physics-fan3.14

1 hour ago, numisport said:

I see fully polished dies with some frosted lettering. Would you rule out proof dies ?

No, this is not from proof dies. If you look closely at the globe, you'll notice that the proofs are of a different reverse design variety. My coin is unquestionably from a business strike type die. 

1 hour ago, MarkFeld said:

Jason, I’m under the impression that you’re extremely well versed on PL coins. That said, based just upon the video, I wouldn’t expect the coin to receive a PL designation. Do you feel that the video accurately conveys the degree of reflectiveness?

The video shows that there *is* reflectiveness, better than an image can. But I guess it is not conveying the depth of reflectiveness as well as I would want. In hand, you would have no question that this is fully PL. 

2 hours ago, numisport said:

A few more questions about these rare prooflike Ikes : For what reason would these dies have been fully polished ? Since your coin shows full detail I suspect it was struck from specially prepared dies maybe as specimen or presentation strike. Do you think there are other prooflike die pairs ? How many die pair do you think were used to strike the 4 million plus '71-S Ikes ? Like some of you I was a collector when these were issued and originally never really cared much for Ikes at the time but now am growing fond of them. More info is welcome to me.

There has been much speculation about "presentation strikes" throughout the years. The fact is, there is just no documentation to suggest anything special about these coins. There are so many prooflikes on so many series throughout the years that there is no way that these are "presentation strikes." Polishing a die was done if there was a defect or a flaw in the die, or in preparation of putting a new die in service. Roger can explain more about that, I'm sure. 

On the PCGS boards, there were a few old-timers who talked about buying boxes of Ikes and claim that they found numerous PLs across several dates. It isn't a specimen - it's just a happy accident. 

29 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Some of it does go into the globe of the earth, which granted is an extremely low-relief device, and a candidate for "die related" marking. The "slanted part" of the edge of the rim of earth does not show it, and buttresses your point.

Yes, that's what I meant - the rim of the earth that appears as a raised circle. Sorry if I wasn't clear. 

4 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Wowsers! I never would have suspected that. Is it okay with you if I print out these photos, label them for what they are, and put them in a 4x6 file box? I'm old school that way and I always ask for permission first. I will add your byline, of course.

Sure. 

The key indicator here, for those not familiar with die polish, is that the scratches appear to go *under* the rim of the earth. You can see the scratches on the right side of the globe (in the Atlantic), and in the fields - but there are no scratches on the actual relief of the globe (the rim). Similarly, the scratches appear to go under the eagle's head - but are not actually visible on the eagle's head. 

If they were scratches from cleaning or post mint damage, they would go across the top of the eagle. 

25 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Neat, neat, neat. But this began life as a “Blue Pak Ike”, no? What do you know about the scuffing above the eagle’s head?

Yes, all of the 1971S Uncirculate Ikes are Silver, and were issued in the blue paks. 

The "scuffing" above the eagle's head is actually die polish. 

9 minutes ago, numisport said:

Great coin Jason but I don't think NGC will consider crossover from ANACS is that right ? So would your Ike have to be raw ?

That is correct. It doesn't actually have to be raw - they will crack it for me. But they treat it as raw. 

38 minutes ago, Zebo said:

Agree - I tried to talk Bill into coming back, but no dice so far. 

Bill has bigger issues with corporate NGC that are unresolved. I haven't really figured out what those issues are, yet, but my understanding is that he feels extremely slighted by them. He's in self-exile at the time, until the issues are resolved. No idea what that will take. 

.

Honestly... you won't get much info here. Post this question on cointalk.com and you'll get the info you need. 

And, I only see 2 pictures (two obverses). You'll need reverse pics to get useful information. 

3 minutes ago, RWB said:

Yep. Little to pique my interest, though. Time is important to me and I want it to be productive, and hopefully, useful.

Roger has answered direct questions on CoinTalk, and when I've asked him to respond and settle a dispute he's been willing to weigh in on occasion. 

One of the biggest losses of the NGC forums was when Bill Jones left this place, although he is active now on CoinTalk (under another name, and I'm not sure how many know he's the same person). 

8 hours ago, Insider said:

 Smaller coins are graded differently than larger coins.  Do you know why?  

 

I think there is a perception that smaller coins are graded more harshly than larger coins. But, I think this is a misconception. 

Think about a 1mm mark on the cheek of a coin. If the coin is a 17.9 mm dime, that's a significant mark compared to the size of the coin. Compare that to a 38 mm dollar.... the same size and placement of mark looks much less significant. 

It isn't that the grading standard is different - its that the size of the coin makes the same size mark appear relatively more significant on smaller coins. 

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

I've been waiting for specific examples of things to respond "YES" to. Am I doing it wrong? YES, this place needs specialties, lots of them, and it needs a more straight-forward access point from the Home screen, not two levels deep.

 

Oh, and it needs to be as little like CoinTalk as it can possibly get. And I must advise @physics-fan3.14 that @Insider is on written record here indirectly berating the way CoinTalk conducts its "moderation", which is actually a liguistic bastardization of the term. There is not even anything remotely "moderate" about it. Their "moderation" (as if..) is inconsistently applied, personally vindictive, highly ideological, and truly moronic.

