Mr.Mcknowitall

Hi guys. Back from a lovely brunch with my Mother in San Juan Capistrano!

 

As I have said on numerous occasions, before I send the coin off to Heritage (assuming it does not sell in the next few weeks privately before I fetch it and ship it off), I plan to closely examine the reverse. Anyone interested in the coin can send me a private message and ask my opinion. Shortly thereafter, anyone can also ask Mark's opinion as well. We already have one (former) top auction house's write up on the coin and we will also soon have a second as well.

 

I truly have an excellent memory for coins, but please keep in mind that just the JHF Roosie collection alone consisted of about (150) - (200) Roosie dimes (mostly) in top grade that I sold off in 2009-date or set aside for the past (7) years other than possibly a minute here and a minute there with any specific coin. And, they were part of nearly 4,000 coins in the collection consigned to me that I have sold off or continue to sell (and I remember a great deal of all of these coins in my mind). But, I believe it would be somewhat reckless of me to simply say "yes, every mark each board member believes is on the coin is indeed a post striking mark and, more importantly, is not consistent with the grade assigned to the coin by PCGS". Sorry, I won't do it even if pitch forks are pulled out next by some board members here.

 

Many inexperienced graders simply count marks to try to come up with a grade on a coin. And, even though I have said many times that I am comfortable with the grade assigned to my customer's coin (yes, self serving as I warned it would be and repeatedly ignored by those demanding more information from me), I get the sense that if some of those "marks" on the reverse are indeed post strike that a number of board members here would simply conclude (erroneously in my view) that the coin should not be in the holder assigned by PCGS. So, I already see the "slippery slope" potentially ahead, especially because my prior comments about the obverse of this dime being perhaps the nicest I have personally seen in (33) years of hunting for them has fallen on deaf ears. I even mentioned that one of the greatest Roosie collectors out there (both NGC and PCGS sets) also loved at the time the obverse of this coin as the greatest (or safely in the top 2 or 3) obverses of any 1964 dime he had ever seen and graded it a solid MS68. Again, all on deaf ears.

 

I also invited those wanting to better learn how coins like this are assigned the grade they are to pull up pics of the recently sold 1964-D Half Dollar in MS68 for about $25,000! This is the same grade, same year and same mint mark as the dime. I would think it might be very instructive to this discussion. Also, lets take a look at how one of the most reputable coin sellers in the industry described the half dollar in their auction description (did they count marks on the reverse or not?) That would also be very instructive. Again, regrettably on deaf ears.

 

 

Wondercoin

Why continue to misdirect and obfuscate? The question is not about the obverse. The question is your designation in the Ebay listing that the bands are fine. Why mention it? The TPG describes what a FB designation and definition is, or isn't. The photo you used in the listing, a photo you described as a fine job, indicates marks.

You continue to misdirect and repeat the superiority of the obverse, and the opinion of others about the obverse. Nobody is asking you to state the marks are post mint or not. There are marks. There is a FB designation. There is genuine interest in the coin as designated by the TPG. Whether you think persons questioning the grade would be erroneous is of no consequence. That is a slightly condescending remark.

You continue to opine on the half dollar. That is not of importance. The coin in question is not a half dollar. Is the half dollar a FB designation that is equal to the TPG designation and description of what a FB designation on the dime is? Of course not.

IMHO, you and the owner would be better served by editing the EBay description, specifically the bands are fine comment. That is your choice. I certainly understand if you disagree.

I agree with Mark and Mark.

 

Plus, I have to wonder why Mitch even bothered to comment in this thread. I think it's pretty clear that no one who has posted in this thread has any interest in buying on the coin. Instead, the only interest seems to be in criticizing the coin and criticizing Mitch because he 1) Doesn't remember the coin from years ago, and 2) Is unwilling to comment on what are two marks on a coin from a picture.

 

If I were Mitch, I'd have looked at the posts and the posters, shrugged my shoulders and moved onto other endeavors. That said, I am glad Mitch did post because I thought some of the history he posted was fascinating.

 

Mark

Interest or not in buying the coin is immaterial to the discussion. IMHO it is slightly disingenuous to describe the questions and comments directed to the gentleman as personal criticism. The questions and comments were fair and honorable and in the spirit of courteous numismatic discussion. He was not criticized for not remembering the coin or being unwilling to explain the marks. He did not grade the coin, nor is he the present owner. What he did do was list the coin, describe it, including the notation that the bands are fine. The coin is designated FB. A photo taken by a family member, and that he describes as a fine job, is part of the listing. It has questionable marks. Do you expect there would not be questioning or commentary by the experienced numismatists on the board? It is not personal. It should not have been avoided, IMHO.

