"Just Having Fun" MS68 PCGS Slab! 0

[coinman_23885]

One thing I wanted to mention .... many here repeatedly commented about whether the dime was worth $10,000 or was graded properly for a $10,000 coin, etc. The number "$10,000" continued to come up. But, keep in mind, I had a "best offer" on the coin on ebay. So, obviously, I was prepared to accept less for the coin (and on top of that pay ebay and paypal fees).

 

This is interesting to me, because I think most of the comments were focused on whether it belonged in a MS68 FB holder; that is, the grade rather than the price was the largest point of contention.

 

With regards to price, it is JHF's property and he is free to ask whatever he wants for it. I don't think most here would dispute that.

[Hard Times]

If you can get a green bean on it, then the ceiling is significantly higher.

 

Best, HT

 

Be very hard for that to happen as, if one knows CAC or bothers to look at their website...."Ten Cents (Dimes) 1796-1945 " is what they do.

 

No dimes after 1945 (ie...all Roosevelts)......

 

Now, one could go and try to QA it, but not sure what that would add....

 

I think HT's post was sarcasm.

 

Actually it was not. It had escaped me that CAC does not do post 1945 since I never had had coins of that type to submit, so I had not bothered to read what they don't bean. Given that I have submitted over 100 to CAC and learned a heck of alot, I was thinkin' 'now what would JA think, it would add alot of credibility to the grade if it got the bean'. But Bochi is correct, and we will never know...

 

Best, HT

[braddick]

It's interesting CAC will sticker a clad Ike dollar yet not this silver dime.

[coinman_23885]

It's interesting CAC will sticker a clad Ike dollar yet not this silver dime.

 

I agree. I would have thought CAC would have taken all coins prior to 1964 before doing mint state Eisenhower Dollars.

[mumu]

It's interesting CAC will sticker a clad Ike dollar yet not this silver dime.

 

You spelled stupid wrong.

[bochiman]

It's interesting CAC will sticker a clad Ike dollar yet not this silver dime.

 

You spelled stupid wrong.

 

Dang. You just hate other people's way of doing business, don't you?

I suppose you would do it much better than CAC has done?

 

All YOUR decisions would be the right ones?

 

They have their reasons, but obviously, you know better, so therefore, they are "stupid"?

[physics-fan3.14]

On top of that, I have been building a private collection of business strike "Proof Like" Silver Roosies for the past (3) decades and have put together a nice little group of them.

 

Ah, now you've really piqued my interest. It would be awesome if you could start a new thread and share this collection (or, link to a Registry set?)

 

I am building a Prooflike Type Set (7070) here on the NGC registry (link in the signature below). I currently have 3 PL silver Roosies, although not in top grades.

[mumu]

It's interesting CAC will sticker a clad Ike dollar yet not this silver dime.

 

You spelled stupid wrong.

 

Dang. You just hate other people's way of doing business, don't you?

I suppose you would do it much better than CAC has done?

 

All YOUR decisions would be the right ones?

 

They have their reasons, but obviously, you know better, so therefore, they are "stupid"?

 

I am not a professional grader, so no I couldn't do it better. But I am a lifelong opinion haver, so I do that a lot.

[jom]

It's interesting CAC will sticker a clad Ike dollar yet not this silver dime.

 

You spelled stupid wrong.

 

 

jom

[Wondercoin]

"Ah, now you've really piqued my interest. It would be awesome if you could start a new thread and share this collection (or, link to a Registry set?"

 

Physics-fan - I really enjoyed looking at your registry set and your comments that went with it. Super set!

 

My PL coins are not as organized as yours. I would find one here and one there (over a 30+ year period) and place them, as they came in, in this safe deposit box or that one.

 

A couple years ago, I gathered up a handful of lovely PL Roosies and presented them to PCGS with the request that they consider adopting the PL standard for coin series beyond Morgan Dollars and a few other things (e.g. UHR's). They had the coins for a few months (and I was hopeful), but they decided at the time to not extend their PL designations. But, they did return my Roosies to me in PL designated holders, although without different coin numbers for the PL, so the designated holders were for my enjoyment only. I, too, wish PCGS would adopt the PL designation for all coin series, but then again, if they did, it might become tempting to slab some of my nicer coins and consider selling a few dupes. This way at least, there is no need to submit the coins and nothing gets sold.

 

I do have some spectacular 1971-S to 1974-S MS Silver Ikes in various degrees of PL (including some fairly deep examples). They were around in the 1980's with enough hunting. Less so today. It looks like you might be looking for an example for your set? If I find my group of them, I'll see if there is a nice dupe I can let go.

