• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

RAM-VT

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Journal Entries posted by RAM-VT

  1. RAM-VT
    Simply put the third party graders appear to have shot themselves in the foot.
    When I first read this question I mused about it for a while and then moved on. But I could not get the premise presented by the question out of my mind. Then it hit me, welcome to the world of ancient coin collecting. I have been collecting coins since 1954/5 but in 2009 I made a total change in what I collected. I turned to ancient coin collecting and I totally enjoy it. One of the first things I learned is that when evaluating ancient coins, condition is far more important to me than grade. In fact on 12/30/2013 I wrote a post titled Ancient Coins and Grade Vs. Condition where I explain why for me a coins condition is far more important than its grade. I was surprised to find out that basically this is not just my opinion but evidently the prevailing opinion within the field of ancient numismatics. In this regard the following statement is made in ERIC - The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins:
    Unless you have come across a major rarity assume that the worth of your coin will very largely depend on its visual appeal.
    This reference also makes the following statement:
    *** one typically buys a coin from a well-photographed coin in a glossy color catalog, the internet or on site at a coin show. There is therefore little need for a grade as such since the visual confirmation of what you would be getting is infinitely more useful than the information conveyed by an assigned grade of questionable value.
    The ancient coin website titled Forum has a section called Ancient Coin Collecting 101, here it gives the definition of a grade -- Grade describes only the wear the coin suffered after it left the mint. This definition of a grade is not unique to ancient coins. It is simply the universal definition of GRADE. NGCs ancient department recognized from day one that grade and condition are totally different aspects related to the assessment of a coins preservation. Grade related to the wear or loss of metal from friction loses due to circulating and rub during transport. Condition relates to strike and surface issues. When NGC certifies an ancient coin it provides that coin a grade but it also provides a score from 1 to 5 for the condition of the coins surface and also the quality of its strike. NGC lists 15 factors that influence the score given to an ancient coins strike and 27 factors that influence the score given to an ancient coins surface. On the label placed in the NGC holder is provided the coins grade as well as its scores for strike and surface. This information is further modified if it is determined that there are some conditions issues which must be addressed separately. Such additional information could explain the reason for a low score while in some cases it could point out beneficial features such as eye appeal or fine style. So what NGC is providing the collector is a complete assessment of the ancient coin, not only of its grade but also all those factors influencing the coins appearance which is extremely important. Since it is condition that influences an ancient coins value more so than grade.
    This separation of grade from condition appears to be more theoretical than actual. A preponderance of ancient coin collectors still mix grade and condition and claim that simply saying a VF tells you all you need to know about a 1500 year old coin to understand both its grade and condition. To this point a few weeks ago I read a post on Forum where the statement was made that the coin was graded VF but in my opinion it was Fine to about VF because part of the legend was a little weak. Now let us face it on something as small as a 19mm diameter denarius it is physically impossible through routine circulation to wear away a fraction of the legend without wearing away nearby design elements as well as corresponding features on the reverse. Do I believe that there was weakness and it was limited to a part of the legend? Yes! But it was not due to wear but rather a result of the die or production process. So the grade would be determine by the overall wear on the coins highest design features and not a spot of localized weakness.
    This inability to differentiate between between grade and condition has always been a part of this hobby and it is imperative that the third party graders lead this effort to ensure grade and condition are addressed separately when evaluating coins. The question posed by Eagles-R-it clearly demonstrates that all third party graders are still attempting to combine grade and condition into a single designator such as MS-69. Taking the term Grade to describe only the wear the coin suffered after it left the mint. If something is UNC it shows no evidence of wear. How can an MS 65 have five additional grading steps of no evidence of wear over a coin MS 60 that has no evidence of wear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Simply the coin has evidence of wear or it does not. Here our third party graders have stepped into the world ancient coin collectors where many (except for NGC Ancients Dept.) try to combine condition and grade into a single grade. There is a simple solution and that is to start over again. All mint state coins would be graded MS-60 the coin would also be given a score of 1 to 10 for Surface and 1 to 10 for Strike. I will leave it up to the grading services to decided what factors would be addressed under surface (obvious ones would be attractive or unattractive toning, spots, bag marks, etc.) and strike at a minimum would address how well the coin is stuck-up, e.g., full-split bands would get a higher score than flat bands. I know this would cause pricing problems, how would you price a MS 60 Surface 8/10, Strike 5/10? The condition census would be a 10 X 10 matrix. But it would address this question because if the coin was originally certified Proof Surface 10/10: Strike 10/10 and if spots developed after certification then it would be obvious the coin no longer has a Surface that is 10/10.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  2. RAM-VT
    If you want to be bored out of your mind just read this post.
    There are several good reasons for having our coins certified, and I suspect different collectors do it for different reasons. I do it for two reasons. First, I love the protection provided by the slabs. Those of you who have never known anything but slabs may never experience the feeling in the pit of your stomach as a real nice coin slips out of your hand or even worse slide a coin out of a stapled 2 X 2 only to have the exposed staple scratch the surface of your coin. Oh for the good old days. Second, due to my age and diabetes my eyes are no longer what they use to be and one thing I don?t want are impaired coins and I use the certification services to cull them out.
    As those of you (maybe a couple of dozen in total) that have checked out any my five signature sets have become aware of, I am no longer building my collection but in fact I am divesting my collection to support my retirement. I truly don?t have much left to sell and don?t know how to select what to sell next. About half my US coins are colonials, all certified and all free of any impairment. I was wondering how having these coins certified would help in their sale. In an attempt to quantify the benefit of slabbing coins (in this case colonials) I went to the web site of a well known auction house and printed out the auction records for colonials sold from May 19, 2009 to September 29, 2009, 300 colonial coins in total. I then entered all this info into a spreadsheet so that the data could be looked at from different points of view. What I learned shocked the heck out me. I will attempt to summarize what I learned here.
    Let me set the guidelines I used when I did this evaluation.
    I used the ?Red Book? as my basis for comparison. Those involved in the preparation of this reference book are with out a doubt some of the most knowledgeable dealers/numismatists in the United States.
    Only colonials listed in the Red Book would be involved in this study. There were some varieties sold that I could not do a one to comparison with the types listed in the Red Book so I excluded those lots (e.g., proof specimens that the Red Book did list values for, or a variety for which no value is given). Anyway out of the 300 lots in the study group 267 were included in my evaluation.
    When it came to what I call ?superior? grades (i.e., VF-30, AU-58) I believe that the Red Book valuations had to be adjusted. Not too many of us would gladly sell an AU-58 for the same price as an AU-50. If that were the case we should eliminate all ?superior? grades. So here is what I did:
    VF-25 and AU-53 received no adjustment to their Red Book valuations.
    VF-30 & VF-35 where treated as the same grade as were AU-55 & AU-58
    The value for a superior grade was simply assumed to be 1/3 of the way between the base grade and the next higher grade. For example let?s say I had a colonial graded XF-45. In XF-40 that coin was valued at $100 and in AU it was valued at $400 so XF-45 would = $100 + (1/3)X($400-$100) = $200.
    There was one situation I could not provide an adjustment for and that was for coins graded higher than the highest grade given in the Red Book (e.g., highest grade is an XF and the coin is graded AU, or the most common situation the highest grade is ?UNC?, which I equate to MS-60, 61 or 62 Brown and the coin is MS-63 or high and possibly Red-Brown or Red). For these cases I just used the valuation for the highest grade listed as my basis for comparison. So an MS-64 Red-Brown would end up being compared to an MS-60 Brown valuation. Thirty one of the coins fall into this situation.
    I assumed the Red Book valuations were for properly graded coins that are in no way impaired, although this is not stated in the section titled ?How to use this Book.?
    This evaluation does have a major flaw and that is no raw coins are involved in this comparison. Believe it or not, the 300 auction lots contained only certified coins (no ?raw? coins. So in reality I really could not show if certified coins performed better than raw coins. But I could show how certified coins performed against a standard (that being the Red Book).
    I will first provide a big picture overview of my findings followed by my conclusions which are followed by a more detailed brake down of the coins actually used in this study.
    1- Of the 267 lots 107 of the lots were impaired. I will treat impaired lots separately from non-impaired lots. I believe the ratio of impaired coins to good coins found in this group of auction lots is much lower than what you would find in the total colonial population, a point which I will discuss later.
    2- All the impaired lots were NCS. There were a few PCGS ?Genuine? lots but these were excluded because there were no assigned grades. These PCGS ?Genuine? coins were also part of the 33 coins excluded from this evaluation.
    3- There were 74 NCS, 16 NGC, 10 PCGS & 1 ANACS certified coins sold by internet auction only.
    4- There were 33 NCS, 46 NGC, 86 PCGS & 2 ANACS certified coins sold in conjunction with auctions held in association with a major coin show.
    5- The non-impaired colonials on a whole sold for 56% of their Red Book valuations.
    6- The impaired colonials on a whole sold for 26% of their non-impaired Red Book valuations. (Excluding just one lot from the 107 lots the 26% goes to 38%).
    7- NGC certified coins as a whole (internet auction only& auction associated with a coin show) sold for 52% of Red Book valuations.
    8- PCGS certified coins as a whole (internet auction only& auction associated with a coin show) sold for 59% of Red Book valuations.
    9- NGC coins sold by internet auction only sold for 42% of Red Book valuations.
    10- PCGS coins sold by internet auction only sold for 53% of Red Book valuations.
    11- NGC coins sold only in auctions associated with a large coin show sold for 54% of Red Book valuations.
    12- PCGS coins sold only in auctions associated with a large coin show sold for 59% of Red Book valuations.
    13- There were four PCGS coins with CAC stickers these four coins sold for 75% of Red Book valuations. Don?t get excited here because what I tell you later will show this is not so hot.
    14- There were ten NGC coins that exceeded Red Book grades and really did not have a meaningful base value for valuation. These ten coins sold for 74% of Red Book using valuations for grades well below the certified grades for these coins. When using only coins sold in auctions associated with large coin shows this value is 71%.
    15- There were 21 PCGS coins that exceeded Red Book grades and really did not have a meaningful base value for valuation. These 21 coins sold for 94% of Red Book using valuations for grades well below the certified grades for these coins. When using only coins sold in auctions associated with large coin shows this value is 93%. However when excluding the three coins in this group with a CAC sticker, the remaining coins go from 94% of Red book to 101% of Red Book!!!!!!! The CAC sticker does not appear to help realize a higher auction sale price. (Again please realize this is only three coins.)
    16- When you look at only the coins that fall within Red Book valuations and were sold in conjunction with a major show the results are a
  3. RAM-VT
    When I started to collect ancient coins I found I had to change my approach to selecting coins.
    First let me say season's greetings and happy New Year to one and all.
    Those of you that have looked at my custom set of ancient coins and read my "Set Description" have seen my stated personal opinion regard the grading of ancient coins. It is here that I put forth my argument that when selecting ancient coins for a collection one must look beyond the coin's stated grade.
    Before I go one step further let me be perfectly clear about the meaning of the word "Grade." A coin's grade does one thing and only one thing and that is to define (using standardized terms e.g., F, VF, XF, etc.) how much wear a coin's surface has experienced since it was minted.
    So what exactly is my point here?
    Today (and for some time now) technology has permitted us to replicate virtually identical copies of the same type coin billions of times over. With strikes, design features, weight, planchet shape & size and centering being perfect controlled every coin produced is virtually an identical copies of a given type of coin except for the occasional striking error. However with ancient coins it is possible to find coins from the same die pair but you may never find virtually identical strikes. Why, because the production of each coin was a one off event. Ancient coins were produced using planchets that were all difference yet relatively "close" to one another, each die was hand cut and varied in quality, and each strike was unique based on die alignment, planchet placement between the dies, how perfectly parallel the dies were to one another and the actual striking of coin. Obviously efforts were taken to get all these factors right but very few ancient coins give the appearance that all these were as they should be at the moment the coin was struck. But none of these factors have anything to do with the coins grade. These are in fact condition issues which greatly influence a coin's appearance but not the coin's grade. However, quite often weakness in the design features on ancient coins is attributed to wear and not to the condition of the dies or the minting process itself.
    Ancient coins stopped circulating as currency at least 1500 years ago (the Medieval Period is defined as starting at AD 500) and their grades have remained the same as they were the day they stopped circulating whether that was 1500 or 2500 years ago. But their condition most likely continued to deteriorate due environmental factors such as moisture and chemicals in the air or soil surrounding the coins. Over time copper based coins may have developed terribly corroded surfaces while silver coins many have developed "thick" black coatings or horrible patinas while gold may not have been as adversely attacked as the copper based coins or silver coins. If the coin was buried in addition to the above conditions issues they can have deposits attached to the coin's surface. Other condition issues not related to minting issues included scratches, test cuts, banker's marks, graffiti, bronze decease, retooled surfaces, etc.
    So what does all this mean? It means you can have an ancient coin in a very desirable grade (XF, AU or even MS) based on wear that is in fact a real dog of a coin. Design features and all or part of its legends might be missing; it could have horrible surfaces, etc., again these and many more condition factors do not influence grade.
    I once tried to explain my approach selecting ancient coins for my collection as follows:
