Is "First Strike" good or bad for numismatics?

MikeInFL · October 30, 2006 7:57AM

Please discuss....Mike

Aegis3 · October 30, 2006 8:03AM

Bad. And I've already said everything I feel like saying on the topic. I don't know if the threads still exist, but I've said what I've said.

FatMan · October 30, 2006 8:07AM

Re-defining a long standing numismatic term in the name of a marketing gimmick and a few bucks just ain't right. Until PCGS puts a disclaimer on the label with their definition of "First Strike™" it will be sold by most as something it is not.

1921obsession · October 30, 2006 8:10AM

I will say that I disapprove of the intuitively obvious moral compromises which allow this practice, and leave it at that.

AU58WALKERS · October 30, 2006 8:15AM

It is good for th CU foruM...lots OF THREADS AND POSTS

BillJones · October 30, 2006 8:16AM

BAD!

It's a gimmick to get more money out of people who don't know any better. If you can't tell whether or not a coin is a "first strike" from the coin itself, and not a postmark, the whole concept is bogus.

Coins are struck from dies. Dies are made from master dies and master dies come from galvanos. There are early die states, but those can occur any time during the production run of a coin, not just the first examples struck. Early die states often provide the best impressions, but die states have little to do with when the coin is struck in a production run. It has to do with the condition of the die when the coin was sturck.

Barndog · October 30, 2006 8:18AM

what BillJones said!

DNADave · October 30, 2006 8:20AM

I guess PCGS won't be marketing these to this group any time soon. Better stick with Coin Vault and uninformed "collectors"

Cameonut · October 30, 2006 8:22AM

As currently defined, I think it is highly misleading.
No "First Strikes" for me.

jmj3esq · October 30, 2006 8:23AM

It is very bad. It is very misleading.

nolimitz · October 30, 2006 8:24AM

<< Please discuss....Mike >>

You really need to ask?

RYK · October 30, 2006 8:27AM

It's a lame marketing gimmick, IMO. See beverage referenced below.

IGWT · October 30, 2006 8:28AM

I'm undecided on this issue.

I know . . . let's ask Coinguy1 what he thinks.

claychaser · October 30, 2006 8:30AM

It's actually good in the long run. Why? It gets coins removed from "our" marketplace over to Coin Vault and the TV/Telemarketer sellers. Some of these coins find their way back, but probably a low percentage in the next ten years. This gets dollars into the hobby, and allows us to try to make a few bucks getting 69 and 70 graded coins for resale. We then use the profits to buy the stuff we really want.

mrcommem · October 30, 2006 8:32AM

bad, stupid, and not much point to it. How many of the these proof coins are struck poorly? Only a small limited amount of coins are struck with proof dies so essentially all are first strikes. As far as uncirculated ASE's and AGE's, they are only bullion coins values so much over spot.

RYK · October 30, 2006 8:37AM

It's fabulous for PCGS and NGC. Based on the listings on ebay, my guess would be that NGC is making out even better than PCGS. The TPGs must be having meetings trying to figure out how to keep the gravy train rolling.

When you stop to think about it...

1. These are not circulating coins they are certifying; they are bullion discs of minimal or no historic or numismatic significance.
2. Most of the coins look virtually exactly the same to the naked eye.
3. There is no need for authentication of these coins.
4. They have created the market for these from scratch and out of thin air.
5. If the program stopped, the end user would be none-the-worse for the wear (and probably better off), but the TPGs and middlemen would be out some serious coin.
6. It is sucking money away from traditional numismatics.

Bikingnut · October 30, 2006 8:43AM

It's all hype. If the mint actally numbered the coins as they came out of the press, then maybe you could really say whether or not the coins are first strike. There's no way I'm going to pay a premium just because the label says "first strike"

JMO
Dennis

coinguy1 · October 30, 2006 8:47AM

For "numismatics", it's terrible and an abomination.

DNADave · October 30, 2006 8:48AM

The nays have it.

JRocco · October 30, 2006 8:57AM

<< I guess PCGS won't be marketing these to this group any time soon. Better stick with Coin Vault and uninformed "collectors" >>

If I remember correctly (and I do

) there were some board members who defended this gimmick.

Maybe there was a reason

classiccoin · October 30, 2006 9:02AM

are these some of the same people who previously said that pcgs does have a high regard for numismatics and now say this first strike sillyness is a bunch of bogus and bs..

of course it is total bogus and designed purely to put more cash into the coffers at pcgs.. and i am quite sure they will come up with yet other designations in the future which have no real meaning to any collector other than to pad their bottom line

LALASD4 · October 30, 2006 9:04AM

BAD.

Why would anyone want to buy a "First Strike" coin even if it is first strike?? Especailly in this case, it isn't!!!!!!

A coin is a coin, any designation should be observable with the naked eyes.

