brg5658

Man, those are ultra cool! I have always thought the St. George reverse was cool! Where could I find something like that??

You best best is eBay and patience. Sometimes you can find an example straight away, other times there are none listed.

Also, don't fall for the ridiculous prices that some people list these for. For a silver medal from the 2000 series, you can find an example for $60 -- for the copper and bronze/goldine versions you should be able to find an example for $25-30.

Some of the lower mintage (< 500 pieces) ones go for a bit more. But, the mintages are somewhat misleading as there are very few of us who are collecting these...at least now. The most absurd price I have seen paid for one of these was the one below. You don't want to be "that guy who got stuck with that example!

I paid around $30 for my example of the same piece.

Is the mintage of the gorgeous copper version you have on Collective Coin the same? How much do these sets run? I must admit that this thread (and Brandon's postings on CC) have piqued my interest in the sets.

Kenny, yes the mintage of the silver, bronze/goldine, an copper versions of that fantasy crown were 790. It was also struck in gold (2 examples, one medal alignment, one coin alignment), and in aluminum (one piece struck as a trial).

Below is the copper example you are referring to that I have photographed on CollectiveCoin.

I have one or two of them, cannot remember. The one I know is a Victoria obverse with the Three Graces reverse in silver.

That would be the X-81 (see below).

You are too fast . Thanks for the info, I knew I'd seen something about them before and my library is lacking that book. I thought I had the book too, but apparently not (or I've misplaced it).

 

 

Cathy

Your silver example should be hallmarked on the edge. It's 0.925 silver, from the London Assay Office (LAO), just like this 1910-dated piece I have (below).

That one was struck in 2000, sold in 2001 (and after).

The Spink Sale in July 2001 was mostly the sell-off of the unique strikes (in gold, aluminum, and a few other metals). The more common ones were sold to dealers, and then to collectors.

The one you posted is in the Krause Unusual World Coins book, and is given the number X-83 (silver), X-83a (goldine/bronze), and X-83b (copper). The mintage of this 3-piece fantasy set was 800 pieces.

My example in silver is below:

Silver medal from J. Dossier’s Roman Republic series, 1743. I found the toning on this medal attractive and the story of Cincinnatus interesting as well.

 

 

http://www.historyinanhour.com/2010/07/06/cincinnatus-summary/

Super medal yarm! Is this considered a Jeton? What's the diameter? The die work looks very similar to silver French jetons...and the name "Dossier" rings a bell...

Super common, but I finally found one of the Oxfordshire DH-1 pieces for my collection.

NGC thought to call it a "penny" on the label, despite it being a halfpenny token.

What can you do, right?

...

Interestingly, the very prominent green spots on the reverse under "UNITED STATES" visible in the Wondercoin provided images on eBay are no longer visible on the Heritage Auctions images...

...

 

My guess is that once the sale is posted, there will also be an image of the coin in the holder. And, since such images are typically darker than the non-holder images, the "very prominent green spots on the reverse under "UNITED STATES" visible in the Wondercoin provided images on eBay" will be visible.

Mark, the slab images are already posted. I cannot make out any green spots in either the separate reverse images (posted above) or the reverse images of the slab (posted below)...

Well, the coin has posted to the Heritage ANA Auction in August. I guess we'll see what the "market" thinks this coin is worth (assuming there is truly no reserve on the coin).

The Heritage Description:

1964-D 10C MS68 Full Bands PCGS. Ex: Just Having Fun. This is the sole finest 1964-D Roosevelt dime certified with Full Bands (6/16). The luster is satiny and vibrant, and rich russet-orange, sun-yellow, and forest-green toning surrounds the margins. The centers remain brilliant. The Registry Set collector should not let this top-grade coin pass by. (NGC ID# 23M3, PCGS# 85129)

Heritage Auctions images:

=================================

Interestingly, the very prominent green spots on the reverse under "UNITED STATES" visible in the Wondercoin provided images on eBay are no longer visible on the Heritage Auctions images...

Wondercoin eBay auction images:

New direction, BRG? I don't see a horse on that one? (Love the toning, by the way).