    I want coins that speak for themselves. That is if I was to show one of my ancient coins to friends who knew nothing about ancient coins they would all find the coin pleasing to look at and have a good idea of what the design features looked like and be able to read most of the letters in the legends. They may not understand everything on the coin but they could describe it. The last thing I would want is a coin that when I presented it friends I also had to show them a book with a photo of that type coin and say this is my coin and here is a photo so you can see what it actually looks like.
    Thus I say in my opinion when it comes to ancient coins, condition is a more critical issue than grade and I have rejected many more ancient coins for condition reasons than for grade.
    What is great about NGC's ancient service is that not only does it grade ancient coins it also scores the condition of the coin's strike and surface. In addition they will list both good (style & eye appeal) and bad condition issues on the label. The bad issues are factored into the scores. The scores run from 1 to 5. A typical or average strike or surface is a "3" with a "2" being below average and a "1" being inferior. Conversely a "4" is above average and a "5" is superior. However, as pleased as I am with NGC Ancients Department I will not purchase an NGC graded and scored coin sight unseen because I do not accept NGC's scoring of Surface (I have actually told David and we agree to disagree). Please remember although I have been collecting coins for 60 years, I have only been collecting ancient coins 5 years so let's face it David's opinion carries a lot more weight than mine.
    So does the ancient coin collecting community feel the same way I do regarding a coin's condition, in my opinion no! Condition appears to almost never be address whether it is when describing ones coins to a fellow collector or in sales listings. Don't get me wrong both good and bad condition issues are occasionally mentioned, but when it comes to selling ancient coins every coin should have a statement related to the coins condition. A statement such as "this coin has no condition issues" would be perfectly acceptable to me and I would expect such a coin to receive an NGC score of at least "3" for both strike and surface. Coins having any condition issue should have them listed in the coins description. To date I have purchased at least dozen ancient coins from dealers around the world including America's largest coin auction house and all were determined by NGC to have experienced smoothing or light smoothing and not a single one of these coins had this condition listed in their description and it can not be seen in a photo. To bring up negative condition issues is like waving a red flag, you are telling the collector the coin has a problem(s) and the price needs to be adjusted downward.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  4. RAM-VT
    Or do we grasp for any straw to justify our OCD issues related to coin collecting?
    I have written two posts dealing with the fact that I have recently entered the world of collecting ancient coins and sometimes I feel like I stepped into the twilight zone. The quirkiness of some of those I have "met" (only via email or posts at ancient web sites) has occasionally totally dumbfounded me.
    The major issue with these collectors seems to be my preference for encapsulating ancient coins. Many of the comments I am hearing on this issue today as it relates to certifying ancient coins are almost identical to those I heard about 30 years when third party graders first started to certify U.S. coins. Many of the best and most respected dealers initially argued against third party grading claiming that the slabs interfered with their ability to touch and feel the coins particularly our colonials and earliest U.S. coinage which were already circulated and would not suffer from the occasional touching and this touching and handling (in their mind) makes the hobby that much more meaningful and enjoyable.
    I on the other hand I welcomed the encapsulation but not the third party grading. My love for all things numismatic drives me to do all I can to preserve each and every item in my collection in the condition it was in the day I purchased it and to protect those items from any further degradation. I have dropped too many nice pieces or dropped something onto my coins only to have them gain one or more nick, dent or scrape. In fact the last time this happened I was packing up my most favorite Swiss shooting medal for certification and yup I dropped it. I picked it up and there it was the slightest little nick on the highest point of the obverse. It really stands out because the newly exposed silver is quite shinny in contrast to the nicely tone silver around it.
    So here we are with these very serious collectors arguing against the encapsulation of ancient coins as if their life depended on it so they are able to FEEL their coins. Then these very same collectors post pictures of the wear and damage done to their coins as they slide around in their coin cabinet's draw (tray) openings every time a draw is opened and close or the coin cabinet is move. Does this perceived need to touch/feel ones coins justify this continued degradation of their coins which could easily be prevented? However, what really upsets me is that these collectors who take some perverse pleasure in the slow destruction of their coins so they can hold them treat me as if I am their enemy, in addition they will poke fun at and attack NGC for NGC's effort related to grading and authentication of ancient coins as well as NGC's encapsulating ancient coins. Why?
    The very first time I ran into this argument that coins should be held in order to appreciate them I viewed it as a smoke screen. I my opinion many of those presenting this argument resented he fact that the opinion of some third party would be accepted over that of a well know dealer or collector. But to sound credible they did not attack the third party but rather they attacked the process and specifically that process that removed the tactile component of the hobby. I think that eventually the larger dealers got behind the third party grades because they could transfer any issued related to grade and/or condition to the third party grader. Let's face it, there was and will always be a perceived conflict of interest when the seller is also the one setting the parameters (in this case grade) by which the item for sale is valued.
    I will continue to have my ancients certified; I feel it is best for the coin and best for the hobby. The certification process identifies fakes, provides unbiased grading and specifies any condition issues. In addition the encapsulation is a superior option to letting my coins slide around in a coin tray.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  5. RAM-VT
    Some people are just never happy
    I should be one of the last persons to complain about NGC?s registry set program in that in 2009 I was awarded the best overall Signature Set. But simply I have a problem in that my perception is that the ?custom (former signature) sets? appear to be perceived as second class sets. Those creating custom sets may be just as competitive as those that create competitive sets but because some collectors become creative about defining what goes into their sets and don?t take to filling the predefined holes in a competitive set does not mean they don?t take pride in what they have assembled as a set. To some extent this pride is demonstrated by the simple fact that they do post their set(s). I am sure that if someone decided to assemble a set of ?U.S. Rarities Only? that collector would really want that set to be considered as a competitive set. Such a set would be noteworthy, contain all high value coins and be extremely difficult to assemble but despite all these compelling factors it would be relegated to the custom sets.
    What is the major difference between the competitive and custom sets? Competitive sets receive registry points and custom sets do not. Registry points are the impartial factor in this whole registry set operation. My custom set has a few US colonials, a few US Gold coins, a few modern US Commemoratives as well as a few examples of numerous other types of items. All my US coins have defined registry points but when you look up my registry custom set you will find Total Coin Registry Points ?0? Rank ?-?. Anything in an NGC holder should have an assigned registry point value. Why do registry points disappear when a coin goes from a registry competitive set to a registry custom set? Awarding registry points to custom sets would allow for comparisons among all the sets comprising the NGC Registry Universe. It would allow one to answer the question where do I stand in the universe registry collectors? What types of sets are ahead of me and what types are behind me? I don?t know what ?Rank? means because I have only one set and that is a custom set but for custom sets that ?Rank?, as I see it, would be the set?s position within the entire universe of registry sets.
    When I get all my recent submittals back from NGC and load them into my custom set I am only going to have about 130 items in the set (until or if I can find funds with which to add to my collection). So believe me this is not some way for me to go on an ego trip, I know my set is not going to blow away the registry universe with some mega number of registry points. In addition some of my 130 pieces are trivial and I would be lucky to get any registry points for them.
    What I am asking for here is that competitive sets and custom sets continue to be defined as they are and that awards continue to be given out as they have been, yes you could say I am arguing for no change but that would be wrong. I want every piece in custom sets to also be awarded registry points just like every piece in a competitive set is awarded registry points.
    A recent post started off with this opening, ?I seem to have been stuck at just shy of 200,000 points for what seems like eons.? I would love to simply know what registry points my custom set would earn.
  6. RAM-VT
    It appears grading standards differ around the world.
    One of the news headlines on the NGC home page reads ?Important Polish Auction Includes Hundreds of NGC-Certified Coins?. Yes this is a publicity opportunity for NGC and this is not the first world auction to host large quantities of NGC-certified coins. To me however, this is a very important step in the international standardization of coin grades. Those of us that spend a lot of time on eBay bidding or just looking to checkout the market have seen the number of world coins in NGC, PCGS and other holders routinely increasing. Many of these are US sellers but there are numerous world sellers also using these grading services. From my point of view, I can not stress how important this development is to me because I truly believe grading standards differ around the world.
    For example, I have an old handbook from Seaby?s (England). And just like the Red Book it gives guidance on what a coin should look like in each grade. How do you think an AU is described? In this book it was described as an uncirculated coin that is not very pleasing to the eye!!!!!!! That is right in order for the coin to be AU it must first be UNC. This AU would most likely equate to our MS-60, 61 or 62. I offer my 1915 MS-62 Barber Quarter as an example of a coin that I really believe would be graded AU in England using this definition.
    Further I was once told by some I respected a lot, that a European FDC equates to no less than an MS-65 in the US. However, if you go to a (KM) Standard Catalogue of World Coins they equate an ?UNC? to FDC. Well it is my understanding a simple UNC equates to only an MS-60 to 62. And if FDC were to only equate to our UNC, what term(s) do they use that compare to our Ch. UNC and Gem UNC? Simply, I think KM has it totally wrong.
    So in summary I believe we have
    US MS-60, 61 & 62
    Other places = AU
    US MS-63 & 64
    Other Places = ?
    US MS-65
    Other Places = FDC
    If these are in fact real differences then it must follow that there are differences in the lower grades.
    I am not going into details here but believe me because of these differences in grading standards I have netted some real windfalls buying US coins from sellers/dealers overseas and having them certified here in the US. Also be aware this situation works the other way in that a coin from England (for example) certified here in the US might not be accepted in England at that same grade. So if you buy a certified English coin (for example) and pay for it using the Spinks Catalogue as a guide, you may have overpaid and may never get your money back during your lifetime.
    Differences between grading standards is a concern to me but there are other problem areas. There may also be problems with grading terminology. In England there appears to be a new grading service called the CGS (Coin Grading Service) of the UK. I was checking out some of their coins listed on eBay. They use a 100 point grading system. What do you expect a coin graded UNC-88 to be? Well believe it or not the label said it was a Proof but the grade was UNC??? Also I have had experience with a major Auction House in Australia using the term MS for circulated coins, i.e., MS-50 instead of AU-50. They may have been confused by the NGC or PCGS grading forms which ask to you designate ?MS? or ?PF?.
    Such problems with terminology are not limited to just countries outside the US. We really very seldom use just the term ?UNC?. We typically start the lowest grades of Uncirculated with BU (Brilliant Uncirculated even if the coin is not brilliant) and not simply the designation ?UNC?. In effect UNC and BU are the same even though the Red Book does not recognize the designator ?BU?. Then we have the KM Standard Catalogue of World Coins that use UNC as the low end of Uncirculated and the BU as the next step up. So here BU is better than UNC but then again BU is a term not recognized in the Red Book. I think everyone agrees the second highest level of Uncirculated is Choice UNC or Choice BU but the Standard catalogue of World Coins did not opt to use this designation. Can you imagine someone overseas with a Standard Catalogue of World Coins trying to figure out what is what? We use UNC, BU, Ch BU, Ch UNC, Gem BU, Gem UNC and Superb BU or UNC.
    However, one area that drives me up the wall is that overseas cleaned coins apparently are totally acceptability to the point that this condition need not be stated in auction descriptions. I am not talking about someone in Europe selling off their coins on eBay I am talking well known auction houses. I tell you from personal experience there is a 50/50 chance that a coin bought from Europe has been cleaned and I would say there is a 3 out 4 chance a coin bought from Australia has been cleaned. I can only hope that overseas grading service will be as diligent in designating impaired coins as are US services, but based on what I have seen on eBay I do not believe this is the case.
    This is the 21st century. With the internet the world is becoming smaller and someone like me sitting at a computer can sell something to anyone around the world. I have sold coins to every continent except Antarctica. I think it is time the numismatic communities around the world start working together to standardize as much as possible of the basic concepts related to grading and describing numismatic related items. Ideally I would love for the world to come together with one universal grading standard but that is not at the top of my list. Here is my priority list.
    1 ? Agreement on what constitutes an impaired coin and agreement that these impairments be listed on any grading label or in any auction description. This would include what constitutes a cleaned coin.
    2 ? A standardized chart should be developed for inclusion in all numismatic handbooks and reference catalogues. This would be similar to the one in the Standard Catalogue of World Coins but then again different. The chart currently in the Standard Catalogue of World Coins is intended to show what term in other countries corresponds to a given term used here in the US. For example EF in the US would be designated 01 in Denmark. The problem that results is that this does not mean the detail on our EF coin equates to that on a 01 coin in Denmark. Just like my MS-62 quarter would never be considered a FDC in countries that use that term regardless of what the Standard Catalogue says. The chart I would like to see would equate grades of similar detail and would be jointly developed by an international team of numismatists that are recognized within their own country as true numismatic experts.
    3 ? A world wide standardized grading system. If this was to come about the item 2 above might not be needed.
    So yes I would like an internationally accepted grading standard developed and I think NGC and PCGS should be part of whatever organization is formed to develop that standard.

