• 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
    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.

  2. RAM-VT
    Just what is really disliked ? a long post
    For those of you that may have looked at my custom set you know that my total collection contains well less than 200 items which includes ancient, medieval, world and U.S. coins as well as medals, tokens and jetons (so really not much of any specific collectable area). I have started selling off my collection to supplement my retirement. Anyway with well less than 200 items in my collection it must be considered small. However it does contain a couple of coins that I simply could not replace. Let?s face it the last thing a collector wants is a collection that can?t be viewed because it is locked away. Thus I am thankful to NGC for its Registry in that it allows me to store my coins at my bank while at the same time providing me the opportunity to view my collection anytime I want. This is the best of all worlds, total protection of my collection while at the same time having unlimited access to my collection.
    Also the registry allows me and other collectors to share their collection with the numismatic community. I can not be the only one who checks out other registry sets. Maybe in hopes of viewing items I could only dream of owning or for ideas of what I might want to add to my own collection. Since my interest is in effect the entire numismatic universe I am not limited in what I chose to look at.
    As happy as I am with the NGC Registry I will at the same time admit I am totally disappointed by it. I guess my major problem is that based on what I have viewed or better yet not viewed when I ?tour? through the registry sets. Basically I have no idea why in the world most of you use the registry. It definitely is not to share your collection with the rest of the collecting community.
    The following data is based on the first page of listing for custom sets in early April. (Yes I have been composing this post for some time.)
    Number of sets = 98 (I think there are 100 per page so I missed two)
    Number of sets with no items in them = 21 with an average view of 257 per empty set
    Number with at least 1 but no more than 5 items = 31
    - At 0 to 5 coins we have already covered more than 50% of the 98 sets
    Number with at least 6 but no more than 10 items = 13
    Number with at least 11 but no more than 25 items = 22
    Number with at least 26 but no more than 50 items = 7
    Number with at least 51 but no more than 100 items = 4
    Average number of items per set = 15
    Number of the 77 sets having at least one item with an attached photo = 40
    I can not say how representative the above numbers are of NGC Registry sets in general but out of 30 competitive sets titled ?US Colonial Issues, Complete? 10% had ?0? items in the set and another 14 sets out the remaining 27 sets have so few items in them they are shown as being 0% complete. Thus more than 50% of the sets are shown as 0% complete. In addition out of 30 listed sets there are a grand total of just 63 photos? There are some phenomenal coins listed in some of these sets and all we get is just 63 photos out of 30 sets. FYI this set of ?US Colonial Issues, Complete? is a large registry set. (Again these data are from early April.)
    So just what the heck are you collectors doing here? Let?s face it, many if not most of these ?sets? are just taking up NGC computer space and with the dearth of photos no meaning info is being shared with the collecting community. Looking at most of these sets is like going to an art museum only to find empty frames on the walls along with a little card providing the title of the picture and name of the artist that would be there if the museum ever decided to take the picture out of the vault. No one can find this enjoyable, interesting or enlightening.
    Maybe the old saying that goes something like, ?the road to hell is paved with good intentions? is applicable here. Maybe many of the collectors actually intended to build on their initial listings and eventually provide a ?set? listing but got disappointed when they saw what they were up against. Or maybe some were just proud of a truly rare specimen they have and are using a Registry Set Listing to allow the collecting universe to also enjoy that one item. I am sure there are numerous reasons why we have so many registry sets with virtually no contents and no photos. But isn?t it time we do some house cleaning of the sets we listed? It is only reasonable to recognize that those presenting "registry points? only sets" have no reason to post photos since photos don?t add to registry points also I must therefore assume that photos of the coins in these points only sets would not provide enjoyment or enlightenment to the rest of us collectors. But come on, custom sets get no registry points so why no photos?
    I would like to make the following suggestion to NGC.
    NGC should create of a Registry Photo Gallery to supplement the galleries NGC already offers. However in the Registry Photo Gallery I am recommending the photos would be posted by the members of NGC?s Registry and not NGC. Here NGC members could up load photos of NGC certified numismatically significant coins. These would be coins that are truly rare in any grade and/or coins that are in superior grades (when it comes to superior grades I personally would exclude modern issues where MS-70 is not unusual). The gallery post should require a short discussion of the significance of the coin posted to the gallery. Look it, we all know there are some phenomenal coins sitting out there in NGC holders. I would love to be able to look at these coins and it just is not happening through the registry. Also I would request that those posting the photos really do a close up of the coin. We don?t need to see the entire holder, the holder is unimportant. All the text on the holder label could be automatically uploaded via the NGC data base much as is done now with the registry sets. In addition NGC should show the registry points earned by the coin being presented in photo as well as where it is within the census. I would allow only one photo to be posted for any specific item (defined by date/mm/type/variety/etc.) with the criteria being the item being shown is the one with the highest grade actually posted to the photo gallery (higher NGC grades may exist but the owner has not posted the photo) I don?t really know if this would possible because it would require that the software be able be accepted to a new post over an old post of a lower grade. For ?coppers? each date would have a posting for brown, red-brown and red. Proofs and mint state coins would have their own listings.
    My goal here is two fold. First I will support anything that adds to my enjoyment of this hobby. Second for those who want to share such material with fellow collectors this would eliminate the need to create of a registry set just to share one or two coins with the collecting community.
  3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. RAM-VT