Herewith, the previous quote from @Insider:

"Volunteer Moderators defined: Weak-bellied, snowflake, do-good control freaks who have nothing better to do than "report" things that may offend 1% of the other members.  I call them Mrs. Gruno's.  She was the nosy, no life, old witch on our block reporting anything to our parents."

I would like to positively associate  myself with the above remarks, @physics-fan3.14.

Moderation on CT can be characterized as random and sometimes petty, dominated by an over-bearing voice who stopped collecting decades ago and doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. 

Moderation here can be characterized as completely hands-off, unwilling to intervene even if their boards burn to the ground. 

However, I can honestly say I didn't like you on either forum. 

Ancients are a very complicated and difficult subject. There is *so* much to know - and people tend towards a specialty. Thus, you need a fairly large collector base of knowledgeable posters to make an ancients forum vibrant. CoinTalk has that, and has a very vibrant ancient forum (honestly, the ancients forum is the highest consistent quality on that forum). I don't know what they did to attract that collector base. 

Here, there are a couple of people who dabble in ancients, but not nearly enough to make a vibrant discussion group. 

For me, the biggest draw of this forum is RWB. He pretty much only posts here, and his wealth of knowledge makes this forum worth it even if there are only a couple of posters. However, Roger can't carry the entire weight of the forum on his shoulders alone. 

21 minutes ago, Insider said:

That's one poster.  But there are more views than posters.  I guess some folks are afraid of something.  So sad.

The views counted are not unique views. Each time I open the post to read a new reply, that counts as a new view. So, this thread has 15 views currently - but it's entirely plausible that the 3 of us who have posted account for all of those views. 

A better figure would be "unique views" of a thread, which is probably a statistic the forum administrators have but we don't. 

Are you just trying to figure out how many active posters there are? 

I'd say your guess in another recent thread of 20-30 is probably generous but accurate. 

I do think there are more people who read threads but don't post - and then are discouraged from posting by reading the threads. 

16 hours ago, Insider said:

Don't over think this.  What could cause a mark into the surface of a struck coin.   Never mind.

This mark could be:

1. PMD. 

2. A strike thru

3. A planchet flaw

4. Corrosion

5. Other...

Answer Tuesday.  Happy Holiday.

A strike through or planchet flaw seem the most likely on this one for me. Giving the long, streaked appearance, some sort of lamination/delamination error was my first instinct on this coin. 

11 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to direct this question to VKurtB?

What enquiring minds would like to know is why master engravers had no problem mastering the curves in an S but balked at negotiating the curve in U choosing to render it as a V.

If the engraver was trying to make something look classical, they would use a V in the inscription instead of the U. This is because in Latin, they did not have a symbol for U - they used the V symbol. 

I think this thread had potential to be useful, informative, and interesting. 

Instead, I think it turned into pointless bickering and appendage measuring by some very strong willed and opinionated people. 

Can we try again, but maybe more useful? 

7 hours ago, RWB said:

Mr. Feld is an experienced numismatist of high repute and wide experience. His excellent observational skills and attention to detail in examining coins is widely recognized by collectors and coin business leaders. He is clearly an important asset to numismatics and to the company for which he works.

 

 

 

He is not an experienced researcher.

 

 

 

RWB

 

3 hours ago, MarkFeld said:

Thank you, Roger, and you get no argument from me - I’m not an experienced researcher, while you’re an extraordinary one.

Roger, have you ever written about the 64 SMS coins? Either proving or dis-proving their existence? I can't recall any concrete information from you either way - but I highly respect your research, in spite of traditional numismatic "knowledge." Perhaps start a new thread and make a case for/against their existence? 

I think my general approach is: if there is no evidence to prove it exists, I have to doubt it's existence. Some can claim that "it looks different" or that "it must have been prepared specially" - but without evidence that proves it, its just speculation. This applies, for example, to the so-called specimen 1794 dollar. That same approach applies to things closer to what I collect - the 1949S Franklin dollar in Prooflike was once conjectured to be a special presentation piece prepared for the ANA show. However, the people who claimed that had no knowledge of the PL pieces from the S mint in the 40's. They were unusual, but not unheard of. They weren't special presentation pieces, even though they had a special (prooflike) appearance. It was just a happy accident. 

As for several of the other examples listed in the op (struck on nail, struck on canadian quarter) - those are just absolutely ridiculous and not physically possible without intervention from a mint worker. To me, they are forgeries akin to the 1913 Liberty nickel, and not really worth anything. 

The strike is good. 

The coin has AU details. 

However, it's been harshly polished and cleaned. This reduces the value significantly. If submitted it would receive an "AU details, harshly cleaned" grade. 

Insider - I bet if you showed us a picture of the whole coin, many more people would get the answer easily. 

The pic on the nose almost looks like its a lead core with copper plating which is faking off. Unusual, unless its a rare date and an old counterfeit. The first pics looked like lead encrustations. However, the details here look soft and mushy. 

I'm also not sure what to make of the fields in front of her nose in these last pics. 

Green on copper: verdigris or corrosion. 

Lead: either solder (ex-jewelry) or possibly some remnant of a counterfeiting process.