World Colonial

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.

Agree 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. 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.

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).

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

Not very relevant to my collecting

Yes

My opinion on affordability isn't based upon buying high quality or even higher grade coins where the TPGs routinely ignore problems that they would not with other coins. I have seen many contemporary coins with less noticeable issues end up in "details" holders. Same applies to early large cents. It's that even in average and lower circulated grades, so many of these aren't even close to affordable to the vast majority of the collector base. I'd have to go back to my old Red Books (which I don't have with me now) to see how much this has changed over time but the very common Virginia half penny is only one example. I'd describe $215 for that NGC fine example as borderline affordable to maybe 25% of the bottom 80% of the collector base budget wise. The two examples I gave of Pine Tree shillings and Fugio cents aren't remotely rare. I'd describe both as relatively common (Fugio very common), except by die variety. I wouldn't expect the shilling to be affordable to most collectors since it is scarcer with a higher perception. NGC and PCGS have graded close to 4000 Fugio cents with several hundred MS. Maybe noticeable number of duplicates in higher grades due to the price but still not scarce. A straight grade VF seems to be worth somewhat less than $1000 based upon recent sales at least for the more common varieties. What I am describing here, it's equally true for an outsized proportion of US coinage, defined in broader terms.

I think of the 1913 LHN as a fantasy coin. I also see it no differently than any number of pattern coins (trial strikes and experimental pieces) that I would put in the same category. I can't list them all since I don't know the circumstances under which all were made but collectively, I consider these coins as near the top of the most overrated coinage anywhere, often with unique designs but where there is nothing unusual in the scarcity and it sells for (hugely) inflated prices due to an exaggerated distinction. Among the worst are the 1866 No motto quarter, half and dollar which don't belong in the Red Book as part of the series.

I was 10 and loved coins. She let me go through her entire 10X10 SDB once in December 1975. The collection was very large. The SDB was full of mostly Whitman blue folders and 2X2 cardboard flip boxes (holding 100). As mentioned above, she didn't have gold, silver dollars, or early silver type (flowing hair and draped bust) but had most everything else, to my recollection. I don't remember seated and barber halves or seated and barber quarters but she had several hundred LE Capped Bust halves and all the other series up to silver Washington quarters and FDR dimes. Large cents back to 1794 and Bust half to 1808. Not sure about "key" dates in most series. I'm assuming she did not have the scarcest dates but probably many of the semi-keys. I wanted to take a complete inventory but she wouldn't haver it. As a 10 year old, I never asked her how she came into it. She came from "old money" born in 1906 and never did without a day in her life to my knowledge. There were no high grade coins (which wasn't that important to most collectors when the collection was put together anyway), so I don't know if most of it was pulled from circulation, bought or both. Her father was a lawyer and her first husband (died 1960).was a self-made businessman, so it could have come from either. My suspicion is that it was mostly pulled from circulation over several generations due to the number of duplicates, age of what she had and coin quality but this is a guess on my part. She died sometime between 2000 and 2005 but I might have seen her once a few years after my grandfather died in January, 1987. As you know, I don't collect US anymore and haven't for a long time but I would still REALLY like to go through it if it were possible.

I got started when my family temporarily moved to Bolivia in mid-1975. My aunt had an accumulation (not a collection as she was a hoarder), mostly of my father's circulating change from our travels in Europe and the Middle East in the mid-60's around the time I was born. Favorite book is Gilboy's "The Milled Columnarios of Central and South America". I use Yonaka's latest reference more now but Gilboy's reference eventually led me to dropping most other coinage for what I collect now. I did visit one coin shop regularly starting in late 1975 when we returned to the US for a few years but no dealer or other collector has been an influence on my collecting. I collected intermittently before picking it up for good in 1998 but didn't and don't bother with LCS. They have nothing I want to buy, any of them. Seeing my step grandmother's collection once which was (is?) extensive was a lot more impressive to me that anything I saw in a coin shop. One other dealer I visited sold coins she did not have but her collection covered most US series except gold, silver dollars and early silver type.

