MarkFeld

On 6/28/2022 at 12:25 PM, RWB said:

Matte refers ONLY to early Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels.

The other two are correct.

Referring to the 1921/1922 sandblast proof dollars as "matte" was a pile of horse droppings that someone (Breen ?) started just after WW-II. I blame Breen because he was prone to invent things when he didn't bother to do the research to learn the truth. From the first coin-use of sandblasting in 1908, the coins were always called "sandblast" or "sand blasted" which was also the Medal Dept.'s normal means of finishing most medals. (The work was done in the same department bu the same people.)

About 20 years ago Dave Bowers and I began reverting to the original descriptive names for such pieces. "Matte" returned to "sandblast;" "Roman proof" returned to "satin." I was the one who did the research and discovered what was actually done. Kevin Flynn added more about sandblasting from a document he located. Since then, usage has slowly moved back to the original description approach for these and several other terms that have been misused for a long time. I also recommended reserving "matte" for the Lincoln and Buffalo proofs because that was a suitable descriptive term, and there could no longer be confusion about what "matte" meant.

I have no clue about what the US Mint means with their surface descriptions. They refuse to fully explain and are not consistent -- hence I ignore them.

Why is “matte” a “suitable descriptive term” for Lincoln and Buffalo Proofs, but not 1908 and 1911-1915 Proof U.S. gold coins?

coins

On 6/25/2022 at 5:50 PM, JamieE said:

New to the board.  What was the outcome concerning this coins finish ?   I just found a 1956 Roosevelt dime , Denver mint , which has dull finish .......almost looks "brushed" .   Thanks in advance for any help.  

Welcome to the forum. The coin was nothing special and of no extra value.

Many coins have dull finishes or have been cleaned or damaged. There’s absolutely no reason to think your coin is anything special.

On 6/24/2022 at 8:55 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

You don't think that the much smaller fields play a part ? 

Was my previous answer unclear? 

On 6/24/2022 at 12:58 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Maybe it has something to do with smaller coins.  Tougher to see blemishes and imperfections, dings, etc.

Big fields on Morgans and Saints and Liberty DEs makes it tougher to get that gold CAC.

I’m sure CAC can see and evaluate smaller coins, just fine.

I think it’s far more likely that the reason is common date Mercury dimes don’t have large price spreads, so there was less incentive to resubmit conservatively graded examples.

On 6/23/2022 at 7:01 PM, FlyingAl said:

Erm, maybe not. That coin could (my opinion) be used as a plate for "unattractive toning". The first pics make it look somewhat attractive, the second not at all.

On the other hand, I think the coin looks attractive in both sets of pictures.

On 6/16/2022 at 4:08 PM, Joydeep said:

 

Hi Mark, I said access to the pictures on the TPG's database, not the pictures as a standalone entity that one can Save/Download. And as far as criminal elements getting access to them, how does it compromise the safety net ??

Thank you, I had misunderstood you.

On 6/16/2022 at 2:36 PM, Joydeep said:

Well....I can certainly say that I have made mistakes and learned quite a lot from them. For example, one of my personal experiences in this thread.

It is a bit too bold to go swim in crocodile infested waters and expect no harm. People must do the bare minimum as far as due diligence is concerned (in this case buying costly collectibles from a seller who has 0 ratings and has been on eBay for less than a year). This fact is stressed repeatedly for good reason.

I have also noticed (may be I am wrong) that it is more often than not the PCGS coin slabs that are prone to such counterfeiting.

One solution TPG's could consider is imaging/photographing coins within the slab (the complete unit, available for public viewing on the website of the TPG) and images of both sides of the coin in detail, that too remain in the TPG's database but only for the owner to view. (The one who gets it graded is the first owner, when a transaction happens, the owner has to furnish the actual item alongside access to the pictures and so on for future transactions). This would be a slightly resource consuming but a very effective safety net.

P.S: I believe the whole Community has to come together (TPG's, collectors etc) to keep collecting safe. Whenever, I have come across counterfeits for coins I was interested in, I have messaged senior members like MarkFeld and some others, to raise voice in a strong, collective manner.