You assumed right. He is probably the leading expert on moderns

 

mark

And?

Wondercoin said

 

"Summary... I personally like the 64-D dime as an MS68FB coin, which is why I offered it on eBay. Did I ever say the coin was an upgrade shot to MS68+FB - NO. Did I ever say the coin had "strong" Bands - NO. Did I ever say the coin was mark-free on the obverse and reverse - NO"

 

As stated early, 68's don't need to be mark free. As stated earlier I like this coin better as a 67 from super large images though I never viewed it in hand. It is it fact a dime and not a hubcap. Mitch is more qualified then me so I'll punt for now.

 

FYI this still might be the finest graded 64-D out there regardless of grade. If you lined every single 64-d out there this may come out on top. Some want the very best. I can get behind that even if I don't always play in that end of the pool.

 

mark

The bands are fine......

What is the numismatic definition of fine bands? What is the grade of fine bands? What ius tge definition of fine bands to a TPG? Is it FB? Why mention it if the designation of the coin by the TPG is FB? It is not about mark free. It is about the description in the listing that clearly depicts a reason to question a FB designation and a description by the seller that the bands are fine, without any explanation. He opined that the photos were a fine job by a family member. It would have been a small matter to correct the listing and/or explain the reasoning. He chose not to. The graceful offer after the fact to explain after he sees the coin is commendable. However, the listing could use a little editing, in order to avoid the appearance of obfuscation and misdirection of the viewer, IMHO. The designation of FB by the TPG is clearly defined by the TPG. No further explanation or listing description by the seller would be needed, IMHO. The designation would stand or fall on its own merits and fulfillment of the requirement of the TPG. I don't think stating the bands are fine is the method to do so.

Y

I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff!

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

 

Seeing them from an image and/or trying

to remember them from a previous view is one thing. Trying to determine what caused them is something else.

 

I sure can't tell from the images. I think it far more responsible for him to view the coin before answering.

 

Mark, in the spirit of fairness, it would have also been far more responsible to not comment on the EBay description...... that he wrote and commented that the photos were a fine job by a family member....that the "bands" were fine. Are you under the impression he did not know about or review the photos in his own Ebay listing? I can understand not remembering a coin from 7 years ago. I do not understand not viewing photos on his own EBay listing, or for that matter shown in this thread. I can understand you want to be fair and impartial. However, it is his own Ebay listing with a photo clearly depicting the marks and clearly labeling the bands as fine. All he had to do was state he made a mistake, correct the listing and preserve credibility. He was given the mile high hint to do so. He didn't. He misdirected and obfuscated.

 

John, I admit to being a softie (sometimes).

 

Had I been in Mitch's shoes, my replies would have been more pointed and less verbose - Mitch, if you disagree, feel free to correct me (in 3000 words or less). ? However, I would have also failed to provide much of the excellent background information that he did.

 

And I am sympathetic to his having entered this thread and subjected himself to this "discussion". I doubt that he thought he would persuade anyone here to bid on the coin and he had probably read enough to understand that once you enter such a thread, it can be difficult to exit satisfactorily. So (corrected typo) I give him credit for that.

 

With respect to your question about what I think about his familiarity with or review of the EBay photos - I have no idea when he viewed them or how carefully he did so. But regardless of whatever criticisms you and others have of his posts, he has indicated that he will view the coin/bands again and address the bands issue. So I prefer to cut him some slack.

Understood. The turning point for me was describing in the listing the bands are fine, and after I mentioned this to him, he continued to obfuscate and avoid addressing the choice of words. He was given the opportunity to excavate himself from the hole. I tried gracefully to suggest that was where the confusion may be flowering and it would be in his interest and certainly the interest of the owner of the coin, to amend the inconsistency. It is not so much what the marks are, to me, or are not, or what the grade is, or is not. As you know, I never grade from pictures. I can't. Neither would I state that the bands are fine, when there are indeed marks that at the very least raise a question that directly and so visibly indicates a problem with the designation of the coin exists.

I don't know him. I assume he is knowledgeable, and would know that there are many experienced numismatists on the board that would engage in a lively discussion. I did not read any deliberate discourtesy toward him personally.

