numisport

Isn't that how it works now ? Law makers spend huuuuge amouts of money that doesn't exist, print money to cover it then sell their assets at inflated prices and die wealthy only to pass along their bounty to the next generation who'll do it again to us sorry pawns because we just don't care.

Do you have plans to publish your Die work ?

On 12/29/2022 at 4:29 PM, numisport said:

Oh my gosh look what I found. This odd 15 cent piece is from a Bahamas Proof Set from 1971. And it's square it seems. These were a Franklin Mint product.

You might recognize the flip side.

On 12/27/2022 at 12:54 PM, FlyingAl said:

Maybe, maybe not. I personally wouldn't see a difference in the OP coin and yours - except that yours might still turn due to the dip it received. I'm confident that the OP coin won't be turning. 

Specialists often prefer something original like this:

If you want to call it crusty and hazy, go for it! I'll buy it for double a blast white coin in the same grade.

Cameos are the exception, but they always are.

We certainly don't refer to this kind of material as crusty or hazy and I'm confident you understand that.

On 12/27/2022 at 12:54 PM, FlyingAl said:

Maybe, maybe not. I personally wouldn't see a difference in the OP coin and yours - except that yours might still turn due to the dip it received. I'm confident that the OP coin won't be turning. 

Specialists often prefer something original like this:

If you want to call it crusty and hazy, go for it! I'll buy it for double a blast white coin in the same grade.

Cameos are the exception, but they always are.

It's possible mine was conserved long before the OP coin was right ? 

Can you explain why you think the OP's coin won't turn ?

No straight minded person would dip out beautiful original toning on that '42.

Here's a "37 that CAC didn't like at first time around. It became a beauty after NCS conservation and now its okay for CAC.

On 12/27/2022 at 9:35 AM, VKurtB said:

I have about 50-60 rolls of assorted 35mm films in a freezer. I also have vinyl records and a Technics direct drive turntable on my sound system. But I also have an iTunes library. 

Yes your priorities are straight.

On 12/26/2022 at 5:27 PM, FlyingAl said:

While the coin is attractive, specialists in this series actually prefer older holders. It shows the coin is stable. We also know that the coins are often under graded, and will pay a premium for the coins in the older holders to account for this. 

While this coin does appear to have some frost, it is not nearly enough to consider a crack out for. It is probably in the two 20% of 1942 halves for frost, but only the top 2-3% or so actually get a premium. Coins like this aren't common, but they aren't super hard to find.

IMO, I think the best course of action would be polishing up the old holder and leaving it as it is, saving the fees for a different coin.

Does this mean specialists would rather have old crusty holders with an old crusty hazy toned proof Walkers in Pf 68 ? 

I prefer my clean deep mirrored Pf 67 coins in fresh new holders. Is it just me ?

On 9/22/2020 at 4:29 PM, VKurtB said:

Absolutely! Everyone should use whatever tools work for them. As a 30+ year "film guy", I'm hypersensitive to the "stuff" that digital imaging has brought us. It's the "circle of life". Someday not that far into the future, us "film guys" will all be gone. Until then, we still drag our Leica M3's and Canon F-1's and Nikon F3's out and shoot film when we get nostalgic. Occasionally a 4x5 view camera too.

Is this anything like playing vinyl discs on a direct drive turntable ? 

An old PCGS Pf 65 Walker is definately worth a reholder. If you spend the money for Registered postage you might consider sending it in raw. I don't think there is much to lose. You could find this coin stunning in a fresh holder. 1942 halves had more die pairs than other dates and yours looks like matched obverse/reverse earlier die strike.I always thought these haze free deep ones could get a grade bump and are definately worth more than cloudy pieces with ugly toning. 

On 12/18/2022 at 10:53 AM, Hoghead515 said:

As I was looking through some of my coins this morning I seen a couple of my slabs that had minor scuffs and abrasions on them. They were like that when I bought them. One actually looks pretty rough.  Looks like someone threw it in a junk drawer or let a 3 year old play with it. Very nice coin inside but the slab is very distracting trying to admire it. The other slab is not so bad. I remember someone started a thread on this a few months ago but I cant find it. I remember someone recommending a certain rubbing compound that helps remove them. I also remember I was gonna order some but it was sold out everywhere during the covid pandemic. Everytime I see that slab and the other it really bothers me. Does anyone have any recommendations to fix it? Or remember what the product was? I was thinking about trying to get it reholdered by NGC. Its already in an NGC slab. Not sure what the price is. Anyone know right off hand? I figured Id try a rubbing compound first. Couldnt hurt it anymore than it already is. The few submissions Ive made I always chose the option for the scratch resistant holder. In my opinion its well worth the extra $5.00. 