    Ram’s Soap Box

    By RAM-VT,

    Learn Grading: What Are Full Bands and Full Torch?
    https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6812/learn-grading-dimes/
    Nothing new here, I am back to my pet peeve – silly grading standards. You can go onto reading other posts – this is my pet peeve and I am going to continue with such posts until someone can provide a convincing argument on why what NGC is doing is superior to my approach.
    I will be referring to the NGC article with the above address so I suggest you bring it up.
    Welcome
    All U.S. coins above AU-58 are graded using a standard that magically combines strike and surface conditions. I want to discuss this concept. First let me just briefly touch on what can affect strike and surface.
    Strike – The physical setup of the presses, installation of the dies and collars as well as slight variations in the dimensions of the planchet can all play some part in the quality of the strike produced. Once the dies start to separate in the process of converting a blank planchet into a newly minted coin the quality of the coin’s strike is forever defined. Things can happen to the coin that affect the condition of its surface but not the quality of its strike. Minor imperfection from post production handling cannot hide the quality of the original strike even scratches do not hide the quality of strike. Yes one could say if hit by a hammer the quality of the original strike would be obscured but so would all the features need to define a grade and score for both the strike and surface. In just such cases the determination would have to read “Physically Damaged Coin” no grade determination is possible.
    Surface – The condition of a coins surface immediately following the completion of the strike to the day it is forever removed from circulation is continuously changing if for no other reason due to chemical contaminants in the air. There are also changes due to physical contact with mint equipment, bagging, counting, transport and activities related to getting the coins to the bank and into the hands of the collector. Once in circulation the surface changes due to wear and physical damage.
    Please look the NGC definition for the grades MS-66 to MS-70 which I present below.
    Numerical Grades
    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
    First for the grade MS/PF70 Strike is not discussed because the strike for a MS/PF69 is defined as being “A fully struck coin.” How can one improve upon the strike required for an MS/PF69. As such it appears MS/PF69 is as high a strike can be graded or as I prefer scored, besides it appears surface conditions is what controls the determination of whether or not a coin can be graded 70.
    The following discussion relates to the NGC article specifies above and I refer specifically to the coins shown in that article. The first photo shows a 1935S Mercury Dime graded MS67+ and a 1917 Mercury Dime graded MS67+ FB. When you use the option to enlarge the photos it is obvious that the quality of the strikes are significantly different with the bands on the 1917 dime being fully struck up to the point that all the detail related to the bands is there while the 1935S dime has noticeable details related to the bands of the fasces missing, yet NGC gives both coins the same grade MS67+, by grade definition both are defined as being sharply struck even though one has flatness in the design features where the other does not!!!! Come on, what the heck kind of grading system is this? But the best is to come.
    The other photo shows a 1988D Roosevelt Dime graded MS67 and a 1984P Roosevelt Dime graded MS66 FT. These coins confuse the heck out of me. First the strike of the 1984P FT is defined as very well struck while the center design devices from the torch’s flame to the bands on the torch are boldly struck just like those on the Mercury dime. To say the least definitely superior to those same features on the 1988D whose strike is defined as Sharply Stroke one notch above “very well struck.” Here is where things get tricky. Is this a weighted grade? That is, is it an average of the entire obverse strike with the entire reverse strike? In the case of the Roosevelt dime there are three components that make up the design elements on the reverse of the dime. These are the Olive Branch, the Oak Branch and between them the torch with flame. On the MS67 the strike of the Olive & Oak branches is much better than the strike for these design features on the 84P dime with a FT designation. To put a major premium on this coin only because 1/3 of its reverse has a full strike is totally stupid while the rest of the strike is definitely inferior to the MS67.