 

Wondercoin

Edited May 22, 2016 by Wondercoin

[Hard Times]

I'll see if there is a nice dupe I can let go.

 

Wondercoin

 

Dupes are normally '2nds' and not the highest quality in the set. My years of experience with physics is that he wants the top quality, not next to top. He is also one of the top graders not hired to grade professionally (he wrote a book on it), so he will have a critical eye - I showed him a stunner at the last FUN show with a 'hidden' and subtle mark and within 10 seconds of a full perusal of the coin he was able to point it out, where the majority would have missed it......... So you might want to offer him your top examples instead.

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I'll see if there is a nice dupe I can let go.

 

Wondercoin

 

Dupes are normally '2nds' and not the highest quality in the set. My years of experience with physics is that he wants the top quality, not next to top. He is also one of the top graders not hired to grade professionally (he wrote a book on it), so he will have a critical eye - I showed him a stunner at the last FUN show with a 'hidden' and subtle mark and within 10 seconds of a full perusal of the coin he was able to point it out, where the majority would have missed it......... So you might want to offer him your top examples instead.

 

Best, HT

 

I would think Mr. Wondercoin uses the word "dupes" in a somewhat different manner. I would think given his experience and obvious enjoyment of the hobby, that dupes in his vernacular means equal, at least as he views the coins. I for one would not assume he means lesser quality in that regard, and would hope not after our recent exchange concerning the word "fine".

 

I am also of the opinion that there are many top graders that are not hired professionally, and are unknown in general circles, including many on this board.

[brg5658]

A couple years ago, I gathered up a handful of lovely PL Roosies and presented them to PCGS with the request that they consider adopting the PL standard for coin series beyond Morgan Dollars and a few other things (e.g. UHR's). They had the coins for a few months (and I was hopeful), but they decided at the time to not extend their PL designations. But, they did return my Roosies to me in PL designated holders, although without different coin numbers for the PL, so the designated holders were for my enjoyment only. I, too, wish PCGS would adopt the PL designation for all coin series, but then again, if they did, it might become tempting to slab some of my nicer coins and consider selling a few dupes. This way at least, there is no need to submit the coins and nothing gets sold.

 

Wondercoin

 

Are you serious, they added PL to the grade line on your coins? Wow, it must be nice to have the graders wrapped around your little finger. That is a bit disturbing...

 

And they say grading is completely blinded and impartial!

[nk1nk]

I think this thread has turned to a new topic and should probably start fresh with a new thread. I would like to see a picture of these supposed PL designated PCGS slabs, that would be something to see. I would also like to see the PL Ike's.

 

I'm not a huge sticker guy but I've always wondered why someone like Jason or another proof like expert hasn't started a CAC type approval sticker service for coins slabbed but not designated PL that meet the criteria. I know MAC stickers coins with a PL sticker but only on modern coins. Along with the sticker service you could also approve already labeled PL coins as PQ. If there is already something like this let me know. Thanks

 

Nick

[physics-fan3.14]

"Ah, now you've really piqued my interest. It would be awesome if you could start a new thread and share this collection (or, link to a Registry set?"

 

Physics-fan - I really enjoyed looking at your registry set and your comments that went with it. Super set!

 

My PL coins are not as organized as yours. I would find one here and one there (over a 30+ year period) and place them, as they came in, in this safe deposit box or that one.

 

A couple years ago, I gathered up a handful of lovely PL Roosies and presented them to PCGS with the request that they consider adopting the PL standard for coin series beyond Morgan Dollars and a few other things (e.g. UHR's). They had the coins for a few months (and I was hopeful), but they decided at the time to not extend their PL designations. But, they did return my Roosies to me in PL designated holders, although without different coin numbers for the PL, so the designated holders were for my enjoyment only. I, too, wish PCGS would adopt the PL designation for all coin series, but then again, if they did, it might become tempting to slab some of my nicer coins and consider selling a few dupes. This way at least, there is no need to submit the coins and nothing gets sold.

 

I do have some spectacular 1971-S to 1974-S MS Silver Ikes in various degrees of PL (including some fairly deep examples). They were around in the 1980's with enough hunting. Less so today. It looks like you might be looking for an example for your set? If I find my group of them, I'll see if there is a nice dupe I can let go.

 

Wondercoin

 

I would be very interested to see the PL Roosies you have, if you have pictures (and the slabs sound intriguing).

 

Did PCGS give any reason why they won't extend PL to other series? I've never heard a good reason.

 

And yes, if you have a decently high grade Ike with good mirrors that will get the NGC designation, I'd definitely be interested.

 

(Hard Times - I'm not looking for top pops. I'm looking for quality. When someone has a lot of top pops, usually their duplicates are in the range I can (or want to) afford).

