World Colonial

22 minutes ago, RichieRich2020 said:

Well it clearly sounds like a very flawed way of grading and authenticating coins if you ask me . Because everyone knows that if you took a PCGS MS 67 coin and a MS 66 coin and removed both their labels to allow all the PCGS graders to say which coin was which ... then it would simply PROVE that all the grades of almost every coin is nothing more then GUESSING . Which is why I personally think that all serious collectors need to collectively come together and appeal to the grading companies for a better and more accurate way of authenticating their coins through some form of BASIC TESTING TECHNIQUES , as opposed to these PREHISTORIC GRADING METHODS that you mentioned . I don't think it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that in my humble opinion . Which is what I explained to the PCGS head I spoke to after they graded one of my coin for almost $200 ... It's apparent to me that if anyone is spending that type of change for a coin grade that they should clearly want a more accurate and precise way of doing so but then again that is just my humble opinion on the matter .... Because I for one prefer accurate conclusions over EXPERT GUESSING any day ....

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.

8 hours ago, RichieRich2020 said:

Well first of all . I will admit that in the very beginning I was a little reluctant to have it authenticated due to the fact that all the environmental damage crusade members were trying to convince me that the coin bares a unique environmental damage finish like no other . And up until recently I didn't take the time to do my own research either to discover that there simply is no other ROOSEVELT DIMES anywhere on the planet with anything remotely close to having the same exact finish or atleast no one can ever seem to produce a clad dime to support any of their own theories . 

Also Im not sure where this PROOF matte finish dime you mentioned came from but the dime that Ive shared is actually a BUSINESS STRIKE DIME WITH A SMOOTH FROSTED MATTE FINISH ... And according to your accounts on how the U.S. mint and other grading companies would probably go about to THOROUGHLY verify if its really authentic I think it would probably be an intentional discouragement in itself for anyone looking for ACCURATE ANSWERS . But I don't think it will be for me because even if my UNIQUE REQUEST TO OBTAIN  THOSE ACCURATE ANSWERS has to be paid for then I'm certainly up to the challenge as soon as I have the extra resources to do so . 

Also i don't think it should have to be a matter of me trying disapprove what anyone thinks either ... infact I think it should only be a matter of determining if the coins finish is authentic and where the coins finish actually came from in order for other serious collectors to enjoy the discovery of A POSSIBLY NEW UNIQUE DISCOVERY PIECE . I mean isn't that what recording NEW DISCOVERY COINS should really be about to begin with ??????? 

But nevertheless I will try my best to overcome all these HURTLES THAT YOU'VE MENTION and hope to find ACCURATE answers through testing despite what Im apparently up against and despite if it is or isn't a TRUE MATTE FINISH DIME THAT WAS SOMEHOW CREATED BY THE U.S. MINT . 

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.

1 hour ago, RichieRich2020 said:

Well I'm somewhat in agreement to the extent that there is NO KNOWN RECORD for any matte finish Roosevelt dime ...  However what I'm not ok with is the statement that U.S. MINT NOR TPG would not make every possible attempt in THOROUGHLY ruling out every possibility to a claim of a ONE OF A KIND COIN ... 

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".

30 minutes ago, RichieRich2020 said:

Well this is such a PROFESSIONAL RESPONSE to such a small request wouldn't you say

And I think i finally get why someone in the post actually mentioned that even he knows a guy who has a very unique coin that grading companies wouldn't say is bad and yet won't authenticate either ...

INFACT It should be very clear to anyone here that these professional steps could Easily validate or disapprove what everyone here believes WITH SUCH EASE ... and yet you say with such conviction that the U.S. mint nor TPG would accommodate this kind of request since there IS NO RECORD OF A MATTE COIN EVER BEING STRUCK FOR THIS DATE AND MINT ... So let us all allow that to really sink in for a little bit :

U.S. mint and TPG will say to eachother :

Hey this guy claims that he has A ONE OF A KIND COIN . So let's be sure not to give this coin every possible test where there's no record of one ever being struck by the mint because we don't believe it exist ....  YEP CERTAINLY SOUNDS LIKE A WONDERFUL SYSTEM AND PLAN WOULDN'T YOU SAY .... And it probably also explains why the other gentlemans unique coin has still not been authenticated YEARS LATER I bet. 

