World Colonial

2 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

I have to disagree, I think there is a very good possibility the SP66 1794 dollar will set a new record.  This market may be slumping in the middle but the very tippy top is still flying and I think there are at least two whales out there that want the bragging rights.  After all ten million for many of the super rich is like lunch money to you and I.

Unless you are referring to existing US collectors, what you are describing is random buying, about as likely as winning some version of the lottery.

This same question was covered in a thread on the PCGS forum and two posters specifically disagreed with my contrary opinion.  I didn't elaborate then but it is easy to demonstrate that the chances of non-collectors or collectors located outside the US buying it are virtually zero.

The only people who have any inclination to buy this coin at a record price (or near it) are existing US collectors who can afford it, but this requires that they are in the market for multi-million dollar coins.  I'll grant one of these people may buy it at a record price.

Except for American expats, no coin collector outside the US has any motive to pay more for a US coin than their own. To believe it is unsubstantiated and no one can demonstrate it.  Non-collectors have even less reason.  In other words, absolutely none.  That's why they aren't collectors now.

30 minutes ago, RWB said:

Under Dir Moy, and some of the temporary directors, there was an understanding that the modern NCLT was an valuable part of building future collectors. Advertising had a different emphasis and Moy was interested in building collectors not cash balances. Sec Treas Steven Mnuchin wants profits and 100% utilization of employees and equipment -- just another greedy SOB.

It's my inference that a noticeable proportion of bigger budget collectors started with NCLT in the recent past.  Bigger budget in this context meaning those who will pay over $300 for a single coin.  I use this cut-off as that's the dividing line for the budget dealer section at the larger coin shows i have attended and my estimate where 80% collect below it.

How many of these transition to what I would describe as actual collecting is an open question.  I'd guess that the majority who do still predominantly buy what I classify as "investment" substitutes: other (world) NCLT, high grade Morgan dollars, and generic (mostly lower premium) pre-1933 US gold.

My assumption is based upon a few things.

First, from what I heard, the last sale price was noticeably above the underbidder.  This creates more uncertainty especially in an overall weaker market.

Second, I believe a PCGS MS-66 sold for $4.995MM, either Stacks or Heritage.  I could have the specifics wrong but there is still a big gap between the sale of this SP66 and all others where the difference is not that large.

Third, I was wrong about the last sale price for the Doubloon.  It was only $4.5MM and not $7.4MM as I thought.  The Partrick coin is the unique variety (I believe) and it's a better quality coin but being offered in a weaker market and it's a big jump to a record price.

So agree, no record.

There are only two legitimate candidates, the 1794 SP-66 dollar and the Patrick Brasher doubloon.  The Patrick coin is the better candidate.  I expect the 1794 dollar to sell for less than last time subject to any reserve.

2 hours ago, RWB said:

The mint director's approach is that "promoting coin collecting" is all about people buying their products. It is not in any sense related to what most collectors call "coin collecting - the hobby." All of the NCLT issues and other modern specialties are maintained because they are very profitable, and that is what the director and secretary of treasury want. The annual U.S. int conference have increasingly concentrated on selling products, not marketing coin collecting.

I don't have first hand knowledge of this but infer your conclusion from the product offerings.

The point I was making in my last post is that there is little promoting of actual coin collecting by the "industry" either.  When I read Coin Week (the only one I read regularly), the health of the hobby is entirely financially measured in all the articles (many actually advertisements by auction companies and dealers) I have ever read.

This is also mostly true on coin forums when the topic is specifically discussed.  No one knows the size of the collector base but the price level is at best an imprecise measure.  For US coinage, prices for many coins have been so high for so long that any further increase is predominantly measuring financially motivated buying.  For the low proportion in the highest TPG grades, effectively nothing to do with collecting at all.  Same for whether a coin "beans" or not.

By the volume and quality of research, I would guess that there is more in depth interest than ever, certainly by US collectors in non-US coinage.

What I wrote on the possible fatigue with constantly changing designs is an inference, not "fact".  It also doesn't really matter to me whether the US Mint perpetually changes the designs with what I would describe as uninteresting themes. 

I'm never going to collect it in any format but it has nothing to do with it being clad.  It's because of what I wrote in reply to an earlier post here.  None of the 20th century circulating coinage ever interested me even when I started.