[Wondercoin]

BRG: While I appreciated PCGS putting on the holder the words Prooflike on the dimes, to be honest, I was disappointed with the outcome. In fact, I have considered cracking them out of the holders and just restoring them back to the Safeflips they were in for years before (to join all my other PL coins). When I looked at them last month in the PCGS holders it brought sadness to me, not happiness. Without a special coin number recognizing how very special the dimes are, the word Prooflike is totally insignificant. Anyone other than Mr. MaGoo (youngsters better google that reference) can plainly see they are amazing Prooflikes ().

 

That said, I appreciated the effort to at least try to do a little something when the final decision went 100% against what I was seeking for all collectors of this great genre of coin collecting. I have seen PCGS do "little gestures" for collectors many times in the past (just as I have no doubt NGC has as well). I would start to list them here (a few much "cooler" than mine), but, no doubt someone would "cry foul" so why bother.

 

MrKnowitAll... Thank you. You hit the nail on the head. When I speak of "dupes", they are often sensational quality. For example, I owned the pop 1 1932-P Quarter in PCGS-MS67 for years and then the pop 3/0 coin. One toned and one white (both pictured on Coinfacts). Even with the pop 2/0 coin selling for $40,000 at a Heritage auction, I couldn't decide which one of mine to sell off and just kept "the dupe" as well. The coin is pop 5 today (last I checked) and one last sold for about $25,000. No regrets on this end though.

 

 

[Wondercoin]

Physics-fan: First, what is the name of the book you wrote? I'd love to order a copy from Amazon.

 

Regarding why PCGS did not adopt an across the board PL designation ... this is my personal opinion and not the official view of anyone at PCGS ...

 

THE COINS ARE TOO DARN RARE!

 

It would be a massive amount of time and effort to create special coin numbers for thousands upon thousands of coins and then have only one here and one there populated by a single coin or two over the next few years. For example, you mentioned in your personal set how silver Washington quarters or Roosies have a variety of "S" mint coins that can come PL on rare occasion. And, I agree, When I located a P or D mint coin from those series with amazing PL it usually made my month! PCGS would create thousands of P and D "PL" coin numbers and virtually none of the coins would ever get populated with a single coin! Hence, again, in my opinion, it was the pure dollars and cents that needed to be dedicated to such a project with very little return.

 

Wondercoin

 

 

[Wondercoin]

nk1nk: I, too, would like to see all my PL coins pictured and housed in one place. And, it is a project of mine for the future to be sure. I also have a "monster toned" collection of Proof Ike Dollars (along with my son Justin) that needs to be pictured.

 

At the moment, I currently have -49- (personal) active registry sets at PCGS. From a collecting stand point, that takes my first priority (and nearly all my time). You can often see me responding to posts here at virtually any time of day, because it is not uncommon for me to sleep 4-6 hours a night and spend the other nearly 18 hours a day "playing with coins". Virtually all the annual upgrades to my sets are "homemade" so right now I will be very busy (for the next month) with 2016 Mint Sets, S mint business strike National Park coins, etc.

 

Sorry I will not be able to get the PL collection pictured and cataloged any time soon.

 

Wondercoin

Edited May 22, 2016 by Wondercoin

[brg5658]

Physics-fan: First, what is the name of the book you wrote? I'd love to order a copy from Amazon.

 

Regarding why PCGS did not adopt an across the board PL designation ... this is my personal opinion and not the official view of anyone at PCGS ...

 

THE COINS ARE TOO DARN RARE!

 

It would be a massive amount of time and effort to create special coin numbers for thousands upon thousands of coins and then have only one here and one there populated by a single coin or two over the next few years. For example, you mentioned in your personal set how silver Washington quarters or Roosies have a variety of "S" mint coins that can come PL on rare occasion. And, I agree, When I located a P or D mint coin from those series with amazing PL it usually made my month! PCGS would create thousands of P and D "PL" coin numbers and virtually none of the coins would ever get populated with a single coin! Hence, again, in my opinion, it was the pure dollars and cents that needed to be dedicated to such a project with very little return.

 

Wondercoin

 

 

Which begs the question:

 

Why does PCGS create completely new coin numbers for designation like PL, DPL, and such. Seems the designations should be kept separately from the actual coin identifying number. Why should a PL or DCAM designated coin have a different coin number, as if it were a different "coin" not just a differently preserved example of the same non-PL and non-DCAM coin. I have never understood why they adopted such a bizarre numbering system. But, once you adopt a hair-brained indexing system like that, it's hard/impossible to change it after 30 years of application. I also have never understood why they burden their submitters and the public with their internal housekeeping / coin numbers. Why don't they just keep track of their coin number nonsense behind the scenes (in their databases), and just grade and slab the coins with the cert # (like NGC does)?