  7. RAM-VT
    In the definition of numismatist not only does the word collector appear but so does one or both of the following terms, ?study? and/or ?student.? Did I go from collector to numismatist? You can decide, personally I would say maybe.
    In the 1970?s I started attending coin shows. I met a dealer named Guy from Frederick, Maryland. I did a lot of business with him because he treated me well on trades. One day I came loaded for bear and dragged a small suit case loaded with items I was willing to trade. When Guy asked me what I had to trade I open the case. He looked at what I had (over 90% of which I collected from change) and said, ?Hell you have enough there to set up at shows.? At that point the light bulb went on and I said to myself I have material and own a Red Book what else do I need? Within a month I was doing my first coin show. My first show was a two day show. And was I busy, it was non-stop sales. At the end of the first day I sat down and looked around and guess what, all my customers were sitting behind the other tables!!! OK that was lesson. But let?s move on. Later as I walked around looking to replace my inventory I started to ask questions like why is that large cent so expensive. I don?t see it listed in the Red Book and what is that ?S? number (there were similar questions about colonials and the ?M? numbers re. Connecticut and New Jersey). I asked Pete a dealer friend of mine at Coins of the Realm. His simple response was you have to buy the book before the coin. I said what? He took me over to his desk and started placing one book after another on top of the desk. I was dumbfounded. You mean I need more than a Red Book. I started buy reference books wherever I could find them. I can remember my copy of Penny Whimsy cost me $80 and I made a $120 profit on the very first coin I bought using that book. My numismatic reference library now contains somewhere between 450 to 500 volumes. Some of those are hard to find auctions catalogues like the Early American Copper Society Convention Auction of February 15, 1975 while others are texts like Penny Whimsy. I spent more hours than I can estimate reading the text and studying the photos in those references. So does this make me a numismatist? At this point I would say no.
    I believe it was around the late 70?s that my friend Guy became friends with Charles Hoskins (spelling?). When the ANA decided to provide authentication services (not grading) to the coin collecting community it was Charles that they picked to start this service. Eventually he left the ANA and started to provide this service at coin shows. Guy convinced Charles to offer classes on authenticating coins. I attended these classes which included chalkboard presentations as well as the examination of coins (real & fake) with a stereo microscope. The first class was the most informative. Charles said you can not authenticate coins until you understand the minting process. For example what causes luster? What is the difference between shine and luster? How does the field/design device interface look on a real coin versus counterfeit coin? Other classes looked at defects typical to counterfeit coins and tell-tail features found on rare coin varieties. For example how many of you know what the diagnostic mark is on the reverse of the 1942/1 dime? Charles did not like to talk about these because the more people that knew about them the sooner counterfeiters would know of them. So have I become a numismatist? I would say at this point I was really working on it.
    I think it was when my interest expanded to include ancient and world coins as well as medals (non-military) and tokens that I may have earned the right to say I was a numismatist. However, I believe ?numismatist? is like the term ?Doctor? (a Ph.D.) in the early days which was not granted based on completed course work but rather by recognition from your peers. Just like with Ben Franklin, those in the scientific community (overseas) called him Doctor Franklin.
  8. RAM-VT
    I was hoping to convince you to consider collecting ancient coins, but after reading what I wrote I missed the boat on that goal but here it is anyway.
    I have been collecting coins for 59 years and have totally embraced the hobby. For many years I collected only US until I simply got sick and tired when looking over any one of my sets and seeing numerous coins that all looked identical differing only by a mint mark or a change in the numbers forming the date. Was I collecting coins or dates and mint marks? I then converted my entire collection over to a type set. And that was fun, each coin varied from the other and I got to define what my type set should contain. It got to the point after several years where all I had left was holes for coins I simply could never afford. So then I turned to a collection that took on the world. I simply purchased coins and medals from anywhere and everywhere that I truly wanted to own and this was really fun. When I retired I had to sell off most of my collection to augment my retirement income. I did however want to remain active collecting coins. In 2009 I turned to ancient coins. All I can say is that I wish I had started collecting ancient coins a lot earlier. It is a fantastic area of numismatics. There are numerous ways of collecting these coins. Ancient coinage can be grouped into Greek Civic, Greek Empires, Celtic, Roman Republic, Roman Imperial, Roman Provincial, Roman Provincial-Judaea and Byzantine. These are just the broad categories and all can be subdivided if you want to specialize.
    What is so special about these coins? Well first there is the history surrounding these coins you can always fantasize that your coin was carried by Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. But one factor that draws me to these coins is that many of these early ancient coins are true miniature works of art and some have never been surpassed in beauty during the more than 2000 years that have passed since they were struck. In addition, when it comes to collecting ancient coins one is truly collecting the coin and not the grade. There is no MS-70 freshly produced by the mint. Catalogue values for bronze ancients are usually provided for the grades of Fine and Very Fine and for silver and gold in Very Fine and XF. Why? Because in the case of bronzed coins Fine is the typical and/or minimum preferred grade and gold and Silver the typical and/or minimum preferred grade is VF. That does not mean AU and mint state coins do not exist, the grades for the coins in my collection range from Fine to Mint State with the average grade for the entire collection being XF and an average cost per coin of under $100 (one cost me over $500 and two cost me over $400 so you know a lot of my coins cost well under $100 and are in nice grades for ancients).
    There are so many different designs available (even for the same issuer) that you should never have two coins with the same design in your collection. And for as long as these coins have been collected they are still routinely finding new specimens. I have only been collecting ancients for about 4-1/2 years and in that short time I have been able to pick up some very nice rare pieces. Because I have limited funds my collection right now contains only 97 coins. However, once I get back the coins from my latest submittals to NGC that number will grow to about 110 coins.
    I purchase almost all my coins from eBay (this is because I live in Vermont and don't have access to a dealer in ancient coins). If you are patient and put in the time you can make some great purchases on eBay.
    Are there problems collecting ancient coins? Yes. As with any collectable you have to worry about fakes. But then you also have bronze disease, tooling in addition to 15 factors related to strike that can influence the coins desirability and 27 factors related to the coin's surface. Finding information whether for attribution or pricing is darn near impossible. The number of books needed is mind blowing and none are cheap. I am disappointed that NGC does not provided attribution for a fee. Then there is the issue of valuations, the must commonly used references were produced by David Sear and all are at least 15 years old (when you include the time it takes to produce the reference) and older. I complained about the lack of pricing info to someone I met on the Forum web site (if you get into ancient coins you will become familiar with this site) and this was his response "Price on ancients is completely arbitrary, what is it worth to you?" That is like trying to buy a mint state 1916-D for $100 by telling the owner or dealer that is all it is worth to me!!!!!!!!!! Where do these people come from?
    Buying NGC certified ancients can ensure that the ancient coins you buy are worth owning. But be warned, buying raw ancients from a big well known auction house offers no protection. Three of my most expensive raw purchases were from the U.S.'s two largest dealers/auction houses and all three were misrepresent in the auction listings. One of these auction houses claimed that physical impairments were subjective!!!! For example, Oh we felt that the graffito did not have to be mentioned since it was very light and contemporary to the coin!!!! That is being subjective about physical impairments, i.e. knowing it is there but feeling you don't have to state it. I however preferred purchasing raw ancients. There is no way I could have purchased many of my better ancients had they been certified prior to me buying them. Since NGC has started certify ancients they have been easier to sell but also the prices have definitely gone up for certified coins. It is also evident that many buyers and sellers of NGC certified coins don't understand how to use the scores assigned for strike and surface.
    Well if you want to check out the types of coins that can be collected under the ancient umbrella go to Custom Sets Ancient Coins and check out:
    The Goldsaint set, and
    The two Aspen Park sets
    I pick these sets because close-up photos of all the coins in the sets are provided. You can also check out my set if you want RAM-VT.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  9. RAM-VT
    What did it take to get a kid hooked on coin collecting in 1955?
    In 1955 I was 11 years old and had already been collecting coins for a year or two. I was dutifully outfitted with my copy of the ?Red Book? and the standard blue booklets with the ?holes? you pushed the coins into. I had booklets for cents, nickels and dimes. My mom and I had a little ritual which took place on Saturday. I would get my coin booklets out and before she went shopping she would give me her change purse, and I could go through it looking for coins I needed. After she had done her Saturday shopping this process would be repeated. Typically I would be allowed to keep about 25 cents. My mom?s contribution to my collection supplemented my primary source of coins which was my own pocket change. Any time I got one or more quarters or halves I would always get change (cents, nickels & dimes). Anyway one Saturday my mom?s change purse had this nice looking older walking liberty half dollar. It was a 1921-D half dollar and listed for $8 in the Red Book (be still my heart). I asked my mom for the half. She was reluctant. She pointed out that I was never allowed to take more than 25 cents. I told her how it was worth $8.
    Let me give you some background. We were a family of six, my mom and dad both worked in mills and were making between $1.75 and $2 an hour before deductions. We had one car and it was always bought used. So 50 cents to my family was real money.
    Anyway my mom gave into my pleadings and I had a real collectable coin. I was hooked. Over time I was able to added quarters and halves to my collection. And eventually I had all three 1921 halves collected from pocket change. The 21-D was the highest grade.
  10. RAM-VT
    There is rare and then there is RARE!
    Presented here is a photo of a business strike of a 1977 Rhodesian ? cent. There were only 10 proofs struck while numerous business strikes were produced. However, all the business strikes were ordered to be melted down before any were released for circulation. But just like with our 1873 ?Open 3 No Arrows? half dollar some of the 1977 Rhodesian business strike half cents escaped the melting pot. For decades the Standard Catalogue of World Coins from 1901 has had the same statement which is ??. less than 10 surviving specimens know.? When such statements are made without a definitive number given, what the person is saying can be taken to be ? I have no idea how many examples of this coin exist, it could be anywhere from less than 10 to 100?s. Of importance to me is that in the past 33 years this statement has not changed, implying the surviving population of this coin has not grown to the point that specimens can found even if only rarely offered for sale.
    When I purchased this coin over a decade ago the auction catalogue described it as an impaired proof. In that auction this coin did not receive a bid. I wrote the auction company about the piece and they sent it to me on approval at their opening bid of just over $400 U.S. When I saw the coin I knew it was a business strike and quickly purchased it. Since purchasing this coin I have had it certified by NGC.
    Believe it or not I placed this coin with a well know auction house for sale in a recent auction (I needed the money). I placed no reserve and the minimum opening bid was set by the auction house at just $500 and not a single bid was receive. Boy was I happy when it did not sell for just $500. Believe me this coin will never see an auction house again while I am alive. As best I can determine through internet searches this was the first time a documented business strike of this coin was offered for sale in a public auction and it could not get a single bid.
    I have continued to search the net for other examples of this coin. To date I have found just one other example of this coin. It is described as being in the collection of a ?very serious? collector living in Singapore and it is not for sale. That coin can be seen at the Web Site of Mavin International. If you search the web for this coin you will see the Mavin site referenced and my eBay ?Bio? site were I talk about this coin but no photo.

