mlovmo

I'll stay for the tractor pull but that "beauty contest" is gonna be brutal...

Just wondering if NGC will be taking submissions at the May 2024 Central States Show. If this inquiry is in the wrong place, I apologize...

I don't know about 7, but I have one that seems to have produced various shades of opinion in the past: What is "wear" on a coin? Really, it seems to boil down to: When does "wear" begin for a coin: Immediately after it freed from between the coining dies? After the struck coin slides off the chute and into a hopper or bag? After it is released by the Mint's Coiner (since it's not "officially a coin" until then)? Or after it is freed from a mint roll or mint bag? Perhaps it's only after it leaves its source financial institution (a bank) and gets used as money for the first time? Related issue: Is "cabinet friction" or "roll friction" a more allowable form of wear that is essentially tantamount to being given a higher coin grade than if it hasn't been blessed with such names?

Okay, I have no doubt that what you say is true. Actually, I had no idea how the coins from this 2000 Bank of Korea set would come back from NGC. Somebody told me to put "SP" on the form, so I did and the coin came back in the holder as you see above. I just got my definition of "SP" from here (https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/7708/learn-grading-sp-and-pl-prefixes/) I don't have a dog in this fight...

Well, I think this summarizes the designation SP, which appears to me to be a description of the SURFACES of a coin: Specimen (SP): A coin that falls short of the definition for an actual Proof yet is clearly superior to the normal currency issues. SP applies to a variety of finishes that are distinct from the appearance of circulation issues but do not fit any of the Proof categories. If it's a World Coin, so be it... Just my two cents.

Well... First, "the grading scales they (S. Korea) use..." The issue is that the Koreans do NOT have grading scales for their coins. If they ever did, I have not heard about it, and in my interactions with the Korean collector/investor community, I have never heard of such a thing. They simply use a "sort of" version of U.S. (ANA?) grading standards when grading raw coins and rely HEAVILY on the grading services provided by NGC for high-value coins. The third-party grading companies have loomed large in the South Korean numismatic market at a level not often seen in countries outside of North America. The big auction house in Korea, Hwadong, is an NGC submission center. Other grading services are accepted by dealers/collectors in Korea, but NGC has cornered the market there for sure. I believe this coin is an SP grade since it was made for a "special" coin set for the Bank of Korea's 50th Anniversary. The surfaces appear "matte proof." Later, similar "special" Bank of Korea coin sets issued from 2001 to 2004 were given PF grades when submitted to NGC.

Here's my S. Korea 2000 50-Won coin in SP-68 https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/6611569-017/68/

Looking for the following South Korean Denominations in these dates, in UNC: 100 Hwan 50 Hwan 4292 10 Hwan 4292 1 Won 1966 5 Won 1966 5 Won 1967 5 won 1970 BRONZE 5 Won 1970 BRASS 10 Won 1966 10 Won 1967 10 Won 1968 10 Won 1969 10 Won 1970 BRONZE 10 Won 1970 BRASS 10 Won 1973 10 Won 1975 50 Won 1972 100 Won 1970 100 Won 1971 100 Won 1972 100 Won 1974 100 Won 1981 100 Won 1998 500 Won 1982 500 Won 1987

Yes, it is an advertising platform when sellers do this, IMO. WHY is that though? Tell me of any other ONE place ANYWHERE where coin buyers around the world go to look at coins. Heritage? Maybe. Those European auction venues/auction houses? Maybe. But you simply will not get as many EYES ON YOUR COIN than you will on eBay. Keep your listing open to "Worldwide" and you'll get the world's eyes on your coin! EBay is easily the BEST advertising platform for those with online stores that have the same name as the seller's eBay handle. Are there risks? Sure. But if you operate an online store, YOU control how the buyer pays and the return policy. There's no eBay worker telling you to give a 60% refund when your buyer initiates a refund and sends back to you something (lower-grade piece of junk) that isn't what you sold him (as had happened to me once)!

This also happens with "higher value, LEGIT coins," too. For example, a seller will list at eBay a coin that normally sells for, say, $2,500~$3,000 in the North American market/eBay for $7,000 BIN. The seller does NOT expect anyone to buy it via eBay, of course. EBay in this sense is only an ADVERTISING PLATFORM for this coin. How? Well, many dealers' eBay handles are exactly the same as the name of their coin business or online name they use elsewhere. If buyers see this coin, they simply do a google search of that name and find the online store or email, or Facebook or IG page and THAT is where the real negotiations take place. The seller and buyer agree to a price closer to that $2,500~$3,000 and terms (money now or coin first, or 50% now and 50% when coin arrives) and negotiate it all via PM or email. The seller then pulls the listing and sells the coin according to the agreed terms. The beauty of this method is that some **insufficiently_thoughtful_person** may just come along first and pay the $7,000 for the BIN price(!)

