physics-fan3.14

24 minutes ago, Insider said:

"...the sharp boundary shown on the coin is highly unlikely ".  Disagree 100%. A struck thru mae by a soft substance (grease, cloth) has a rounded border.  A struck thru from a hard substance has a sharp border as this.  The inside of a strike thru often leaves an impression of what made it; however, most of the time it is just smooth as you posted.  

I think you misunderstand what Roger is saying. I think what he means is - its unlikely for a strikethrough like this (sawdust) to be only in the fields and abruptly stop right at the edge of the neck. Its far more likely that it would carry over onto the neck. 

4 hours ago, RWB said:

But, even the hardest solid wood leaves a smooth-edge impression on coin silver/gold.

And this is why I'm skeptical of the sawdust theory. 

3 hours ago, RWB said:

His approach included walking through the content as if he were a user, not the author.

This is one of the most important concepts for authors of reference books. Write the book you want to read. 

Insider posted the answers over on coin talk. He claims that the marks in the field are struck through sawdust. I am skeptical of that claim. However, he has no idea what the marks are on the face.

Prof Hill: let me give you some feedback as an unwitting student in your class. 

I'll be honest: I find your obtuse and verbose prose irksome. 

I'd much rather you post a concise and collapsed summary than the dissertations you seem to prefer. 

You seem like the sort who loves the sound of their own voice. As a professor myself, I'm familiar with the type. I work with a few. They never cease to talk, and they rarely have anything to say. 

I hope this helps you in future interactions with people, here and elsewhere. 

And also - maybe, just maybe, some of us might know more about coins than you do. If you disagree, why the heck are you asking us a question in the first place? 

54 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

I find the (non-Morgan) PL designation one of the most inconsistent for both PCGS & NGC. I've only received a few PL from PCGS and those were on coins that had very deep mirrors. However, I've seen several in the marketplace that I felt were just very flashy, but they awarded the PL designation. It's a cr*p-shoot.

Was the one you showed the only PL you got in this submission, or did you get others? 

This is a fairly new book, right? Came out last year? 

I've heard good things about it, but as that series is well outside of my collecting area, I've not gotten the book. 

If it were a gold coin, my answer would be quite different for one of them: the marks in the green circle look like "sweat marks" I've seen on gold coins, where a few coins are put in a bag and shaken to knock of micro bits of gold, and then that's collected and the coins are returned to circulation. The gold dust is profit. As far as I know, I don't think I've seen silver coins subjected to that.

9 minutes ago, lehigh96 said:

 grabbed and moved by something that had protruding bumps like on a conveyer belt.  Perhaps some sort of old time coin counting machine used in banks or casinos for slot machines.

I usually associate counting machine marks with circular patterns, but your theory does make sense.

Insider, I know you like colors so I circled what I see:

Red: deep marks in random patterns, most likely contact marks (bag marks, etc - normal hits)
Orange: thin, whispy long lines, most likely from polishing, a wipe, or potentially cleaning (need to see the rest of the coin to confirm)
Purple: deep marks in what appears to be a regular pattern. Could be dentil marks (reed marks) from contact with another coin.
Pink: Long, thin, straight, regular lines. Potentially roller marks.
Blue: short, intermittent parallel marks. I'll be honest, I'm stumped on this one. Perhaps seeing more of the coin might help.
Green: very small, random pattern, scattered across the surface of the coin. Three thoughts on this one, would need to see the rest of the coin and luster to confirm. First, and most likely thought, is some sort of planchet flaw. I've seen the fields of coins where it looked like the planchets had been very roughly tumbled but not polished, and the force of striking didn't completely removed the roughness. It could also be something raised on the surface of the die - pimples from die rust that hadn't been removed. Depending on the mint, rust was a common issue. Third thought, it could be where some corrosion was starting to form on the surface of the coin, eating into it, and the corrosion was removed. I think this is the least likely, because it looks like contact marks are over the top of this area - removal of corrosion indicates it was conserved, and I would hope that a collector would not then cause a huge mark like that.

Well, I'm hoping I got at least some of them right!

15 hours ago, Moxie15 said:

I think this coin was caught or jammed into a machine such as a coin accepter/rejecter soon after it started circulation.  If the rejecter mechanism had a pushing finger with a face rounded to the same diameter and it pushed against this coin when it was jammed it may have caused this damage. I worked at a payphone company in the nineties and saw many mangled coins in payphones, I cannot say for sure this  was caused the damage but it could be possible. Especially as the left side as we view it looks to have been cut from the the bottom of the coin by a cutter moving upward towards the top of the coin causing the ragged appearance.