  11. RAM-VT
    Can we find a way to increase the interest for collecting ancient coins?
    I just sent David Vagi an e-mail expressing my disappointment at the low parturition rate in the formation of Ancient Custom Sets, only 83 sets after several years (88 sets are shown but five have nothing to do with ancients and should be culled).
    I am a recent convert to collecting ancient coins, I started the year NGC started certifying these coins. And my custom set is pretty meager in that after all this time it contains only 159 coins. The reason I wrote David was to express my opinion that it might be a good idea to have competitive ancient registry sets. But I acknowledged that this most likely would not be possible because NGC keeps no info on the coins variety thus the registry points would be based solely on grade and condition and a very common variety denarius and very rare denarius in the same grade and condition would have the same registry points, definitely not fair.
    I then suggested a hybrid concept. That is custom sets whose contents are defined by NGC just like registry sets but no registry points are assigned. The point is that NGC come up with numerous sets containing 7+/- coins to let's say 30+/- coins. These would be manageable sets that would not take forever to fill and would allow NGC to compare the contents of sets against one another and reach some sort of objective determination of the best set in that category. I suggested a couple of obvious examples such as the 12 Caesars or a set containing one coin from each of the Ptolemy's. I don't know maybe these set could also be subdivided base on the metal used in minting the coins.
    These just my thoughts, I would like to see more interest in ancient coins and this is my proposed approach for increasing that interest.
    May I suggest that if any of you have additional ideas on this subject that you also write David.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  12. RAM-VT
    This may have been a prototype for what was to become New London, Connecticut Gay 90's token Rulau #Nln 5 JOHN A. MEADE of which only two are known.
    Rulau #Nln 5 measures 25mm and has two sides
    This token measures 26.2mm, weighs 4.75 grams and has only one side which reads
    JOHN A. MEADE above 5C in the center and IN TRADE below
    I have had this piece for decades and have never been able to find anything out about this token.
    Any info would be greatly appreciated
    Best regards


