Semi-PL?

[cladking]

 

This is especially true in the internet age but wasn't as much in the past. If I collected the most widely collected US series, I could literally complete most of them in "high quality" in one day or one week. The primary obstacle to completing them in one day wouldn't be the difficulty in finding the coins but the time required to perform enough internet searches or making the necessary phone calls.

 

Good that you put high quality in quotes because therein is exactly the problem. Each collector has a different definition of "high quality". In every series there are characteristics which are difficult or impossible to find and can't be sorted with search enginines because our definitions are what they are. Bust halfs are tough to find with thick original luster. Morgan dollars are tough with full strikes, and most clad varieties are tough with even strikes from new dies.

 

If you don't care about the kind of "high quality" you get then of course with millions of coins graded and search engines you can put together just about any high grade set you want with nothing but money.

 

Try putting together a set of semi PL Lincoln Memorial cents!!! If you find this too easy then you can start on four step Jeffersons in Gem with complete strikes from new dies. After this get back to me and tell me how easy US coins are.

 

Everyone has different tastes in all things but with current definitions and

perspectives we're all served soup.

[World Colonial]

I agree that everyone has a different definition of "high quality" and it is subjective. this is why I used quotes.

 

The point I was making is the same one I have made numerous times in the past, that the internet has eliminated the challenge of traditional set collecting. This is the first reason I attribute to this specialization, whether PL or any of the others. These coins aren't remotely scarce except using a narrow, arbitrary or artificial definition of scarcity which is exactly what the overwhelming majority of US collectors use if this forum or PCGS are an accurate indication.

 

The second is the price level. Many coins which were more affordable a long time ago (as in 1975 when I started) are much less so.

 

The higher price level also motivates collectors to look or buy these coins for a future speculative gain who otherwise would not. This is particularly true of the last example you gave of coins such as Lincoln Memorial cents.

 

The combination of the internet and the price level has made all but a low percentage of US coins available either on demand, within weeks or at most a few months at the next major auction. As an example, I don't look at every major auction or dealer website but I know that even 1796-1797 half dollars aren't that hard to buy, except with somewhat narrow criteria.

 

What I describe, I know aren't the only reasons but it explains why this type of collecting is so widespread in the US but not elsewhere.

[SBG]

Here's my descriptive nomenclature for coin field luster/reflectivity progression:

 

[Matte -> Frosty -> Satiny -> Glossy -> Semi-Prooflike -> Prooflike (PL) -> Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) -> Ultra Deep Mirror Prooflike (UDM)]

[cladking]

 

The combination of the internet and the price level has made all but a low percentage of US coins available either on demand, within weeks or at most a few months at the next major auction. As an example, I don't look at every major auction or dealer website but I know that even 1796-1797 half dollars aren't that hard to buy, except with somewhat narrow criteria.

 

You seem to believe that these standards are arbitrary but I strongly disagree. Take Lincoln cents for example. A collector doesn't need to have exceedingly high standards for surface conditions to discover that 1984-P cents with nice attractive surfaces are exceedingly scarce and the the grading services can't help him find one. I've looked at many hundreds of 1984 mint sets since about 1984 and have only seen a very few specimens that I even consider to be in the running for attractive surfaces. Only one specimen really comes close and it has a tiny bubble and a tiny carbon spot on the reverse.

 

I can't really compute an incidence with only one specimen but this coin is so much better than the second best that it's a very safe bet that it's at least scarce and the attrition on these is still extremely high.

 

People like quality and this will never change. It wouldn't even change if the internet and TPG's didn't exist but it would be almost impossible to locate most of these just as it's almost impossible to locate a semi-PL 1974 quarter today.

 

 

[cladking]

Here's my descriptive nomenclature for coin field luster/reflectivity progression:

 

[Matte -> Frosty -> Satiny -> Glossy -> Semi-Prooflike -> Prooflike (PL) -> Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) -> Ultra Deep Mirror Prooflike (UDM)]

 

Welcome.