    The concept to blend strike and surface condition to come up with a single grade is just stupid. I continue to insist NGC should grade all coins the way they do ancients. That is a grade for wear, a score for surface and a score for strike. All UNC. Mint state and Proof coins would get a grade of 60 simply it is either uncirculated or it isn’t. Then the strike would be scored 1 through 10 and the surface would be scored 1 through 10. This way the 1984P dime might have actually graded MS60 FT, Strike 6 and Surface whatever, this approach would tell the buyer that even though it has a full torch the overall strike is just slightly above "about average" (what I would call a score of 5/10) with a bold torch but some weakness in the overall strike. In this way the buyer can determine how much, in the buyer’s opinion, that premium should be, if any. To be honest I don’t think every collector would pay big bucks for a full torch with a strike of 6 when FT dimes with strikes of 7, 8 or possibly 9 exist.
    Also how does the NGC system address a coin with a strike of 7 and a surface of 4? Don’t say they don’t exist. Simply it is stupid to think that strike and surface would always have a comparable score. Strike is the result of the minting process and Surface is the result of what happens after the coin is minted and simply these two factors have no relationship to one another.
    Although I keep insisting that NGC should use the same approach to grading used by the NGC Ancient Department, it appears that the NGC Ancient Department has lost its way with respect to grading Mint State coins. Rather than just use the designation UNC or Mint State the ancients department has embraced the following terms used by NGC:
    MS = Mint State/UNC = equivalent to the grades:
                60       Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. Numerous abrasions, hairlines and/or large marks.
                61       Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More marks and/or multiple large abrasions.
                62       Slightly weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More or larger abrasions than an MS/PF 63
     Ch MS = Choice Mint State/UNC = equivalent to the grades:
                63       Slightly weak or average strike with moderate abrasions and hairlines of varying sizes.
                64       Average or better strike with several obvious marks or hairlines and other minuscule imperfections
     Gem MS = Gem Mint State/UNC = equivalent to the grades:
                65       Well struck with moderate marks or hairlines.
                66       Very well struck with minimal marks and hairlines
                67       Sharply struck with only a few imperfections.
                68       Very sharply struck with only minuscule imperfections.
                69       A fully struck coin with nearly imperceptible imperfections.
                70       A coin with no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.
    Do you see the problem here?
    The terms MS, Ch MS & Gem MS are defined as being equivalent to the indicated NGC grades and these grades are defined by distinct conditions related to both strike and surface. So how is it possible for NGC ancient to score an MS ancient with either a strike or surface as a 4 or 5 (which many are) if by definition of these characteristics are typically weak and at very best average? The same goes for Ch MS and all Gem MS ancients must score at least 4 for both strike and surface.
    One thing is NGC Ancient may want to score MS state ancients on a scale of 1 to 10. However at a minimum NGC Ancients must define the designations MS, Ch MS & Gem MS (if they insist on using this approach) by using terms that in no way relate to the coin’s strike or surface conditions as the current definitions do since NGC Ancients already scores these features independently.
    I am not trying to give the NGC Ancient Department hard time. I was and still am super pleased when NGC Ancients decided to move from the 18th century and almost totally move into the 21st century by recognizing that grade and strike & surface are not related and must be addressed separately. NGC Ancient fell short only when they decided to force their grading of Mint State ancients to look like all the other grading done at NGC rather than accepting that they are the standard against which all other approaches to grading should be compared.
    By the way there is no need for Ch. MS or Gem MS, to a great extent Ch MS should be implied when one gets a high score for both Strike & Surface. This would be stronger if for Mint State coins the scoring for strike and surface was increased to 1-10 from 1-5. And there is no better way to imply a gem specimen then to assign the coin the highest scores (8 to 10 or 9 to 10) for strike and surface as well as designating it as having both eye appeal and Fine Style.
    Regards
     
