CBC

“Because the #1 set should be worth looking at…..”

Here’s another twist on that statement.  Should a set that “(Includes varieties)” actually include at least some of the recognized varieties?

My “Walking Liberty Half Dollar Set (Including Varieties)” was #1 for several years.  It includes 16 of the originally recognized 17 varieties (NGC keeps adding more, and dropped one,  so now it’s 15 of 22).  My set is now #2, replaced by a set that includes ZERO of the 22 recognized varieties.  That set consists of all of the regular issues in very high grades, which is certainly an impressive set, but does it really belong in the “Including Varieties” category? If you want to see examples of the varieties, the #1 set will only show you empty slots. Worth looking at?

Chat board would be the appropriate place for this question.  A photo of the reverse side would be essential to identify this as a strike-through or just a worn-out coin.  The rims look too good for a heavily worn cent, but the date looks too clear for a strike-through. Maybe just someone’s attempt at mutilating a coin?

I

On 9/27/2022 at 8:20 PM, Revenant said:

"You could replace them..." 

I would have been speechless and raging internally.

I was.  

I was expecting a registered mail USPS package from NGC - tracking showed it “out for delivery” that morning.  We were leaving town the next morning so I REALLY needed to get that package.  I was working in my garage, which faces the street, with both garage doors open and saw the mail carrier pull up to my mailbox. She left a pink slip (“attempted delivery, no one home”) and took off before I could get to the street, which meant I had to drive 12 miles each way to the post office after 4PM that afternoon to get it.  Their response to my complaint was “yeah, some carriers are lazy and we can’t do anything about it.”  

One of those suspect 1894-“P” Morgans just re-appeared on ebay, listed by a different seller than the listing in January but the same photos as the January listing. Interestingly, both sellers are from Huntsville, Alabama.  Bid is over $700 and ends Tuesday.  Maybe the January buyer figured out it was fake and returned it?
 

I posted three apparently altered 1894 Morgan dollars on the Counterfeit Coins chat board back in January.  I contacted all three sellers with my concerns, two did not respond and the third responded with “you don’t know what you’re looking at” and got verbally abusive when I responded to his response. I reported all three sellers to eBay, got no response from eBay and they allowed all three auctions to continue to completion.  End result, in my opinion, three unsuspecting buyers paid $800+ each for altered Morgan dollars that are worth nothing more than melt value. 

These should be a pretty obvious “no” to any collector, even a novice. What really should be on a “Wall of Shame” are the ones that sell Chinese fakes that they claim they “inherited from Grandpa” or sell altered coins like 1894-S Morgans with the mintmark removed, then both the seller and ebay refuse to take down the auction when confronted.  

On 5/12/2021 at 9:25 PM, ChrisInJesup said:

The Morgan and Peace that is being offered I think will be about the same. Like the coin you mention, these are just commemorative types. I just want one of each (1 Morgan & 1 Peace) for my collection.

Unless the Mint sets a very low mintage limit, it’s usually better to wait a while.  The V75 silver eagles had a low mintage limit and have held their value so far.  Most everything else with limits over 100,000 drops in value not long after issue.  In many cases you can get a NGC 70 for less than the Mint’s original issue price if you’re patient.  I’ll wait a while on these coins.  

Congratulations on a #1 set!  And congratulations on getting NGC to create a basic set that does NOT include unintended varieties.  It has irritated me for a long time that a “basic” Morgan dollar set includes such unintended errors as the 1882-O/S, 1887/6, 1887/6-O and 1900-O/CC.  Basic sets should include only those coins that were intentionally released as designed from the Mint.  

Thanks for sharing this. I don’t collect foreign coins but anything with a direct connection to James Watt would definately catch my interest (I’m a retired Mechanical Engineer).  

1) Maybe the guy was just having a bad day.

2) Or maybe he’s just a total jerk.

My bet is on #2.  Hope your day improved from there.  