4 hours ago, cladking said:

Most "existing collectors" see the regular parade of new quarter designs as gilding the pig.   This has nothing to do with the concept or the designs and everything to do with the simple fact that they are "clad" and they are never going to collect clad coins.  But there are millions of new collectors who started because they found these coins interesting, available, and many of them attractive.  The hobby will be saved by these new mostly younger collectors despite efforts of "existing collectors".   

It really matters little whether any specific coin is made for commerce, to spur interest in collecting, or as a means to exchange bullion as money because in the long run collectors have always found all of these coins.   

Even in 1999 it was apparent a ten year program might be a little long for most people, but it was probably the change in the way the new coins were distributed and the extension of the series to include territories and DC that turned off the most people.   

It depends upon someone's definition of promoting collecting.

I presume that up to several million might collect this coinage out of pocket change but that's not what is ever discussed in this context.  Whenever I read forum topics or press articles on the "health of the hobby", it's invariably in the context of what can be done to increase prices. 

No one who writes in this context is ever going to care about this coinage because it's never going to be worth any meaningful amount, except for the same reason other common US coinage is now.  They only care to the extent these collectors transition to more expensive coinage which is exactly what 99+% do at any meaningful financial outlay.

10 hours ago, ColonialCoinsUK said:

Compared to the NGC census I find some of the PCGS population reports extremely difficult to use as the entries are completely random with everything mixed up so you have to go through the whole lot to see what the population is for the coin you are interested in or even whether there are any graded example at all (for example Spanish coins, I could easily be using this wrong!).

No, you are not using it wrong.  I check both intermittently for numerous series.

Some countries are very well organized, like the UK, Mexico, Canada and South Africa.  As good as or better than NGC.  Better in the sense that it's easier to view denominations that NGC combines.

Others are as you state, no logical sense to the (lack of) organization at all.  Not only Spain but Peru, Bolivia, Chile... you get the idea.  Different dates for the same design and denomination are scattered.  I have also seen a few coins with multiple entries where it's necessary to add it up to come up with the total.  1770 Bolivia 4R is one.

I also prefer how NGC includes all grades in the same view.  With PCGS, you have to shift between pages.

I am going to guess that NGC's overall better organization might have something to do with the higher populations.  Auction archives can be equally challenging to navigate.  Much of it is the software but also how the firm decided to organize their database.  Overall, Heritage is best but they aren't going to go back and redo the data fields for world coinage to make it as searchable as US coinage.  Depending upon what I am looking for, a lot of unrelated entries show up in the results.

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

[At the risk of getting yet another PM from an incredulous viewer demanding to know if I have any idea to whom I am directing my scattershot to, allow me to phrase my response cautiously...]

In all fairness to you, sir, anything worth saving from circulation by 1975, was long gone. I hesitate to ask just what it was that prompted you to develop an interest potent enough to inspire your user name if not everyday circulating coins. (I do not believe I have ever met, or know, anyone who has made a similar claim.) 

I moved back to the US in 1975 at age 10, having only lived in this country for one year previously.  So I didn't have the cultural connection to the US coinage most other US collectors do or did collect.  (That's partly why I made the claim about changing US demographics impacting the future collectability of US coinage, as many Americans or residents do and will have similar views.)

When I moved back, I had only been collecting for six months.  I acquired a preference for US coinage by reading library books and viewing my step grandmother's extensive collection (once).  My collection at the time was mostly recent world coinage obtained from my aunt in Bolivia and foreigners (mostly Americans) where we lived for a brief time.

After viewing my step grandmothers collection, I traded most of what I had and used my gift money to buy a low number of US coins: a few bust halves, a seated dollar and a seated quarter all in circulated grades.  Obviously, this collecting was far beyond my financial means but I wasn't interested in Wheat cents or the other series most US collectors collected when they started.  I never had an interest in this coinage in my multiple iterations as a collector between 1978 and 1998.  It was as boring to me then as it is now, even though I was much younger, far less knowledgeable as a collector, and with limited finances.  If that's all I could afford now, I'd probably quit again for good.

After numerous iterations (starting and stopping), I resumed collecting in 1998 for good.  I considered US coins first (since that's what I knew) but quickly came to the conclusion that I could buy far more interesting coins from elsewhere at much cheaper prices .

I initially mostly focused on South Africa Union, Bolivian republic decimals and a low number of partial type sets, including my current primary series Spanish colonial pillars.  Since I collected numerous colonial series when I joined the forum, that's the origin of my user name.