 

One could quibble about the definitions of a few of the terms like "satiny" but this is the idea. Each coin could have a descriptive grade attached.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing two or even three levels of Semi- PL.

[physics-fan3.14]

Here's my descriptive nomenclature for coin field luster/reflectivity progression:

 

[Matte -> Frosty -> Satiny -> Glossy -> Semi-Prooflike -> Prooflike (PL) -> Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) -> Ultra Deep Mirror Prooflike (UDM)]

 

Welcome.

 

One could quibble about the definitions of a few of the terms like "satiny" but this is the idea. Each coin could have a descriptive grade attached.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing two or even three levels of Semi- PL.

 

If you want the TPGs to describe the luster like this, why not also describe the strike (and assign it a level - full, strong, weak, etc.). Or describe the eye appeal (pleasing, ugly, average, etc.)

 

This is, more or less, the system that Accugrade used to use on their earliest slabs. They described the strike and luster on an ABC (for stike) and 123 (for luster) scale.

[SBG]

physics-fan3.14: My post states: "Here's my descriptive nomenclature for coin field luster/reflectivity progression" which I've presented as a point of reference and for general information.

 

Note that I did not say anything about wanting the TPGs to describe mint luster using my nomenclature.

[dizzlecc]

SBG has a patent pending on "his" nomenclature to start his own grading co. If you go to SPL, how long before someone wants glossy or satiny. I could also see PL obverse/reverse for the one side wonders out there. More grading details might help with understanding the composite grade if you add in all other components like strike, marks, and eye appeal/toning.

 

[World Colonial]

You seem to believe that these standards are arbitrary but I strongly disagree. Take Lincoln cents for example. A collector doesn't need to have exceedingly high standards for surface conditions to discover that 1984-P cents with nice attractive surfaces are exceedingly scarce and the the grading services can't help him find one. I've looked at many hundreds of 1984 mint sets since about 1984 and have only seen a very few specimens that I even consider to be in the running for attractive surfaces. Only one specimen really comes close and it has a tiny bubble and a tiny carbon spot on the reverse.

 

I can't really compute an incidence with only one specimen but this coin is so much better than the second best that it's a very safe bet that it's at least scarce and the attrition on these is still extremely high.

 

People like quality and this will never change. It wouldn't even change if the internet and TPG's didn't exist but it would be almost impossible to locate most of these just as it's almost impossible to locate a semi-PL 1974 quarter today.

 

 

The two reasons I gave you are the best indication (though not proof) that what I am telling you is the best explanation for it in the aggregate. How else do you explain why this type of collecting exists only or predominantly among US collectors and with US coinage but not at all or hardly at all anywhere else or with other coins?

 

Moreover, if my explanation is not at least directionally accurate, why is it that these practices are far more widespread in the recent past in the US versus when the price level was so much lower? Yes, it is a change in preference but what I am telling you is that the two reasons I gave you are the primary reasons. If my explanation isn't exact, it certainly isn't because US collectors today are so much more "sophisticated" than those elsewhere or in the US in the past. That is, unless "sophistication" is defined by this numismatic minutia we are discussing now.

 

I can't tell you or anyone else what "high" or even "acceptable" quality is because it is exactly that, a personal preference. What I can tell you for a fact is that I know US collectors didn't hold the same opinions in the past, not where they would pay the exorbitant premiums which exist today.

 

Like I told you once before, most US collectors have the luxury of selecting from an ample, large or huge population of "high quality" coins which I do not. This is one reason why collecting here is so much more popular than in a country like South Africa where there is very little to buy from the Union series. I have provided you numerous examples where acquiring single coins from a number of series (never mind a complete set) is enough of a challenge without inventing what you describe.

[cladking]

 

Like I told you once before, most US collectors have the luxury of selecting from an ample, large or huge population of "high quality" coins which I do not. This is one reason why collecting here is so much more popular than in a country like South Africa where there is very little to buy from the Union series. I have provided you numerous examples where acquiring single coins from a number of series (never mind a complete set) is enough of a challenge without inventing what you describe.