  13. RAM-VT
    Maybe it is just my age and not being able to understand what to do.
    So far I have posted about five Journal entries. In all cases there was no option for readers to respond at the bottom of my post. Some readers went out their way to send comments via e-mails. This was very nice of them but I don't understand why the option to respond does not appear at the bottom of my post.
    I did e-mail NGC and ask for help and I thought I followed their instructions with my last post but guess what -- I evidently screwed up again.
    It may be just my age and an inability for me to comprehend what it is I am suppose to do, but I hate to think that at 67 I am that far out of it.
    So could someone simply tell me the steps to follow that will provide readers the opportunity to respond to my posts?
    I am preparing a post that might upset some so I want them to have the opportunity to have their say about what I say.
    A one sided discussion is not a discussion.
    Thanks for any help that might be provided
    Ram-VT
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  14. RAM-VT
    Businesses will do whatever it takes to succeed.
    Let's first go over a little history. The first important grading standard was Brown & Dunn, that was followed by Photograde and then the American Numismatic Society published its grading standards. Overall these three standards were very comparable (some could argue that there were inconsistencies). Anyway the ANA grading reference has become "THE" grading standard for U.S. coins. So when the ANA formed the first major 3rd party grading firm (ANACS) it was only logical that they be considered the top tier grading organization. And believe me I sent all coins to them for certification. Who in the world could best apply ANA grading standing standards then the ANA itself? Isn't this only logical?
    Then along came the NGC and PCGS and before you know it all the dealers and many of their followers are saying they are in fact the top tier 3rd party graders and can do a better job of applying ANA standards than the ANA. This upset the heck out of me. And how can this be possible. In my opinion it simply came down to payola. Dealers made money submitting coins to NGC or PCGS (they do not have to pay the published rates we pay when submitting coins) and they get the opportunity to charge service fees for preparing the coins for submittal. I could submit my coins directly to ANACS. So who are the dealers going to support? They are going to push the companies that give them an opportunity to make money, those being NGC & PCGS.
    Now on a very infrequent basis I visit a Burlington area dealer to buy submittal flips. This dealer does advertise himself as being both an NGC and PCGS related dealer. Each time he asked me who I was going to submit my coins to and I said NGC. Here is what happened next.
    1st time - He recommended I use PCGS because he "heard" that there had been reports some time ago that NGC had become very sloppy and over grading when they hired some graders with questionable capabilities but he also heard that they maybe correcting this problem. But this problem had turned many dealers against NGC.
    2nd time - Before he was able to start his spiel I said I was submitting ancients and NGC is the only game in town. His response was how long have they been grading ancients? And he advertises himself as an NGC submitter!
    3rd time - He recommended I use PCGS because (now are you ready for this) NGC has a reputation for under grading! (Please see #1 above). I just smiled bought the flips and left.
    After my third visit I started to think about what was going on here. First he could not get his story straight, but it was months between visits thus he did not remember me and had no idea he contradicted himself. He didn't even know what services NGC provides but that is beside the point. Then it hit me. I can bypass the dealer and submit directly to NGC. He has lost an opportunity to make money (sound like what happened to ANACS?) so what does a dealer do? You give the customer a reason to use a product that requires you to use a dealer while at the same time providing reasons why the customer's desired product may not really be as good as the dealer's supplied product.
    Look it I have certified coins from both PCGS and NGC. I have been disappointed with coins grade by both firms and more than pleased with coins graded by both firms. Based on my personal experience they are both excellent firms and can I say one is better than the other? Absolutely not. I am with NGC because being a member of the ANA I can submit directly to NGC without paying for any membership fee. For me it comes down to cost and for dealers it comes to profit. The common factor - MONEY
  15. RAM-VT
    Chapter 8 The Five Coins that never were and are worth a Fortune
    Anyone who has followed the trials and tribulations related to the 1933 Double Eagles in private hands knows simply possessing a coin does not mean you have the legal right to own it. I am no expert on what exactly the procedure is for coins and bank notes to become legal tender. From what I can gather from news articles the first step is that an order be placed for the coins or bank notes be produced. Once produced is this new currency now legal tender? Evidently not, the new currency must then be officially released which includes funds being transferred to the treasury equal to the face value of the new currency being introduced into circulation. In the case of the 1933 Double Eagle the coins were authorized to be struck but that is where it stopped. With the exception of one 1933 double eagle set aside to be presented to King Farouk of Egypt all other specimens were to be melted down. But even though King Farouk was officially presented his 1933 double eagle it was not officially removed from the mint in that the treasury never received payment from the State Department or any other government agency for release of that coin. The court ruling determined the coin was in fact a gift from the U.S. government to the King and was therefore allowed to exist in private hands but that it not come back into the U.S. until $20 in U.S. funds was paid to the U.S. treasury. The $20 was quickly paid and the coin is now in the U.S. in private hands.
    There are other strange situations related to U.S. coinage such as the 1870-S silver dollar. For example there are simply no mint records related to the production or release of these 12 coins. These 12 coins were all removed from circulation (1 is graded MS 62) and never known to have been in the hands of one family or individual thus implying they were released into general circulation as part of the normal operation of the San Francisco mint. This differs significantly from the 1933 double eagles being fought over in the courts that are all MS and in the hands of one family.
    But what upsets me the most are those #&*%!! 1913 Liberty Head Nickels. To me these five coins represent the darkest side of our hobby that is willing to reward individuals for thievery and allow their ill-gotten merchandise to be sold openly in the market place and to reap big bucks. What saddens me the most is that such practice is supported by the biggest and most prominent auction houses, dealers and collectors. Yes at least one 1913 Liberty Head die was made but that is as far as it went. When I started collecting coins in about 1950 (this was only 37 years after 1913) I heard stories of how these five coins were produced (either as a favor or for payment) for an individual who had an in at the mint. This position was reinforced three decades +/- later when I was living in Maryland and all five of these coins were placed on display at the Baltimore ANA show. I was a one man boycott of this show simply because these coins were being treated like royalty when in fact they were pretenders to the throne. While the ANA show was in town I heard and interview with the president of the ANA on the radio and when asked about the origin of these five coins he paused and the best he could do was imply they may have had a clandestine origin followed by a short laugh and that was all he would say. Please note that unlike the 1870-S dollars these five nickels are all MS, as with the 1933 double eagle, implying they were removed from the mint as group and kept way that until being split up.
    Also I would like to say thank you to those of you who have said they enjoy reading my journals.
    Best regards
    Ram
  16. RAM-VT
    Chapter 5 Tools of the traded
    What “tools” do coin collectors need to support their interest in this hobby? As with most things related to coin collecting I have very strong opinions on this topic. I will however try to be realistic.
    I want to first address the tools that are available to collectors.
    1 – Numismatic Knowledge – This is without a doubt the key tool in the coin collector’s tool box. The truest guidance ever given the collector is the old adage “buy the book before the coin.” No one is born knowing all there is to know about collecting any type of coin. This knowledge must be developed with the creation of a numismatic library. The contents of this library will depend on the specific contents of each and every collection. Before I stopped collecting, my personal numismatic library contained over 450 volumes. I sold them over time in auctions conducted by Kolbe & Fanning and you can go to your search engine and find many more dealers in numismatic related books.
    2 – Some form of magnifying device. I always wanted a stereo microscope but could never really come up with the money to buy one and I really could not set one up at an auction site. I settled for a group of well-made handheld magnifying glasses 5X, 10X and 20X. Typically with the handheld glasses the higher the magnification power the small the field you look at when you use them. Why would you want/need this tool, first to assist in grading and second to assist in determining varieties and checking for doubled dies. If you want to know a secret the best magnifying glass I ever had was a lense from a home movie projector or home movie camera (I am not sure which). After I purchased one and found it to be such a great magnifying glass I purchased a second. Eventually I wore them both out. The lense had a zoom function and over time I just wore the zoom function out. If you ever have the opportunity to acquire one of these lenses don’t turn your nose up at it just because it doesn’t look like a magnifying glass.
    3 – A Vernier caliper this is more for counterfeit detection of colonial and truly early U.S. coinage. But here you must be sure of the value you are comparing your measurement against. About two years ago I was at a local auction which contained 1797 sixteen star dime. I closely studied the coin in order to make two determinations and these were; is it real and, what is it grade? I graded the coin XF and everything I saw said this coin is real. I won the auction and paid $4.600 including buyer’s fee. After I paid for the coin one of the bidders came up to me and said I really wanted that coin but I think it is a fake. He said according to the Red Book this coin is supposed to have a diameter of 19mm and that this coin has a diameter of 20mm and possibly a little over. He used a small plastic ruler he laid over the coin to measure it. I said that his info surprises me. And that was that. When I got home the first thing I did was get out Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins. Guess what Breen gave the diameter as 19.8mm or approximately 20mm vs the Red Book and approximately 19mm. Anyway the coin came back from NGC graded XF-45 and it also received a CAC sticker when I sent it in for that. The coin sold for $8,000 over what I paid for it.
    4 – A scale, I use a three beam balance beam good to 0.01 grams. The Caliper and scale combined are great tools to help in the detecting of counterfeits whether it be a contemporary or modern counterfeit.
    5 – A comparator Magnifier. I use a “Desk Model” and once you develop the correct technique for using one of these you will be glad you have one. You only need this item when identifying die varieties of colonial through mid-ninetieth century coins. These are not expensive items. Mine came with eight interchangeable end lenses (four in black markings and the same four in white markings). Coins of light metals or toning use the black and darker coins use the white. Mine brakes a centimeter into mm’s and mm’s into 1/10ths of mm’s. So you can accurately measure small variances in design elements or the location of design elements relative to one another. I also use it to grade stamps by measuring the distance from the bottom of the perf to the frameline of a stamp (usually in two locations on all four sides of the stamp). I strive to identify grades higher than VF and not a single stamp has comeback worse than VF-XF with XF being typical and an occasional XF-S.
    OK which if any of these tools do I recommend for you. – Trick question because my answer will depend on what you collect. So let’s take these tools one at a time.
    Show dealers – these are collectors that on weekends setup at coin shows to sell to the public. These individuals need the most accepted reference book related to every type of coin they sell. In addition they must attribute every coin they sell with the variety designator provided in the appropriate reference. Once one of these individuals offer a coins for sale they become a dealer and they are expected to be knowable on the material they are selling. To sell coins without attribution they’re telling those that visit their table they’re really just a hack who is either too cheap to purchase the necessary reference material and/or too lazy to put in the time to find out what it is they’re really selling. I once read a post where a “Show Dealer” whined and cried about collectors who would come to his table and cherrypick his inventory. He totally believed that when a customer found a rare variety in his inventory they should be obligated to inform the dealer of this. To this I say BULL! There is no reason that dealer cannot purchase the appropriate reference material unless the dealer is just too cheap to purchase the necessary reference material and/or too lazy to put in the time to find out what it is they’re really selling. So this dealer believes it is up to his customers to do his job – No Way.
    Show dealers must add to their library a decent number of references on counterfeit detection. In the 80’s & 90’s there were a couple of firms that several times a year published packets of 8½ X 11 sheets that detailing recent new counterfeits that came into the market place. If you can find any of these buy them because those counterfeits are still out there and some are quite good. I have a few ring binders full of these sheets. I would also include two general references these being the MEGA RED (the massive red book) and Walter Breen’s complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins.
    And last but not least a very good grading reference.
    If as a dealer one limits his inventory to 20th & 21st century coins you can skip the scale, calipers & comparative magnifier. If you are going to deal in a wide range of U.S. coins, in my opinion, you will need all of the tools listed above.
    Now the collector
    Once you have decided on what it you want to collect you have defined what it is that you need in your library. That is your library must be tailored to the material you collect. There is one exception here. If your goal is to complete type sets or a single massive type set covering all U.S. coinage you need not go after all the specialty books such as those dedicated to half cents, large cents, bust halves and etc., etc. Since all you are looking for are coins that represent each type the MEGA RED or Walter Breen’s complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins will serve you well. When it comes to reference books stay away from simple reprints of monographs. In my library I had a copy of Valentine’s original monograph on half dimes and a newer reprint of the monograph. The photos in the reprint were nowhere near the quality of those in the monograph. Even though I wanted to protect that original work from wear and tear I ended up using the original monograph more than I wanted.
    When it comes to what tools to get to support his hobby, the collector should follow what I recommended for the show dealer. If the show dealer and collector both specialize in the same areas they should both be on the same footing when it comes to depth of knowledge and tools used. When the dealer prefers to support a larger base of collectors and purchases inventory for this larger base he may have a very good knowledge base to handle his inventory but the collector who specializes should know more about his area of specialization than the dealer.
    Best regards
  17. RAM-VT
    Chapter 6 The Hunt
    I don’t care what you collect, every collector dreams of that “Big Find,” that is the (put in your own value) dollar rarity that falls into your lap for a steal and it is all legal and aboveboard. Does this really happen? Yes and I want to tell you about mine. But let’s first discuss what makes such finds possible. With just a couple of exception all my successful hunts took place at local auctions. Some were estate auctions that had a few coins in them, some were regularly schedule coin auctions held by local auction houses that could routinely (once a month or so) pull together enough coins and related items to hold an auction and some were better known local auction houses who happened upon a large holding of coins in good enough condition to justify holding a special auction or incorporating the coins into a two day auction. Please note that all these coin auctions were well attended by all the local coin dealers and for larger auctions dealers from neighboring states would attend. So how does a nobody scoop the dealers? I wish I had an honest answer for you. In the accounts that follow when I think I know why I was successful I will tell you.
    Either Yogi Berra or Casey Stengel make a comment that went something like, you would be surprised at what you can see if you just look. I know for a fact that I had many good finds simply by studying every lot up for auction. This approach landed me numerous proof and mint state Doubled Die Washington Quarters, Franklin halves, Kennedy Halves and a really nice 1946 DDR Walking Liberty. All I needed was a good magnifying glass and a willingness to spend a little extra time to look at what was up for sale. My first successful hunt came when I was 5 years old. Every Saturday before my mom went shopping she use to let me go through her change for those coins I needed to fill the holes in my Whitman folder. I got to check her change before she left and after she came home. Would you believe I found a 1921-D walking liberty half dollar!!!!!!!!!!!  I ran to my mom and asked if I could have the half dollar. She said no. If you remember from Chapter 2 my parents worked in mills and 50C represented a half hour of labor before taxes. I kept pleading & telling her how few were made and when I pointed out it was $8.50 in one grade and $16 in another grade she decided to let me keep it. That coin was my lucky charm and I took it to every coin show I set up at until one day a fellow dealer stole it from my cash box. I say dealer because only dealers were allowed behind the tables. By the way I completed an entire set of Walking Liberty Halves from pocket change (I never purchase a single one).
    To support my hunts I had a “go box” ready, it always had the basics one or two standard generic references, magnifying glasses, note book and two pens (one wrote in red) I would then add other books based on the material listed to be included in the auction. The only items I would take into the viewing was a red book, magnifying glass & note pad. The rest I would leave in the car. After viewing the lots I would take my notes and go out to the car and check my notes against info in the appropriate reference book. Sometimes I would have to go back and check for additional characteristics. This was my preparation for the auction.
    Have good references for detecting counterfeits because they also tell you what to look for on the genuine coins. Whether you know it or not many, if not most, of our rarer coins were produced from one set of dies, thus the low mintages. But also the easier to verify it is what you believe it to be. Here is a mini test - where must you look to authenticate a 1942/1 dime? If you didn’t specify a particular location on the reverse of the coin please go back to class. Because only one die pair was used to produce ALL 1942/1 dimes, a genuine 1942/1 must have a die scratch on the reverse. No scratch no 1942/1 dime. The first lead authenticator for the ANACS (originally this was an authentication service only – no grading) told me when they got in 1942/1 dimes they always examined the back first and this check was always correct. You have a similar situation with the 1937-D three legged Buffalo Nickel. Both the obverse and reverse dies were rusted and the obverse surface produced by that rusted die is as important as the missing leg. Well I was at an auction in a firehouse west of Frederick, MD and I was impressed by all the key and semi-key coins in that auction. I was studying the list of items up for sale and there all by itself was a 1937-D nickel. I said to myself why in the world are they selling a 35c coin all by itself? Then the light bulb went on, this has to be a three legged nickel. I started to get up to check it out and I looked at the table where the coins were on display and it was surrounded by all the dealers from Frederick and surrounding areas and as far away as Baltimore. And any coin a bidder picked up to check out they immediately rechecked after it was placed back on the table. So I walked up to the table and didn’t pick up a single coin all I did was look at the obverse of that nickel and it screamed 1937-D three legged buffalo. The bidding started at a quarter and when it got to a dollar the chatter picked up and when I won the coin for $1.75 there were some snickers. When I looked at the back I saw the scratch in the area of the missing foot. I smiled sent it into ANACS and it came back a three legged buffalo. Had the other bidders looked at the entire coin and all its genuine characteristics the selling price would have been higher. I sold that coin for around $125. A strange example of how just looking happened to find me a good coin I was going through my own junk box. One day I decided to go through a box containing well-worn coins as well as world coins I could not identify. I was pulling out the silver coins to sell them for melt. As I pull out what looked like a slug I gave it an extra look to see if it was really silver and was amazed at how well-worn the piece was. Just as I was to let fly into the melt pile I realize there was actually a design on it that I could make out. It was a John Chalmers’ short worm shilling (1783) I had no idea where or when I acquired it. But since at the time I was living in Maryland I could only assume it was part of a box lot I picked up at one of the back woods country auctions I frequented. After sending it to ANACS I was able to sell it for about $100.
    My first true “hunt find” was at a fire station auction in Wolfsville, MD. I got there early on a Saturday because I did not expect to find anything and there was another auction I could go to. When I saw the coin component of this auction was only about 18 coins I wasn’t going to waste my time. But then I said I’m here there was only 18 coins take a look then leave. The only coin to catch my eye was an 1873 no arrows half dollar. The coin was totally undamaged and a very pleasing VG. When I checked the red book it catalogued for $20 BUT WAIT there is an open three and closed three and the closed three catalogues for over $1,000. At that time the red book did not have a photo of a closed three and if they did I probably would not have purchased this coin. Why? Do you know how small the opening is in the open 3? The opening is 0.4mm and the closed 3 is 0.2mm. Being half the size one would think that is easy to see but you don’t have them side by side and with just one coin to look at 0.4mm looks like it might be 0.2mm and 0.2mm might be 0.4mm. The only reason I did not pass on this coin was that I had once owned a closed three quarter and from what I remembered the date on that half dollar reminded me of that quarter. Because I got there early I drove 45 minutes back to my house ran down to my 450+ book library and guess what not a single photo of a closed three 1873 no arrows half dollar. Now I was almost out of time so back to car and back to the auction house. I decided to buy the half dollar. If I get it for $20 so what the coin was worth that and if I pay $5 or $10 more so what that isn’t going to brake me. I won the bidding at $20 and as I was handed the coin my hands were shaking and the person giving me the coin saw them shaking said you did good and I said “if you only knew.” Off it went to ANACS and I ended up selling it for over $1,000.
    Now for my ultimate “Hunt Find” this one is mind blowing at least for me. It was a two day “coin” auction that was held in Williston, VT. There was a full day of viewing the day before the auction started. When I say a full day I was there over nine hours, I was there as it was being opened and I was there as it was being closed. The dealers showed up in teams splitting up the work of checking out the lots. I was there by myself. I found several lots I would bid on. But just as they were asking me to leave I opened a small box that contained 13 ancient coins and the first coin I saw was an Aes Grave Semis (1/2 AS) from 280 to 269 BC. When I got home I got out my ancient books and determined it was a Sear 535 which has a decades old valuation of $500. This was a massive coin and hard to miss with a weight of about 130 grams. There were other Roman and Greek coins which I estimated to be worth another $750 to $1000 and about three Byzantine bronzes worth about $50 each. That night I decided this lot was mine and was willing to go at least $750. I knew I was going to get this lot because this is Vermont and this lot may represent half of all the ancient coins in the state at that time. The lots were sold in the order they were displayed for viewing so this lot sold at the end of the second day which also help me win it because most bidders had left by then. The lot opened at around two hundred dollars then moved down to $150 > then $100 then > $50 then $25 at which point I won the bid for $25 + buyer’s fee so $28.50 in total. I sold the poorest condition coins first and that netted me a little over $1,000 . I then sent the remaining coins to NGC Ancients. A few weeks later I get a call from Dave Vagi at NGC Ancients and he started questioning me about my submittal. He finally told me that one of my Byzantine coins was not byzantine but in fact one of the most important Armenian coins in existence and worth about $15,000. You can read the whole story at https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1258. The article includes a photo which is better than the photo you get when you use the certification number 2406902-023.
    The results of this hunt was just dumb luck, but what I will take credit for is making sure everything in my collection is identified. I could have simply continued to assume that what I thought were three byzantine coins where just that and sold them for $50 each.
    This again brings up the question when should a buyer tell a professional/dealer what he is selling is worth more than what he is selling for? Look, I have been to hundreds of these auctions and everyone starts the same way. The auction house makes no claims that their descriptions are accurate, they do not stand behind any grade you might find on a holder and it is up to the buyer to decide what the auction house is selling is real or a fake item. So if the coin is damaged, a fake or not as described and I find this out one second after I purchased it, too bad that is my fault!!!! Well I am sorry I am not obligated to tell the professional/dealer that an item is worth more than they think it is.
    Regards
     