Yes, Happy Christmas to all!

Not sure. I held one of them in my hands once. The pages appeared to be a paper-type material, similar to those Korean coin folders in the OP. Perhaps contact Wizard Coin Supply. They should be able to tell you the material, if they're interested in making a sale.

Yep. I know that some middle east countries have some folder products: https://www.wizardcoinsupply.com/iraq-kingdom-coin-album-1931-1955?atrkid=V3ADW4095EC2F_____x_c_pla__&gclid=CjwKCAiAgeeqBhBAEiwAoDDhnw_BatFcnVRpmkCvh-JcJAX5x6enKZ8Uaqv7iFNLYzip1oJzPSjRuBoCKlYQAvD_BwE

Thanks for the feedback! It's hard to know what people think of video content on YouTube nowadays, since GONE are the days where nobodies like me could get 8,000+ views on an arcane coin-related video over a year's time and lots of comments from those viewers. YouTube likes to pick its winners and losers nowadays and no longer leave a video's chances of being seen up to chance through a random algorithm.

I reviewed some Whitman-style folders made by a Korean coin retailer for Korean coins: https://youtu.be/9BetTA-d4bs?si=ZsYJTyzunvsExUNS

These Philadelphia-made Korean dies were only used by the US Mint and the coins only struck in Philly. The dies were boxed and sealed by Bank of Korea employees who visited Philly from their office on Wall St in NYC. They were indeed the property of the Bank of Korea, as you mentioned. The masters were all sent to Korea after the end of the coining contract and were never used again to make coins. I was stoked when I found photos of some of these masters in a Bank of Korea pamphlet printed for the Bank's 20th anniversary in 1970. I found that in the ANA Library. I know I'm "nerding out" about it, but it is very hard to find photographic or other kinds of image evidence related to ANYTHING from South Korea's coin production from that far back in time. Photos and other evidence DOES exist, but the Bank of Korea has placed an absolute embargo on releasing it to anyone. Oh, and thanks for your kind words! You can see what I've been up to here: https://dokdo-research.com/SouthKoreanCoinBook.html https://dokdo-research.com/Price Guide.html

Yes. Hints of "things being in place beforehand" appear in the records, from what I can gather. The first Koreans to visit the Mint were on an International Cooperation Administration (precursor organization to USAID) sponsored trip, and Korea had been the recipient of over $1.3 billion in U.S. aid in the late 1950s.

Thanks, RWB! You got me to go back and look again... I noticed that the State Department's formal approval letter was NOT received at the beginning the process in the case of the Korean contract. It was received right after the the Mint completed sketches and showed them to the Bank of Korea representative on June 24, 1959 for two of the three Korean coins. Later, the Bank of Korea representative approved finished plasters for the remaining 100-Hwan coin before the State Department even sent its formal "approval letter" for that coin(!). These things all happened within days of each other, but there was not exactly State Dept approval first, then work commencing next. It seems that PRIOR State Dept approval before ANY work is done was more of a suggestion than a rule... as long as it was a forgone conclusion that the approval was coming, I guess. Or is it the case that the Mint could do ARTWORK, up to and including reductions, without State Dept. approval? They aren't making COINS yet, just artwork.

After some review of Mint documents that I have, I believe that the U.S. Mint’s approval process for the production of foreign coins, as it existed in the past, is as follows. I'm not sure that all of this is correct, but I have found examples in the documents I have on Korea's 1950s contract with the U.S. Mint where each of these points was discussed. 1) If needing coin designs, the foreign government can request the U.S. Mint to sketch designs based on the government’s provided parameters, themes or images. Payment must be made before artwork can be started. Countries can pay for the sketches alone or may pay for any or all of the following steps including engravings, reductions, and the hubbing of master and coining dies. Any final sketches that the U.S. Mint produces must have approval of the foreign government before continuing with the subsequent steps. 2) The U.S. Mint will request approval from the foreign government upon completion of the sculptures and again upon completion of the master dies. The foreign government can review sample lead strikes made from the dies to approve them. 3) If a foreign government wishes the U.S. Mint to produce coins in any of the steps involving melting, rolling, blanking, upsetting and stamping coins, the foreign government must formally appeal through diplomatic channels directly to the U.S. State Department for approval. Receipt of State Department approval will allow the Mint to place the foreign coin order on the U.S. Mint’s production schedule as long as it does not interfere with coinage production required for the United States. 4) To be placed on the U.S. Mint’s production schedule, the foreign government must first pay the Mint for the total cost of the coinage project, including actual overhead costs (labor, materials, use of machinery), any costs incurred in the purchase of the coining metals, plus profit for the Mint. If anyone here thinks that there are mistakes with my understanding of the process, please let me know!

