• 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

    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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
     
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.