  18. RAM-VT
    Chapter 7 How many of you remember when NCLT was a four letter word
    As I remember it, I first came face-to-face with the acronym NCLT sometime in the very late 1970’s or early 1980’s. The first time I remember seeing it was in rants in the “letters to the editor” column in  coin newspapers (newspaper not magazine) and it had to do with what might be called “Commemorative Sets” or modified Proof/UNC sets. I believe several of the British Commonwealth countries started issuing these coins/sets in the around 1980+/- depending on the country.
    NCLT stands for = Non-Circulating Legal Tender, these are coins struck in silver or gold with a defined value in that country’s currency (thus the legal tender) and the quantity of silver or gold used to make the coins was well in excess of the coins monetary value thus the non-circulating. These sets sold well in excess of its total face value to cover the cost of metal used and to make money for the country.
    The rants basically charged that these were not “true” coins and it was just a way for these small countries to make money. Well in fact they really were coins even thought they would never circulate. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum :>)  Countries like the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and China to name just a few saw how much money could be made and starting in the late 80’s the U.S. would issue “commemoratives” for any reason we dream up. Except for our half dollar commemoratives everything from the US, Canada, Great Britain and China are NCLT and some are hotly collected. What still surprises me is that a lot of these early NCLT coins have been melted down and their initial issues were not that large making assembling complete sets of these early NCLT coins a challenge and in some cases near impossible. One such set would be the 250 Cayman Dollar Gold Coins Issues. The set would consist of just seven coins 1985 estimated issue 250 coins, 1986 64 issued, ND 75 issued, 1988 86 issued, 1990 est. 500 issued, 1993 est. 100 issued and 1994 200 issued. All but the 1990 issue had 1.4016 troy ounces of gold. The 1990 issue had 1.0024 troy ounces of gold.
    I picked up a 1988 issue for just under $300 from an estate auction in Ohio in the mid-1990’s. The coin did not have a COA and nothing that showed the gold content so everyone but me had to guess at its gold content I had my KM with me so I knew. The $300 purchase included the buyer’s fee. I wanted to sell it for melt several times but the thought of selling a coin for melt when only 86 were minted seemed crazy. I can always get melt but I believe a true premium is warranted. My specimen is PF69UC NGC has certified one other and it also is PF69UC.
    The stigma applied to NCLT in the late 1970’s & 1980’s does not seem to apply to current day NCLT coins.
    Best regards
    Ram
     
  19. RAM-VT
    Looking back on my 70 years of collecting
    Chater 1 - The End
    My third try at posting this journal.
    Today I did something I hoped I would never have to do. I deleted my now much smaller ancient custom set. Due to finances I had to sell off a large portion of my ancient collection. Since I will no long have the financial means to meaningfully grow this collection I took the reasonable step of deleting that collection. I did however move my ancient coins into a much smaller custom set I have titled “Oldies but Goodies and other Pieces.” I was quite pleased when my Custom ancient set became the first ancient set that made it into the list of 50 most viewed custom sets.
    I do have a never say die approach to collecting in that the day I shipped off my ancients for auction I purchased three more ancients. Since then I have purchased what maybe my last ancient for some time to come. I believe it to be a beautiful specimen of a Roman Provincial Coin (RPC) by Macrinus, the coin is from Moesia, Nicopolis. It is an AE26. The coin grades Ch XF with “condition scores” of Strike = 4/5 & Surface = 4/5 (see photo). It is my belief that specimens of bronze RPC that grade XF and better are not that common. In fact I just input “Macrinus, Moesia, Nicopolis, AE26” into the NGC’s Ancient Coins Archives search engine and 40+ pages of results came up, I check Page 1 & Page 40 (50 coins total) and not a single bronze RPC graded better than Good VF (Ch VF).
    So for all practical purposes I have a coin collection but I have stopped collecting coins (i.e., growing my collection). Now what I am I going to do? I have decided to start a journal that discusses what I have observed and learned regarding coin collecting over my 70 years of collecting. If you have any topic you would like my thoughts on just let me know. As it stands right now I have eleven topics I wish to write journals on.
    Take care
    (Ram in VT)