Nope, not a new direction. This one goes in my "catch all" world set of coin designs I like -- been adding to that set for quite a few years.

Great medal Yarm!

Doesn't instill very much faith when (to this day) PCGS still lists Conders on their pop report page as "Condors" -- apparently some big-bird tokens...

HT, great token. Are you sold on the abilities of PCGS to grade Conders? I have seen far too many misses to trust them yet...

I missed your post back in April, but I really like the 2 posted tokens above!

BRG ... I am not 100% understanding you.... are you saying coins like RD, RB and BN cents should all have the same coin number?

 

Wondercoin

 

Yes, why not? NGC doesn't give them separate numbers -- but they track the designations in a separate field in their databases. For example, a 1912 matte proof Lincoln Cent is what it is regardless of the color designation. The coin number should designate the coin, and the (color, DCAM, PL, FB, FH, etc.) designations should be tracked in a separate field. This is Database Design 101...

 

NGC does not have "coin numbers" in quite the same way that PCGS does. However, I have found that they do have unique identifiers in their registry. While they designate all deserving coins as PL, the Registry keys are not usually updated. About 90% of my set has had to be manually entered (which isn't a problem, given NGC's superlative customer service). I enter the coin, it gives me an error message, and within a day (or two, at the most) NGC has added my coin to the registry. Ali E and Dena have been exceptional at helping me build my set.

 

So, the idea that "it's too much work" for PCGS is, honestly, wildly_fanciful_statement.

Jason, You're right, the NGC numbers aren't exatly like PCGS, but NGC actually does have coin numbers -- they just don't burden the collector with having to figure them out when they submit coins for grading.

The have what they call the "NGC Universal ID", which you can see in the screen capture below for the 1912 Matte Proof Lincoln Cent. It is an alphanumeric code that uniquely defines the coin's "date, mintmark, denomination, and striking process".

My point above was that NGC doesn't "burden" the collector with their database tracking and internal business bookkeeping nonsense. That should be an internal company issue, not the collector's problem. The "logistics" of how something is accomplished internally should not be an excuse for why a company limits what they offer to customers -- if the demand is there.

I personally find the whole PL and DPL designations on moderns to be a highly subjective micro-niche of collecting, so I couldn't give two hoots about it. I also often find suppose "PL" business strike coins to be very visually unattractive. But, there are a few who care and like that thing. To each his/her own.

BRG ... I am not 100% understanding you.... are you saying coins like RD, RB and BN cents should all have the same coin number?

 

Wondercoin

Yes, why not? NGC doesn't give them separate numbers -- but they track the designations in a separate field in their databases. For example, a 1912 matte proof Lincoln Cent is what it is regardless of the color designation. The coin number should designate the coin, and the (color, DCAM, PL, FB, FH, etc.) designations should be tracked in a separate field. This is Database Design 101...

Physics-fan: First, what is the name of the book you wrote? I'd love to order a copy from Amazon.

 

Regarding why PCGS did not adopt an across the board PL designation ... this is my personal opinion and not the official view of anyone at PCGS ...

 

THE COINS ARE TOO DARN RARE!

 

It would be a massive amount of time and effort to create special coin numbers for thousands upon thousands of coins and then have only one here and one there populated by a single coin or two over the next few years. For example, you mentioned in your personal set how silver Washington quarters or Roosies have a variety of "S" mint coins that can come PL on rare occasion. And, I agree, When I located a P or D mint coin from those series with amazing PL it usually made my month! PCGS would create thousands of P and D "PL" coin numbers and virtually none of the coins would ever get populated with a single coin! Hence, again, in my opinion, it was the pure dollars and cents that needed to be dedicated to such a project with very little return.

 

Wondercoin

 

Which begs the question:

Why does PCGS create completely new coin numbers for designation like PL, DPL, and such. Seems the designations should be kept separately from the actual coin identifying number. Why should a PL or DCAM designated coin have a different coin number, as if it were a different "coin" not just a differently preserved example of the same non-PL and non-DCAM coin. I have never understood why they adopted such a bizarre numbering system. But, once you adopt a hair-brained indexing system like that, it's hard/impossible to change it after 30 years of application. I also have never understood why they burden their submitters and the public with their internal housekeeping / coin numbers. Why don't they just keep track of their coin number nonsense behind the scenes (in their databases), and just grade and slab the coins with the cert # (like NGC does)?