I find this to be a very good hypothesis. 

It would also explain why the metal appears "built up" around the curved edge, like the metal was pushed around. 

To the OP - show us a picture of the obverse as well. You are handicapping us by only showing one side. 

Post mint damage wouldn't go "under" the devices as you show. A mark of that nature would affect the lettering as well. 

A lamination (or, delamination) is usually linear in pattern - it usually follows the rolled pattern of the strip before it was cut into planchets. This isn't necessarily always the case, but it is typical. Its unusual to see a lamination in the wavy pattern shown here. 

The problem with a strike-through is that it would also affect the devices. The pattern seems recessed into the coin, but a strike through would also affect the lettering (which appears crisp in your image). 

Any pictures or recent appearances of either of these coins? Chapman and Ten Eyck were both well known, so their provenance should be well documented in more recent sales. 

What makes you certain that it is struck through and not damaged? 

On other forums, if you ignore somebody, you won't see the threads they post. 

Unfortunately, the software on this forum still shows you a thread started by an ignored member. You see all replies by other members, you just don't see the original post (or any follow up replies by the ignored member). 

I didn't realize that until today... what an unfortunate neglect, and yet another flaw in the software of this forum. 

Eh, I give up, Coinbuf. 

You see a problem here. I don't. Neither of us is going to convince the other. 

So, have a Merry Monday, a drink of your choice, and may you have a happy week. 

Even with the tighter cropping, I still don't like it. 

17 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

You are correct we do see the world quite differently, you do have X coin but you want to show it as though you have 2 examples of X when you only have one X coin.

You seem to be very into collecting points by representing that you have the same coin in two different holders, and you do not.

 

I'm not representing that I have 2 different coins. I have one coin, and I'm using it in one place on one registry. I'm not using the same coin twice in a registry. It fills a single slot. 

Fact: NGC graded the coin MS-64.

Fact: PCGS graded the coin MS-64.

Fact: I own the single coin. 

Fact: PCGS does not allow NGC coins into their registry, and NGC did not allow PCGS coins into their registry at the time I bought it. 

So, if I want to participate in both websites, should I buy 2 separate copies of the coin? Or, should I exclude myself from one community because the coin is in different plastic? 

What about the coins that I do use in separate sets: I've got a Capped Bust Half in a capped bust set, and the same coin is also in my 7070-style type set. Is it then unethical to use the same coin in two different sets, and get double the points for the one coin? Should I buy two separate coins for the two sets on the same Registry? Absolutely not - I think everyone would think that's crazy. 

Essentially, I'm doing the same thing by using an old NGC number. 

At least, that's my opinion. Clearly, others feel very strongly opposite, and that's ok. If NGC tells me I'm not allowed to do it, then I won't. But until then, I personally don't see anything wrong with it. 

5 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

Yes the same theory works for the PCGS registry as for the NGC, if the coin is crossed it should be removed, so in my opinion the ethical issue is very much open.

If the coin were removed from the PCGS census, as I discussed earlier, then the issue would be very much closed. 

But they aren't. 

The implications from that are clear to me, as described above. Some may disagree, and I can see where fraud might creep into the system... but in my opinion, the average collector using the system as I have been describing is not being fraudulent or unethical. Despite what some might think, I am not unethical. I am not dishonest, and I am not trying to cheat the system. I'm merely using a coin that I bought in PCGS clothes but later found in my research to have resided in NGC plastic in the formerly-closed NGC registry. 

1 minute ago, Coinbuf said:

This would be very confusing to me but if it works for you then I can understand using it that way.

It depends on how you have your inventory set up, I suppose. Do you collect plastic, or do you collect coins? 

2 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

Because you are representing that you have X coin in X grade in an NGC holder, but you don't what you have is X coin in X grade in a PCGS holder.  Everyone knows that once you crack out a coin the TPG will not just simply reholder the coin at the same grade, the old cert is invalid and the coin must be regraded.   Once you have the coin in its new plastic it should be represented as it is not as it was.  I understand the way you and the member ATS view this but I do see it as less than ethical, even if that is not your intent you are misrepresenting what is in your set as you do not have X coin in X grade in the old NGC holder. 