Yes, it seems that Mr. Leland Howard here had "been around the block" a few times hearing the problems that other central banks/mint had with their coin problems (like coins becoming more valuable as recyclable metal than as currency). The Koreans themselves would soon face this problem in the late 1960s. They got on top of it, though. I especially like his "truck vs. Cadillac" analogy when it comes to nations choosing the metal (base or precious) for their coins. That was nice. His advice was that silver was not a good coining metal because it was akin to a "Cadillac." Of course, it's easy to detect the irony in this, since Mr. Howard was an official of a mint that was merrily striking millions of 90% silver coins as he gave out this sage advice(!) The ancient Chinese understood this concept all too well. They never made their round coins with the square holes in the middles out of precious metals. Only base metals (well, up until they began trading with Westerners, that is). The Chinese understood coins to be "money objects" whose real value was in the wealth that they created through their velocity in transaction. Coins, as medium of exchange, created wealth. Coins were not seen as a store of value. If they made their coins out of precious metals, hoarding would have immobilized their money objects in circulation. And then there would be NO CURRENCY! The ancient Chinese understood gold and silver as commodities susceptible to hoarding, so they didn't use them to make coins (since money was to "move," not hide under a mattress). The role of "store of wealth" was left to gold, jade, bronze vessels, paintings and land. I've been to coin shows where guys wave a silver coin in my face and say, "this here is REAL money!" Well... I think it's only is money because humans assign value to it (much like a banknote). You can't eat silver for food, you can't drink it as water, and you can't dig a furrow in it and grow plants or build shelter with it. Just my opinion...

It was where YOU told me it was located, RWB! Ha... NARA-CP, RG104, Entry 328-F, Box 10, Korea Mint- Establishment of New Coinage System and Coinage Letter dated February 21, 1958 to Lee Chan-sup, Assist. Representative of the Bank of Korea, New York from Leland Howard Assistant Director of the Mint