That being said, the new coin numbers for designating all coins PL would seem to be simple enough...don't they just add a leading "9" to the coin number for DMPL Morgans? How hard would it be to add a leading "9" (or some other digit) to the coin numbers for Roosevelt dimes graded PL?? This isn't rocket science here...

A couple years ago, I gathered up a handful of lovely PL Roosies and presented them to PCGS with the request that they consider adopting the PL standard for coin series beyond Morgan Dollars and a few other things (e.g. UHR's). They had the coins for a few months (and I was hopeful), but they decided at the time to not extend their PL designations. But, they did return my Roosies to me in PL designated holders, although without different coin numbers for the PL, so the designated holders were for my enjoyment only. I, too, wish PCGS would adopt the PL designation for all coin series, but then again, if they did, it might become tempting to slab some of my nicer coins and consider selling a few dupes. This way at least, there is no need to submit the coins and nothing gets sold.

 

Wondercoin

Are you serious, they added PL to the grade line on your coins? Wow, it must be nice to have the graders wrapped around your little finger. That is a bit disturbing...

And they say grading is completely blinded and impartial!

...Perhaps Wondercoin doesn't view you as MrMcKnowitall. Perhaps he thinks that you are MrMcBatcrazy or MrMcDouchebag and was simply hoping that if he didn't fully engage your lunacy that you would simply go away....

The dust has settled - but now it is mutating into a living dead thread! How do you kill a living dead thread that has no head?

What's the internet forum equivalent to a rocket launcher?

Then again, I think many would take Wondercoin and his "limited posting", but obvious knowledge, over many here that have voluminous posting and obvious negativity and not as much knowledge as Wondercoin....

 

 

Just my worth

Says the guy who has contributed probably 800 of his 833 posts by coming to this side of the street to defend the posters ATS.

It is so painful reading the posts of Mr.Mc-longest-replies-on-earth...

 

 

 

It is more painful to see an individual completely reverse his position without explanation. It usually denotes a lack of confidence and integrity in self.

I have no clue what you are referring to with this statement.

It is so painful reading the posts of Mr.Mc-longest-replies-on-earth...

I mean this comment with no harsh feelings or contempt, but...

Create a void where men can inflate their egos in a "school yard" like fashion, and that void will certainly be filled. The registry has filled that spot, and Wondercoin has lobbied/enabled those kind of "collectors" for some 30 years. Everyone wants to be the "best" at something -- the registry just plays to those emotions.

People collect how they like, and just because someone doesn't have a PCGS #1 set of this or that doesn't make them an inferior level "true collector". I question the sanity of someone spending 5 figures on a 1964-D dime, but people also likely question my collecting. I report to no one but myself, and I don't find joy in filling holes in supposed "greatest registry sets" ever -- to each his own.

Wondercoin I do appreciate your willingness to share the history of some of the "closed door" happenings that created the landscape of how many people now collect (i.e., registry sets). As I mentioned before, you have given us insight into the trends in the inconsistency and gradeflation problem.

I still contend: remove the dime in the OP from the plastic and separate it from the label denoted grade of "MS68FB", and you have a $200-300 dime max. The only people who would pay more are those who think they could get such a dime in the absolute maxed out plastic (like I think it is now) and could make a killing selling it to someone who strokes his/her ego in the registry game.

I don't think this coin could "stand alone" outside the plastic/label/registry. Just MHO.

Having read the very interesting posts by Wondercoin, the thing that bothers me the most is that he has basically documented the inconsistency of grading these "uber-grade" gems over many years, and has also along the way documented the gradeflation problem.

For many of these "top pop" coins, take away the registry nonsense, and you have a $100 coin in a $10K+ labeled plastic holder. If that's what people want, then so be it. But, not my cup of tea.