  20. RAM-VT
    Chapter 4 There are always unintended consequences
    For those of us into ancient coins (as I currently am) NGC is doing something long overdue in this field of numismatics, based on the coins they have certified, they are developing a condition census of sorts (i.e., not a true condition census) that will still provide very useful information to the ancient coin collecting community. I have no idea when the results of this project will be made available (if at all) to NGC members or the collecting community in general. However NGC has made its data available to Heritage Auctions who in turn provides this data as part of their online auction listings.
    When I found this data I was overjoyed. But I was also surprised at the large number of MS, Ch AU, AU and Ch XF coins some ancient issues had. I mean really surprised. I expected the data for this census to be skewed to the upper end grades because let’s face it unless you have a really rare coin who is going to pay round trip registered mail postage and grading fees for a common fine ancient and depending on the issue this question could include VF’s.
    It appears (I cannot document this) that ancient coin prices have started to drop in general because the upper end coin prices have dropped due to a perceived larger than expected availability of inventory in higher grades. This most likely is not true for the truly key/rare issues but rather those specimens typically found in ancient collections.
    Simply people see the data and apparently don’t try to understand it and may just assume this is representative of what is out there. Again just because of the cost to certify coins this data will always be skewed to the upper end.
    As an example I looked up my AU Strike 5/5 Surface 4/5, Gordian III, AR Drachm, Caesarea, Cappadocia and found 268 had been graded, with just 16 graded below XF. Now David Sear’s work on Greek Imperial Coins and their values released in 1982 with reprints (not new editions) up to 2006. So we are basically working with 36 year old valuations. And the value given for a VF specimen is 100£ or about $140 in 1982. On October 26, 2017 a high end VF (listed uncertified grade was "about XF") sold for $61!!! Between October 13, 2016 and November 2, 2017 Heritage had 11 sales of NGC certified MS specimens of this coin involving 7 different specimens ranging in price from $141 to $282 with an average selling price of $195.
    So what do we have here when in 1982 the book value for this coin in VF was $140 with the following guidance provided re. valuation: "Collectors must bear in mind that exceptionally well preserved examples are worth substantially more than the prices quoted, whilst very worn or damaged specimens can be almost valueless", in the case of common bronze coins. (The bold type is as give in the book.) So to go from VF to MS there are step increases in the coin's value as it goes to Ch VF, XF, Ch XF, AU, Ch AU and then Mint State in total six step increases. I am sorry but I do not believe a MS valuation of $195 meets Sear’s guidance on higher valuations for MS specimens unless the value for VF specimens is well below $140 as apparently it actually is.
    Until NGC came along grading of ancient coins was a total joke. Recently I was trying to research the value of some ancient coins in my collection and I was using auction results information from numerous dealers through NGC’s site. The auction result infomation lists 25 coins per page. One page had 20 coins graded some type of VF (yes 20) the remaining 5 were some type of Fine. Checking the photos the actual grade (based on my grading) was all over the place one VF looked like a well-worn slug as was no where near a VF specimen. Anyway these 20 coins had the following grades in their auction listings, Ch VF, Good VF, Nice VF, VF+, VF, About VF (this is really a high end Fine, I hate it when dealers use a higher grade designator to define a lower grade), Near VF (see previous grade).
    All I can say is thank you NGC for your efforts in developing this condition census. And I hope when you release this data to the general public you make it clear that the data is skew and why.
    Best regards
     
  21. RAM-VT
    A Supplement to Chapter 3 Grading
    Look it I can talk forever on the subject of grading mainly because I have some very strong feelings on the subject. This may due to my age and a belligerent nature that I have developed on topics I feel strongly about over my years in this hobby. So now I am going to tell you how I really feel about grading.
    First let’s get one thing perfectly straight and that is everyone has biases. These biases influence our perception when we must interpret things like standards for grading. I had a political science professor that on the first day of class said “history is as perceived by the historians.” What he was saying was that there is no one real history. Political scientists tend to prefer historical accounts of events that support their perceptions. To give just one example I had always believed that FDR should have impeached for trying to stack (a term used within the FDR White House) the Supreme Court. Then one day listening to an interview with a political science professor on Vermont Public radio this very subject was addressed. The professor took issue with the term "stacking the court" and this was not FDR’s intent and that he totally dropped the issue once congress refused to support his plan. I said well I guess I was wrong and continue to listen to the interview. Then a few months later a documentary on FRD on the history channel again addressed this issue. It was pointed out that the action of congress to not support FRD in his attempt to stack the Supreme Court so upset FDR that in the very next election he spent all his remaining political capital (which evidently wasn’t that much) to defeat the twelve that voted against his plan. Only one of those twelve lost reelection. That is when FDR gave up on his plan to stack the Supreme Court. Two totally different accounts of one relatively recent event in American History. Which one is true? I depends on your personal bias or perception of FDR.
    What makes a good grader? As far as I am concerned what makes a good grader is reparation – reparation – reparation – reparation. From my days when I was routinely buying coins to acquire stock for coin shows I would go to local coin auctions and grade every coin up for sale and when at coin shows I would grade coins (to myself) of the other dealers. All this took place before third party grading took off. I knew I made it when a friend of mine that owned a coin shop in Rockville, MD would ask my opinion. Do I ever disagree with a grade I get back from a third party grader? Yes yet I accept it (I yield to overwhelming experience). I expect these professional graders grade more coins in a week than most collectors see in a year (in some cases years). This also goes for small time dealers. Well established coin dealers with high inventory throughput rates should also have excellent grading skills. Simply looking at a dozen or so coins a week just isn’t going to cut it. There are more than 15 grades between AG & AU-58 and 11 grades of UNC. At 12 random coins a week how long would it take the average collector to examine one coin of each type in each grade?
    The key grading tool related to grading is a well-established grading standard. When I started there was Brown & Dunn which used drawings to define the basic grades. Then came James Ruddy with Photograde (I still have my well-worn copy held together with Duct Tape) and this was followed by the ANA Grading Standards. Now to show a bias I had, I would buy coins using Brown & Dunn and sell coins using Photograde. Old timers wouldn’t think twice when someone checked their Brown & Dunn when assigning a grade. And Photograde was such an instant hit that no one questioned you when you handed them your Photograde to check grade. So yes I perceived a difference in accepted standards whether it was real or not. All I know is I made money in my sales. Today the major third party grading firms have reference collections something dealers and collectors don’t have.
    Do we now have acceptable/workable grading system? In my opinion the answer is not simply no, but HELL NO. I addressed this issue in my first Chapter 3 post. I am totally against the single designator grading system whether this designator be a number or an adjectival grade. First in grades above AU-58 it assumes that strike issues and surface condition issue exist in comparable relationship. For example using NGS grading standards:
    MS/PF68 - Very sharply struck with only miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF67 - Sharply struck with only a few imperfections.
    MS/PF66 - Very well struck with minimal marks and hairlines.
    MS/PF65 - Well struck with moderate marks or hairlines.
    MS/PF64 - Average or better strike with several obvious marks or hairlines and other miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF63 - Slightly weak or average strike with moderate abrasions and hairlines of varying sizes.

    Why can’t you have and MS-68 Strike and an MS-64 surface? I am sorry this is really not an ideal fantasy world. In the real world nature would not allow this assumed perfect relationship.
    Second in grades below MS-60 it ignores strike and issues that can affect the coins overall appearance/desirability. NGC’s grading standards for circulated grades does not address variances in strike and surface conditions? In coins from the mid-1800’s on up to present day this should be relatively negligible but just like with Mint State coins they are there and in earlier coins one would definitely expect to find circulated coins with variations in strike and surface on coins from all around the world.
    And talk about interpretation of a standard we have well struck, very well struck, sharply struck, very sharply struck and fully struck we have similar word play with imperfection and marks. In this case we cannot eliminate the possibility for different interpretations for such guidance. Here is where we must rely on the experience resulting from reparation – reparation – reparation – reparation.
    For me the perfect grading system would be based on that used by NGC’s ancient department, however, modified to address modern strikes. In this case every coin would be graded for wear with all truly uncirculated MS & Proof coins being graded 60 and then Strike and Surface being individually scored 1 through 10 or whatever scale you choose (ancients use 1 through 5). Similarly circulated coins would be graded e.g., XF-45 Strike 6/10 Surface 8/10. Wear is defined by XF-45, Strike is defined by 6/10 and Surface is defined by 8/10. Maybe circulated coins could use the 1 through 5 range used by NGC’s ancient department.
    Best regards
     