  6. RAM-VT

    RE. RE. Just exactly

    By RAM-VT,

    To some extent your idea was attempted more than 20 years ago.
    The first coin authenticator for the ANA was Charles Hoskins. When he left his position with the ANA he moved back to the Washington, D.C. area which is where I met him. He started the INS (International Numismatic Society) which provided a coin authentication service. Over time the INS started a grading service which I firmly believe was the first third party grading service. They started grading on an informal basis and then started issuing photo certificates as the demand for their grading service grow, but the first step was always authentication. If the coin was not real it was returned. Near the end of the INS? existence the ANACS and other services were providing third party grading and the problem with resubmitting coins for higher grades was in full swing. At this point in time Charles was approached by an investor who wanted to use a laser scanner to grade coins. The objective was to provide totally objective grading and to do away with the issue of knocking out coins and resubmitting them. A lot of money was invested in the project and they were able to demonstrate that once a coin was scanned it would always be recognized by the system unless marks were added to the surface (which would only lower the grade). The problem was in defining for the computer what exactly determined each grade. A speck of a given size on a three cent piece would be more of a defect on that coin than that same speck on a silver dollar. So each grade in the grading spectrum had to be tailored to the coin being graded. This effort provided proof of principle in that the computer could pick up all the imperfections on the surface of coins and recognize specific coins once they were scanned, but that is as far as it went. Personally I think the grading services should laser scan all submittals just to stop the resubmittal issue. The grading services should share this data bank.
  7. RAM-VT
    Or do some of us just have more money than common sense? - Another long one
    As we all know when Dr. Sheldon had his book Penny Whimsy published he was presenting the numismatic world a detailed catalogue of early large cent varieties (known at that time for the years 1793 to 1814) as well as an approach for pricing these cents. Under his concept every die variety/die combination would be assigned a value in its basal state (1) which was the lowest collectable state. Now more than likely his basal state was better than today?s poor or fair in that a coin in its basal state was still required to have enough detail to determine its Sheldon variety not just its date. The basal state valuation would reflect various factors including its rarity. So how did this pricing system work? For each of the standard grades Sheldon assigned a single multiplication factor, except for UNC where he provided a range of from 60 to 70. To determine a large cent?s value in a given grade you would take the basal state value and multiply it by his assigned multiplication factor for that grade. Thus if a large cent was assigned a basal state valuation of $1.50 it would have the following valuations as a function of grade.
    Grade Multiplication Value
    Factor
    G 4 = $6
    VG 8 = $12
    F 12 = $18
    VF 20 = $30
    XF 40 = $60
    AU 50 = $75
    UNC 60?70 = $90 to $105
    I am not saying Dr. Sheldon?s scheme for developing prices for large cents was right. But what I want you to look at is where the emphasis was placed when it came to pricing such coins in the 1950?s. Let?s remember Dr. Sheldon was no dummy when it came to collecting (and thus purchasing) large cents.
    The first big jump in price comes at XF. When you get to the grade of XF most of the coin?s detail is there (in effect the design is complete, but the high points are worn, not necessarily totally missing). As you progress up from XF the price increases really are not that significant, why because you are not gaining that much more in detail features. When it comes to the grade UNC, the detail in theory is complete but that is not really the case. You have full strikes and weak strikes. It is totally possible to find an AU (maybe even an XF) with more detail than an UNC. I would argue that Sheldon?s system assumed full strike coins from the grade of XF up. Thus there was no real reason to pay super premiums for a high end UNC versus a low end UNC since the detail was there and all you are talking about are differences in surface marks.
    So how does this 1950?s approach to pricing large cents compare to today?s approach? The following values for a 1795 Lettered Edge Large cent comes from NGC?s coin price guide.
    G = $540 (the corresponding basal state value would be $135)
    VG = $660
    F = $1,140
    VF = $2,100
    XF = $4,810
    AU = $7,310
    MS60 = $10,630
    MS61 = $12,190
    MS62 = $14,690
    MS63 = $21,880
    MS64= $47,190
    MS65 = $66,880
    I will let you decided how closely current prices correspond to Sheldon?s system for the grades G through XF. There is a larger jump in valuation at AU and from AU to MS-60 the valuation increase is reasonable. But oh my word, going from MS-60 to 65 forget it. We still have contact marks with an MS65. Tell me how many fewer contact marks does one get paying and extra $20,000 to go from MS64 to MS65 or paying $25,000 to go from MS63 to MS64? It appears that Dr. Sheldon?s emphasis on detail has given way to the number of minute surface marks but most importantly bragging rights on grade. I would be the first to admit that a 62.5% increase in price you would have to pay going from XF to MS-65 using Dr. Sheldon?s approach appears to be low. But I really can not understand the rational that gets you the 1,390% increase we have today. Are we collecting the coin or the grade? Take my word for it I?ll take an MS-63 to save $45,000. Heck I love great looking AU?s and would be perfectly happy with a beautiful brown AU 1795 large cent with just the slightest hint of circulation and at the same time save almost $60,000 over an MS-65 with possibly more surface marks than an AU but I will admit the MS-65 gives one the plus of the UNC having no indication of circulation.
    My custom set ?Diversity in Numismatics? contains an AU-58 1827 Bust Half Dollar. Why in the world would I or anyone spend an additional $9600 to replace what I believe is a truly beautiful coin to go to an MS-65???
    As a collector I think Sheldon had his head screwed on straighter than most of today?s collectors which appear to me to have more money than brains, but I also will have to admit that Sheldon?s approach to pricing any type of coin is not valid for today?s market place.