Y

I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff!

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

 

Mark,

Neither of these two quotes specifically address the questions posed for the marks. What is unfair? Anyone looking at the pictures on ebay can clearly see them, the dealer doesn't have to retrieve it to see the marks.

 

Best, HT

 

Seeing them from an image and/or trying

to remember them from a previous view is one thing. Trying to determine what caused them is something else.

 

I sure can't tell from the images. I think it far more responsible for him to view the coin before answering.

Mark, in the spirit of fairness, it would have also been far more responsible to not comment on the EBay description...... that he wrote and commented that the photos were a fine job by a family member....that the "bands" were fine. Are you under the impression he did not know about or review the photos in his own Ebay listing? I can understand not remembering a coin from 7 years ago. I do not understand not viewing photos on his own EBay listing, or for that matter shown in this thread. I can understand you want to be fair and impartial. However, it is his own Ebay listing with a photo clearly depicting the marks and clearly labeling the bands as fine. All he had to do was state he made a mistake, correct the listing and preserve credibility. He was given the mile high hint to do so. He didn't. He misdirected and obfuscated.

I have read the last few days of posts in this thread with great interest. Wondercoin has been asked several times now about the 'marks' on the torch.With great eloquence of prose, wondercoin has steered around, misdirected, or simply avoided requests for him to comment on the marks on the torch. Yet this whole thread, is about the marks of the torch and whether that warrants the grade provided by the TPG which sets a market value for the coin. Very entertaining stuff!

 

Best, HT

 

That sounds harsh and unfair to me.

 

His post which preceded yours, reads, in part:

 

"That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do."

 

And in another post the wrote:

",...I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above."

 

There might be others, too, but I think the above two quotes make my point.

I do not agree. The coin was described in the EBay listing, and in particular, he described the "bands" as fine.

Respectfully Mark, I don't think your point is made. He continued to obfuscate and misdirect. With respect, why did he mention "bands" being fine at all in the listing? I am all for benefit of the doubt. However, I asked questions 4 times in the most courteous manner I could, and received misdirection and obfuscation and hypothetical presentation of weighted math. I do not think it was wise to invoke your name either, and if he had permission to do so prior to his post, it should have been disclosed.

I gave him 2 opportunities to excavate himself from the hole. He chose not to, or worse, did not recognize the opportunity. He chose to protest.

"Thank you for confirming your actual quote. I anticipated you would do so"

 

Then, I am not sure why you posted the misquote in the first place or failed to correct it yourself when you caught it? No one obviously likes to be misquoted. I am not sure "annoyance" is the word though.

 

You ask why I do not send the coin in for upgrading, when I never stated the coin was an MS68+ anywhere? That was confusing though.

 

You then suggest "misdirection" when I have told you repeatedly to form your own judgement on my customer's coin (or ask Mark next month about it) and I am pretty much finished discussing it. I hope you can respect that and if anyone wants to ask more questions about the quality of the dime (you or anyone), I made it clear that once I have the coin in my hands again (having seen it for a couple minutes over the past few years at this point) I will be happy to carefully look at the reverse of the coin again and speak to anyone interested in purchasing the coin as well. My email was provided above.

 

So, with the weekend coming to a close, does anyone want to address my comment regarding grading? Weights of obverse vs. reverse, bumps for color, etc.

 

Wondercoin

 

Edited to add.... Afterword: Thank you for the comment. But with all due respect, I don't need to make any further "compelling" case for the dime. You saw how Superior described the dime in 2009. You saw how I described the dime. We'll see how Heritage describes the dime if I send it to them (and it does not sell in the next month).

 

While I am selling the dime for my customer, any interested party can simply ask me for a reasonable return privilege, which would be quickly agreed to. Take a look even how Legend described the wonderful 1964-D half dollar in their last sale? Do you see any comments at all on the "marks here and there" on the reverse of the coin? Anyone interested in buying a $5,000 - $10,000 Roosevelt Dime probably shouldn't be relying on the Seller's agent for "a complete inspection report" like one might expect buying a new home. That said, when I look at the dime again more closely in the next month, I will pay closer attention to the one focal area that seems to be the focus of this discussion. And, I have already said that I would be happy to discuss my findings with anyone seriously interested in the coin in good faith. Nothing more I can do.