500Bay · October 30, 2006 9:04AM

It is certainly bad - and misleading.

However, to play devil's advocate:

<< 6. It is sucking money away from traditional numismatics. >>

It may actually get people into numismatics. Perhaps some newbies will get these - and then become more avid collectors and students of the hobby (althnough they will probably feel burned at this gimmic - as many of us were when we started in one way or another).

classiccoin · October 30, 2006 9:07AM

forgetting about the designation sillyness.. the mere fact they grade these brand new silver and gold eagles in the first place should tell you something right off the bat.. these so called top tier grading services have sold out and degraded themselves to doing anything for a buck.. case closed

..and let pcgs ban me for telling the truth which they are well aware of

michael · October 30, 2006 9:10AM

bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and what bill jones said

xbob · October 30, 2006 9:18AM

WAY 'bad' and I am glad to see zero 'good' votes so far.

I agree with everything said. I think it's actually sad that there are collectors out there who think owning one of the eligible coins are somehow better when they are in a First Strike holder. If it is bringing joy to their lives somehow...so be it. It must be bringing joy to the sellers, that's for sure

.

Hats off to PCGS for coming up with the idea from a business perspective it seems to be working from a revenue standpoint. Reputation may be another story though. It's really a shame it wasn't correctly defined rather than using a term that means something else in numismatics. FirstShipped™ perhaps?

53BKid · October 30, 2006 9:21AM

The Emporor isn't wearing any clothes!

I would have thought that this would have died out, but so many people believe there's value to this...over time though, I hope that better reason prevails. If the mint changes dies on gold coins, for instance, every 300-400 coins, first strike is utterly meaningless. They command a premium currently, but I'd expect many collectors to tire of the charade.

The reason it's bad for numismatics, IMO, is that collectors are paying premiums for something that's worthless. Collectors have long memories and don't like being taken.

PCGS IMO should check their moral compass -- they'll retain more confidence in their product in the long run.

CC2GO · October 30, 2006 9:21AM

.......and with everyone here!

JRocco · October 30, 2006 9:24AM

Remember guys... It's all in the .....™

You all have to remember that First Strike™ should never be mistaken for First Strike.

2 completely different things that just happen to look similar......

I bet there really was a reason ??????????????????

ricko · October 30, 2006 9:26AM

Actually it is just foolish... since there are NO verifiable first strikes.... an arbitrary set of goal posts in time is assigned in order to 'make a market'... and it becomes a saleable product only to the inexperienced and those who wish to make a profit from them. Cheers, RickO

jamakin · October 30, 2006 9:28AM

From reading most of the threads on recent Mint purchases it seems most of the posters there jump on the First strike wagon and ride it for all it's worth.
Whether or not the First strike label is BS or not , it commands a premium initially. Over the years it will be interesting to see if that premium holds.
For now it is a cash cow for PCGS and collecors flipping coins for a quick profit. As long as the buyer realizes what they are really getting with the FIRST STRIKE label who cares?
My beef would be if someone tried to sell a FIRST STRIKE as anything more than a coin shipped by the mint and redirected to PCGS for grading in the first 30 days of Mint deliveries.

JRocco · October 30, 2006 9:31AM

<< From reading most of the threads on recent Mint purchases it seems most of the posters there jump on the First strike wagon and ride it for all it's worth.
Whether or not the First strike label is BS or not , it commands a premium initially. Over the years it will be interesting to see if that premium holds.
For now it is a cash cow for PCGS and collecors flipping coins for a quick profit. As long as the buyer realizes what they are really getting with the FIRST STRIKE label who cares?
My beef would be if someone tried to sell a FIRST STRIKE as anything more than a coin shipped by the mint and redirected to PCGS for grading in the first 30 days of Mint deliveries. >>

But the problem jamakin is that SOME might not know that First Strike™ is a gimmick.
Say a mom bought her child one of these thinking it MEANT WHAT IT SAID on the label, or a young kid saw one of these while attending his/her first show and didn't realize.... therein lies the problem

cullenbryant · October 30, 2006 9:34AM

to end the first strike designation window before the people even get their coins in hand just
adds to the bs that is first strike.

with a few people in the know in advance it leaves a bad taste also.

morgansforever · October 30, 2006 9:45AM

Didn't bother to look if anyone else inserted the link to the Mint, regarding first strikes. I can't beleive it, another thread bout first shipped. I call them First Shipped because this is what TPG's require when designating Eagles. The Mint has no clue when a coin was struck, you could get the second coin struck, or the 7,000th. The term has no merit, or legs to stand on.

Scroll bout half way down, and cultivate.