How would additional images being made available only to the owner, help the counterfeit label and holder problem? Potential buyers wouldn’t be any better off unless the owner wanted to share the information. And for sellers on eBay, that would be a large nuisance. Even then, scammers, posing as bidders, could end up with the images.

On 6/16/2022 at 12:37 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

No, I think he is saying legit coins switched into more valuable PCGS slabs.

I'm reading the posts now.......

EDIT:  Read more posts....appears to not be opening up the holders, but just using a fake copy label.

Holders don’t need to be opened if you have counterfeit labels and holders.

The coin in the opening post could be an XF (rather than AU) in terms of wear. But even if it is, it’s nowhere close to VF20. If you disagree, I invite you to post pictures of a graded VF 20 example that matches it.😉

Here's a VF25:

And here's a Photograde XF45, which has less detail than than the subject coin.

I don’t think the coins are counterfeit.

On 6/15/2022 at 6:01 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Not trying to retread an "old" thread, but I believe this quandary, this endless equivocating and non-stop speculating was non-existent--and by all means, correct me if I am wrong--before proof coins were being graded.  Now we have, "my proof MS-whatever, is better than yours." I am unalterably opposed to anything that fuels the craze for micro-distinctions, but understand the economic incentives at play here. I just choose to allow any circa 1960's Red Book do the talking for me as plainly stated here by at least two distinguished members: the mintage of coins is a process (using specially prepared planchets) and not a grade. Period. Post Mint Damage does not fly in the face of this basic fact. I am glad the OP posed the question, and I am delighted he got crystal-clear responses.

In the case of a 1964 half dollar, the average Proof and the average business strike are worth about the same amount. So there’s no meaningful economic incentive in distinguishing the method of manufacture.

The coin looks like a cleaned AU example, worth approximately $35.

On 6/10/2022 at 2:23 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Yes, that's what I meant.  Didn't realize it got this confused/twisted.

I meant UNGRADED coins.  Of course !! 

In the 1980's, it would be unreal to see graded coins since the TPGs didn't hit until 1986/87.  Even a decade or so later when the Price Auction hit...lots of ungraded coins.

That’s better, and I withdraw my “bologna” comment😉, though you initially wrote “ auctions of the1980's and 1990's. 
 

On 6/10/2022 at 2:13 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The Eliasberg sale...the Price sale...etc.

David Akers and others said they got what are today some of the Top Condition coins at those auctions.  They were listed in the auctions at MS-63 or 64 or 65....and often came up as 66 or 67.

Mark, by "uncommon"....I don't mean to imply that 1/3rd of the coins were undergraded by 2-3 grades.  But sharp eyes caught these coins as very undergraded and PCGS and NGC agreed with that conclusion.

Here's what comes from the HA archives from David Akers, talking about the 1908-S Norweb Saint:

"....The Saints in the Norweb sale were very conservatively and consistently undergraded. For example, the 1925-S and aforementioned 1926-D were graded only MS64 and MS63 respectively. I purchased both of them and subsequently sold them to Dr. Price. After they were sold with his collection in 1998, they were submitted for grading to PCGS and received grades of MS68 and MS66 respectively, the first and second finest of their issues graded."

 

The comment to which you originally replied mentioned“The auction companies merely repeat whatever is on the label”. That would be a reference to coins that were already graded. If your (bologna😉) statement was referring to ungraded coins, you didn’t indicate it and that’s a different matter.

On 6/10/2022 at 1:05 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

And often were WAY off, as I am sure you know.  Not uncommon to see Saints at some of the famous auctions of the 1980's and 1990's be 2-3 grades too low.

Sorry, but I think it’s bologna to state that it wasn’t uncommon to see Saints 2-3 grades too low in such auctions. 

On 6/10/2022 at 12:08 PM, Errorists said:

Doesn't look like this one graded  MS61. 

As I said “I have full confidence in his in-hand assessment.”

I saw this thread, so I contacted one of our cataloguers and asked him to check to see whether the coin was correctly attributed. He viewed it and determined that it is. I have full confidence in his in-hand assessment.