 

The nature of a collectible determines how it will be collected. The nature of some things is that they don't or can't survive at all. Probably nobody collects gallons of milk because it's a perishable and storing it would be prohibitively expensive. "Nobody" collects different kinds of quartz sand samples because virtually every type will be as common as dirt. But if you're going to collect "Batmobiles" or the Golden Gate Bridge then you can't be too picky about condition or finding the finest example. The same applies to many of the ZAR coinage. There just aren't enough of the '96 shilling coins to worry about finding an MS-66. When a coin of the quality you seek comes along you have to act.

 

But this doesn't apply to 1879-S US dollars or 1984 cents. They were made in huge quantity and are available in a wide spread of conditions. Anyone seeking rare coins simply won't buy either of these but those who want the '79-S or the '84 are naturally going to gravitate toward the nicest specimen they can find relative the price. Both of these are available in very nice condition for very little cost and many collectors will find the "sweet spot" for price will produce a nice gemmy coin. But there are many types of collectors who collect what they collect for very diverse reasons. Some people might just want the nicest silver dollar they can find from their great grandfather's birth year Others might want the largest silver coin from every country from the 1870's. Another might be putting together a set with a specific artwork.

 

But ever since the late 1970's some collectors have been assembling sets of Gem and high grade coinage. This actually started even before the grading services which sprang up chiefly because there was a demand for high grade coins. Of course there was growing demand for authentication and accurate "grading" as well. There was even some demand for the preservation provided by the TPG's.

 

Truth to tell I believe one of the biggest reasons clads weren't collected until about 1980 has little to do with the hatred for them and even less to do with how very common they were percieved to be. It was the simple fact that most of them looked like trash and this was especially true their first several years. You'd get a brand new Ike and it looked like it kicked around on the floor of the mint for weeks first. It's only natural that when people began paying so much attention to the quality of '79-S dollars back in 1980 that some would notice that all Kennedy half dollars were not created equal. It's only natural that when something exists in large numbers that collectors are more interested in quality and that that quality is more affordable and more available. It might seem that there is undue focus on high grades and frankly I would agree with this assessment but part of my agreement is that we all have different definitions for what constitutes quality. It's this difference that would seem to eventually drive the demand for more descriptive and more defined grading standards

 

The market will probably evolve in this direction eventually. Zar coinage might never be collected by minutia of grading characteristics but finding the right '96 shiling for the money will become easier.

[World Colonial]

I agree with you on the evolution of collecting. We just have a difference of opinion on the significance of the changes we have covered. You and many other US collectors find this specialization to be of significance or very significant.

 

I do not because I see no substantive difference whatsoever in the appearance between most of these coins and the numerous or almost innumerable number others that to most but US collectors are virtually identical. But if I did prefer them (as in not just US moderns), I would probably follow the same practice for the reason I gave earlier. Completing the set in one day or one week is pointless and presents no challenge at all.

 

Using the example of South Africa, the one thing that market has in common with the US is that the collectors I know there have a similar practice of exaggerating the significance of this minutia, except that they only do so with grade.

 

While I have no interest in it, it does indicate a strong collecting culture here. Without it, there would be far fewer collectors. So to go back to the original question:

 

Yes, I agree collectors should buy semi-PL if that is what they like.

 

Yes, I think the TPG should add it as a designation on the holder if this is what their customers want.

 

No, I don't think these coins should sell for substantial premiums but it isn't my money.

 

Hopefully, we can at least agree on this conclusion.

 

 

[cladking]

 

Hopefully, we can at least agree on this conclusion.

 

 

Actually it seems we're in much closer agreement about things than is usually apparent. Our biggest differences are in predicting the future which as we all know is the most difficult thing to predict.

 

It is entirely possible that someday most collectors will want one of every type of coin that has ever been minted and won't care much about sets or grades. Some good arguments can be made that things will actually evolve this way. I myself have a world silver type collection (it even includes some nice ZAR). The emphasis on quality and high grade probably is at least a little overblown and the pendulums never stop.