 

Summary... I personally like the 64-D dime as an MS68FB coin, which is why I offered it on eBay. Did I ever say the coin was an upgrade shot to MS68+FB - NO. Did I ever say the coin had "strong" Bands - NO. Did I ever say the coin was mark-free on the obverse and reverse - NO.

 

Wondercoin

 

Misdirection.

What is the grade of fine "bands"?

What is the numismatic definition of fine "bands"?

Consider that the questions concerning your opinion of the coin is what you should be able to directly and with confidence reply to. You should not have to resort to illogical logic posits on weighted grading math hypotheticals or what you didn't say...yet strongly intimated....in posts. It is what you didn't say and what you did not explain that causes lack of confidence in your opinion. In essence you shifted the responsibility to Mr. Feld as a stand in representative for you, prior to any formal engagement. It is my opinion you did so to add to credibility of the condition of the coin. There are many excellent numismatists on this board. If you can not publicly answer direct questions about the marks from board members, why do you expect that credibility of your opinion will be the reward? That is not a desirable situation for someone that is trying to sell a coin, much less so when selling for someone else.

You offered it on EBay, or you offered it on behalf of your client on EBay? Were you not aware of the marks until now? Did you just forget? You must have known something. You described the bands as "fine". Do you not understand why your posts cause confusion, and lack of confidence in your opinion?

Yes, I anticipated. Do you truly not understand why?

I think, to paraphrase the Bard, you protest to much, imho, and do so to misdirect the thrust of the questioning, which is the marks. I don't have any opinion of your prior knowledge or experience or what capacity you served a TPG. This is 2016. You are trying to sell a $10,000.00 coin in the present economy and to do so for a non-essential item. You have not presented a logic posit for doing so. I personally don't think you can. How many collectors do you think have $10,000.00 of disposable income to purchase the coin when you can't address the simple and obvious questions concerning the marks? I am not certain you were prepared to sell this coin.

Mr. Mcknowitall...

 

Thank you for your approval as to the fine job I am doing for JHF in marketing his 1964-D dime.

 

You pondered why my "opening sale choice" would be eBay, but of course, you may have forgotten that this was not my opening sale choice at all. That was a Landmark Roosie Dime auction roughly 7 years and 4 months ago in connection with the 2009 Pre-FUN events at Superior Galleries that sold more than "six figures" of the coins from JHF's great dime collection (with a stand alone 56 page catalog also being produced). As I previously mentioned, JHF had this very 1964-D dime reserved at an $11,500 opening bid in that auction. He is now asking less for the coin.

 

Since that time, the vast majority of the unsolds from that sale (including by the way a seldom seen NGC-MS69 Silver Roosie Dime) have been disposed of and now just a handful or so of the dimes remain unsold, including this pop 1/0 1964-D (and a number of other MS68FB coins a few of which I have already mentioned).

 

Just to note what I am sure was an unintentional oversight on your part... You just quoted me as saying in my eBay offering:

 

FROM YOUR LAST POSTING ..."The bands are fine and probably close to an MS68+quality- REMAKABLE QUALITY (caps by you) for a 64D dime that simply never looks like this....."

 

Yet, what I actually say there is:

 

"The "bands" are fine and the obverse of the coin is probably close to an MS68+ quality"

 

I wanted to correct your misquote as I am very clear in my offering that my comment regarding "MS68+ quality" pertains to the Obverse of the coin only.

 

Again, thank you for your post....

 

New thoughts ....

 

On a related topic... it is not always the case that the obverse (or reverse, or either side) of coins currently in MS68 holders are deemed to be "MS68" quality by the top set holders in a particular series. Even in the case of Washington quarters, I pass routinely on MS68 graded quarters that I personally grade MS67+ or lower. Obviously, this is the subject of many of the "gradeflation" posts.

 

Regarding the 1964-D Dime, for what it worth, I do believe the Obverse of the coin is not a "squeaker" into the MS68 grade at all, but a solid MS68 and, in fact, in my personal opinion close to even MS68+ quality (as I stated on eBay). I know this opinion is shared by at least one of the very premier Silver Roosie Dime collectors out there who has no doubt (in his opinion) that the obverse of the 64-D dime is solid MS68 quality.

