World Colonial

I didn't check first. Also, more collectors would know of Bowers than anyone else.

Thanks for the link. Wait, I thought this research was all included in the US modern tier grading fee, $11 the last time I checked. You mean it isn't?

Sorry but this is really grasping at straws to generate grading fees. Are submissions really down that much? Most collectors have never heard of these people, except maybe for Mishler since he is (or was) affiliated with Krause. Maybe a very low number of registry set collectors have an interest in this but don't see anyone else.

Another example of your ignorance. US grading isn't more "accurate" than European, it is more granular. The less polite way of saying it is that since US collecting became financialized starting in the 1970's, US grading standards place emphasis on trivial numismatic minutia which only has significance because of money and so that US collectors can pretend there is "rarity" in what they collect when there isn't. It's a pure contrivance. The same applies to the "modifiers" mostly used on US circulating coinage such as recognized strike designations. This "special finish" on your coin (assuming you are correct) fits this description. These "modifiers" mostly if not entirely became prevalent in US collecting to create a challenge which otherwise doesn't exist. Without it, the most widely collected series can be completed in one day in any quality, the only exception being if arbitrary or narrow enough criteria is applied.

It hasn't been personal for me either.. In a prior post, you questioned the motive behind my comments. In a prior post, I inferred yours: a desire to realize a windfall equivalent to winning the lottery. I infer it because your obstinance is totally disproportionate to any potential interest in or significance of your coin, even if it is what you claim it to be. What you deem significant is trivial numismatic minutia, except to a small segment of US based collectors and the financial promotors in the hobby who find it necessary to exaggerate the significance of practically everything in an attempt to inflate the price level as much as possible. Regardless of your actual motive, it's also evident you are out of your depth and don't know a thing about the market factors that make coins with a similar narrow scarcity worth current value. Even under the remote probability you ultimately prevail in your attempt, the chances of your coin being worth anywhere near what you believe are between slim and none. Now that you have participated in an exercise in futility both here and on CT, you should start another discussion of your coin on the PCGS forum. I participate there too but will agree in advance not to post if you prefer. I'm sure you will get a better reception there than you have here.

Good grief, again no equivalence. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The TPG grade is nothing more than an opinion, within current grading standards which aren't even fixed. Whether your coin is or isn't what you claim is partly a finding of fact, as numerous posters (including me) in more posts than I can even remember have already told you. Since I have replied to this post, I might as well reply to your last one. You can give up the idea that the market is going to evaluate your coin as you want as it's never going to happen. It's like waiting for hell to freeze over. It also has nothing to do with me disagreeing with you (though I do) because I'd never in a million years pay more than a nominal premium for your coin anyway and only if I could sell it to someone else for more. To do this, you need to start by getting it in an NGC or PCGS holder as something other than a regular business strike. If you do that, then the market will accept it as "special", at least to a point. To get it accepted by NGC or PCGS, you're going to need evidence that it was struck by the US Mint as it looks now. It isn't going to happen as a result of any "testing". Where are you going to get this evidence? Most likely only from the US Mint if it exists where there is a 99%++++ probability that it doesn't because you are wrong. You can ask them for everything the Denver Mint has for 1993 dimes and if they don't give you what you want, you can file a Freedom of Information Act Request. Never done that but someone else might know. Of course, I don't believe you will ever get what you want no matter what you ask for because the evidence doesn't exist since the coin was never struck as you claim. Earlier, you alluded to prior new discoveries. Since I have never heard of anything remotely equivalent for any modern US circulating coin, again I see little equivalence. What the required evidence is I don' know but infer it's situation specific. In the example I gave you of myself, it would have been from the South African Mint, not some "test". Generically though, I'd expect the standard to be a lot higher on a modern US coin than an older one from somewhere else though I might be wrong about that.

There is no record of US circulating coin with a matte finish (one made for circulation, not some NCLT) and yes, I know you said it wasn't a proof. This is more of a reason to believe that your coin isn't what you claim, as it makes no sense that the US Mint would do this for one 1993-D dime when it's never been confirmed before for any US circulating coin, ever. You also ignored my suggestion that your coin might be PL or have prooflike characteristics. If it isn't environmental damage, it's far more likely to be this than your claim. It is going to be up to you to prove what your coin is, whether you like it or not. No one (TPG or US Mint) is going to endlessly "test" your coin until they arrive at the outcome you want because that's the only reasonable interpretation of your comments. You have disagreed with the experts I named earlier. So why would you agree with anyone else unless they agree with you? Regardless, do and believe what you want because trying to reason with you is completely pointless.

