Bignubnumismatics

No, unfortunately. I picked a few up a few, but not the ones I need.

I do not, sorry

I’m looking for a December 1991, January 1992, and January 1996 NGC Census or Population report.

Any condition as long as everything is readable!

On 12/31/2022 at 9:05 AM, Sandon said:

   The circulated 1928 Lincoln cent is in a "sample slab" that PCGS used, I think, in the late 1980s or early 1990s to show what the holder that replaced the original "rattler" holder looked like.  I assume that the box is of the same vintage.  Some collectors pay a premium for these sample slabs that has no relationship to the nominal value of the coin that they contain.

Yeah, the sample slabs were part of Publisher’s clearing house gimmick and are extremely common. The box as far as I was produced in the early 2000s and unknown publicly until 2004.

Just received this in the mail today.

couldn’t find much information other than it was for PCGS internal use only. Any one know when they were issued?

Hello,

I’m looking for ;

1. MS-66 (67 or higher on common dates) and higher Buffalo Nickels, Mercury Dimes, and walking Liberty halves Preferably nicely toned.

2. Any pre 1916 NGC Fatty any grades

Can pay with Venmo, PayPal, or Cashapp 

I have a toned 1957 MS-68* Roosevelt, I also have some PCGS 67+ if you are interested.

On 9/19/2022 at 5:06 PM, disme said:

        In 1830 Mint Director Dr. Samuel Moore changed the way coinage was reported on a calendar-year basis. The annual report for 1830 to 1835 listed the coins struck during the year even if not formally delivered by the chief coiner. This did not affect the gold and silver coinage, which was promptly delivered but copper was another matter. The 1831 half cents were a test run of 2200 pieces using the new style of dies. Proofs were also struck. A large quantity of half cents were melted in 1833 and likely included most or all of the 1831 business strikes. This topic was discussed in the August 2014 issue of Coins Magazine.

Most of that article, and the December 1985 The Numismatist use the primary sources and then take a leap of conjecture.

On 9/23/2022 at 1:51 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Seems like my comment on "keg marks" was glossed over or given short shrift.  If coins, not detritus, were shipped in kegs, would it not be reasonable to assume in filling them or experiencing slippage or shifting in transit, marks would result? 

Newbie:  How come these old half-cents are covered in sawdust?

W.C. Fields:  Go away kid, you bother me. [My Little Chickadee, 1940.]

Marks would definitely result in any shipment method of coins not properly protected. It would make little difference, however, if the original production was proof or business as if a proof coin was put into circulation it would garner the same marks.

On 9/17/2022 at 9:15 PM, Starbuy said:

Has turn around time improved or are standard grading still like 3 months 

For economy its been 2-3 months, standard has been about a month, however, they have been a bit slow opening the packages (~2-3 weeks).

On 9/16/2022 at 2:06 PM, Coinbuf said:

Both coins have environmental damage and I personally think that you overpaid for these, but if you like them and are happy then no harm no foul.

$10 a piece for classic comes is a decent deal. I doubt you could find a cheaper pilgrim.

If you can find what each classic commem was issued in, you can usually tell what the toning will look like. Sesquis are extremely hard to find nice toning on.

On 9/16/2022 at 9:57 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

@RWB:

Many thanks for weighing in. I just revisited the ad because I recall reading something which likely only someone acquainted with the year would know about.  It read:  "They are complete sets with the understandable exception of the 1885 set, which is of course lacking the Trade Dollar." (Italics mine.)  If memory serves, the U.S. mint did not begin issuing standard proof "sets" until 1936. Any "set" compiled before that time was an endeavor assumed by the individual collector.

 

I suggest looking through old auction catalogs from the 1860s. many mention proof sets broken up between minor proof sets, and full proof sets. While not packaged together until the mid-late 1800s (and those are mostly 'third-party' velvet lined boxes/cases like maundy sets) they were still often purchased together.

On 8/24/2022 at 8:58 PM, RWB said:

Communities, and the banks within them, needed small change: cents, half dimes and dimes. Many bank requests are for that combination of coins. The basic problem was that the Mint did not coin silver for its own account as it did cents so it officially had no small silver coins to distribute if they legally could. However, Moore and Patterson made occasional exceptions for distant rural banks and the feisty Postmasters who carried considerable influence. In an instance I recall, a Bank in rural Ohio got abut $50 in cents and the same amount in half dimes and dimes - everything was packed into one  keg and shipped at Treasury expense (which was only for copper coins). The director made sure to insure the keg for only the cent value, telling the Bank Cashier that the rest was at his risk.