I think a reholder automatically gets a scratch resistant holder

Like Silver Dollars many if not most survive from hoards. Most other dates are very expensive and are not often seen in mint state. I've alwways wanted to own a few but could never justify the base cost.

Heavily traded PCGS holders can get this 'road rash' look to them. Because of the raised portion in the center of the slab they get the rash when handled aggresively often by dealers. To me this is a sign they have been bought and sold many times over. These should be avoided because nobody wants to spend 75 bucks for a reholder. 

With that said the coin appears to have nice mirrors, some frosty devices and likely shows hairlines. What is the grade on the holder ?

On 12/22/2022 at 9:59 PM, Sandon said:

   The "star" grade, which is only used by NGC and is not part of the ANA grading system, when used on proofs, appears to be applied to coins that are one-sided cameos (or deep cameos), as there isn't enough room on the little paper grading service tag to say that the coin is a "deep cameo obverse, brilliant reverse", or the like.  The original poster suggests that a one-sided cameo (or deep cameo) is better than a two-sided cameo or deep cameo.  Assuming, as most collectors do, that a cameo is better than a non-cameo and that a deep cameo is better than a cameo, this position is illogical. For that matter, so is the fad of "low ball" collecting in which some collectors compete to own the most worn coin possible!

  Collect what you want, but just because it's unusual or "low population" in a certified holder doesn't mean it's really desirable or that most collectors will accept it as such.

Exceptional toning or color may also qualify for Star designation on proofs as well.

On 9/7/2020 at 6:41 PM, erwindoc said:

Been thinking about this question for some time and I will start by saying that I have been a fan of the NGC star designation for years(check my sets if you don't believe me!).  Unfortunately, I think that the plus grading system has hurt the value of the star.  Points are the same in the registry for a star coin, which is designated for exceptional eye appeal.  The plus is upper ends of the respective grade.  What are your thoughts???  Which would you rather have a "+" or a "*"?  Riding the fence with this dime that has both the plus and star designation...

 

I am almost sure my Star coins get more points than non Star coins of the same grade.

On 12/17/2022 at 2:34 PM, Fullhorn said:

Nice coin Numisport. Your patience paid off I would say. 

 

Here is a raw 1957 that I was trying to get an artsy picture of. Not sure I succeeded.

 

I bought my '57 for a birth year proof set knowing the cameo nickel is probably the key date in the '50 to '64 nickel series.

One offered right now at David Lawrence for bidding starting at 28K. Do you think it merits MS 65 ? Do you think it merits FBL ?

Given that the coin hasn't sold yet is it fair to comment ?

On 12/13/2022 at 9:11 PM, RWB said:

The coin, judging only from abrasion visible in the photos, was correctly graded the first time. Only the label changed (for grade) and now someone in the future will be deceived by the TPGs' inconsistency. My comment is in no way directed toward the poster - he did nothing untoward. Just my minority opinion on "grading."

No Sir you are not in the minority

On 12/14/2022 at 11:43 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

I came across a grade earlier today, in an NGC advertisement, which has to rank right up there with all the greats.

A coin, a number of them actually, carrying the same unnumbered descriptive label pertaining to the recovery of coins from the wreck of the S.S. REPUBLIC.

The coins are all labeled:  "UNC - Shipwreck Effect."

It is assumed if you were to inquire further you would expose yourself for the buffoon you clearly are and unworthy of being in the company of greatness when you see it.  Great marketing ploy!

So an Unc coin can be 'circulated' to the sea floor for a while, then recovered and rebranded Unc. Okay got it. 

Because this is a better date it may have been given a market grade bump which I am strongly against. Look real close to see if there is any smoothing of the high spots that would make it a slider. Now you may be the only one that knows.

On 12/12/2022 at 1:40 PM, numisport said:

Agreed I actually hated the newer pronged inserts but when they ran out of the old inserts I was forced into a reholder binge. Now I appreciate a new clean look as I think the proofs show better in clean new plastic.

And here is another twist to reholdering: Since CAC is no longer stickering you can't get that bean put back on like they used to do [at one time for free]. Although if the number is retained you should still be able to verify CAC as long as they still archive CAC verification.

On 12/12/2022 at 12:58 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, but for the first time I now see lots of folks saying that unless you can make a killing, it's better financially and from a collecting aesthetic POV to keep the OGH's and remembrances of the way it was.

I didn't see people posting that a few years ago even if some felt it.

Agreed I actually hated the newer pronged inserts but when they ran out of the old inserts I was forced into a reholder binge. Now I appreciate a new clean look as I think the proofs show better in clean new plastic.

OGH holders are cool but no rattlers for me. Fatties are cool too but are a tight fit in NGC boxes. Reholder is the way knowing they will still have the old number.