My “first gold” coin is nothing special numismatically but means a lot to me.  It was 1965, I was 13 and had saved up $25 from allowance and grass mowing jobs. My coin collection at the time consisted of what was in circulation at the time, up through quarters (you hardly ever saw half dollars then), but I wanted something old and unusual.  I used that $25 to buy a circulated 1852 quarter eagle - 100 years older than I was.  I still have it, or should say my wife has it, mounted in a bezel on a gold chain.  I added a few more over the years but that 1852 is still the oldest gold coin I have.

On 12/15/2020 at 8:31 AM, Cellgazer said:

No, this is not my coin, it is in a competitors set getting THOUSANDS of registry points.... (See "100 Greatest US Modern Coins").

It is one of the obstacles in my long running attempt to obtain the number one set.  Do I have any recourse...or is it up to the owner to be honest and report the mislabeling?

Coinbuf....the reverse is also obviously proof.  

 

 

If the owner has it included in his #1 Registry set, he should remove it from the set.  I guess he could keep it or send it back to NGC for correction, but scoring Registry points for it is flagrant cheating.  
 

Labeling errors happen. I once bought what was described and labeled as a 1952-S FBL Franklin, based on a good price and some fuzzy photos.  When it arrived, it was a 1952-D with a 1952-S label.  I returned it to the seller.  

I have submitted a few ANACS coins in the original slabs.  Most have graded a point lower at NGC - an ANACS MS-64 came back NGC MS-63, and three 65s came back 64s.  A couple came back with the same grade, and one jumped up from VF-30 to XF-45. None have come back details graded so far.  I have never cracked one out for submittal.  

Sorry to hear about your wife. 2020 has been hard enough without dealing with that loss. Coins are just a pleasant distraction, people you are close to are what really matters.  I hope 2021 will be a better year for all of us.  

Nice set. It is great to get all coins of a set in the same holders when practical. I’m going in the opposite direction with my War Nickel set - all are NGC MS67 in the old holders, before edge view, except for the 1945-P. I would love to find a replacement in an old holder for that one. Anyone want to swap?

Also great to see Sam is continuingto make progress. Our preemie granddaughter has some of the same issues, and PT is helping tremendously.  She also has the same toys! 

2 hours ago, Revenant said:

This, to me, is one of those things where NGC can never make everyone happy - some want more varieties and some what less, and they can't make a special category for everyone's taste because then there'd be no interesting competition.

I just believe a basic "set" for any series should include only those dates, mint marks and varieties officially issued by the Mint.  The Mint officially issued 1917-S half dollars with the S on the obverse, and officially released 1917-S half dollars with the S on the reverse.  They kept records of how many of each design were released.  Both should be included in the basic set.  The Mint did not officially issue 1882-O/S Morgan dollars.  There is no Mint record of such an issue.  A Mint employee did a sloppy job of modifying dies with an existing S mint mark and replacing it with an O.  Should that be included in a Variety set? Sure, but not the basic set because the Mint did not intentionally create them.  

And when creating a Registry set including varieties, define what's included, put it out to the community for comment, then add the set to the Registry and leave it alone.  No one likes a competition where the goal posts keep moving.

3 hours ago, Revenant said:

I really have just fallen in love with this set to the point where I feel like my research and descriptions are almost self-indulgent rambling about all this cool stuff about the notes, imagery, economic history... and I've learned a lot about the country in the course of it all. One of these days I may have to plan a vacation there after all of this, just to see it all - like the Chiremba rocks, Victoria Falls, the Kariba dam, the wildlife preserves the Flame of Freedom and the Capital...

 I have never been to Zimbabwe but I have been to Ethiopia several times. I bet you would enjoy a trip to either or both (once the pandemic is over and we can travel again).  The Omo river valley in the southwest is one of the most remote areas in the world, and Axum and Lalibela in the north are fascinating historical sites.  In terms of inflation, one US dollar was equal to 5.2 Ethiopian Birr during my first trip there in 1994. Now one US dollar is over 30 ETB.  

Closing in on completing a set can be very satisfying, but soon after filling the last slot, I usually develop a case of upgrade fever.  