Infact heres another good idea ... i think that ALL COIN EXPERTS with this same mindset as yours should probably just start wearing T-shirts that read : 

Welcome to the coin group where we dont care about looking for accurate answers and we simply do what we want . LOL

 

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.

1 hour ago, Coinbuf said:

Actually I believe that both you and the op have lost, both of you have shown a complete lack of the fundamentals of the coin coining process and have lost whatever credibility you had coming into this thread.  You have made several threats to send this in and get a definitive answer yet no action, zero.  You both talk a ton but your actions tell the real story and we all see the truth.

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.

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

You have aristocratic tastes.

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.

39 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

No need to underwrite the purchase.  As I recall, King Tut's treasures were on loan for Exhibit in the United States.  Ditto the Mona Lisa.  The most comprehensive Holocaust exhibition about Auschwitz ever exhibited in North America now at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in New York, comprised of some 700 original objects and 400 photographs, are on loan from 20 institutions and private collections from around the world. These are all one-of-a-kind, truly irreplaceable artifacts.

I don't deign to know what the successful bidders for the Brasher Doubloons plan to do with their acquisitions following auction but they may very well consider making them available to the numismatic community at large on a limited basis and to the general public on special occasions via on-loan exhibition.

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.

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

"It is the pre-occupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from living freely and nobly."  - Lord Bertrand Russell

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. 

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

A shame these will very likely be relegated to a safe deposit box somewhere, out of sight out of mind.  These unique, rarely seen specimens ought to put on public display for the enjoyment of numismatists and interested parties alike.

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

2 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

This is a remarkable thread.  The OP is adamant about what he believes he has, and for his trouble the thundering herd has run roughshod all over him.  But the task that lies ahead is daunting: putting out an APB for a specific edition of coin with similar markings and I don't know that the OP, in view of his debilitating injuries, is equal to the task. The vast majority of his posts are pleas for help presented in his own inimitable fashion. There was one post, however, that stood out from the rest and in it he was jarringly lucid. I don't know if the vast majority of replies were posted while under the influence of painkillers or not, but negotiating a complex thread without them is difficult enough, and so, I should like to recommend rest. When he has recuperated sufficiently, we can all take up arms again in furtherance of his cause.  

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?

48 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Since you are always welcome to jump in if only to invigorate your thread, why not adjourn the matter until such time as when you get sufficient rest, heal and recover your strength. You will be sorely missed by all in your absence but recovery from serious injuries cannot be rushed or willed away.  Get your rest and feel free to rejoin the fray when you feel your ready. You've made lots of friends on this site and together we can figure out how to address the matter of tracking down other coins with the unique distinguishing marker. As a fellow collector, I wish you all the best!

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.

10 minutes ago, l.cutler said:

I hate to speak for WonderCoin, but his reference to a diagnostic marker is just a die marker that could be used to identify other coins from the same die.  His suggestion was to look for other dimes with this same marker, to see if they exhibited the same type of finish or any similarities.  It most certainly was not posted as some kind of marker to indicate this coin is something special.

That's how I read his comments also.

5 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Having just viewed the various offerings being made in advance of Heritage's so-called Error Coin auction, I wonder whether the U.S. Mint maintains records of their production. No, of course not. For incredible reasons that go well beyond human comprehension, they are deemed to be legitimate "errors."  Nobody questions the very  existence of some of these impossible sleight-of-hand creations. I have yet to see anyone on this thread take issue with WonderCoin's assertion that what he recognized to be a "diagnostic marker," was anything but. True, no one has to acknowledge or refute the assertion. I am merely observing that no one, in a position to do so, whether by knowledge or experience, has done so. And that, to me, is telling.