What follows is an interesting letter written over 60 years ago that I found in the National Archives. It's a letter in which the Assistant Director of the U.S. Mint wrote to a Bank of Korea representative. The Koreans had visited the Philadelphia Mint and were inquiring about how to set up their own coin-minting plant and new coinage. In 1958, the last time Koreans had made their own coins was in November 1904. Some of the information he relates, many of you already know about. But he makes some very interesting comments about U.S. coin-metal compositions and the recommended alloys that he thinks the Koreans should choose. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- February 21, 1958 TO: Mr. Chan Sup Lee, Asst. Representative, Bank of Korea, New York FROM: Mr. Leland Howard, Asst. Director of the Mint Coinage Mint for Korea There are many problems in connection with setting up and operating a mint and the establishment of a new coinage system these problems can be divided into the following categories: 1. The type of metal to be worked will to a great extent determine the type of equipment to be used. 2. The volume of production will determine the type of equipment needed and the cost per unit of production. 3. The monetary unit of a country will determine to a great extent whether or not the coins are produced at a profit or loss to the government. 4. The monetary unit the coins produced and the metals used will to a great extent determine whether or not coins will remain in circulation or will be withdrawn for their intrinsic value of course the price of metals will to a great extent affect the withdrawal. The type of metal to be worked will to a great extent determine the type of equipment to be used. In most mints of the world, a metal is chosen that is malleable and workable under conditions of cold rolling. For example, in the United States we are able to manufacture our bronze coins through the entire operation on a cold process with the exception that we do anneal the blanks. I will explain annealing to you- as metal is rolled it work hardens and becomes brittle. The annealing process brings the metal to a desired heat in a furnace which softens it so that work can be continued on the metal the reason that bronze blanks are annealed in blank form is to make them soft enough to take the impression of the die in the stamping operation. If we did not anneal the blanks, they would be hard and brittle and the metal would not flow properly into the die, the impression would be bad, and the coin could have a bad appearance. Die life would be very limited. On our five-cent coin and all of our silver coins, we do not only anneal the blanks but we also anneal at least two times during the minting operation. The size of an ingot, particularly thickness, determines the number of times the metal must be annealed in the operation. I think at this stage I should tell you that our one-cent coin is composed of an alloy of 95% copper and 5% tin and zinc. We use very little tin in the alloy -merely a trace. The five-cent coin is composed of an alloy of 75% copper and 25% nickel. All of our silver coins are of an alloy of 900 Parts silver and 100 Parts copper. We happen to use these alloys because we adopted them many years ago and because in the United States the use of vending devices with slug rejectors on them are not conducive to change. Most of the slug rejectors in vending devices work on an electrical resistance principle and therefore to substitute another alloy we would have to adopt one that would have the same electrical resistivity. Otherwise, we would upset the many millions of machines that are now in operation. Also, the size and thickness of our coins are important factors in operating our many coin operated devices, and we are more or less tied to the present size. There are many good alloys other than the ones that we use in the United States that are adaptable to cold rolling. You will recall that you were shown many sample pieces of various alloys. Of course, in starting any coinage system, the cheaper the alloy the better. If the coins are to perform as a circulating medium and not as a store of value; that is, if the coins are to exchange the goods of the country, the cheaper the alloy, the better, as the government makes more profit and the desire to withdraw the coins from circulation because of their metal content is lessened. Coins performing their function of circulating medium can be compared to the transportation of goods from one place or person to another. For example, if you wanted to transport vegetables from the farm to the market, you would use the cheapest means possible. In the United States we would use a truck; not a Cadillac. Coins as a medium of exchange should move goods from one person to another as cheaply as possible the same as any other service performed in getting goods from one person to another. Because coins are sometimes used as a store of value or a means of deferred payment, sight is lost of its other and main function and that is to facilitate the transfer of goods and services. There are many metals and alloys that cannot be handled in a cold rolling process. They must be rolled hot and the type of equipment for hot handling is entirely different from that for cold rolling, and as a rule is more expensive. Pure nickel is an example of a metal that must be hot rolled. It is not ductile enough to be rolled cold. Aluminum is another one. Perhaps in determining your alloy you would not want to get equipment to handle the first stages of manufacture. You may desire to purchase blanks and merely stamp them. The purchase of blanks is suggested because if round coins are manufactured, there is approximately 30% waste in the stamping of round blanks from a strip. If the scrap metal could not be used in your country, you would have the expense of not only paying for its shipment to your country but also the expense of shipping scrap metal to a point where it could be used. Costly equipment appears in the early stages of coining, that is, in melting, rolling, and blanking. Therefore a large capital expenditure would be eliminated if the coinage process started with the finished blank. 2. The volume of production will determine the type of equipment needed and the cost per unit of production. I have touched on this subject under number one but I want to stress very much the fact that a country should not start a coinage mint unless it has the volume to support it. The overhead and minting, both equipment and labor, is so great that unless you have volume you cannot produce the coins as cheaply as you can buy them in many mints throughout the world. Attached is a list of the manufacturing charges for several coins that have been produced in the United States mints during the past several years. These costs are in dollars per thousand pieces and do not include metal costs. If a country with a small volume were given a mint, that is, if they did not have to purchase equipment or build the structure to house it, the cost of production would exceed the purchase of the coins elsewhere. Of course, you do not know the number of coins that your country needs initially or annually thereafter. I venture to say that based upon the knowledge that I have of your country, it would be very uneconomical for it to establish a mint. If a mint is to turn out a rather large volume, the amount of equipment and the type of equipment should be different. As was pointed out to you, we closed our coining operations in our San Francisco Mint in 1955 because we did not have enough volume to economically produce coins at that plant. Our production capacity and requirements were in the neighborhood of 175,000,000 pieces annually. We can make coins in our larger mint at Denver, pay the shipping costs to San Francisco, and place them in the San Francisco Mint much cheaper than we can produce them there. There is attached a list of coining equipment and the estimated cost for a small mint to produce 100,000 coins per day on an 8-hour shift. Of course, we have no details concerning weight, composition, or size, and are assuming that the metal or alloy chosen can be cold rolled. You will note that provision is made for a manufacturing working dies but no outlay is included for the manufacturer of master dies. There is no provision for power plant. We assume that electricity is available for all operations. No provision is made for buildings, storage vaults, security systems, office equipment, and all other items necessary to house and accommodate the operating equipment. The list is brief and only includes principal items of special equipment peculiar to minting- in other words, this is a minimum requirement. 