  22. RAM-VT
    Chapter 3 Grading is not a four letter word
    There is no way we can have a discussion of coin collecting without eventually getting to the subject of grading. The reason a coin’s grade is so important is that the coin’s grade is the key factor in determining the coin’s value but not the only factor. Technically the grade all by itself indicates the amount of wear the coin has experienced after the planchet was struck by the dies and became a coin. Sometime in the 19th century the production of coins became highly mechanized and exacting production standards were implemented and achieved resulting in almost every coin of a given denomination coming out of a major mint being identical to all other coins of that denomination. But in the early 1800’s and going back to the first coins struck at a mint there was no nice and neat uniformity in coins of the same denomination produced at a given mint. There were many reasons for this with the obvious reasons being as follows:
    1 - Each pair of dies were either totally or partially hand cut (thus no true uniformity in the dies);
    2 – Differences in the pressure used to produce the coin;
    3 – Varying planchet dimensions including non-uniform thickness across the same planchet;
    4 – The planchet was not parallel to both dies or both dies were not parallel to the planchet;
    5 – The hammer and anvil dies would wear out at different rates resulting in a used die (but not totally worn out die) being matched with a new die being combined and the appearance of one side of a coin having more wear than the other.  Let us be serious here, you have to admit that the grade XF/VF has to be one of the stupidest concepts ever devised in grading coins. Coins are small and totally randomly handled and could someone please tell me how in the act of commerce a coin could experience more wear to one side of the coin than to the other. Please reach into your pocket and pull out a coin making sure you only touch one side of the coin (and almost always the same side). Have any of you ever seen a real “Pocket Piece”? How many of these had wear to only one side?
    So with older coins we have reasons why just minted coins do not look the same. Then there are the post minting factors, Bulk transport/handling marks (bag marks), dropping the coin or dropping things on to the coins, scratches, environmental conditions, business related condition issues (chop marks & counter stamps) and then collector inducted condition issues resulting in surface problems due to stupid attempts to make the coin look better (improper cleaning) and last be not least the one thing that most likely has ruined many a nice coin and that is the staple. Fortunately 2X2 holders are not used that much today but in my day every collector and dealer carried around 2X2 boxes crammed full of coins in 2X2 holders with a staple in all four sides. The problem is these staples were not crimped down flat so that when a 2X2 was pulled out of those boxes the raised staples would scrape across the coins behind it. I have seen many a nice coin ruined by stapples.
    So how do we address these other factors that result in condition issues but do not affect the grade? Actually the approach taken by NGC in grading ancient coins is as far as I am concerned the only viable approach for a grading system for coins. This concept first grades the coin and second scores on a scale of 1 through 5 the coins strike, this would address items 1 through 5 above and then scores on a scale of 1 through 5 the coins surface, this would address the remaining issues listed above.
    For uncirculated MS & Proof coins NGC decided to combine strike and condition issues into an 11 point grading scale.
    MS/PF70 - A coin with no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.
    MS/PF69 - A fully struck coin with nearly imperceptible imperfections.
    MS/PF68 - Very sharply struck with only miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF67 - Sharply struck with only a few imperfections.
    MS/PF66 - Very well struck with minimal marks and hairlines.
    MS/PF65 - Well struck with moderate marks or hairlines.
    MS/PF64 - Average or better strike with several obvious marks or hairlines and other miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF63 - Slightly weak or average strike with moderate abrasions and hairlines of varying sizes.
    MS/PF62 - Slightly weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More or larger abrasions than an MS/PF 63.
    MS/PF61 - Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More marks and/or multiple large abrasions.
    MS/PF60 - Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. Numerous abrasions, hairlines and/or large marks.
    If this is what NGC wants who am I to say no. but I would prefer a purer system where all truly uncirculated MS & Proof would simply be designated "Uncirculated" and Strike and Surface would individually be scored 1 through 10 using the above standards. Another problem with the remaining grading system presented by NGC is that circulated coins is that it only address wear that the coin receives once the coin enters circulations. As far as NGC is concerned circulated coins have no strike or surface issues, could that really be true????????? Don’t you fine this to be strange particularly for pre 19th century coins from the U.S and older coins from around the world – why should they have no Strike or Surface issues while UNC’s do?????
    In a future post I will address an issue every collector's enjoys.  And that is “The Hunt” or search for a great find and believe me I have had more than my share which I will talk about later and why I was able to make these finds. But understanding grading from around the world can result in you making some great purchases. Many decades ago when I was building my numismatic library (an absolute must for serious collectors) I purchased an English equivalent to our Red Book published by I believe Seaby. The first thing I read was the section on grading. Now get this, an AU was defined as an UNCIRCULATED coin with poor eye appeal. Then the light bulb went on. How many AU, XF or even VF American coins can I purchase from English dealers or form dealers in countries using the English grading standards??? My most recent purchase was November of last year. I purchased the following coins:
    1900 Liberty Head Nickel
    1900 Barber Dime
    1900 Barber Quarter
    1900 Barber ½ Dollar
    The above were described as toned XF or better, the nickel, dime and quarter NGC graded MS-63 and the half dollar was graded AU50
    1912-S Cent listed as an XF graded AU55
    There still out there folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    But be careful, foreign dealers don’t seem to mention problems and particularly if the coin has been cleaned (you really have to study any photos and send e-mails).
    Regards
     


  23. RAM-VT
    Chapter 2 – In the Beginning
    I am not unlike many collectors my age that started collecting by filling holes in those little blue Whitman booklets. I was really into it with booklets for pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters. I did have the booklets for Walking Liberty Halves but very seldom did I have a half dollar coin to place in the booklet. Since my basic source of collectibles was pocket change silver dollars were just out of the question even thought my dad’s pay envelope did contain them. Also since both my parents worked in mills $1 was close to an hour's pay back then and putting a dollar coin into a booklet was out of the question as far as my dad was concerned. Filling those booklets remained my basic approach to collecting even after graduating college although by then I was buying some of my coins.
    In the 1970’s I became aware of how broad the numismatic universe really is. I don’t mean just world coins vs. US coins. What I am talking about is US coins, world coins, ancient coins, medals and tokens. I cannot believe how beautiful many of the Swiss Shooting Medals are; they are for all practical purposes small works of art. My awaking to the numismatic universe was kindled by the sale of the Garrett collection which was sold from 1979 through 1985 (Seven auctions in total containing 2354 US pieces and 4841 world and ancient pieces). The sale of the Garrett collection was followed by the Brand auctions in the early 1980’s. The sale of the Garrett collection followed so closely by the Brand auction simply reinforced my belief I had to completely revise my approach to coin collecting. Did I really need well over 100 Lincoln cents all looking the same except for mint mark and the last two digits in the dates? I really became obsessed with variety or really diversity in what I added to my collection.
    I sold off all my sets and started to collect US Type coins, and coins from around the would. My world coins were much older than my US and in many cases much rarer.
    If I were to start collecting US coins again all my sets would be type sets.  Because collectors can define their type set anyway they want, one can get as simple or as far out as one wants. But a complete type set of US coins would be massive and every coin would be of a different type. There is one type set I am fascinated with, it has the simplest type concept yet I believe it would be a very difficult set to assemble in total. Simply it is a complete type set of 1873 US coinage. This set contains the following 32 coins, yes I said 32 coins for a one year type set..
    Indian Head Cent
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Two Cent Piece
    1873 Closed 3, Proof only
    1873 Open 3. Restrike Proof Only
    Silver 3 Cent Piece
    1873 Closed 3, Proof only
    Copper-Nickel 3 Cent Piece
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Seated Liberty Half Dime
    1873
    Shield Nickel
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Seated Liberty Dime
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    1873 Arrows at Date
    Seated Liberty Quarter Dollar
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    1873 Arrows at Date
    Seated Liberty Half Dollar
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    1873 Arrows at Date
    Seated Liberty Dollar
    1873
    Trade Dollar
    1873
    Indian Large Head Gold Dollar
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Coronet Quarter Eagle
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Indian Head $3 Gold
    1873 Open 3 Proof Only
    1873 Closed 3 Original
    Coronet Half Eagle
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Coronet Eagle
    1873
    Coronet Double Eagle
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Best regards

  24. RAM-VT
    Is it time for NGC to rethink its competitive set scoring system?
    Unfortunately this journal entry is a rant. I don?t like rants since I feel when I write something it should be positive, humorous or simply provide some insight into me and how I think of coins.
    I don?t have any ?competitive sets? so I have no chance of seeing my signature sets amass a ton of points and beating out others. Yes signature sets do get awards, but these awards are given based on a totally subjective basis or bluntly they are awarded based on the whimsy of those reviewing these sets.
    The competitive sets however, are ranked based on scores earned based on the cumulative value of the points given to each individual coin contained within the set. Having no interest in competitive sets I never looked at any until today. Then just for the heck of it and at random, I picked a category and checked out the top set.
    The category was Proof Sets 1968-1998 and I picked a year. The top set had been the #1 set for the last three years. I thought wow, this must be some set. Now this year the proof set contained seven coins. This set had TWO ? yes that is correct, just two lousy coins out of seven!!!!!!!!! These were as follows:
    Quarter - graded - PF 69 UC; and
    Silver Dollar - graded - PF 70 UC
    So I decided to check out the number two set, which was about 300 points behind. It was a complete proof set and contained the following coins:
    Cent - graded - PF 69 RDU;
    Five Cents - graded - PF 69 UC;
    Dime - graded - PF 69 UC;
    Quarter - graded - PF 69 UC;
    Half Dollar - graded - PF 70 UC;
    Clad Dollar - graded - PF 69 UC; and
    Silver Dollar - graded - PF 69 UC
    Now this is competitive SETS and we have one completed set (in fact an almost perfectly matched set) and one set that is only 28% complete. It appears that NGC has forgotten that the competition is between sets by addressing only the coins within the set and ignoring the set aspect of the competition.
    Personally I think NGC has to redo this whole registry set scoring concept. I realize NGC intent with this registry set concept is to drive business to NCG, but they must be fair to those who pay for their service buy providing a level playing field for those who want such a competition or recognition for what they have skillfully collected.
    In the case above where sets are being compared I would multiply the set score by the percentage of how complete the set is. That would provide a more meaning comparison of the ?sets.?
    Now both the individuals owning the above referenced sets above had multiple competitive sets. To address this situation, I think that each registry member should also have the entire numismatic contents of all their numismatic registry sets ranked. This ranking would be based on the simple aggregate score of all the individual coins in all the sets listed by each registry member. This aggregate score should include bank note scores with those of coins. Such an aggregate scoring method would allow all collectors/registry members to compare their total numismatic holdings (as an overall collection and not as specific sets) to that of their fellow registry members.
    This second ranking should also be extended to signature set registry members. They would not be eligible for individual set awards since by definition each signature set does not fit a defined content format. But a coin is a coin and every coin should be able to have an assigned score and thus would allow signature sets to be ranked against competitive sets and/or other signature sets. Signature sets that do not involve only coins or bank notes would not be eligible for this ranking.
    OK those are my thoughts
  25. RAM-VT
    Has NGC Ancients become the Black Hole of Calcutta?
    On May 16 a submittal of mine arrived at NGC. Those of you that follow your submittal through NGC know that the first step in the process is simply acknowledgement that you submittal arrive and the number of coins match the number on the order form. The next step is verification of the submittal. This step can be quick or take time based on the number of coins and how correct you were in providing info on each coin. Once this step is completed your status will be scheduled for grading. Well that submittal of 11 coins has been at NGC for over six weeks and has not moved past Received. In the past I have never waited anywhere near this amount of time to move from received to scheduled for grading.
    ADDED info: It is now seven weeks and the submittal is still at received.
    It is now eight weeks and the submittal is still at received.
     
    I have a second submittal of only one coin there for one day short of two weeks now and it is also noted as received.
     
    Are those of you who routinely submit ancients experience such delays???
    Does NGC need to increase staff to handle the submittals they are now receiving??
    Any thoughts??
    Do you think they should provide some info on these very long delays or at least warn us that they are happening? After all we pay the fees that keep them going.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.