The US Mint isn't in the business of doing what you are asking. It's a completely unreasonable expectation. They have on occasion assisted the numismatic community but surely you must realize that you are one of thousands who could (if not would) make such a request. They don't do it just because a collector wants it, even assuming they are in a position to do so with your coin where i agree with other posters that they are not.. As for the TPG, they are not going to do what you are asking because you expect them to ignore all known evidence. That's the inferred conclusion from your contradictory statements in this post I am quoting. There is no known record of an FDR matte proof dime. Since there isn't, it's incumbent upon you to demonstrate the coin is what you claim, not for anyone else to "thoroughly rule out every possibility". That's what i told you I couldn't do with those South African coins which were a lot more unique looking than yours. What you are implying is that a TPG needs to disprove what you claim the coin to be. It's ridiculous, especially when you won't even admit to having submitted the coin for evaluation in the first place. Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's based upon the principle that the simplest explanation is the most logical and correct one. That's what applies here. This as opposed to the remote combination of improbable assumptions which are required for you to be correct. It is a lot more believable that your coin as it exists now is something other than what you believe. It was either modified after it left the Mint or maybe my guess where I proposed it might have PL characteristics which accounts for this "special finish".

The only "accurate" answer you are interested in is the one that agrees with yours. The only "expert" whose opinion you will accept is the one who finally agrees with you. The only thing your posts demonstrate is that the replies you have received are contrary to your personal preference to make a windfall through the equivalent of winning the lottery. Why don't you contact the Mint and tell them you want your coin "tested"? It won't get you anywhere but go ahead and do it. While you are at it, write your Congressperson or Senator and demand that they do if they refuse. In one of my prior posts which you either didn't read or ignored, I also specifically stated I previously bought a three coin South Africa set which NGC declined to recognize for the exact same reason you have been told for your coin. I am not telling anything that I didn't experience myself.

A further clarification on my prior comments. I don't recall whether this is a "P" or a "D" coin and I'm not going back to the beginning of the thread. For this coin to be a matte proof, there two are potential possibilities, neither of which are believable. Philadelphia hasn't struck any since 1964 and I have never heard of a Denver proof for any coin, not even the few branch mint proofs. First, either mint could have struck one coin and out of hundreds of millions struck this year, the OP could have by miraculous circumstances come to posses it. There is no plausible explanation why either mint would have done it and even if it happened, the OP having it is about as likely as winning the Powerball lottery. Second, either mint could have struck "many". But if they did, it is far more believable that a record would exist and someone reading either thread (here or on CT) would be aware of it. This isn't a pattern, trial or experimental piece where there may be some prior discovery that I or others don't know. Another possibility which I don't recall being discussed is that this coin might posses a PL appearance. This would account for the supposed "special finish" which is nothing more than one of the first business strikes off the die which occasionally show up. If this is a PL, it might be "rare" but there is nothing significant about it and most of the value (practically all of it) is contingent on the TPG grade. I infer this because he mentioned someone else having a similar coin but on the reverse; a one-sided PL coin.

Any TPG can do what you propose by looking at the coin. It is called the grading process. The graders at the TPG know how the surface appearance on any coin should look when it left the mint, having evaluated in the vicinity of 100 million coins. There is no need to send it anywhere else or test it as you want. That's what you have been told here but won't accept. Inspection of your coin by the US Mint is never going to happen either. Neither a TPG nor the US Mint are going to accommodate this type of request because they aren't going to waste their time performing any additional analysis on a not-at-all-different piece of circulating change. Why aren't they going to do it? It's because of what I told where you claimed I had some ulterior motive for claiming it. There is no record of a "matte" coin being struck for this date and mintmark combination and your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't constitute evidence that it ever happened. No one else directly stated it, but it's also inferred in the comments here disagreeing with you. You don't like what you have been told but it doesn't change the outcome. You can accept it - or not.

What you state is an accurate description of both their posts but it's more than that; a complete disregard for logic that doesn't just apply to this coin or even coin collecting. Both of them write their posts as if this claim has merit and it's up to those who disagree with it to disprove it. That's why I wrote my earlier post that it's the equivalent of disproving a negative. Using this reasoning, anyone can make up practically anything and it's supposed to be taken seriously? It is completely nonsensical.