  8. RAM-VT

    OK I don't believe it

    By RAM-VT,

    What the heck did I do correctly
    I don't know what I did but now it works
    Sorry for wasting your time with my last post
    Ram-VT
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  9. RAM-VT
    Can a dealer be cherrypicked?
    The hunt refers to what we all try to do and that is to make truly stunning find such as a rare date or extremely rare variety or even maybe even better find a coin that rewrites the condition census for a variety. Very seldom is having a successful ?hunt? the result of shear dumb luck (yes it does happen) most often it is the result of building the appropriate library and study. Those of you, who like me, that have setup at coin shows to sell coins have had the specialist collector come to your table pull out his book on whatever type of coin the specialist was interested in and go through your corresponding inventory. This is one form of the hunt. There are those that enjoy this type of hunt. I prefer what I call the ?backwoods country auction route.? I use to live in Maryland would routinely attend auctions in and around Frederick and Hagerstown as well as a relatively routinely held auction in the town of Hampstead. My first really big find was at a very small auction held in the fire hall in the town of Wolfsville. The newspaper advertisement said coins to be auctioned. When I got there, there were only about 10 coins were included in the auction, boy was I upset. As I looked them over the 1873 half dollar in G-VG condition kept drawing me back. Then it hit me ? ?open 3?. It couldn?t be, back then there were less than 11 believed to exist. In an attempt to verify what I believed I franticly drove back to my house and went through my library pulling every book I felt appropriate off the shelves. I could find NO PHOTO of an open 3. So I went back convinced I was right and won the coin for $20. My hand was shaking as they handed it to me. That coin I sold in a Superior Auction for $2,000 plus buyer?s fee.
    I purchased a three-legged buffalo for $1.75 in another auction held in a fire hall in Myersville. This was a well attended auction and involved only coins. The material being offered included a lot of keys and semi-keys. And listed there all by itself was a 1937-D buffalo. Now why would they list a simple 1937-D all by itself. Then I said oh it couldn?t be could it? When I looked down at the obverse it had all the diagnostics of a three-legged buffalo. I never looked at the reverse until I won the coin. The reactions of those there when the bidding reached over a dollar was humorous.
    Other auction finds include the following:
    1872 DDO Half Dime - $35
    1960 DDO Proof Dime - $13
    1960 DDO Proof Quarter - $9
    1942 DDR Half Dollar Unc. - $15
    1966 DDO SMS Half Dollar - $12
    A wonderful 1922 no ?D? cent (Strong Reverse or Die Pair #2) in VF for $125
    I also have a 1977 half cent from Rhodesia that the American Numismatic Association Authentication Bureau certified as a business strike (it took three months!). This was a lot offered in an auction in Australia as an impaired proof and went unsold. I had a gut feeling it might be a business strike and contacted them. They sold it to me for the reserve of $400 Australian which then was about $300 US.
    My greatest find did however involve shear dumb luck. It was at an auction held outside Burlington, Vermont. The auction involved over 1,000 lots. And we had eight hours of viewing the day before the start of the two day auction. Go ahead and figure it out. That is less than 40 seconds to ask for a lot, have them find it, hand it you, you examine it and hand it back and start all over again. At the very end of the viewing day I got to the box lots. One box contained 13 Ancient coins. I immediately recognized an Aes Grave Semis (which David Sear has since authenticated and graded Fine). I noticed there were a couple nice Ptolemaic pieces, a nice Roman Republic Denarius and a real nice Roman Empire, AE Sestertius of Sev. Alexander. I know these coins were worth several hundreds of dollars and I was ready to do some strong bidding. I won the box for $25 plus buyer?s fee. The dumb luck resulted when NGC informed me that one of the Byzantine coins in that lot of 13 coins was in fact an Armenia AE Follis of Kiurike I/II Kouropalates from 10th/11th Centuries AD. This coin is believed to be the finest known specimen of about 19 known specimens and could be worth $15,000.
    The question some of you might be asking is; do I feel I am doing anything wrong? Because I acquired all these items at auction open to all to examine the material before bidding and the only difference between bidders being their willingness to study their reference material, no I do not feel I did nothing wrong. Please realize at these types of backwoods auctions all items are sold as is with no refunds. They have sold fake and altered coins, cleaned coins and over graded coins and never point this out to the bidders. If one tries to return an item you get ?All Sales are final!? So since they are not totally up front with the bidders, I do not feel compelled to tell them everything I know and something they can find out on their own or could pay a knowledgeable dealer to tell them.
    Then there is the second part in the title to this post - is all fair in love, war & coin collecting? This is an interesting question and from what I read in Numismatic News and Coin World over the many years there are a lot of different opinions.