By the way, I noticed Heritage sold a 2019 silver NCLT commemorating the 180th anniversary of the 1839 5S.  Current portrait of QEII with the 1839 reverse.  It was an NGC 70 for $13k and has a mintage of 3,000.

That's a real eye opener.

If it had the young head (Gillick) portrait and was available at a reasonable price, I might be interesting in buying it.  I haven't seen any other sales.

37 minutes ago, Zebo said:

I am seeing a slow, but constant change in the UK (Primarily England) for TPG grading on the more expensive coins. In my series - I see an interest in varieties. I also see a lot of counterfeits. Granted that is only one series out of many, but it's a start. I am not selling my collection, but when I do - there will be a financial benefit if TPGs are valued in the country.

Australia and Canada both value TPGs in my series - not sure about the rest.

My inference is that the Anglo countries are more accepting of it.  Canada has it's own TPG but I don't know whether it's Americans or Canadians who mostly buy NGC and PCGS coins.  My guess is maybe around 50-50.  Outside of NCLT, PCGS seems to be preferred (from the pops) in Australia, but I don't see any graded coins in Noble auctions who is the largest firm in that market.  From this, I infer that US collectors are buying more or most of the graded coins but it's a guess only.  In South Africa, it's overwhelmingly locals as there is a noticeable price variance between local and international prices and the better coinage is too expensive where hardly anyone else would buy it.

To my knowledge, the sovereign is one of the few internationally collected series though it's probably mostly Anglo country collectors.  It is widely counterfeited.  The point I was making though is that most non-US coinage is either not very valuable and worth counterfeiting or too scarce where many fakes could be sold without being detected.  That's why I am not really worried about buying fakes in my series.  I'm hardly an expert at detection but if any high quality coin shows up for one I'm not aware of worth any noticeable money, I'd be suspicious of it unless offered by a reliable source.  That's where I would want to know the provenance.

The higher prices TPG creates by attracting a larger number of financially motivated buyers makes it more profitable to attempt counterfeiting whereas otherwise, it would be less likely or not happen at all.  It isn't like US coinage which is both generally common but often expensive, even prior to 1986.

For British coins specifically, coins like the 1839, 1887 and 1893 proof sets and proof gold generally have increased a lot over the last 15 years.  Not all of it is presumably due to TPG but I infer most of it could be.  The 1839 Una & the Lion 5 Sov is among the most highly preferred coins anywhere, but I still don't remotely believe it went from $25k to $300k since 2004/2005 in 61 or 62 because collectors suddenly found it a lot more interesting as a collectible.  The 1937 proof gold (especially 5S) are very common yet very expensive.   It's not that I would expect these coins to be affordable to the typical (British) collector but all are disproportionately hopelessly out of reach now.  I could have "stretched" for the 1839 5S in 2004.  No way I could buy it now.

I understand why anyone selling wants a higher price.  What I don't get is why anyone who isn't contemplating selling their collection thinks perpetually higher prices are better or so great.  Why would anyone who wants to add or complete their collection want to pay more?  It makes no sense.

Why is this a good thing?  Are you planning on liquidating your collection?

Noticeable adoption of TPG for the collecting of most non-US coinage is a detriment to most hobbyist collectors due to the scarcity, limited variety or both.    It doesn't provide the same benefit it did in the US when it was introduced because the risk of counterfeits for most (notice I didn't say all) non-US coins is less (lower price level) and so IS the financial risk of buying over graded or problem coins.

It is less of an impact to collecting in the UK or continental Europe because the coins are usually common, collectors don't have the same preferences for minimal differences in quality (yet) as in the US, and there is sufficient variety.

However, what I describe is what happened in South Africa starting around 2002 which persists to this day.  With Spanish colonial coinage, the primary thing US buying has done is to inflate the price level and price out collectors elsewhere out of the better coinage in their series they could previously buy.  I also assume US buyers have been the biggest factor in inflating the prices of the more expensive British coinage in the last 15+ years, as I don't see there would be a market most of the time at these prices otherwise.  The financial scale even in the largest markets is a minimal fraction of the US.

One reason many US collectors collect non-US coinage is because they could not and cannot afford to collect the US coinage they would like to buy.  The US price level was always noticeably higher, but TPG adoption increased the variance, at least until more recently.