 

There are lots of cycles and lots of pendulums and the future will always unfold based on things that haven't happened yet and are unpredictable. I read the tea leaves my way and you read them your's. So long as we're having fun everything else should take care of itself.

 

The one pendulum that seems more predictable than most is that collectors will probably desire more descriptive grading and better defined terms for grading. Even this is hardly a sure thing. There are some advantages to the current system and the status quo always has supremacy at the moment.

[coinman1794]

Here's my descriptive nomenclature for coin field luster/reflectivity progression:

 

[Matte -> Frosty -> Satiny -> Glossy -> Semi-Prooflike -> Prooflike (PL) -> Deep Mirror Prooflike (DMPL) -> Ultra Deep Mirror Prooflike (UDM)]

 

Welcome.

 

One could quibble about the definitions of a few of the terms like "satiny" but this is the idea. Each coin could have a descriptive grade attached.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing two or even three levels of Semi- PL.

 

If you want the TPGs to describe the luster like this, why not also describe the strike (and assign it a level - full, strong, weak, etc.). Or describe the eye appeal (pleasing, ugly, average, etc.)

 

This is, more or less, the system that Accugrade used to use on their earliest slabs. They described the strike and luster on an ABC (for stike) and 123 (for luster) scale.

 

I find this progression chart to be problematic. It’s just fine as a list of possible surface textures, but they do not occur naturally in the order in which they are listed.

 

Most dies follow the following progression:

 

Satin or Matte – Frosty—Die Erosion Granularity

 

Some dies are resurfaces during their lifetime, and progress like so:

 

Satin/Matte – Frosty – [Polishing] DMPL/PL—Semi-PL—Glossy—Satiny—Frosty—Die Erosion Granularity

 

Other dies were created PL, and progress in this way:

 

DMPL/PL—Semi-PL—Glossy—Satiny—Frosty—Die Erosion Granularity

 

And, you guessed it, some dies that were created as PL have undergone a resurfacing during their life time, thus creating:

 

DMPL/PL—Semi-PL—Glossy—Satiny—Frosty— [Polishing] DMPL/PL—Semi-PL—Glossy—Satiny—Frosty—Die Erosion Granularity

 

Notes:

 

Most dies start out with either Satin or Matte Finishes.

 

A die refinishing could occur at any time during the progression.

 

Whether DMPL or just PL is achieved in a progression depends on either how much of a mirror the initial die finish had, or the degree to which the refinished die was polished.

 

[coinman1794]

 

This is especially true in the internet age but wasn't as much in the past. If I collected the most widely collected US series, I could literally complete most of them in "high quality" in one day or one week. The primary obstacle to completing them in one day wouldn't be the difficulty in finding the coins but the time required to perform enough internet searches or making the necessary phone calls.

 

Good that you put high quality in quotes because therein is exactly the problem. Each collector has a different definition of "high quality". In every series there are characteristics which are difficult or impossible to find and can't be sorted with search enginines because our definitions are what they are. Bust halfs are tough to find with thick original luster. Morgan dollars are tough with full strikes, and most clad varieties are tough with even strikes from new dies.

 

If you don't care about the kind of "high quality" you get then of course with millions of coins graded and search engines you can put together just about any high grade set you want with nothing but money.

 

Try putting together a set of semi PL Lincoln Memorial cents!!! If you find this too easy then you can start on four step Jeffersons in Gem with complete strikes from new dies. After this get back to me and tell me how easy US coins are.

 

Everyone has different tastes in all things but with current definitions and

perspectives we're all served soup.

 

Yes, it is virtually impossible to collect Semi-PL Lincolns over the internet, but they can be found in person. This is one of those series where there is an exception to the rule, as PL qualities are extremely scarce on Bronze Lincolns. In fact, there has only been one example ever graded full PL, that I am aware of. The semi-PL designation would be utterly meaningless on newer Lincolns, however.