 

That being said, the new coin numbers for designating all coins PL would seem to be simple enough...don't they just add a leading "9" to the coin number for DMPL Morgans? How hard would it be to add a leading "9" (or some other digit) to the coin numbers for Roosevelt dimes graded PL?? This isn't rocket science here...

[Wondercoin]

BRG ... I am not 100% understanding you.... are you saying coins like RD, RB and BN cents should all have the same coin number?

 

Wondercoin

Edited May 22, 2016 by Wondercoin

[brg5658]

BRG ... I am not 100% understanding you.... are you saying coins like RD, RB and BN cents should all have the same coin number?

 

Wondercoin

 

Yes, why not? NGC doesn't give them separate numbers -- but they track the designations in a separate field in their databases. For example, a 1912 matte proof Lincoln Cent is what it is regardless of the color designation. The coin number should designate the coin, and the (color, DCAM, PL, FB, FH, etc.) designations should be tracked in a separate field. This is Database Design 101...

[physics-fan3.14]

Physics-fan: First, what is the name of the book you wrote? I'd love to order a copy from Amazon.

 

Sure: my book can be found at this link: The Art and Science of Grading Coins

 

BRG ... I am not 100% understanding you.... are you saying coins like RD, RB and BN cents should all have the same coin number?

 

Wondercoin

 

Yes, why not? NGC doesn't give them separate numbers -- but they track the designations in a separate field in their databases. For example, a 1912 matte proof Lincoln Cent is what it is regardless of the color designation. The coin number should designate the coin, and the (color, DCAM, PL, FB, FH, etc.) designations should be tracked in a separate field. This is Database Design 101...

 

NGC does not have "coin numbers" in quite the same way that PCGS does. However, I have found that they do have unique identifiers in their registry. While they designate all deserving coins as PL, the Registry keys are not usually updated. About 90% of my set has had to be manually entered (which isn't a problem, given NGC's superlative customer service). I enter the coin, it gives me an error message, and within a day (or two, at the most) NGC has added my coin to the registry. Ali E and Dena have been exceptional at helping me build my set.

 

So, the idea that "it's too much work" for PCGS is, honestly, wildly_fanciful_statement.

Edited May 23, 2016 by physics-fan3.14

[Wondercoin]

Very interesting discussion on the coin numbers. Thank you for that analysis.

 

Wondercoin

[brg5658]

BRG ... I am not 100% understanding you.... are you saying coins like RD, RB and BN cents should all have the same coin number?

 

Wondercoin

 

Yes, why not? NGC doesn't give them separate numbers -- but they track the designations in a separate field in their databases. For example, a 1912 matte proof Lincoln Cent is what it is regardless of the color designation. The coin number should designate the coin, and the (color, DCAM, PL, FB, FH, etc.) designations should be tracked in a separate field. This is Database Design 101...

 

NGC does not have "coin numbers" in quite the same way that PCGS does. However, I have found that they do have unique identifiers in their registry. While they designate all deserving coins as PL, the Registry keys are not usually updated. About 90% of my set has had to be manually entered (which isn't a problem, given NGC's superlative customer service). I enter the coin, it gives me an error message, and within a day (or two, at the most) NGC has added my coin to the registry. Ali E and Dena have been exceptional at helping me build my set.

 

So, the idea that "it's too much work" for PCGS is, honestly, wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

Jason, You're right, the NGC numbers aren't exatly like PCGS, but NGC actually does have coin numbers -- they just don't burden the collector with having to figure them out when they submit coins for grading.

 

The have what they call the "NGC Universal ID", which you can see in the screen capture below for the 1912 Matte Proof Lincoln Cent. It is an alphanumeric code that uniquely defines the coin's "date, mintmark, denomination, and striking process".

 

 

My point above was that NGC doesn't "burden" the collector with their database tracking and internal business bookkeeping nonsense. That should be an internal company issue, not the collector's problem. The "logistics" of how something is accomplished internally should not be an excuse for why a company limits what they offer to customers -- if the demand is there.

 

I personally find the whole PL and DPL designations on moderns to be a highly subjective micro-niche of collecting, so I couldn't give two hoots about it. I also often find suppose "PL" business strike coins to be very visually unattractive. But, there are a few who care and like that thing. To each his/her own.

[coinman1794]

BRG ... I am not 100% understanding you.... are you saying coins like RD, RB and BN cents should all have the same coin number?