Yes, that is true to a point. I am most interested in coins which others are not. The coins most collectors overwhelmingly collect are mostly boring to me. But most of the coins I like the most aren't like this one.

Many collectors of the better (US) or more expensive coinage probably agree with your sentiments, at least to a point. The majority of the collector population? It isn't really relevant to them. Contrary to what the financial promoters of the "hobby" try to claim and those who exaggerate the significance of the coins they like the most might imply, most collectors don't find the most expensive, most prominent, or rarest coins the most or even that interesting. They are usually most interested in what they have collected in the past, what they collect now and what they believe they can possibly afford to collect in the future. They may have a passing interest and may wish they could afford some of it but these coins aren't really on their "radar". If you don't believe me, go read topics on any forum. Only an irrelevant fraction discuss this coinage and depending upon the coin, usually don't have that many posts either. Earlier above, I mentioned the 1792 Getz pattern which is one of my favorite coins. I would like to see it though I'd never go out of my way to do so. Most US collectors may vaguely know it exists from the Red Book but otherwise have no interest or remember it.

The whole point of being a collector to most coin collectors is possession. There are a few numismatists who only study and don't put together a collection but it's an irrelevant number.: There are a lot of other coins collectors own which could be displayed for public benefit. Few are as prominent as a low number from this collection but that really has nothing to do with it. As an example, US collectors overwhelmingly own most of the better Latin coinage which therefore isn't available to locals there, collectors or not. I own many of the best known coins in my series from Bolivia and Peru (a disproportionate percentage of the latter) where the coins are difficult to find at all. Going by one post elsewhere, the Peru national collection is substantially circulated "dreck" and isn't even close to being complete, even assuming they are trying to have a full collection. Why is it better that an institution like this one own the coins instead of collectors such as myself? Same principle in the developed world. And if you claim it doesn't apply to coins like those many other collectors own, why not? I agree with you with coinage which is otherwise more available but not otherwise.

Well, then you and those who agree with you can underwrite the purchase for the public's benefit.

A few who commented here earlier are among the most knowledgeable coin experts anywhere. Mark Feld used to work for NGC as a grader, used to be a dealer, and now works at Heritage. RWB is one of the most accomplished researchers. "Insider" who just commented also works for a TPG now,. Obviously, I (and others here) place more reliance on them than the two of you, especially in the absence of any evidence which neither of you have provided.. Since you seem to believe his claim is credible, why don't you try explaining: What reason is there to believe it is an "undiscovered" coin? How many times has this happened with a comparable modern US coin and how is it relevant to this one? I'd also like to know what testing you plan to underwrite on his behalf. Presumably it's a genuine FDR dime. What else do you expect any test to disclose?

This post is a joke right? I ask because this entire thread has been a complete farce. In 14 years on this forum and both reading and participating on others, I don't recall another thread which is worse than this one. Sure, I am, as guilty as anyone else here for participating and should have known better. I have also encountered posters who don't like hearing opinions contrary to their personal preference but nothing even close to this one.

That's how I read his comments also.

How would this con be an error? By definition, errors are supposed to occur by accident. How would a matte proof coin accidentally be struck? You may be more familiar with the manufacturing methods of matte proof coins (since I don't even like it), but others here certainly know this. It's also "possible" some Mint employee could have done this without authorization but there is no reason to believe it's realistic either. It's my opinion this is how many "errors" were produced but that's an assumption only. Logically, there is no motive for anyone to strike one coin for this particular date from this mint as a matte proof. If it were many though still a low number, there is far more reason to believe it would have been documented. In assessing the feasibility of any previously unknown variations or coins, there is a big difference with the probability in the recent past versus "a long time ago". There are a noticeable (though still low) number of subsequently recognized US coins previously not known. I can also give you several examples of coins believed to be genuine which were later determined to be something other than what was initially believed, including fakes. How does any of this apply to this coin?

No one needs to refute anything. There is no record of such a coin being struck or if there is, where is it? What you are inferring is the equivalent of disproving a negative. In the absence of proof that such a coin was struck by the US Mint, it's up to the OP or those (you) who agree it might be true to prove it. That's the standard I couldn't demonstrate in my example of the South African coins I bought. Should I have expected NGC to disprove Cayon's auction listing? It's nonsensical.