One of my sore points with NGC is the way they define "sets". The basic Walking Liberty half set includes every date and mint mark, plus extra slots for the major design change moving the mint marks from obverse to reverse in 1917. This yields 65 slots, that was defined as the "set" when the Registry was created and remains so today.  

The basic Morgan dollar set, however, includes all dates and mint marks, minor design changes (7 tail feathers or 8 tail feathers, straight or slanted arrow feather), and several very obscure errors.  The minor design changes, OK, but I don't believe an 1882-O/S or 1887/6-O belongs in a basic Morgan set any more than a 1946 DDR Walker belongs in a basic Walker set.  

Even more frustrating is when the set changes long after it is added to the Registry.  A new set for Walking Liberty half dollars including 14 specific varieties was added years ago.  I asked at the time why those specific varieties were included while others were not, and the answer was that those were considered the "significant" varieties fir the WL series.  I already had a few of the varieties and immediately began searching for the others. It took about five years to accumulate 12 of the 14, but when I went to add my 12th one, I found two new slots had been added to the set. More slots have been added since then.  To add insult to injury, I had preciously owned one of the added varieties but sold it because at the time (1) the variety had not been attributed on the label, (2) NGC would not attribute the variety because it was "not significant", and (3) there was no slot for it even if it was attributed.  

That's my rant for today.  Someday I'd like to get some of those Zimbabwe multi-trillion note you are collecting.  I have some seriously devalued Ethiopian money but their inflation has been mild compared to Mugabe's pillaging of his country.  

Looks like a die crack to me.  I have several Morgan dollars with extensive die cracks, and a few Walking Liberty halves with obvious cracks.  The lettering near the rim (or in Morgans, the stars) is the most common place for cracks to develop, probably because the stresses are higher there due to metal flow during striking.  It looks like the line on your coin starts at the point of a star but not through the star itself, extends to the K but not through the K, and then from the other side of the K to the rim. A scratch would go through the star and letter.  

Here is my 1878 Morgan with one of the more extensive die cracks in my collection.  

I read somewhere years ago that over 90% of the gold mined in the entire history of the world is still in private hands or in government vaults. Ancient gold has been used, stolen, melted down, re-used, looted, stolen again, re- melted, and formed into different objects so many times that most gold objects that do not have certified provenance as "newly mined" probably have some miniscule gold content that was once owned by the Egyptian pharoahs.

Band saw is the way to go.  You can do the same thing with a coping saw and some patience.  

Decoys.  When I was in high school in the '60's we lived in northeastern North Carolina, near Currituck Sound and some of the best duck and goose hunting in the nation.  Lots of people had sheds full of handmade decoys, which were not worth anything at the time.  Now, some of them are worth thousands. I have collected a few dozen, mostly made in North Carolina, some worth hundreds but none of the $1,000+ varieties. I have so many now that my wife has imposed a rule: before I buy another one, I have to sell one to make room for the new one.  

I had a similar experience on eBay, where a seller had a $495 BIN or "best offer" on a coin actually worth around $400, and it sat there on my watch list for weeks.  I offered the actual value of $400 based on recent eBay and Heritage completed sales and got a counteroffer of $490. Didn't bother to respond, and nine months later it's still on eBay at $495 BIN or best offer. Meanwhile I won one the same grade at Heritage for a little under $380 including fees.  

And Bob, I love that Kona coffee.  Almost as much as I love Ethiopian Yergacheffe. 

I have what probably ranks as one of the "smallest" denomination coins ever made. On one of my many trips to Ethiopia around 2012, I managed to get an Ethiopian one cent coin - 1/100 of an Ethiopian birr. It is made of aluminum and is smaller than a US dime.  At the time, the exchange rate was 1 US dollar = 15 Ethiopian birr, which gave this coin a face value of  0.067 US cents. 

After allowing PCGS coins for years, then not allowing them for a while, then letting them back in, I would be extremely surprised if they flip-flop again and ban PCGS coins, regardless of ANA actions.