 

Which then brings up the related question what is the grade of the reverse of the 64-D dime and how does one "average out" the obverse and reverse grades? Let say hypothetically, one might grade the 64-D coin "MS68.6 obverse ("close to MS68+") obverse and MS66+ (MS66.7) reverse" but give the obverse of the coin 75% of the value of the overall grade. That averages out to an MS68.125 overall grade. Even if the coin was hypothetically graded by the next guy at only MS68.5 obverse (just an average MS68) and a (low) MS66+ reverse (MS66.7) but gave the obverse of the coin a 75% weight, that would come to an average grade of MS68.05.

 

A hypothetical grade of MS68.6 obverse but just an MS67.1 reverse for example at equal weight of 50-50 for obverse and reverse results in an average grade of MS67.85.

 

Which brings up a number of related questions if one was to personally determine how they might grade out the 1964-D dime in question:

 

1. What weight do you place on the obverse of the coin vs. the reverse with respect to the grade you intend to assign to the coin? This is obviously a critical question if it is common in the industry (is it?) to give the obverse of a coin a bit more weight than the reverse of the coin.

 

2. Do you (or do you not) give the coin a "bump up" at all due to its nice toning, especially for the date?

 

Summary: At a time when the services were grading far fewer MS68FB / MS68FT coins than we are seeing getting graded today, PCGS assigned a grade of MS68FB to the 64-D dime. Do we know what weight (e.g. 50%, 2/3, 3/4, 80%) they assigned to the very lovely obverse of this coin - No. Do we know what "bump", if any, they awarded the coin for its lovely color for the date in question - No.

 

Can one "tear apart" an MS68 graded coin by focusing on just one side of the coin, especially the reverse side? Of course. Look no further than the 1964-D (same date) Kennedy Half Dollar in PCGS-MS68 that just sold for around $25,000 at public auction (thank you AHfreak for corrrecting my $22,000 previous statement) and set the world record for a business strike Kennedy Half Dollar. Can anyone post pics of the obverse and reverse of that Kennedy here? We can ask the very same questions I just did about the dime of the same date.... namely, how much weight to the obverse and whether a "bump" is warranted for the color.

 

As always, just my two cents.

Wondercoin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for confirming your actual quote. I anticipated you would do so. It assists in narrowing the discussion to the correct focus-the marks. I am neither approving or supporting or condemning your representation efforts. I detect an annoyance on your part with my thoughts in your reply commentary. I hope not, because it would be a little silly. You continue to use the "you may have forgotten" comment. No, I did not. It is 7+ years later. It is a different market now. Considering your faith in the coin and personal expertise and acknowledgement of same by the TPG and your opinion of probability that the coin is of a higher quality obverse, then why not send in for regrading?

The rest of your post is sales and advertising and misdirection and restatements that are not of any value in reaching a conclusion concerning the marks. You continue to draw attention from the marks by elevating weighted grading of the obverse, and hypothetical grading math. Your salesmanship and business acumen is not in question, by me.

What grade is fine "bands"?

What is the numismatic definition of fine "bands"?

You need not answer either question. It just seemed a curious observation in your listing. It comes across as redirecting the focus of the reader, IMHO. It is the equality of stating the tires are fine on a valuable collectible automobile, to me.

Mr. McKnowitall ...

 

Perhaps you did not read a page or two earlier. Or, perhaps you did and it did not matter to you. But,

 

I did not just randomly select Mark to render an opinion of the dime to anyone asking. I mentioned that I planned to consign the coin to Mark's auction house. And, I gave Mark "my blessing" to be as candid as possible (as I am sure he usually is anyway) with anyone asking about the coin. I "gave that blessing" because it was suggested that perhaps the auction house might embellish the quality of coins from time to time in an effort to maximize the recovery for its consignors. I just wanted Mark to know I was totally comfortable with him rendering his opinion (however positive or negative) to anyone interested in the dime.

 

I've already commented on the overall quality of the dime. And, to be clear, it was the nicest quality coin I ever located for that particular date/MM in my personal (26 year) search from 1983-2009. I don't recall seeing a nicer example for the date in the 7+ years since the time of the landmark 2009 auction.

 

The coin has been in a bank vault for 99.999% of the time since the 2009 auction. I have spent perhaps 1 or 2 minutes with the coin in hand in the past several years. My son Justin prepared the ebay auction for me, including the coin photography (which, by the way, I believe he did a sensational job with, don't you think?) In any event, I should have the coin in hand before sending it off to Mark and if anyone desires my personal impression of the coin (knowing full well to do your own homework before bidding on it), feel free to send me an email (mjcapc@aol.com) with your phone number and I will try to give you a call to discuss the coin.