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?

10 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Quite frankly, the only aspect I find irresistibly intriguing is the presence of that "diagnostic marker" which not a single viewer of this thread has addressed head-on either by concurring, or outright refutation.  WonderCoin did NOT equivocate. I do hope, after recovery from his injuries -- this is not a matter of urgency and can be pursued at one's leisure -- RichieRich2020 gets to the bottom of this most encouraging lead and solves the mystery. [And Alex, I hereby declare you to be the King of the Emojis! 😀 Keep up the good work!]

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.

7 hours ago, RichieRich2020 said:

WELL I GOTTA ADMIT ...  THIS HAS TO BE ONE OF THE MOST HONEST AND LOGICAL REPLIES THAT IVE READ . AND I CANT EVEN DISAGREE WITH YOU ONE BIT . SO IM HOPING THAT IM ABLE FIND A VERY REPUTABLE AND PROFESSIONAL COIN COMPANY WHO BELIEVES IN THOROUGHLY EXAMINING AND TESTING COINS IN ALL RESPECTS BEFORE SLAPPING THE FAMOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE OR ALTERED COIN LABEL ON IT WITHOUT ANY TESTING ... 

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.

1 hour ago, Insider said:

BTW, I'm dealing at the moment with a man who has a unique coin that he has been trying to get certified for years.  No one will call it bad yet no one will authenticate it either.  Guess I'm his last shot.  The reason I'm mentioning this fact is like you, he plans to take it to his grave if it is not authenticated.  His plan is safe with me but he better not mention this to any one else because grave robbers may want his unique million dollar coin.

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.

12 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Speaking from a fly-on-the-wall perspective, I believe we are getting ahead of ourselves here. The coin needs to be authenticated/certified first before we can talk about what price it may or may not fetch at auction.  If memory serves, I do not recall seeing a space on any submission form that a collector can use to alert a grader to the presence of a "diagnostic marker." Would this be routinely discovered during the grading process or is it something the submitter ought to point out? I am not taking sides here and wouldn't want to posit a guess as to any final determination.

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.

5 hours ago, RichieRich2020 said:

Well just to elaborate a little on the comment In which someone boldly indicated that Roosevelt dimes are not that sought after or valuable to SERIOUS COLLECTORS with deep pockets . I thought it would be a good idea to point out that just recently as last year . A modern 1975 proof Roosevelt dime that is simply missing the S mint mark sold at auction for an astounding $516,000. And yes you did hear that correctly ... I said it sold for an astounding $ 516,000 Which is OVER A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR A MODERN BORING ROOSEVELT DIME ... And I won't even include all the other modern Roosevelt dimes that have actually sold for thousands of dollars simply because of a boring mint error or because they have full bands or a high grade which im sure some coin experts with decades of experience would probably also deemed to be very insignificant or not sought after by deep pocket collectors . In otherwords . You see the point I'm trying to make is . If you do a little more research on what modern error dimes have actually sold for on the market you would clearly see that your evaluation or assessment on what deep pocket collectors are willing to pay for ONE OF A KIND DIMES is wrong because to me call me crazy but the market is telling me that their might actually be a collector out their who values ONE OF A KIND modern dimes slot more then others .... but if YOU don't really think so as you suggested and you have some very nice graded dimes of your own that you think arent that sought after or valuable... then please do me a tiny favor and let me take them all off your hands for a few bucks and I promise you that I'll make sure they all find a good home

I am the one who made the comments you referred to and what I stated is 100% correct.  I am aware of this coin (1975 "No S") and others like it (since I mentioned it first) but none of these coins have any equivalence to yours.  

You are biased and cannot accept opinions contrary to your personal preference.  Opinions I might add, which are a lot better supported than yours.  I explained here why coins such as the "No S" proofs are worth this kind of money.  How are you going to get yours recognized to get it added to the Red Book and registry sets because that's literally about the only way what you want is going to happen?  The alternative is a random buyer who has no motive to pay what you think it should be worth which is about as likely as being struck by lightning on a clear day.

