off the board for this question, then the board will be left to all you dealers and insiders to trade and sell coins among yourselves--or, pretty much what goes on now. >>
Codder,
Why the heck are you even here? Do you go to funerals of people you don't know and speak ill of the dead? Do you go to elementary schools for the free lunch program and compain about the food?
Get the heck out of here. You obviously don't like it here.
Jonathan
I'm a forum member; I read the editorial; I did not come to the same conclusion you did.
Would that fit on the slab tag (in the same font size)?
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
<< <i>codder
your sorry assed attempts to badger me and lump me into some made up group of "followers" show what a complete and utter moron you are.
I don't collect modern or toned stuff AT ALL. Never have and never will.
You're the only fraud here. >>
I can vouch for Goose, he's practically an idiot.
Seriously though, I've never seen him pile on or pick sides based on the team. His opinions have been his own.