Bakewell's 1926 South Africa proof set of five coins awarded 10,672. Mintage is 16 with purportedly five sets known and two reportedly available for private collectors. 1926 3P received 1 (!) point. This might be an error but giving the penny about 1,000 is not.

It's subjective but it could by relative market value. Since prices change all the time, I'd just pick a point in time and it doesn't have to be 100% correlated. If the TPG want to give more points to very common coins this would be a more sensible way to do it. Personally, I would assign it by a coin's relative collectible merits but this would be a lot more subjective.

In the example I gave, it was the collector's entire set which dropped 6500 points, not one coin. I agree with you that the entire purpose is to make those who collect what are actually common coins feel better about their collection and as a result, encourage submission volume. It's the marketing aspect which contributes to the pretense of "rarity" which doesn't actually exist. If it were just about relative point values in a series, the TPG could reduce it for the highest grade but common coins by a factor of 10 or even one hundred and adjust the other coins in the set downward less or somewhat less to maintain "reasonable proportionality", both within and between series. Fractional points could be assigned as well. The existing point structure almost certainly isn't an accident but intentional. One other reason I believe it is because NGC at least does (or did) also rank participants by their total number of points for all sets. (I don't know about PCGS.) Rudman who had (or still has) an extensive collection of both world and US was ranked at or near #5 with 3MM, 4MM or some number like it. I don't know if there is an overall award but it was (and presumably still is) there for anyone to see it. Given the points assigned to the highest grade common coins, those who have multiple sets in these common series can see that they have more points and are ranked higher than participants with far more expensive, scarcer and more difficult to acquire collections. The latter mostly doesn't care about this overall (if any ranking) while these others do or might, a lot. Why else would this illogical point structure exist? Assigning points is subjective but what I describe is trivial with modern computing.

Your example here is part of my point. Look at the point value for this 32-D cent and compare it to the four examples I gave, especially the Mexico 4R. No one who knows anything about both coins or even coin collecting generally would ever think the two are remotely comparable. The whole point of registry sets and the point system is to encourage submissions. It's all marketing and nothing else. Rudman had a signature set with this 4R which is how I found the point value but I doubt that he or anyone else who has or ever will own this coin cares about the number of points. The same is also true to a lower extent for the more prominent US coinage. The registry doesn't motivate anyone who owns coins like the 4R to have it graded and there aren't a meaningful number to grade anyway because this coin and every other one in the (broader) series is at least scarce and when not, actually rare. There is no revenue to be gained by it. On the other hand, assigning inflated point values to actually very common but high(er) grade coins (every 20th century and later US series plus NCLT) apparently does motivate submission volume. Or else the TPG wouldn't do it.

Uber graded actually common coins, yes. I haven't seen it nearly as much for the more or most expensive US classics or actually rare coins. It's mostly for 20th century US and mostly from the series with the largest collector bases. This coinage isn't rare.

There isn't one or if there is, it is backwards to what it should be. Below are some examples I provided in a thread where the OP complained of losing 6500 points when NGC reassessed the point value of his Presidential dollar set. By comparison: Here are the point values for a haphazard handful of other coins which are highly valued, highly preferred, rare (the 1732 Mexico) or all three: 1802 half PCGS MS-62 16919 1796 quarter PCGS MS-61 11384 1800 dollar NGC AU-58 4724 1732 Mexico pillar 4R without assayer/denomination NGC AU-58 5734

No, not really. Look at the number of sets listed on both NGC and PCGS by series. I haven't done it lately but have in the past. It's an immaterial to practically nonexistent proportion of the probable or potential collector base.

Based upon my limited observations, the whole point system if "out of whack". Common as dirt uninteresting coins in ultra grades receive more points than much scarcer more interesting coins with consensus better credentials. There is a post I wrote here many years ago where I provided examples that I can dig up.