 

Wondercoin

 

 

Thank you for the reply. Yes, I read everything in the thread, inclusive of the reply to me that simply reiterates your previous commentaries. It does not change my thoughts. You have every Right to use honorable methods to sell the coin, including embellishment and avoidance when you deem necessary. That is the art of business and advertising.

I also read your eBay commentary in the listing, which you repeated on three occasions in your posts. Nothing wrong with doing so. I noted the following description by you in the listing: "The bands are fine and probably close to an MS68+quality- REMAKABLE QUALITY (caps by you) for a 64D dime that simply never looks like this....."

You then inform the reader of your status. It appears you have thoughts on the bands and chose words that would offset any initial thoughts that the marks are distracting and lull the reader into a sense of quality via your past numismatic history. There is nothing wrong with that either. You continue to embellish the superiority of the coin but avoid all aspects of the marks, inclusive of the superior sales tactic used in the listing to redirect the viewer attention.

I am a little befuddled though, that for what you deem to be a numismatic treasure of modern coinage, especially Goodies, that the opening sale choice would be EBay. I don't have anything for or against EBay and realize the many coins sold by all levels of collectors and dealers alike. It just seems a little lightweight for the rarity you are presenting on behalf of the owner, but I understand that is just my opinion.

As to the photo quality, it is fine. It was fine enough to cause commentary and discussion. That is beneficial.

Given my opinion of your posts and the writeup on Ebay, I don't find a need to accept your kind offer of emailing for your personal impression of the coin, that included the added caveat by you that a person do their own homework before bidding. I think that is excellent advice in the case of the coin being discussed.

Physics-Fan .... You only posted half the story.... you left out the part about Heritage creating their own description in the near future and YOU having the ability to simply ask the esteemed board member, Mark Feld, to tell you if he fully agrees with the description or not. Do you have any doubt that Mark won't feed you an "advertisement", but rather an honest assessment of the coin?

 

I understand you might like to hear my opinion of JHF's coin. But, why would you treat my opinion any differently than Heritage's assessment? You suggest an auction company is only in it to maximize profits for its consignors (and its company). For some reason, do you trust me more than Heritage when I also (better) have the desire to maximize profits for my consignors or I may be doing a poor job in accepting their consignments in the first place?

 

That said, a reason I will not give you my opinion on the dime is that it would be nothing other than self-serving in nature. I represent the seller and owner of the coin. I've posted on this board about 35-40 posts in 14 years. I am not interested in posting a self serving post about another company's product as the agent for the owner of the coin here when I can just as easily permit a TRULY impartial guy like Mark to tell every board member here what he personally thinks of the coin just as soon as he gets it in hand. Anyone can simply pick up the phone, call Mark and ask Mark what his honest assessment of the coin is.

 

 

 

So, Physics-Fan - I have created for you a perfectly simple method to get your questions answered by one of the finest graders in the world. Mark - I hereby grant you express permission to tell Physics-Fan (and any other caller desiring to hear you opinion) the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about this dime and whether you feel it is worthy of the grade or even what grade you might personally assign to it.

 

Could anyone here ask for anything more fair than that?

 

Wondercoin

Please read my thoughts as offered in a spirit of courtesy. I can understand your position, although it has a somewhat defensive tone, and maybe it should. I am not knowledgeable concerning any background noise.

Whether Mr. Feld does or does not agree with a description of a coin, it is only an opinion, nothing more. Mr Feld would without hesitation confirm that is all his assessment is: an opinion. Who he works for, his level of experience, his monetary interest or non-interest is not relevant, and presenting his opinion as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and whether he feels it is worthy of the grade or not, is misdirection of the issue being discussed, which is the marks. Mr Feld earlier opined about his position on descriptions. That is all that is necessary from him. A business decision is involved. Of course everyone is biased. That is the nature of grading and buying and selling and business. Whether Mr. Feld is one of the finest graders in the world or not is not germane and reads as an attempt to silence any objection or commentary concerning the coin, because if one of the finest graders in the world tells the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then what more does anybody require? That is an emotion based statement meant to tug at the hearts of honorable people. Of course he will tell you the truth about his opinion. Feeling is not truth. Impartiality is not truth. Feelings and impartiality are opinions, nothing more. You are attempting to set aside the remarks of another person that disagrees or questions tge value or the status of the coin, by invoking the name of Mr. Feld. Mr. Feld knows no more than any other experienced person as to what caused the marks, and whether or not the marks constitute a downgrading of opinion or a downgrading of eye appeal. All that is being offered for sale is a branding. If the Circle K Cattle Brand is the best of the best, then why buy the Circle Y Brand? Forget that the person rendering an opinion possibly has a different depth perception, a different opinion of what constitutes eye appeal, a different color spectrum ability, a different vision acuity, or a different level of knowledge about marks.It is the #1 Circle K Brand, and has been judged to be the #1 finest of the #1 Circle K Brand. In other words, all that is happening is salesmanship and publicity. There is no such thing as bad publicity in the present issue. There is vested interest to sell. There is vested interest to convince the public to buy. Somebody will or somebody won't. The rest is just a commercial. I appreciate your silence position of offering your personal opinion. But, you should not invoke the name of another to make a sales pitch. You mentioned only half a story being told. That in itself is a sales pitch. There is nothing wrong with it. Sometimes the method of hype can backfire.