You see, I think you and I are viewing the world a bit differently. 

I have X coin in Y grade in an NGC holder. 

I have X coin in Z grade in a PCGS holder. 

Either way, I still have X coin. 

NGC called it Y and I'll call it Y in their registry. PCGS called it Z and I'll call it Z in their registry. Either way, its still X coin and its mine. (if they both call it the same grade, then the difference is immaterial, in my opinion)

Are we collecting coins, or are we collecting points? 

6 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

it should be represented as it is not as it was

If I were selling it, then absolutely yes I agree. I would describe the coin completely as it currently is, clothes and all. 

But wouldn't you also want to know what it was formerly clothed in? That sort of history/provenance is incredibly important. 

13 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

In a very technical sense yes no harm no foul, but why not update to the NGC coin for the NGC registry.

And what about their PCGS set, where NGC coins aren't allowed? Sure, update the coin to the NGC number on the NGC set. Great. But do they have to remove the coin from their PCGS set? 

Should they be punished because they crossed the coin to NGC? 

They still own the coin, and PCGS called it MS-xx. Why remove the coin from their PCGS set simply because the coin changed clothes? 

I see absolutely no reason for this. And thus, your so-called "ethical" argument is closed in my opinion. 

1 minute ago, Coinbuf said:

To what end?  This only bloats the inventory as you would now have bot the old NGC and the new PCGS in your inventory, same coin listed in your inventory twice.

 

In my inventory spreadsheet, I track every known appearance of a coin that I can find. Having the PCGS, NGC, ANACS, or whatever other numbers associated with helps me track value/price, provenance, changes in appearance over time, prove its history... etc. The "knowledge of a coin" is not limited to the current plastic it wears. The coin is the same, despite whoever may have put a hammer on its case. 

4 minutes ago, Coinbuf said:

In a very technical sense yes no harm no foul, but why not update to the NGC coin for the NGC registry.

 

For its entire existence, PCGS has never allowed NGC coins into its Registry. For many misguided years, NGC didn't allow PCGS coins in. 

The point is, its the same coin. You've paid for the opinion (or, someone has). There is documentation that this coin received this grade by this company. You own the coin. Why is it wrong to use the number assigned by that company to that coin in their registry? 

Now, if you're going to sell the coin... you should absolutely use the current plastic. The perceived value of a coin is (rightly-or-wrongly) adjusted by the current clothes it wears. If I were to sell you a PCGS 66 and it shows up in NGC 66* clothes, you may or may not be upset.

But on the Registry, it is entirely valid to say that NGC evaluated the coin as MS-66*, even if PCGS currently calls it an MS-66. 

That's my opinion, and I don't think its unethical despite what some politician wannabees might say. 

5 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

In fact you had three choices; first you were not forced to cross the coin and could have left it in the NGC holder. 

Let me clarify - I bought it in the PCGS holder, and while researching the coin found the same coin in an NGC holder. 

If it were graded differently, I would agree that there could be issues. It's quite common for a coin to be plus-or-minus a point between the two holders. In my case, the coin graded exactly the same at both services. I see absolutely no issue with this. If it had graded differently, then I would have an issue. 

In the case you originally presented (MS-66* vs MS-66) I also see no issue - the Star is a unique attribute from NGC. Any coin that grades MS-66* will of course cross to PCGS as  MS-66, because they don't recognize the star! This is a no-brainer. 

And, if I were on the borderline of the 75% mark as you describe, I could see there being some implications. However, I'm not. In my set, I have only 2 PCGS coins (one admitted before the exclusion, one using the old NGC number). I understand the concern, and if I were using it to fraud the system, I'd be concerned - but I'm not. 

I think the color is okay, but the writing in the background is very distracting. I'd nix it, and just use a plain background. 

I have a coin in my set right now which was originally in NGC plastic, but is now in PCGS plastic. During the interlude where NGC was not allowing PCGS coins into the registry, I had no choice but to use the old NGC number. 

I'd probably prefer not to do this, but if the number was assigned to the coin, I see no problem with it even if the coin is now in some other plastic. If the number is still valid in the NGC database, then use it. 

Now, what should happen is when a coin is crossed the TPGs talk to each other and remove it. This is one reason why the census is not terribly reliable. But that's not what happens. 

Oh, I understand. I didn't realize they were talking about finned coins.