I performed a search on the Heritage archives after my last post using a cut-off of $300. Out of 21,000+, somewhat over 6,000 sold at this price or lower. I didn't look at every recent sale but in the last year, it's concentrated in a very low proportion. Overwhelmingly also in ":details" holders with various problems or in grades of VF or lower. Those in somewhat higher grades were mostly restrikes (which I would never buy) and struck for the French colonies which have a much lower preference. One I saw was the more common variety "No Period" 1773 -Virginia half penny in F-12 or F-15. It realized $215 whereas when I owned my slightly lower quality examples in the 1970's, I doubt it would have been worth $20.

Looks more like a medal than an NCLT coin. No date or denomination that I can see though some NCLT might have neither. If it is in a reference - somewhere - NGC would probably grade it. It might help if you point them to it on the sub mission form. As an example, both now apparently grade a fantasy crown I own. It's the Queen Victoria retro dated 1879 with the three graces reverse. NGC returned it ungraded about 14 years ago.

I like my primary interest more (pillars) but can impartially recognize that US colonials (the ones made for the colonies traditionally listed in the Red Book) are more interesting in the aggregate due to the much wider variety. I'm willing to settle for quality lower than most US collectors will who have a comparable outlay in their collection to mine. Concurrently, I'm not spending "large amounts" on what would generally (by those who spend equivalent amounts) be considered circulated "dreck". That's the reality with both this coinage and most early federal US types. I'd really have to like the coin a lot to do that and even most of this coinage doesn't fit that standard to me.

Yes, but what is the proportion? I know what is out there but haven't looked at prices extensively. What I do know from my limited reading (mainly auctions and TPG population data) is that I see (very) high prices for what are frequently either rather common or not particularly scarce coins. I asked my question about die varieties as it's a likely explanation for price increases. I believe the Partrick collection has or had an extensive accumulation of one or a few but can't remember the coin(s). I have also seen it with Fugio cents and Pine Tree shillings. When I started collecting in 1975, my step grandmother's family had an extensive US collection which included several hundred low grade Virginia halfpenny, probably mostly in what is now VG. This is one of the few I would consider affordable to most collectors. I wouldn't expect most of this a coinage to be affordable to most collectors but it seems to be a lot less affordable than when I started. Using a cut-off of $300, I'd estimate that around 80% of the collector base is priced out of most. It might be somewhat better for those who are willing to buy very low quality but possibly not very marketable coins but not many are willing to do that at any noticeable outlay.

No, there are at least two of us. It's my assumption that many "errors" were intentionally made. There is nothing significant about 99% of errors either since there are so many and the differences are usually minimal. Same applies to #4 and #5. With the 1794 dollar, it's a significant coin but what you described is marketing. It's an example of how those who make a living off of the hobby (dealers, auction firms, TPG and numismatic press) predominantly along with those who buy the most expensive US coinage exaggerate the significance of practically everything. The most logical underlying motivation is an attempt to inflate the price level as much as possible. How do I reach this conclusion? By comparing perception during the current financialized era to the one that preceded it. Most of this coinage wasn't worth much because the claimed distinction is overwhelmingly numismatically trivial. Collectors didn't collectively experience an epiphany to become more "sophisticated" to miraculously conclude this coinage is so much better than their predecessors. Aside from the financial aspects, what I am describing is also the equivalent of awarding participation trophies just for showing up. Particularly with US coinage (but getting worse for others), a noticeable proportion isn't affordable to an outsized proportion of the collector base. This has always been true but the internet has made traditional collecting a lot less challenging.

This list is by date. For world coinage, I would expect the most widely counterfeited by type to be Spanish colonial cob 8R followed by Mexican pillar dollars. The population counts on most of those coins are either low or not that high and even where higher, a low fraction of the most widely collected US coinage. From this, I conclude that NGC is either seeing more fakes than genuine coins in this list or the volume of fakes is (very) low.

Equally true of a noticeable percentage of US coinage generally.