I believe it was a keg of cents + a bag of half dimes & Dimes to Norwalk Ohio. Not very far from where I live and I visit regularly so I hope to find the keg one day, lol.

On 8/24/2022 at 8:14 PM, DWLange said:

That's not what Tom was saying. He said that PERHAPS 1829 dies were used for the currency half cents MADE in 1831. That would not be unusual for the frugal U. S. Mint.

My apologies Tom.

That could be, but I would find it unusual. They had a surplus of them already( 900,000) in the treasury, with many going to the melting pot as well. As RWB pointed out above, the only order for half cents in this era really was a $2,000 order. Other letters to Moore show bankers specifically requesting they not be sent copper coinage (just half dimes and dimes).

With the mint happenings it is definitely possible though.

On 8/24/2022 at 7:47 PM, CaptHenway said:

I am perfectly willing to accept the theory that the 1831 coinage was from 1829 dies, but I don't think that anything can be proven at this late date.

1831 half cents were definitely not created from 1829.

1829 half cents are of the first type, while hubs for 1831 and onward half cents were reengraved by Kneass.

1829 half cents also do not have true denticles, as collars were yet to be used in half cents (see 1828 dimes).

On 8/22/2022 at 9:17 AM, RWB said:

1) Wrong. The report shows coins delivered to the Treasurer from the Chief Coiner during 1831, but does not ensure they were all produced that same year.

2) Silver and gold coins were issued from the treasurer to depositors as soon as ready. Accounts were recorded daily and reported monthly or quarterly depending on what the Treasurer U S wanted. However, copper coins were delivered to the Mint Treasurer several times a week, but only issued to the Treasurer U S Agent in Philadelphia. The Agent shipped them out to banks based on pre-paid orders. Again, date on the coin/year of manufacture was not important. The Treasury Agent during this time was also the Mint Treasurer and was paid a 1% commission on all copper coins he distributed. This was reported quarterly to the Treasurer US.

The sequence of custody of copper coins for this period was: Boulton and/or Crocker to Mint Treasurer to Chief Coiner to Mint Treasurer to Treasury Dept Agent to buyer. Copper account books were kept by weight. 2,200 half cents weighed 26.4 lb Avd (385 oz T). Accounts are not always clear about which weight system was being used. Copper, not being a precious metal, was shipped to the Mint by the long ton of 2,200 lbs.

PS: The first (and possibly only) request for half cents after 1831 was May 11, 1832 (reply May 16) for $2,000 to a customer in NYC.

 

Some questions to think about ---

What are your information sources? Can you divide them into documented facts, documented assumptions, hearsay, speculation, fabrication? How much of each do you have in your draft? Is your article a summary of what is presently known/assumed, or does it present new information?

What do you understand these terms to mean:  issued, delivered, distributed?

All of my information is coming from primary sources, Mint documents, letters of correspondence, and the coins themselves.

The 2,200 were accounted for as minted, but not delivered.

Standard practices for the mint changed in the early 1830s (1829-1835)  as to how they reported mintages (which is why there is the mess with that half cents in the first place). Every quarter they would deliver coins to the treasury and report how many were struck , not how many were delivered. This is why there is such a disparity between reported mintages. Half cents had reported mintages much higher than what was actually coined. 

On 8/21/2022 at 7:06 PM, Just Bob said:

I found this for sale by someone who is selling some of Breen's personal catalogs and other effects. The manuscript is 7 pages, and included a few very interesting charts (pic attached).  Also included was a copy of an article by Mr. Lange that was printed in Coin World, with notes (Breen's?) in the margin.

 

 

Breen was out there…

Not a very good researcher and everything he couldn’t prove, he made it work somehow.

Here’s my funny Breen letter though.

On 8/21/2022 at 6:20 PM, CaptHenway said:

I've got nothing. 

Are we sure that they were struck in 1831? Just speculating wildly here, I could see the Mint beginning the production of the 1832's with a very limited press run very late in 1831 because they had run out of the denomination and that press run going into the Mint Report as 1831 half cents, and then later when collectors saw that entry but they could not find any such coins the Mint obligingly making a few back-dated Proofs for the collectors. Again, this is wild speculation.

My personal belief is that they were struck in 1832. Mint records show that no half cents were delivered until 1833, which included coins struck in ‘32 & ‘33. Same hub was used for 1831 & 1832 but that’s what I would expect in any first year issues. 
 

Back dated proofs are accounted for already (different reverses).

The 2,175 that aren’t accounted for were likely melted for copper in intermittent years between suppliers. 

I had that written down for a while and then just now found out it didn’t save.

On 8/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, RWB said:

What suggests a "pattern piece?" What's different from former designs and why do you think that was done? How many 1831 half cents are known? Pattern pieces prior to 1836 are extremely unusual.