In South Africa due to the scarcity, TPG has resulted in a high proportion of financially motivated buying which means that many hobbyists are relegated to buying the "leftovers".  They can't afford to compete but even if and where they can, the inflated price spreads and unpredictable prices often make it an unappealing and risky financial proposition.  I don't see the same negative effect with my primary series, but undoubtedly US buyers are almost certainly pricing out practically everyone else, as I alone have bought a disproportionate proportion of the better coinage and it's probably happening in other series.

21 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

For the record, I became disenchanted with "the hobby," not long after JFK's body lay in a catafalque.  I now accept that one cannot rescue anything beyond resuscitation.  If embrace the "change" means embrace the "clad,"  sorry, I'm not buying.  (Time to get back to work. Now, where's my slide ruler, protractor and No. 2 leads...?)

I presume you are referring to the introduction of clad and the removal of silver from circulating coinage.  I started collecting in 1975, never did collect out of circulation and doubt I would have if I had been able start before 1965.  None of this coinage ever interested me, even as YN of 10.

16 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Then again, what percentage of the U.S. population (333 million) has numismatic inclinations?

I have guesstimated 2MM active collectors but it depends upon someone's definition of "collector".

I have no idea if the number has been increasing or decreasing, but I'm confident the proportion has been shrinking and will continue to do so.  It's shrunk as a recreational activity due to more numerous competing alternatives which has only been partially been offset by financially motivated buying.

The proportion will continue to shrink because the demographic groups who are projected to account for most or even all population growth (per US Census Bureau forecasts) have a much lower propensity to collect or even none at all.

It is likely to be even worse particularly for the coins most US collectors have collected in the last 90+ years because a much larger proportion of future collectors will have little if any cultural connection to this coinage whatsoever.

17 hours ago, bsshog40 said:

I don't know why they keep changing things to peak interests while the economy moves towards a cashless society. 

The best explanation I can think of is that they are acting like a private business maximizing profits.  Especially with NCLT but also with circulating coinage.

Recently in replying to a thread ATS, I looked at US Mint sales data covering proof sets, mint sets, bags and boxes of rolls. 

it's the last one that sticks out to me.  Maybe it's coin roll hunters looking for condition census TPG grades, errors and die varieties who mostly dump the leftovers after they search it.  I don't see how many dealers are buying it for resale.  There aren't ever going to be enough collectors who will want this volume much above face value, as it's tens to hundreds of thousands for each coin at minimum.  It's far too common, will never be scarce in any timeframe which matters to anyone buying it now, and there is no reason to believe it's preference will noticeably change either.

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

Whichever way Congress and/or the Mint would go, in order to please some current numismatists, it would have to some combination of a homage to history, possibly rare, and hopefully, for some odd reason, have silver in it. Those are not going to happen. History is now taught in schools as something evil.

Yes, makes sense.  My post was long, but it's my opinion that anyone who is looking to the US Mint (or any other mint) to "rescue" the hobby has got it backwards. 

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

To resuscitate a hobby, you have to think Big. I like what the USPS has done with stamps -- even throwing in a 32-cent triangular Clipper (Pacific 97) ship and that now 2-Dollar "Inverted Jenny" circa 1918.

What we have with coins, to borrow from N.J.'s former Gov. Kean, is a "failure of imagination." All three hobbies -- coins, currency and stamps, can be revived with sweeping across-the-board changes. I don't trust the generations after mine (baby boomers) to get it right.  That's why I suggested revisiting the classics. To-ga! To-ga! TO-GA!!!

I wouldn't describe the coin hobby in the US as in trouble.  I'm not sure anyone is any position to measure it accurately.

I also don't believe the US Mint can do anything to noticeably increase interest and while it's my opinion that the seemingly endless numismatic mediocrity they put out adversely impacts the price level of a noticeable proportion of lower to mid-priced US coinage, not sure it's a negative either.  South African collectors sometimes say the same thing and I have repeated this message, since both mints follow the same business model.

These series are just another gimmick.  The SQ program was a big success mostly due to the novelty factor; there had been no material change in circulating coinage designs my entire life.

Since 1999, the quarter changes every few months and the cent and nickel had numerous changes.  Dollars change regularly but don't even circulate.  How many US collectors (as it sure isn't hardly anyone else) even bother to keep track of most much less all of this stuff?  