Do you have any idea of the low preference for the FDR dime as a series?  Yesterday (again) I looked at the Heritage archives.  Heritage has sold over 53,000 US coins valued at $10,000 or more.

How many are FDR dimes? 42, the vast majority are 1968 "No S" proofs, 41 are proofs and one is a 1964 SMS.

Do you now see why I wrote what I did?  What I wrote isn't an opinion but a fact you can verify for yourself. 

A low number of US collectors (certainly isn't anyone else) buy these coins.  I'm not even sure most of them collect the FDR dime as a series given its basement level preference.  A noticeable proportion might be buying it for appreciation or for the 68, buy the more expensive US moderns generally.  This last statement is an inference (not "fact") since it's evident the number of bigger budget collectors of the FDR dime is very low. 

Regardless, the Heritage data proves it's an immaterial number and there is no basis to believe that, other than for speculation or the one in a million random buyer, any other collector wants these coins, never mind yours at the price you think it should be worth. 

The reason they don't is because this kind of scarcity isn't meaningful to them, the more expensive FDR dimes aren't competitive to them as a collectible, and they won't pay what you think your coin is worth because they have no reason to believe they can recover their money at resale.

In almost 15 years participating on coin forums, I have seen (and contradicted) numerous opinions from those who have inflated views of what they own or collect.  Most of the time, these people are "drive by" posters who come to financially promote what they have as you have done.  But in all the examples I have seen, yours has the least merit.

I wouldn't think they are close to Chapter 11 either.  But if they are, they can always request a bailout.  Everyone else seems to be asking for one.

Just now, VKurtB said:

The ANS and the ANA are two different organizations. The ANS is in New York. The ANA is in Colorado Springs.

I know that.  I was making an analogy that if the ANS can sell some of their holdings, so can the ANA.

4 hours ago, Just Bob said:

No, I don't think it is unrealistic at all. A serious collector who does not have Roosevelt dimes in their collection may not like Roosevelts, or Moderns in general, and may choose not to have any in their collection, regardless of the finish on the coin.  A collector of Trade Dollars or gold Double Eagles or Maria Theresa Thalers or Greek Staters (all buyers whom one would expect to have deep pockets) would probably not be interested in this coin at all. Even someone who is putting together an Eliasberg style set would probably pass on this coin, instead opting for a normal high grade example. The fact that you see this coin as special does not mean that every collector would.

Not only is it unrealistic, the inference to which you responded is ridiculous.  Even if the OP's coin by some miracle is what he claims, to 99.99%+ of the collector base it's both uninteresting and undistinguished.

First, outside of maybe the more recent series (starting with State Quarters), I'd rate the FDR dime as the US series with the absolute lowest preference.  It's either this one or the SBA dollar.  Outside of specialization practiced by US collectors (which I won't get into now), it's an extremely common series which anyone can complete in one day in practically any quality, except when some narrow or arbitrary criteria is applied.  It's also a small coin with a design that most collectors don't really like and we are talking about a clad coin here which is generally less preferred than the silver.

Second, this type of scarcity isn't meaningful to hardly anyone, even an FDR dime collector.  It's unsubstantiated to believe that anyone who doesn't collect the series would want this coin at the absurdly inflated price the OP apparently thinks it should be worth.  I infer that this occurs with the "No S" proofs but that's probably because these are listed in the Red Book and included in registry sets.  More importantly, these coins have a history of high prices which presumably leads these buyers to believe they recover their purchase price, most of it at least.  Probably some speculator buyers here also.  Who wants to be first to pay an outsized inflated price for this coin?  Is the OP going to do it and if not, why would anyone else?

Bottom line is that there are far more interesting coins (as in hundreds or thousands depending upon what the OP thinks it should be worth) for the same money that practically everyone who can afford to pay his price would rather buy.