Can you describe how a proof (aka "master coin") were made in the 1820s-30s ? Your can't really prepare an article without knowing how processes operated and what differed between "master coin" and production coin.

Will help in any way I can.

Moore wanted Kneass to revamp the half cent design for both aesthetics & for the new equipment the mint was due to receive after the visit from France. Many design elements were altered, most notably the bust itself and the denticles. Why would Kneass work on a die so much on a denomination that was unwanted and unneeded if it were to only be a circulating coin?

Thus, they were struck with the intent to test out both equipment & new design elements.  
 

~25 coins are known 

Master coins were produced with specially burnished planchets struck slowly on polished dies.

proofs prior to 1840s used the same dies for proof & circulating examples. With a mintage of only 2,200 coins (of which none were known to be delivered unless they came with the 154,000 in 1833 with the 1832 & 1833 half cents) even if there were two types,  proof vs business , the two would be identical other than the burnished planchets. 
 

the mint did not receive any new kegs of new copper planchets until 1833 (discussions and ~26 (I forget the actual number, I have it written down somrwhere with the rest of my notes) kegs were delivered to Moore from the Crocker bros in 1832 but they weren’t used until the following years. They must have used leftover planchets from 1829, so even when burnished, I doubt the quality was high. These blanks were sitting in wooden kegs for two years in Philly.

Red Book should never be used for values, but for what it is worth the last few red books haven’t been half bad with pricing. When the market actually keeps up with progressive pricing it works.

As for info - a lot of information, especially with colonials, aren’t entirely true. Mintages are sometimes different as well. 
Even Greysheet is pretty useless to me now except for the proof and mint sets (most wholesalers I send out to post bids regarding bid so need that part). CoinFacts is my go to now for buying & selling.

On 3/30/2021 at 7:59 AM, Pantel Numis said:

I'm educating myself about CAC.

For those that'll take the time to read this and constructively respond:

I'm new to the board but a very seasoned collector. I and my associates fully support TPG. Over the last three decades my associates and I have spent just over $300K on TPG. Although there have been times we're not happy about a grading result (just as every collector has experienced) none of us regret a cent we spent with them. Personally just the fabulous quality holders and serial number tracking they provide along with their fantastic databases are worthy of the fees they charge. Their grade opinion (sans gradeflation) is a bonus and, for the most part, pretty darn good (within any given grading standard period in time)!

Furthermore I expect most will cry "CAC bashing" here but sadly that's the cry of the insecure. Those afraid something they think they possess or profit from will be threatened. In fact, although I hope not, I expect to get banned for calling a spade a spade. Never the less I'm posing intelligent, fact-based, reasonable questions and hoping that someone more aware and educated than I apparently am can enlighten me as to what it is I'm missing. PM always welcome!

I see a lot of support for CAC and that most charge and many will pay more for a holder with a sticker on it. Of course dealers and TPG support CAC for plainly obviou$ reasons. I'm hoping to gain intelligent reasoning from fellow collectors, not biased dealers; from the passengers in the bus, not the driver. I'm a huge proponent of self-education and knowledge over purchasing my opinion or external validation for the sake of acceptance so I'm attempting to find the tangible value in CAC as, near as I can tell, it's absolutely nothing more than a purchased, subjective and (by nature of subjectivity) inconsistent opinion. I'm trying to determine if it's manufactured value is based in anything other than exploiting fragile ego's and/or financial greed. There are some things I read that, considering the support of the service by supposed "collectors", confuse me greatly and I'm "hoping" for some intelligent, reasonable explanation from fellow collectors about the following points:

The following are copied directly from CAC's site:

 

 

 

Here’s where I’m stumped. According to CAC a CAC sticker means the coin is (in one person's opinion, in one moment in time) at the A or B level (of A, B or C) of the spectrum of a given grade range (let's remember TPG grade is constantly changing). So, setting aside the RIDICULOUS thought that anyone (emphasis on “one”) could consistently and reliably slice the difference between 65+ and 66 into three sectors (this means being able to accurately and consistently discern a .166 or 1/6th of a grade point difference) on tens of thousands of coins over long periods of time:

1) What is the “standard for today’s selective buyer”? How is it determined? Is there an ANA “today’s selective buyer” standard? Is today's selective buyer different than yesterdays? What about tomorrows? Isn't this nothing more than a unilateral, self-determined and constantly variable, non-committal subjective standard?

2) “It simply means that there are other coins with CAC stickers that are of higher quality for the grade. CAC will eventually reject tens of thousands of accurately graded coins.” Then there is “Occasionally a coin that has previously been rejected for CAC verification is reconsidered by CAC and stickered”. These two statements equal “we reserve the right to function in a consistently inconsistent standard”.

