The survey results and an "Opinion" on...

Greetings Collectors,

A week or two ago I posted a question relating to whether you, the collectors, had a preference of when viewing sets of others, (or your own) would rather see a photo of "just the coin" or one that showed the "coin & the holder"? While there were some of you, I would have liked to have heard from and didn't, there were many, some close friends, and others I have never corosponded with, that did indicate a preference. I know with the "holidays" many were way too busy with more important "family matters" than to participate in a somewhat unimportant survey. Anyway the reason I waited this long to post on this, is that the "votes" continued to "trickle in", and I waited to make sure, each vote counted. Some of you only voted, with no comment, and others made their case with the "whys" and "how comes". I must say the arguments on both sides were compelling.

I myself, like both ways and have good reasons why. With the limited file size here at >120KB the coin only(in my limited knowledge of photography) gives a clearer image of the coin and more detail. Having done it both ways, I see as much detail, with the coin and the holder, unless the coin is very small, like the $5 GE here. But if "I" had to pick one, I would choose showing all, the holder as well as the coin. Having said that, I am in the "minority". The vote went as follows, #18 persons indicated they prefered "the coin only" while #4, five if you count me, liked the "coin & the holder". I have made it a point to do it both ways when posting pictures within my sets.

My Gold coins for the most part, show the coin only while most of my Franklin Half sets, show the coin and the holder. But even in those half dollar sets I have it both ways. In my frenzied pace of the last couple months I have let fatigue dictate the manner I chose in many cases. If you remember, I did not know "squat" about most of the whole process, and took over 1500 pictures to finally get to the point I was halfway satisfied with the end result. There are still some coins I have left to photograph as in all of my Silver Eagles in proof and MS. (if I decide to keep them) And I may reshoot one coin here and there, if when I look at it, something stands out that is not just right. All in all I am pleased with the overall results.

There have been many posts of late concerning the "labeling" of early coins coming out of the mint and while I have had a tendency to get involved with somewhat "controversial" topics, I had said to myself, "Self, stay away from those kinds of things to try and promote harmony here at the CS". Having said that, I will just share what I have observed. Most of you know I am not an avid fan of "multi million mintage" modern coins. But I own as many modern coins as are out there from 1950 onward, for the most part "unslabbed". Of those modern coins, that's less many of the Gold and Platinum issues. I have never but on one occasion, sent in US Mint products in the hopes of obtaining the "Early Release" label. I think as I sent off a submission in one of the last two years, I called NGC to inquire as to the "cut-off date" of a Proof or mint state Silver Eagle that was part of the group. I did as of late, ask about the possibility of getting my first ordered $50 Proof Buffalo labeled "early release" but as usual, I will not make that deadline either.

But after going through all of that, I have noticed that with the "Ultra Low Mintage" Gold and Platinum coins that have the "Early Release" or "First Strike" designation, they bring more money when sold at auction. As with most things, there are exceptions to the rule as noted in a very recent post. Since I know very little about the whys and whens concerning the "lawsuits" and the "cease and desist" related to the labeling, I value others opinions when the topic is one I know little about. The market is what it is. Is it right? Is it true? "I know not". We all have heard that the coins labeled as such, are in most cases, "NOT" FS's or ER's BUT if they are labeled as such, they bring more money at auction, more times than not. Again, I am only refering to Gold and Platinum, not "Silver". As I said before, I value the opinions of those that have been in this hobby longer than I have been on the earth, and even opinions of those being in it for less time. I have heard from more than one "old timer", and one who is a dealer/friend here in Jacksonville who says he would rather have any of the mint products, Gold Silver, and Platinum in their "original" packaging and not even graded at all. He said if you brought a Silver or Gold Eagle into his shop to try and sell, he would not pay "one cent" more for a coin that was a NGC or PCGS "70" holder than he would pay for the same coin in its box, capsule, along with its papers. In his words the "First Strike" or Early Release" label is a "farce" and for the most part "BS". Again, just one mans opinion, but "Emory" is a very wise old man, who has problaly "forgot" more about the hobby & the business than I will ever know. but it's just an opinion, which like a-holes, everyone has one. I own maybe a dozen or so silver and gold eagles with the FS & ER desig. but did not buy them for that reason nor do I think I paid any more for them but again, this is not the way it is always in this Numismatic" world in which we live. Coin or coin and holder, I like both. First strike or Early Release, a nice little extra, but one I would not pay "extra" for.

I leave you with a "coin & the holder" which in a small series, maybe should be "just the coin" but what the heck. Maybe I will "re-shoot" this pic, and then again, maybe I won't. Also on a "sidenote" A coin pic that was NGC's last year they could call their coins "First Strikes". I still don't know why PCGS is allowed to continue FS's & NGC has to label ER? I am just glad I was able to make it through a post without pi--ing someone off.

Happy Collecting,

WKF