Morgans

mintlink

jamakin · October 30, 2006 9:45AM

" the problem jamakin is that SOME might not know that First Strike™ is a gimmick.
Say a mom bought her child one of these thinking it MEANT WHAT IT SAID on the label, or a young kid saw one of these while attending his/her first show and didn't realize.... therein lies the problem"

------------
No way to solve that problem I agree.
A simple question from every buyer of these coins should be "what is first strike?"
If a coin dealer would explain away their premium is another matter. Knowledge is power and the powerless get hosed all the time. I know because when I first started buying coins I got hosed quite often.

billboat · October 30, 2006 9:48AM

I want no part of "First Strike" IMO the first strike should be just that --the first coin struck from a die pair--that's it. Period. Finito. The End.

Myqqy · October 30, 2006 9:59AM

It's a lousy marketing gimmick- as such, it's not good for numismatics....

stev32k · October 30, 2006 10:11AM

I believe it is bad for numismatics and will end up being bad for PCGS. It has already hurt their reputation (at least on this board) and the mint has taken the very unusual step of informing people of the fallacy of a "First Strike" designation. In my opinion it's just a matter of time before someone challenges them in court over this matter.

Bear · October 30, 2006 10:12AM

Everyone who says no, probably made

a bundle on the 1st Strikes though.

Jcarney · October 30, 2006 10:16AM

It's amazing seeing the number of bad votes and trying to reconcile that with all the folks from this board who were desperate to get their gold/silver 20th anniversary sets into PCGS in time to get the First Strike designation.

solid · October 30, 2006 10:19AM

I think the Mint should pull the first 10 coins from each die and sell them separately
as true first strikes. Then, we can get these graded as First First Strikes!

While they're at it, they should probably sell the last 10 coins from each die as Last Strikes.

Ken

FatMan · October 30, 2006 10:19AM

<< A simple question from every buyer of these coins should be "what is first strike?" >>

jamakin, here's the problem. I know what a first strike is. And I know that the experts at PCGS know what a first strike is. And I know that PCGS is known as one of the top tier authenticator and grader. So why would I ask "what is a first strike?" Should I also ask what MS69 means too? It is mind boggling to me that PCGS would re-define a long standing numismatic term and place it on a holder just as a marketing gimmick. It seems to me that the burden should be on PCGS to disclose that they are using the term not as historically defined in the numismatic community. Again, I request that PCGS place a disclosure on the label with their newly fabricated definition to eliminate any confusion in the collector's mind.

FatMan · October 30, 2006 10:22AM

<< Everyone who says no, probably made

a bundle on the 1st Strikes though. >>

Bear, would that make it right? So let me get this straight, as long as Bear and other forum members make a bundle on First Strikes it is OK to participate in what is decidedly bad for our numismatic community. Please clarify if I have this wrong.

DNADave · October 30, 2006 10:31AM

NAFST

SportsModerator · October 30, 2006 10:36AM

I think that it's the greatest thing in the world since sliced bread!!

(someone has to wave the flag so it might as well be me)

JRocco · October 30, 2006 10:36AM

<< Everyone who says no, probably made

a bundle on the 1st Strikes though. >>

Not me Bear.

coinguy1 · October 30, 2006 11:12AM

<< 

<< Everyone who says no, probably made

a bundle on the 1st Strikes though. >>

Not me Bear. >>

Even if everyone had made a bundle, which wasn't the case, that would not have been good for or had anything to do with "numismatics", as posed in this thread's title.

Leiana · October 30, 2006 11:19AM

I don't understand the question. According to the US Mint, there's no such thing!

-Amanda

clw54 · October 30, 2006 11:19AM

I miss the days when I got wheat cents in change and put them in a Whitman. At least one part of the hobby wasn't a racket.

Bear · October 30, 2006 11:25AM

1. My one friggen set is not for sale at any price.
so one can't say I made a bundle when I am not selling.

2. If every clever selling ploy means the destruction of our hobby,
then you do not have very much confidence in a hobby that has lasted
from Ancient Greece and before.

3.!st strike is neither good or bad, it just is.

4. If you don,t like it, then dont play in the game and keep you shoes
and your conscience clear and pure and clean.

5. For all those folks who played , sold and made some money. That money
was probably put back into collector coins. Thus It could be said that overall
1st Strikes were good for the Hobby.

6. For that matter, life its self is a racket. Some win, some lose and some just
are shadows that pass thru life.

As for my opinion making anything right or wrong......well....a bears opinion never
changed anyones mind, about anything, at any time......more is the pity.

JRocco · October 30, 2006 11:26AM

<< I miss the days when I got wheat cents in change and put them in a Whitman. At least one part of the hobby wasn't a racket. >>

Money to be made clw.
Since Adam and Eve- people have been able to validate to themselves why their little gimmick/scam is OK......

Is "First Strike" good or bad for numismatics?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Is &quot;First Strike&quot; good or bad for numismatics?

Comments

Leave a Comment

Is "First Strike" good or bad for numismatics?