I don't believe it does much of anything to promote interest in collecting as too much change (pun intended) is only marginally better than none prior to 1999.  I presume I'll get disagreement on this as it can't be proved one way or the other but anecdotal evidence better demonstrates that existing collectors don't find the designs attractive or themes interesting.  From those who measure the health of the "hobby" by the price level, it's evident that attracting collectors through NCLT is a lot more important, as these people are far more profitable customers.

Retreading classic designs is unlikely to make much difference either.  People ultimately either like collecting enough or they don't.  There are far more recreational alternatives for the public's time and money than when US collecting was supposed to have been at peak popularity.  That's my first explanation for any decreased interest.

Just now, Quintus Arrius said:

I do not want to edit your post because you have raised a number of valid concerns -- and a few I have never considered.

Perceived or imaginary rarity is one.  For many years we had mintage figures to rely on and speculation as to how many of a series may have been melted.

Now we have grading, set registries and population reports, or census, which are tentative at best. Shipwrecks and hoards that have turned up. Do I really know where I stand?  No, I do not. Too many variables; too many things in flux.  And now the precious metals market has taken off and a pandemic has complicated things.  It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.

You are new to this forum (relatively) but I have written on this subject extensively.  I provide this qualifier, as my point is broader than what you included in your reply.

Whether with the mintage or TPG population data, there isn't and never was any real rarity most of the time.  The US coins most collectors do and used to collect didn't actually have low mintages, only relatively.  The coins may have been difficult to find from circulation and were harder to buy than now (mostly due to the internet) but it isn't like any of it has been hard to buy since before I was born (1965) because it wasn't.

Claiming "rarity" mostly or solely due to the TPG grade is a pure contrivance.  US collecting and those where TPG has been widely accepted (such as in South Africa) disagree with this description but it's far more accurate than what's claimed.  The label on the holder may be rare, but not the coin in it as there isn't any practical difference most of the time with numerous others.

Going back to the point of this thread, that's exactly what I would describe the strike designations currently recognized in US collecting.  There isn't a similar practice with non-US coinage and the reason is 1) because collecting hasn't been financialized except in a few countries or by US buyers. 2) Where it has such as in South Africa, the coins most collectors want the most are hard enough to find except in unappealing quality and occasionally at all. 3) In the aggregate, US coinage is the least affordable versus anywhere else with any scale.

Are practices such as these strike designations here to stay?  Yes, due to the internet. 

Will it retain it's perceived significance which is mostly still associated with the assigned TPG label?  No if the price level ultimately crashes which is my prediction.  This practice doesn't make these coins interesting enough to hardly anyone at any meaningful price, mostly only if they believe they can get their most of their money back. 

I find many common coins interesting though I don't buy any as those bought by most US collectors.  But "interesting" is relative and can't be totally separated from the price.  

9 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Congratulations! When I went to lunch with Cliff Mishler at a past FUN show, he said almost exactly the same words. Hey, is that you, Cliff?

No, can't claim that

21 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

When they improve their ability to grade the very same coin consistently each time they see it with a 70 point system, THEN they get more points to fiddle with, and not until.

My position on any inconsistency is that the primary reason it happens is because these differences aren't meaningful but trivial, except financially and to those who find a need to exaggerate the significance of what they like and collect (registry set points and imaginary rarity).

I can infer this conclusion because the differences between circulated grades are a lot more noticeable, yet this topic almost never comes up in this context.  No one seems to care if their coin graded VF-20 instead of VF-25.

A second reason is that in comparing the most expensive and prominent coins to art and other collectibles which occurs occasionally, no actually significant object except within mass produced segments is evaluated similarly.   A Faberge Russian Imperial Easter Egg or Picasso would never get assigned a "details" designation for many of the same reasons coins do, if a similar system were in use.

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

You see? This is precisely the type of thing I'm talking about when I say Jason is "out of touch" and "all out of relevancy". Rick Snow did a Money Talk at the 2016 World's Fair of Money in August in Anaheim, CA, advocating a system virtually identical to what Jason has proposed here.  He drew a pretty decent sized crowd, too. Mostly of similar aged "insurgents" too. Purists. Old-timers. Well guess what has happened toward implementing it. Rick Snow now uses it internally, and in his database of "Eagle Eye" stickered coins, presumably. Nobody else ever adopted it. Look, being an "insurgent" or "purist" is all well and good. It also tends to lead you into irrelevance. This is a major TPGS firm's board, is it not?