3) What is their point? How can any consumer in their right mind consider this a positive thing? This is old school and there's a word to describe it! What better way in the world to promote your "service only, manufacture/create nothing" business than to purchase your own service? Furthermore in examples like this (where the proprietor is servicing a tangible asset they're paid to service) they're not "purchasing", they're "investing" while driving up demand for their service. They "invested" $600M in an asset they were paid to service....and they still have their $600M asset! Furthermore if they invest "X"% over retail in the items they invested in they've driven the market up "X"% or a good fraction thereof while making their service "appear" to be the reason for the price increase. Now, get dealer networks to play along and wholla...it's a well engineered, no risk, no capitol, no skin in the game massive money machine that the end user funds and ultimately gets bit by. Now, I'm not saying that's what CAC did or is doing. But then there's the 'ol saying "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...well, you know.

How about these:

So, they catalog all the coins that come across the counter. Yet they don't reveal the coins that didn't qualify (in a given moment, on a given day, in the subjective opinion of one person, to be in the top 2/3 of half a grade point) because they're protecting collectors? Really? Is there any thought by other collectors that maybe, just maybe, this is a way to get the same coin coming back over and over every time it changes hands? Another way to make a finite market infinite. Furthermore, beyond the simple arrogance of doing so, isn't publishing "CAC does not want to compromise the value of such a coin by disclosing a negative review by CAC" a blatantly passive aggressive method of telling collectors a coin holder without a sticker on it (let's remember....it could still get a sticker upon the second or third or tenth or hundredth payment since this is all based on the subjective opinion of a human that has no risk) is inferior? And yes, for those looking to justify this with "well _______ does this too" (which is childish anyway) I realize TPG does the same thing. However let's remember that TPG supplies an enormous amount of other tangible assets for the fees they charge! So, even if you don't get the grade you want you get something tangible and valuable for your expenditure.

Lastly, they publish What is that? Is that not the same as "we provide no guarantees", and the same as "we're backed by nothing other than our words"?

All this stated....I get that people can simply "want" and, really, there's no better thing to spend discretionary income on than "want". But as I educate myself about this facet of numismatics and genuine "collecting" I struggle with understanding, or, maybe, just facing ad accepting what the "want" is.

I see posts all the time about "do you think this (already certified and reaping the tangible benefits of TPG) coin will bean" and every single time I ask myself "why do you care". And....I mean that as a genuine question as a fellow passion based caring collector. I ponder; "if it does will you like the coin more"? "If it doesn't will you like the coin less"? And, if the answer to either one of these is yes then it's rooted in one or all of only three toxic things, a disinterest in or too lazy to educate one's self, a very fragile ego or selfish financial greed. None of which are good for the long term well-being of collectors or our hobby. If you answered no to both then you wouldn't care less about a sticker, especially not one that represents one person's opinion (in a single given moment on a single given day) about .166 or 1/6th of a grade point....let alone purchase it or try charge fellow collectors for it.

There's even a prominent dealer that has the nerve to publish (essentially) that any collector or dealer that says they don't submit coins to CAC should be avoided! From what tangible information I can gather any person that doesn't send coins to CAC is likely educated, confident, doesn't need external validation and values integrity far above the acquisition of paper dollars. Therefore they would only be avoided by people afraid of intelligent, confident, hard to BS (and therefore much harder to acquire paper dollars from through installation of fear) integrity-based individuals. Oddly (not really) this same dealer touts CAC as being great because they catch "doctored" coins. No, they don't. They only (just as TPG services do) sometimes catch poorly/unprofessionally doctored coins. This has been proven by submitting certified doctored , oops..."conserved" coins and receiving a sticker every time.

I gotta be missing something somewhere! Or am I?

 

 First of all, John Albanese himself on numerous occasions (interviews and whatnot) that he doesn’t think ANYONE can properly discern whether a coin is decimal point in the way of grades. A,B, C coins are more bell curved than anything, not split evenly .333 ways. Most will be B coins with 10% being cream of the crop (which would probably bump a grade if you tried enough times) and 10% crappy coins that should never be cracked. 
 

on 65+ , or + coins in general. Albanese completely disregards them. A 64+ is treated as a 64, so we’re still talking about the same process.

On 8/20/2022 at 8:15 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Any reason you're looking for them at that date ?  The TPGs had just started up, population numbers had to be somewhat low.

Looking for true populations of the 1.0 Black holder, 2.1 white label, and 2.0 white label. Which were all used in the first two months.