    This question relates to the concept of Cherrypicking. Or the purchasing of an item when a buyer knows that item is worth a lot more than what the seller is asking for it.
    There is only one way to look at this question. On which side of the counter/table is the seller? If the seller is in front of the counter/table it is not the dealer but someone looking to sell off some sort numismatic holding. In this case there is no question that the dealer/buyer has every obligation to treat the seller fairly. It is understood that in the worse case the dealer may only know as much seller but it is expected that the dealer know more than the seller.
    As an example of this, I was a bank teller in a small town bank and many knew I was a serious coin collector. I was approached by a bank customer to offer some advice regarding a $5 gold coin his secretary had and needed to sell. I said sure. I went to his office and he showed me the coin. I was a wonder early piece (around 1800 +/-). I told him to get it slabbed and send it to B&M (when it was B&M). I said I would love to buy the coin but could not afford it. He ended up getting more than twice the highest offer he got in town and thanked me several times (no money ? but I didn?t need it).
    So what if the seller is behind the counter/table? Well then the seller is the dealer. It is the dealer?s responsibility to know all there is to know about every coin he is offering for sale. Thus a true dealer can not be cherrypicked. What do I mean here? I mean the following:
    All US colonials should be attributed e.g., be assigned its Maris, Miller, Noe, Ryder, etc. numbers.
    Large cents be assigned Sheldon, Newcomb, etc. numbers
    Half cents be assigned Cohen, etc. numbers.
    This would continue through all US coinage.
    World coins would be assigned KM numbers or numbers assigned in catalogues for a given country.
    There is no reason for dealers not doing this, if dealers don?t do this it can only be because they are lazy or too cheap to purchase the appropriate reference material and a magnifying glass. C
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. RAM-VT
    I figure that currently there are either 30 or 39 distinct grades of UNC.
    There are many of you out there (if not most of you) that were not in this hobby when the Sheldon pricing system for large cents was converted to a grading scale for U.S. coins. At the time UNC?s were graded 60, 63, 65 & 67. The were those out there at that time that were jumping up and down saying that greedy dealers would some day use all eleven grades (60 to 70) to grade coins so they could charge incrementally more for each grade while those selling the coins said no we won?t do that? Well guess what they started using all 11 grades of UNC and if you go to NGC?s price guide and check out Morgan dollars each UNC grade is priced individually.
    Now we have the ?+?. A coin receiving a ?+? with its grade is said to be at the high end of its assigned grade, approaching the quality requirements for the next grade and it must have above-average eye appeal. The ?+? designation is used for grades 60 through 68. Now this concerns me. I always assumed that the differentiation between grades was linear. That is the grading scale from MS-60 to MS-70 could be represented by an 11 inch ruler with the requirements for each grade being representing by one inch of that ruler. MS-60 coins would fall in the 0 to 1 inch band, MS-61 the 1 to 2 inch band and so forth. Well what I find out now is that the ?grading band width? for MS-69 & MS-70 coins is so narrow or tight that it is not possible to designate a ?high end? for these two grades. Well what does this mean about the other nine grades? Do the grading requirements get ?wider? as you go down in grade such that when you get to MS-60, MS-61 & MS-63 the ?grading bands are so wide? you really don?t know what you have or are the bottom nine grades linear re. their grading standards? So if the grading standards for the bottom nine grades permit differentiation to the point that the grade can be determined to have a ?high end? by definition that grade must be capable of having a middle and low end. So now we have a situation were you try to sell your MS-65 and the dealer tells you, ?well you know that coin is really at the low end for the grade and I can not offer you what you want.? All coins not having a ?+? next to their grade automatically become low end coins for the grade. Why? Why not? You?re the one selling the coin can you prove it isn?t a low end coin? We now know if it was at the high end coin the label would indicate it. In effect each coin has now become a high end coin or low end coin. So at a minimum we have 20 grades of UNC (2 X 9)+2 and if you buy that those that matter can differentiate between low, middle and high end coins within the same grade we have 29 UNC grades (3 X 9) +2.
    Well then how do you count an MS-63* (great eye appeal but not high end for the grade)? Since the grade has an assigned modifier it must be treated as a unique grade. The ?*? is used for grades 60 through 69 so we are really adding ten more grades. That brings us to either 30 or 39 grades of UNC depending on how you count the situation with the ?+?.
    I can only guess this is what everyone wants because we got it. I would be happy with MS-60, 63, 65 & 67.
    Happy collecting to everyone, 39 UNC grades or not, it is still a great hobby.
  13. 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)


