MarkFeld

None of what you claim its about is accurate. A coin that a majority of viewers consider to be semi-PL need not be any more costly than one that isn’t. And in some cases, a semi-PL coin is worth less.

It has nothing to do with ethics. And the same has happened with the top two grading companies, as well.

You started off by describing the term “semi-prooflike” as meaningless. It probably is to people who aren’t familiar with the term and/or who haven’t seen such coins. But to those of us who are and have - and there are a great many of us - it’s pretty easy to agree as to whether a coin meets that description. You can talk all you want about samples, bias, memory and so on. And those points aren’t without some merit. But in the real world, many of us experience that which you say can’t be.

My presumption might be false, as might yours be that mine is false.

I disagree. I believe that if you showed a coin that I’d describe as semi-prooflike to 100 numismatists, a significant % of them would concur. While the term lacks an empirical definition, it has more meaning than you state.

I made “Wondercoin” aware of this thread and I have copied his comments below. He is an extremely active and knowledgeable dealer, particularly in the area of moderns. “Hi Mark. Thank you for bringing to my attention this interesting modern coin thread. First and foremost, it is wonderful to see the passion of the OP, “RichieRich2020”. Whether he ultimately turns out to be “right” or “wrong”, it is still great to see all that passion for his dime. And, second, it is equally wonderful to see all the experts and fellow collectors contributing their expertise to the OP. This is what makes this hobby great and the NGC and PCGS message boards such an invaluable component to the coin collecting experience. There are so many ultra-talented numismatists contributing to this thread (yourself included Mark) including Fred. As we all know, Fred is one of the foremost authorities on United States errors, varieties and the coin striking processes at the Mint.I see that Fred has determined the subject coin to be a regular business strike example and that after the dime was in circulation it somehow developed the “matte” surface appearance that the OP sees. I believe Fred probably put the word “matte” in quotes so as to not confuse what he was suggesting with someone thinking Fred determined the coin had, indeed, a different US Mint striking process applied to it when struck. But, any confusion on that interpretation can easily be verified in a short follow up letter from Fred.My strong expertise is in the valuation of United States modern coins (1932-date). I recently testified on behalf of the United States Department of Justice in a federal case as a Court approved expert on modern coin valuation. My extensive valuation report and live Court testimony led to a very decisive victory for the DOJ. Obviously, before I would complete my evaluation of the fair market value of this dime, I would need to “pin down” what exactly we had here. Fred’s analysis of the dime would be very important to my valuation analysis as would other opinions I would use to formulate my valuation opinion.I see a diagnostic marker on the reverse of the coin left of the upper torch area directly below the flame. I am wondering if this marker might be useful in finding another matching dime (with a similar marker) to perhaps help in concluding the origin of the subject dime? Does anyone have any thoughts on that?In conclusion, of course if I was the owner of this dime, I would not be satisfied to hear my dime was worth just ten cents. I would want to devote much more time and energy to figure out exactly what happened with this coin either before or after the striking process. I might be curious to see if I could find a matching dime of this date with the diagnostic marker(s) I discussed. I would also be very thankful to be getting all this free support and assistance from so many talented numismatists on this message board.Best of luck to the OP!”

I hope you weren’t being serious. Nothing would would resolve this firmly and with finality for a certain person, unless it supported his dream.

Making the assessment wouldn’t take much time at all. But others, who are well qualified, have already done that. And it’s the postmortem that can be time consuming. However, I will point him to this thread and see if he wishes to comment.

While obviously well intended, your suggestion gives credence to a coin that is undeserving and would subject Wondercoin to an immense waste of time.

Thank you, Roger.

But there are a great many coins struck once which display much better detail. Perhaps it was something to do with the post-strike process, which obscured details?

Getting back to the subject of this thread...I’m surprised that the coins aren’t better struck.

Maybe because you realize I don’t like exaggerations. Regardless, if anything i posted was inaccurate, please go ahead and set the record straight.

There’s no push for a “semi-prooflike” designation, though it can be accurate and helpful to describe a partially reflective coin as semi-prooflike. And believe it or not, it need not be about money, either. The Prooflike designation for Morgan Dollars has been around for decades, as have color designations for copper coins. There’s plenty to gripe about, without exaggerating or nitpicking.

Not usually!😉

I wasn’t grading in an assembly line - it was nothing like that. Back in those days, we weren’t even grading moderns, yet. I also spent close to half my time in quality control checks of the coins, grades and information on the grading labels, after the coins were encapsulated.

Like it or not, when I graded at NGC from 1991-1998, I very rarely used magnification stronger than 5-10 power.

The "standards" are also somewhat subjective and inconsistent.

I can answer that question - because the opinions matter/count if they are what he wishes to hear, but otherwise, not.

Really? What number did you intend to type?

For purposes of accuracy, there is no "7 million dollar coin" that experts said was fake. Yes, the coin was incorrectly said to be a copy, but that "7 million dollar" figure is off by millions of dollars.

It must be wonderful to know more than everyone else. And to be able to dismiss all explanations that you don't want to believe, while holding on to your own, no matter how unlikely it is. There's no way that the coin should ever be submitted to a grading company for authentication. Because they either don't know their stuff or would be involved in a conspiracy with the rest of the numismatic world to treat the submitter unfairly. Yes, the best thing to do is just keep the unique, priceless coin, as is, and enjoy it forever.

Good post and I mean that, sincerely. I do, however, disagree about “problem-solving” - at least at this point - on the part of the original poster. He’s been told by numerous posters, including experts, that he doesn’t have what he thinks/wishes. Unless someone agrees with him, I can’t imagine what anyone could say which would satisfy him. And that includes the top grading/authentication companies. My guess is that if he were to submit it to one of them and the coin was deemed to be damaged, he’d say he didn’t get a fair shake.

Talk about “getting over it”, I corrected a misstatement you made and noted that the poster didn’t have just one alias. Then you posted all of the above. You might try taking your own advice and there’s no need for name calling.

We don’t all use aliases. And Idhair mentioned that the poster in question had two different usernames on Coin Talk.