3. The monetary unit of a country will determine to a great extent whether or not coins are produced at a profit or loss to the government. The smaller the value of the monetary unit the greater is the difficulty of manufacturing coins at a profit. For example, in the United States the one-cent piece is our smallest coin. We make 145 one cent pieces from one pound of alloy- in other words, the face value of the coins from a pound of alloy is $1.45. At present, the price of copper, namely 25 cents per pound, and of Zinc at 12 cents per pound, the alloy costs us slightly less than 25 cents. The cost of manufacturing 145 one-cent pieces is 12 cents. Therefore, we make $1.08 above the cost of the metal in the manufacture of each pound of one-cent alloy. We make 90 five-cent pieces, our next smallest coin, from a pound of alloy that cost us approximately 39 cents, and it cost us 15 cents to manufacture the 90 five-cent pieces. The difference between the face value and the cost of the metal and manufacturing is $3.96 per pound of cupro-nickel alloy (copper- 25 cents per pound, nickel- 79 cents per pound). I do not know what denominations your country desires; neither do I know the size coinage desired or, more important, the weight of each coin and the cost of metal, but with your monetary unit starting with a much smaller value in relation to the dollar, I believe that many of your coins must of necessity be produced at a loss to the government. This may not be too bad if the coins replace paper money which is costly to maintain because it wears out much more quickly. However, precautions should be taken not produce coins that would be withdrawn from circulation later on because their metallic content exceeds their face value. In other words, a margin must be left to take care of an increase in the price of the metal used. Only two years ago, we were paying 50 cents per pound for copper. If you were to base a coinage system that was on the margin at 25 cents a pound, it would go out of existence when copper reached 50 cents a pound. These are problems that must be well thought out by your government and perhaps, because of the nature of the situation, Korea may even desire to take a calculated risk. By calculated risk, I mean that if these coins stay in circulation for a certain period of time, your government may still make money over the present system of paper money. Without complete details, I am at a loss as to what to advise you in this connection but it is not difficult to arrive at a solution once the facts are well known. Of course, I believe silver coins as a medium of exchange should not be considered. I cannot conceive of the use of silver except in very high denominations and only for a purpose other than a medium of exchange. The higher denominations of money in the United States, as you know, are in paper, silver dollars being the largest silver coin that is made. Silver in the United States silver dollar has a monetary value of $1.29 per ounce. In other words, It would not pay to melt a silver dollar for its bullion value unless silver were above $1.29 per ounce. the monetary value of silver in the United States half dollar quarter dollar and dime is $1.38 per fine ounce. In other words, there is proportionately less silver in these coins, and the price of silver would have to go above the price of $1.38 per ounce in order for it to be profitable to melt these coins for their metal content. 4. The monetary unit, the coins produced, and the metals used will to a great extent determine whether or not coins will remain in circulation or will be withdrawn further intrinsic. of course, the price of metals will to a great extent affect the withdrawal. I have touched on this point in great detail above. I again repeat that there is not too much that I can offer in this direction without knowing more of the facts. However, the small unit now of paper money that you mentioned to me will be difficult to keep in circulation if replaced by a coin unless the conditions in Korea are different from any that I can conceive. I know of no place where the populace would not withdraw coins if the metal content was worth more than the monetary value of the coin. Maybe some prohibition could be imposed, or maybe a metal could be chosen that was not workable within the country and its export could be controlled at the borders of the country- that is, the smuggling out of the metal could be controlled, but if such conditions could be controlled in Korea, it would be different from any place that I know of in the world. Many countries on many occasions have lost their coinage through this process. Silver is a prime example, particularly in some of the South American countries. At the present time, difficulty is being encountered Keeping the silver ryials in circulation in Saudi Arabia. I know of many countries that have lost coins made of copper and other metals due to a decrease in the value of the monetary unit and or an increase in the value of the metal. If, after your visit to the Philadelphia Mint, you have any additional questions that you wish to raise, we shall be glad to help you in any way possible. If you can secure additional information from your country relative to their coinage, maybe we can help at that point.

Love seeing these letters and documents. I like getting surprises in them, too. I was surprised to see a few things in the documents that I got from the Archives. One was a picture (an actual polaroid taped to the document!) of an original die the US Mint made for S. Korea, but the Koreans decided to go with a different design. I'm thinking that I was the only person to have seen that image since it was filed away back in the late 50s! I don't think anybody else had seen it since. Incredible...

Over the last year as I have been selling my South Korean Coins book, some people were telling me that they wanted a price guide with auction results for these same coins and the older Korean machine-struck coins. Well, here it is...... Landing Page: https://dokdo-research.com/Price Guide.html

Yeah, the "cabinet friction" one is quite rich. It's called "WEAR" last time I checked, and should relegate any "Uncirculated" coin in question with "cabinet friction" to About Uncirculated. Also, this "cabinet friction" thing seems to be only applied to big-money/"significant" coins, doesn't it? Graders have NO problem whacking me over the head with reality when I send in for grading those coins that I care about!