  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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
     
  20. 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.
  21. RAM-VT
    Sloppy Numismatic Research can benefit some and hurt others
    On Saturday June 28th I attended a local auction that had several coin lots. Viewing was on Friday the day before. Most of the lots were foreign except for one US lot and one ancient lot with the best coin in the ancient lot being a St. Patrick Halfpenny (U.S colonial). I really wanted a couple of the world coin lots and did bid on them but I had to drop out because I only had so much money and I know I would need most if not all for the lot I really wanted, that being a 1797 16 stars (JR-1) U.S. Dime.
    On Friday I study the heck out of this coin and liked everything I saw. No I did not bring my balance beam scale or micrometer to take physical measurements. However I have been collecting and studying coins for 60 years. I also took classes from the man selected by the ANA to originally head up their authentication service (not grading service). The one thing I took away from these classes was how to really look at/examine a coin. Everything I saw I liked, in addition die crack perfectly match the die crack on genuine specimens. The only thing I did not understand was the estimated value for this lot which was $500 to $1000?? I graded the coin as at least XF and hoped it would come back AU. Well today I checked the NGC web site and the result was in, it graded out at XF-45 (Not AU but better than a straight XF).
    After I won the coin (total cost $3,800 + $570 buyer's fee + certification fee and round trip S&H) = $4,500 you could heard the under bidders talking about all the problems the coin had and how it was a really low grade. I just smiled.
    As I was waiting to pay for the coin I was approached by a man who told me he really wanted to bid on the coin but he carries a little ruler with him and when he measured the coin it was a mm too large. And he convinced himself the coin had been placed into jewelry that cause a flattening of the rim. That caught me off guard, and to me the rim looked perfectly natural. So when I got home I got out my micrometer and measured the diameter to be 20mm. I then got out Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Coinage. This reference gave the diameter as 19.8 mm, 19.8mm vs. 20mm close enough for me but nowhere near a mm off. I then looked at the Red Book and guess what it gives a diameter of 19mm. I checked out an older Red Book and there the diameter was approximately 19mm. They went from approximately to a definite 19mm. I then went to the NGC site and they just use the info from the Red Book so it also shows 19mm. I am somewhat disappointed that NGC does not (at a minimum) verify the physical information they provide on their website. I mean I cannot believe they authenticate coins without checking the physical parameters of the coins. So all this info would be readily available to NGC.
    Anyway the sloppy numismatic research provided in the Red Book and repeated by NGC saved me from a serious competitor for the coin I wanted and definitely saved me money. So thank you.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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
     


  25. 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.