On 6/9/2022 at 7:21 AM, Just Bob said:

I stand corrected. Thank you for that information. I will remove my above posts. If you and @GoldFinger1969remove the quotes, my misinformation will not remain on this thread.

I appreciate that. Still, I will leave my reply up (including your post) for anyone who might have already seen the post and gotten the wrong impression.

On 6/8/2022 at 9:35 PM, Just Bob said:

Getting back to Heritage:

I was tracking 7 items in a non-coin auction tonight, and had my eye on a few more. I bid on several, but only won one. Every item I didn't win, and all of the others that I was tracking and watching, were bought by Heritage. In fact, the majority of the lots in this auction were bought by Heritage. I can't see anything fair about this. Their practices are good for sellers. but not for buyers, in my opinion. They are also great for Heritage. 

What you described is incorrect. It sounds as if you're talking about "Heritage Live" bidders, (not Heritage, itself) who bid live at the time of the sale, rather than placing internet bids prior to the live sale. Not surprisingly, "Heritage Live" bidders win a great many lots. 

See link below, about "Heritage Live" and if you have questions about this, please feel free to contact me directly. 

https://www.ha.com/c/halive/

On 6/6/2022 at 2:18 PM, World Colonial said:

There is never any point in paying "strong money" for common coins.

I don't collect any common coins by most collector's standards, but by my definition, most supposedly scarce or rare coins are common.  There is also a big difference in availability.  US coins are invariably more available than those from elsewhere even with the same scarcity.  The value also makes a difference, as many owners see no point in selling inexpensive coins that are actually hard to buy for the amount they can obtain. 

A low to very proportion also sell (very) infrequently due to the affinity (for lack of a better term) collectors have for it.   As an example, comparably scarce or even (somewhat) more common US colonial and territorial gold in my observations are much harder to buy than most US federal coinage.  The 1804 dollar and 1913 LHN are both rare, but not really that hard to compete for, for the limited number who have the funds.  Both come up for sale every few years.  The reason?  The buyers like it a lot more, even if most collectors do not.

For many of us, there absolutely is a point in paying strong money for common coins - when they’re of exceptional quality and/or beauty and we want to acquire them.

On 6/6/2022 at 3:40 PM, Alex in PA. said:

Just the fact that neither coin is in a TPG slab (NGC or PCGS) and what's that neat device?

It’s not the fact that the coins are ungraded which makes them counterfeit. It’s that their details and surface textures don’t match what’s seen on genuine examples. 

I bet you didn’t think that - not even for a “brief moment”.

On 5/29/2022 at 7:50 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

"...Junk silver, especially Franklins." This is a very curious reference to a coin series every date of which was comprised of 90% silver. 🤔 

Often, 90% silver coins are referred to as “junk silver”. The reference doesn’t sound the least bit curious to me.

On 5/29/2022 at 6:04 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

That worked ...and you ARE right....there were some 1908 No Motto Wells Fargo CACs in some HA sales.  That post I copied from CU/PCGS may have been from 2016-18 when very few or maybe no 1908 WF NM's had yet gotten CAC approval.  CAC now has Forums, I'll scan and see if they have anything on this. 

Gonna try and research how many 1908 NM's and 1908 WF NM's (if the data exists) have gotten CACed.

Good luck.

On 5/29/2022 at 4:34 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

That's OK, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. 

I think I relied on a dated CU/PCGS post that I reprinted in the WF Hoard Thread...at that time, apparently, CAC/JA had NOT stickered any WF Hoard coins or so few that it was still believable that the absolute number was zero.

I'm going over your link from HA, Mark, and will scout for a WF Hoard CAC.  Even with their good interface, I sometimes have trouble narrowing the search to a reasonable list.  Getting better, though. 

In doing my search of the Heritage auction archives, in the search box (“Enter Keyword or Lot Number”) I typed in “1908 Wells Fargo” and from the drop-down menu (“All Rare Coins”) to its right, I selected “Saint-Gaudens Double Eagles”.