 

Wondercoin

 

Yes, why not? NGC doesn't give them separate numbers -- but they track the designations in a separate field in their databases. For example, a 1912 matte proof Lincoln Cent is what it is regardless of the color designation. The coin number should designate the coin, and the (color, DCAM, PL, FB, FH, etc.) designations should be tracked in a separate field. This is Database Design 101...

 

NGC does not have "coin numbers" in quite the same way that PCGS does. However, I have found that they do have unique identifiers in their registry. While they designate all deserving coins as PL, the Registry keys are not usually updated. About 90% of my set has had to be manually entered (which isn't a problem, given NGC's superlative customer service). I enter the coin, it gives me an error message, and within a day (or two, at the most) NGC has added my coin to the registry. Ali E and Dena have been exceptional at helping me build my set.

 

So, the idea that "it's too much work" for PCGS is, honestly, wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

 

I personally find the whole PL and DPL designations on moderns to be a highly subjective micro-niche of collecting, so I couldn't give two hoots about it. I also often find suppose "PL" business strike coins to be very visually unattractive. But, there are a few who care and like that thing. To each his/her own.

 

The trick is finding Prooflike moderns than are visually attractive! Many modern issues from the 1960s onward, are plagued by planchet irregularities like tumbling marks; or strike-thru errors, usually from lint or grease. These flaws are especially prevalent on Prooflike surfaces.

 

Also, standards for the (non-Morgan Dollar) PL designation have become much stricter over time, and anything graded in the past decade falls under the tightest standards. There are times when older slabs emerge where the PL designation is questionable under todays standards. Collectors should be aware of these coins and use common sense when buying a Prooflike coin. Only the deepest mirrors are given a PL designation today, and once in a blue moon, a DPL comes along.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I assume the op coin has reached Heritage by now. I am interested in how the coin will be described by Heritage.

 

Mr. Feld, did you formally agree with the agent/owner of the coin to review this coin and did the agreement allow publicly comment here, as was suggested earlier in the thread?

 

Another question is how the auction description is born. Does a team review the coin, or just one grader, or just a talented writer describing appearance of the coin?

[Nutmeg Coin]

And maybe in the interest of the sunlight of the truth and a free and open awareness of numismatics they will link this forum discussion thread to the HA listing.

[Wondercoin]

As the consignor (on behalf of the owner), I would like to see Heritage describe the coin as they would any other coin in the ordinary course of their business. No better, no worse. I personally hope Mark does not say anything to the person assigned to the task of describing the coin for the catalog. This way, we can all get an unbiased, impartial and typical auction description of the coin in line with every other description of every other coin in the sale.

 

That said, anyone wishing to ask Mark's personal opinion of the coin is certainly free to do so (and with my blessing as I mentioned earlier). Again, in the typical course of Mark's business as he would with any other coin in the sale. Mark should obviously know who is speaking with, etc, etc.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Wondercoin

 

.

 

 

[mumu]

As the consignor (on behalf of the owner), I would like to see Heritage describe the coin as they would any other coin in the ordinary course of their business. No better, no worse. I personally hope Mark does not say anything to the person assigned to the task of describing the coin for the catalog. This way, we can all get an unbiased, impartial and typical auction description of the coin in line with every other description of every other coin in the sale.

.

 

 

I value your expert opinion of the coin and if had to bet that the truth was closer to yours than mine, well I am no dummie and would not even think twice. However to call the auction houses's write up unbiased is absurd. Has there every been any coin an auction house has in any way disagreed with any TPG slab, let alone a top pop? If there has been I would be surprised. Explicity speaking, there is no way they would call this coin over graded, or missing the splits.

Edited May 25, 2016 by mumu

[lehigh96]

As the consignor (on behalf of the owner), I would like to see Heritage describe the coin as they would any other coin in the ordinary course of their business. No better, no worse. I personally hope Mark does not say anything to the person assigned to the task of describing the coin for the catalog. This way, we can all get an unbiased, impartial and typical auction description of the coin in line with every other description of every other coin in the sale.

.

 

 

I value your expert opinion of the coin and if had to bet that the truth was closer to yours than mine, well I am no dummie and would not even think twice. However to call the auction houses's write up unbiased is absurd. Has there every been any coin an auction house has in any way disagreed with any TPG slab, let alone a top pop? If there has been I would be surprised. Explicity speaking, there is no way they would call this coin over graded, or missing the splits.

 

I have seen coins like this one described by Heritage (et al) in the following way, "minor marks on the reverse bands are noted for accuracy." By all accounts, the only REAL problem that anyone has had in this entire thread are those marks. If Heritage acknowledges their existence, would you concede that their description is unbiased?