The point is IMHO it was not very mannerly to place someone else in the position of spokesperson for you in this manner. Make your own sales pitch would be a more acceptable manner, to me.

"If the luster is unbroken, as you have said, they are definitely mint made, and should not affect the grade."

 

 

 

 

 

So, when considering eye appeal, the graders ignore these tumbling marks?

 

Since eye appeal is an opinion and everyone has a different opinion and different eye strength and depth perception and color acumen and sharpness, it is best described as "I know it if I see it, even if the other guy doesn't", so the question is best asked of the Grader(s). Experience and knowledge of what a condition is with coin in hand is of course of immense value in determining an eye appeal opinion. In the end, it is all it is. An opinion.

 

Additionally, I have seen enough coins graded 67 and higher, which bore mint-made flaws/distractions, such that I believe graders usually (at least largely) ignore such marks.

This also brings up another issue that you and I discussed on the Board ATS in depth many years ago, concerning what power and quality the eyepiece is when arriving at an opinion. The differences are vast, and there is tendency to look at a coin after the grading and encapsulation with a 20 billion power eyepiece, a microscope, etc., (I know... a little exaggeration) and declare the grader(s) of the TPG/4PG as not very capable or completely off base. I still see this occur at various shows and on internet forums, and then the "proof" of position is to use a multiples increased photo to support/deny a position.

"If the luster is unbroken, as you have said, they are definitely mint made, and should not affect the grade."

 

 

 

 

 

So, when considering eye appeal, the graders ignore these tumbling marks?

Since eye appeal is an opinion and everyone has a different opinion and different eye strength and depth perception and color acumen and sharpness, it is best described as "I know it if I see it, even if the other guy doesn't", so the question is best asked of the Grader(s). Experience and knowledge of what a condition is with coin in hand is of course of immense value in determining an eye appeal opinion. In the end, it is all it is. An opinion.

They may actually be digs in the planchet that still show up after striking. Now that I look at the pictures a second time, they more closely resemble the latter than they do strike-thru indents. The jagged edges and fissure-like appearance indicate that metal tried to close them in when the dies made contact, but failed to completely erase them. If the luster is unbroken, as you have said, they are definitely mint made, and should not affect the grade. These are often referred to as "tumbling marks," and are caused by planchets banging together while being tumbled around with steel beads as part of the preparation. They are most commonly seen on Ike dollars. Even the deepest tumbling marks will seem to disappear at certain angles, due to the presence of metal flow going through them.

 

The coin below shows both bag marks and tumbling marks. The red arrow shows the jagged, inverted edge on a large, deep tumbling mark that tried to close during striking. The blue arrow shows bag marks that scraped the surface and moved metal away.

 

The roughness above the tumbling mark is a mixture of other, smaller tumbling marks and grease strike-thru roughness.

 

 

 

Note D and O. Note 1st L.

And so the name-calling begins. How disappointing.

 

You are all a bunch of snot-noses! Now I will run around the playground while everyone chases me.

Diesinkers?

To repeat: The transfer process completely obliterates all traces of machining.

 

From my experience, no it does not.

 

The soft die steel does not - and physically cannot - retain machining lines while simultaneously deforming to the surface configuration of the hub.

 

Yes, it can, and it does. I've seen it with my own eyes while working at my mint.

 

(The entire thing is similar to what happens to a planchet when it is struck by a die - only that in manufacturing a die, the metal receives multiple blows.)

