• 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
    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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. RAM-VT
    It appears grading standards differ around the world.
    One of the news headlines on the NGC home page reads ?Important Polish Auction Includes Hundreds of NGC-Certified Coins?. Yes this is a publicity opportunity for NGC and this is not the first world auction to host large quantities of NGC-certified coins. To me however, this is a very important step in the international standardization of coin grades. Those of us that spend a lot of time on eBay bidding or just looking to checkout the market have seen the number of world coins in NGC, PCGS and other holders routinely increasing. Many of these are US sellers but there are numerous world sellers also using these grading services. From my point of view, I can not stress how important this development is to me because I truly believe grading standards differ around the world.
    For example, I have an old handbook from Seaby?s (England). And just like the Red Book it gives guidance on what a coin should look like in each grade. How do you think an AU is described? In this book it was described as an uncirculated coin that is not very pleasing to the eye!!!!!!! That is right in order for the coin to be AU it must first be UNC. This AU would most likely equate to our MS-60, 61 or 62. I offer my 1915 MS-62 Barber Quarter as an example of a coin that I really believe would be graded AU in England using this definition.
    Further I was once told by some I respected a lot, that a European FDC equates to no less than an MS-65 in the US. However, if you go to a (KM) Standard Catalogue of World Coins they equate an ?UNC? to FDC. Well it is my understanding a simple UNC equates to only an MS-60 to 62. And if FDC were to only equate to our UNC, what term(s) do they use that compare to our Ch. UNC and Gem UNC? Simply, I think KM has it totally wrong.
    So in summary I believe we have
    US MS-60, 61 & 62
    Other places = AU
    US MS-63 & 64
    Other Places = ?
    US MS-65
    Other Places = FDC
    If these are in fact real differences then it must follow that there are differences in the lower grades.
    I am not going into details here but believe me because of these differences in grading standards I have netted some real windfalls buying US coins from sellers/dealers overseas and having them certified here in the US. Also be aware this situation works the other way in that a coin from England (for example) certified here in the US might not be accepted in England at that same grade. So if you buy a certified English coin (for example) and pay for it using the Spinks Catalogue as a guide, you may have overpaid and may never get your money back during your lifetime.
    Differences between grading standards is a concern to me but there are other problem areas. There may also be problems with grading terminology. In England there appears to be a new grading service called the CGS (Coin Grading Service) of the UK. I was checking out some of their coins listed on eBay. They use a 100 point grading system. What do you expect a coin graded UNC-88 to be? Well believe it or not the label said it was a Proof but the grade was UNC??? Also I have had experience with a major Auction House in Australia using the term MS for circulated coins, i.e., MS-50 instead of AU-50. They may have been confused by the NGC or PCGS grading forms which ask to you designate ?MS? or ?PF?.
    Such problems with terminology are not limited to just countries outside the US. We really very seldom use just the term ?UNC?. We typically start the lowest grades of Uncirculated with BU (Brilliant Uncirculated even if the coin is not brilliant) and not simply the designation ?UNC?. In effect UNC and BU are the same even though the Red Book does not recognize the designator ?BU?. Then we have the KM Standard Catalogue of World Coins that use UNC as the low end of Uncirculated and the BU as the next step up. So here BU is better than UNC but then again BU is a term not recognized in the Red Book. I think everyone agrees the second highest level of Uncirculated is Choice UNC or Choice BU but the Standard catalogue of World Coins did not opt to use this designation. Can you imagine someone overseas with a Standard Catalogue of World Coins trying to figure out what is what? We use UNC, BU, Ch BU, Ch UNC, Gem BU, Gem UNC and Superb BU or UNC.
    However, one area that drives me up the wall is that overseas cleaned coins apparently are totally acceptability to the point that this condition need not be stated in auction descriptions. I am not talking about someone in Europe selling off their coins on eBay I am talking well known auction houses. I tell you from personal experience there is a 50/50 chance that a coin bought from Europe has been cleaned and I would say there is a 3 out 4 chance a coin bought from Australia has been cleaned. I can only hope that overseas grading service will be as diligent in designating impaired coins as are US services, but based on what I have seen on eBay I do not believe this is the case.
    This is the 21st century. With the internet the world is becoming smaller and someone like me sitting at a computer can sell something to anyone around the world. I have sold coins to every continent except Antarctica. I think it is time the numismatic communities around the world start working together to standardize as much as possible of the basic concepts related to grading and describing numismatic related items. Ideally I would love for the world to come together with one universal grading standard but that is not at the top of my list. Here is my priority list.
    1 ? Agreement on what constitutes an impaired coin and agreement that these impairments be listed on any grading label or in any auction description. This would include what constitutes a cleaned coin.
    2 ? A standardized chart should be developed for inclusion in all numismatic handbooks and reference catalogues. This would be similar to the one in the Standard Catalogue of World Coins but then again different. The chart currently in the Standard Catalogue of World Coins is intended to show what term in other countries corresponds to a given term used here in the US. For example EF in the US would be designated 01 in Denmark. The problem that results is that this does not mean the detail on our EF coin equates to that on a 01 coin in Denmark. Just like my MS-62 quarter would never be considered a FDC in countries that use that term regardless of what the Standard Catalogue says. The chart I would like to see would equate grades of similar detail and would be jointly developed by an international team of numismatists that are recognized within their own country as true numismatic experts.
    3 ? A world wide standardized grading system. If this was to come about the item 2 above might not be needed.
    So yes I would like an internationally accepted grading standard developed and I think NGC and PCGS should be part of whatever organization is formed to develop that standard.

  7. RAM-VT
    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.

  8. 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.