I have heard that the TPG (specifically PCGS) floated the idea at least once of changing to a 100 point scale, presumably so that collectors can waste their money resubmitting everything a second time to maintain the collection's marketability.

I could see a similar system to this one being proposed to bridge a future transition, one I would not favor, as I consider it pointless and not adding anything.  Keep the existing 70 point scale and add a second with 30 points as a supplement.

9 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

I'm sure that we are doomed to see several "political correct" designs in the coming years likely on many different denomination coins.  I would be very surprised if congress does not draft legislation to depict a series of black lives matters coins soon.

Exactly what I was thinking.  Postponed but planned with the $10 or $20 (can't remember which one) and already many stupid themes on recent modern commemoratives.

When (not if) it happens, I think it's more likely on currency than coins.  I'm ok with one if it's someone such as MLK who was legitimately historically prominent but not otherwise.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

NGC already does something like this with Ancient grading, giving a score on a 5 point scale for Strike and Surfaces (and then an overall descriptor score for wear, such as F or VF). I'm advocating for expanding that model. 

I don't see any point in applying an NGC Ancients type scale to US coinage across the board.  Most of it is too common and I don't think it's needed for coins where with such a large proportion, there is no practical difference with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of others.

I'd go in the opposite direction.  I'd get rid of the "+" and many of the MS grades, reverting to what I saw in use when I first became aware of numerical grades in the late 70's: 60, 63, 65 and 67.

Per my prior post res[ponding to yours, the reason I have a difference of opinion with a noticeable minority (though maybe low proportion) of world coinage is because the Sheldon scale is US centric and no one elsewhere (outside the US) uses it or at least didn't except where it is now prevalent due to TPG adoption (China, South Africa).

The TPG also apply a US centric standard of "market acceptability" when it should be obvious that some coins in "details" holders are "market acceptable" to those who actually collect it, whether the TPG think so or not.  This the biggest disagreement I have with TPG grading. 

I have seen countless US colonials and early large cents with obvious problems in straight graded holders; far worse than those I own or seen for sale.  I presume this US coinage is "net graded": and that's a far more appropriate thing to do as far as I am concerned, since I think the TPG are correct that buyers presumably do consider it "market acceptable".  (For Spanish and Spanish colonials, it's also how I have seen the coins graded in Spanish auctions.)  It's a double standard with pillars and many other world coins.  Claiming a coin isn't "market acceptable" due to "surface hairlines" or some other trivial "defect" when the coin in question is one of the few decent ones in existence is ridiculous.

No, I don't think anything I described here is going to change.  Too much money to lose in grading fees and by those who already own certain coins in current holders.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

if a series is already collected that way, then adding a new strike designation at the TPG isn't going to fundamentally change the way the series is collected - but it will make it easier or more accessible.

Agree

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

The counterpoint is, of course, that knowledgeable collectors are currently able to "cherrypick" the premium coins, and that will be harder if the TPG starts designating it. 

This is the primary reason I consider it counterproductive.  The primary thing I see it would "accomplish" is inflating the price level and making even more US coins less affordable to the typical collector.  Those who own it now would realize a potential one time windfall with the presumably additional counterpoint that anyone else who  cherrypicks it would be financially rewarded for their effort.

1 hour ago, physics-fan3.14 said:

An idea I've tossed about for awhile is a generic "Full Strike" designation that would apply to any coin. 

For the primary series I collect now (Spanish colonial pillars) and many other "older" world coins, I am in favor of abandoning the Sheldon scale and adopting the one in use for NGC Ancients.  I'd use it for US colonials also.

5 hours ago, RWB said:

Agree completely with Mr. Feld.

The designations refer to specific design elements and do not make a good indicator of overall detail.

This practice logically only exists to create an artificial challenge.  It doesn't exist anywhere except in the US and never heard of it when I started collecting in the mid-70's.

Same thing with all other specialization on the most widely collected 20th century and later US coinage: TPG grades, toned coins and minor die varieties (excluding those traditionally included in the Red Book).  

17 hours ago, Coinbuf said:

I think we have too many already and need to eliminate most.  The problem is that most of those designations have little to do with how strong the strike is imo and were created to sell more coins.

Presumably, these designations already reflected how a particular series was collected before the TPG started assigning it.  Or not?