 

If this were true, then why would the US Mint ever bother to burnish planchets prior to striking ? They do it because planchet texture will show through the strike (even through multiple strikes). Again, I've seen it with my own eyes. I've struck the same pair of dies on a normal planchet, a burnished planchet, and a sandblasted planchet. All three look a little different after striking.

 

"Adjustment marks" are prevalent on early US gold and silver coins. Those marks readily show through, even on the best strikes.

 

To help with understanding this, you must remember that when properly softened, die steel was easily sliced and cut by hand using small engraving tools. Complete dies were once made by hand cutting steel. One US Mint engraver compared it to working with frozen butter.

 

Frozen butter doesn't bend like metal, so I don't think that is the best analogy.

Regardless, just because one metal is soft and it is impressed by a harder metal doesn't mean the soft texture is completely obliterated. When you push down on soft metal, it is malleable and so it won't spring back. Think of the lathe lines on a soft metal surface. If you impress that with a harder object, the whole face will deform, but the soft metal won't spring back to completely fill the voids between the lathe lines.

 

If anyone cannot not understand this, then try a very simple (and tasty) experiment -- make a batch of mashed potatoes and plop them in a cone shape similar to the Denver Mint photos. Use a toothpick to draw 100 concentric circles with their center on the peak of the pile. When done, press a Halloween face mask into the pile. For extra realism, press and remove a couple of times. How many of your 100 circles remain?

 

Fun analogy, but it doesn't fit this situation. Mashed potatoes don't bend. They mush.

Do you have any pictures?

Good article, congrats to the finders and to the confirmers!

 

Had to look this word up> paucity

It is what many here and on the WC wish was the situation with my Posts....

I do not make decisions from photos/images.

But, this coin doesn't "feel" right to me as hub doubling. I have seen this before.

So, I guess I will be in the "I don't know" camp for now.

...might also be a reason why many students seem to learn so little.

I want to go back to one of the coins Goldbergs sold last month, the "PF64" one. Am I right in thinking it's a 1922 high relief, reverse of 1921. But rather than proof, it's a business strike, but with post-striking "antiquing" processing?

 

You are correct. But no change was made. After all, why should "they" bother to ask anyone who did almost all of the original research, analysis, work and publication on this? Must have been fun to be a befuddled bidder in that auction.

$$$$ are always more important than confirmed academic research.

That is why we pay teachers so little.

I spoke with the state of Vermont, tax department and they filled me in on the obligations on sales taxes for VT businesses. They said 6% on sales in the town where transaction occurred is the law; if dealers with sales and tax use permits want to avoid the %s all they have to do is file with the state, no charge or fee, big deal.

 

A real concern for many dealers in New England are the increasing regulations, especially the one week hold period on transactions which applies to all business activity of a certain type, this is mainly aimed at the hotel and pawn shop buyers, in certain towns/cities. Most coin dealers I spoke to said this would drive them out of business or make it very difficult to buy and sell precious metals. Have they contacted their state government? I have yet to hear of one who has been lobbying state government to present common sense legislation where they can examine all transactions and record them in ways that the government will be able to fight real fraud.

1st paragraph: How does this curtail what is being perceived as a fraud, and how does it deter cash transactions?

2nd paragraph: I will go out on the proverbial limb, a very rare undertaking for me, and predict that challenges to expansion laws beyond the stated businesses (but not excluding them) will tie up State and Federal Courts for a long time, and regardless of which position one supports, will not curtail anything, save for foreign and domestic activity directed at the U.S., and even then mimimally.

Respectfully,

John Curlis

Maine does not have a tax on collectibles based on dealers I have transacted with in that state. Cash only = unaccountable to government agencies. This should bother everyone who believes in transparency and accountability to one another and to government. If people are running from government then they need to live in the cash economy, but doing so creates many psychological burdens and limits their ability to do significant transactions. Since this is an NGC site, I would think that they will respect privacy up to a point, but if they see a pattern of questionable conduct, doctoring, money laundering, evasion, etc., they may be required to report it to the relevant agency. As a member of NACA and other numismatic organizations, I am required to report unethical conduct to those who are tasked with that duty.

There goes my Yard Sale hunting weekends.

I would not want to not be transparent and accountable.......

John Curlis

Slabs MUST NOT be mistaken for being airtight.

It is acceptable, however, to view some of them as being full of hot air, which in some "cases" would not be a mistake.

Respectfully,

John Curlis