I'm not aware you are going to get NGC or PCGS to test your coin. Are you willing to incur this expense? It certainly won't be cheap.. We are likely talking about hundreds of dollars at minimum. I don't think they do this in-house and for the reasons you have read here, don't believe they would agree to send it out either. And they shouldn't. What testing do you propose and what exactly is there to test? I have never heard of testing for environmental damage which is what you are being told here. Will you even accept the results, from anyone? Your replies here indicate you won't. I don't even remember what everyone else has written by now but the point I was making in my last reply is that there is no record of a matte FDR dime ever being struck. Or if there is, I have no knowledge of it. I'm aware of unrecorded coins being recognized but usually (always?) it's from a time when the US (or other) Mint didn't keep comprehensive records or the records were later found to support the claim. RWB who posted above would know about that, as he is one of the foremost researchers of US coinage alive. I don't know about other TPG. "insider" works for one of them but even if they agree to do it and agree with you, it's almost a certainly that it won't be accepted by most collectors because that's the reality of the marketplace. It won't "cross" to NGC or PCGS which means most collectors won't recognize it either. (The 1936 South Africa "MS" farthing is a "not close at all" example. NGC recognizes it because it's in Krause but the price indicates there is substantial doubt over its classification.) The last point I'll make here is that your posts make it evident you don't understand what drives collector demand which would make this coin worth what you think it should be. A few posts here have indicated it's "possible" but as usual, they write in the abstract. The rarity alone isn't enough to make anyone want it. That's part of what I was explaining in my prior posts. The "No S" dimes are presumably expensive for the reasons I gave, included first in the Red Book and then later added to Registry Sets. If NGC or PCGS don't recognize your coin (which they won't for all the reasons here), you'll never get it added to the registry which means it's never going to be worth what you want either.

First time I think I have agreed with one of the moderator posts. My personal favorite in this collection is the 1792 Getz silver half.

Especially under US criteria, there are plenty of "rare" coins: errors, obscure die varieties, the TPG grade. Approximately 99% aren't, won't and shouldn't be worth any meaningful value because what makes it "rare" or even unique isn't interesting to hardly anyone, predominantly if not exclusively only to those who claim it because they want to make a windfall. 99% of those who own these coins wouldn't pay any meaningful price for it either. They just think someone else should with theirs. That's the reality with this coin, even if it is what the OP claims. Why would anyone want it at any meaningful price, other than because the OP prefers it? On one occasion, I bought a (purported) three coin silvered bronze set from Cayon. It was a 1952 South African farthing, half penny and penny. I paid about $1600 for it. The listing claimed evidence to support the auction description but didn't provide it. NGC returned it as "artificially colored". When I spoke to someone, they told me they wouldn't agree with Cayon without evidence to prove that it actually came this way from the SA Mint. I didn't blame them or whine about the result. Cayon refunded my money but it was my fault for not knowing this in advance. In retrospect, there is no reason to believe South Africa would have struck KGVI patterns the last year of the series. It doesn't make any sense. It's "possible" the US Mint could have struck a previously unknown or unrecorded "matte" or "SP" (clad) FDR dime but what reason is there to believe it? For what purpose? What we do know is that in over 700,000 combined grading events by both NGC and PCGS, there isn't a single one recorded for any FDR dime date, except 1964-1966 SMS.

If you are referring to my prior comments, what I wrote is independent of whether the coin is what the OP says it is. That's my entire point in writing what I did. The only reason (literally) anyone wouldn't see this is because they don't understand the factors which drive collector preferences and what motivates them to collect. The only exceptions are what I stated, either a financial speculator who isn't buying his coin as a collectible (but as an "investment") or the abstract random buyer who effectively doesn't exist. This hypothetical buyer is the response everyone else here has provided to the OP to concur it "might" happen. This is a meaningless truism which can literally be applied to practically anything. There is no point in mentioning it as a possibility since we all know it isn't going to happen. The OP has been pretending it's feasible but that's all it is, a pretense. To provide an additional explanation on this blatantly obvious conclusion, recently on the PCGS forum, someone disputed my claim that non-collectors and collectors outside the US won't ever buy the subject coin of the other thread. I'm not naming the coin but it's one of the most prominent coins worth millions. I can easily support this claim (and did) while no one who disagrees with me can provide any believable reason why the alternative outcome can happen, other than for the same reason I provided for the subject coin of this thread. The reason they can't is because people generally and collectors don't have the motives they imply which is why these claims are always made in the abstract.