"Just Having Fun" MS68 PCGS Slab! 0

[Afterword]

I would think at higher grades such as this special oversight to prevent over-grading would be in place. The TPGs would certainly be aware that these higher grades would draw more stringent scrutiny.

 

Perhaps the coin in question possesses sufficient superior qualities to override the flaws everyone is focusing on. If you took away these flaws would it make the coin a more acceptable MS-68 or, to the graders at least, an MS-69?

 

What is the most important quality that a coin can possess in terms of determining grade and how much influence does it have on the grade compared to other qualities that a coin possesses? Perhaps eye-appeal is not at the top of that list.

 

[mumu]

I am not guaranteeing but only suggesting nefarious possibilities.

 

If you could create wealth with the slightest movement from left to right of your finger on a computer keyboard would you ever be tempted to wield such power in favor of a beneficial relationship?

 

Human beings have been tempted by much more complex requirements to achieve much less nefarious profit.

Edited May 8, 2016 by mumu

[robec1347]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

 

They are clearly post-strike abrasions/hits. Either we're looking at different coins, or you need to get your eyes checked.

 

Thank you thats absolutely incorrect. Thanks for your pretty red arrows though.... those were exactly what I was talking about NOT BEING HITS, and they still arent.... I'll check my eyes if you go look at some coins... clearly you could use some experience.

 

AHFreak, the red arrows were there the first time I posted that picture on PAGE 2 of this thread. If you would have read the whole thread, you would know that.

 

As for them somehow being pre-strike planchet anomalies, you are simply wrong. As physics-fan has pointed out in his post above this one, that guess fails the logic test for how coins are actually struck between dies.

 

Is it possible the marks are the result of a strike through?

[EleMint Man]

How can a strike look au53?

 

Like this? I've heard the coins in the OGH aka "Rattlers" were graded more stringently.

More often than not, I find that to be the case.

 

Exhibit #1:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1881-1-au53-pcgs-pcgs-population-25-10912-ngc-census-43-9220-mintage-9-163-975-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem/a/131337-26184.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515#

 

Exhibit #2:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1881-cc-1-au53-ngc-ngc-census-6-9887-pcgs-population-6-19652-mintage-296-000-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem-f/a/131530-27834.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515#

 

 

 

 

So you are assigning a grade to the singular element of strike, which happens to coincide with the 70 scale used to do determine overall grade based mostly on wear, of which strike is a singular of many elements of? Is that correct?

 

I am just pointing out that while that may work for you own selection of coin, and there would be nothing wrong with that as I too value strike heavily in liking a coin, it has very little real world impact on grade, and as in the case of with the owner of the most expensive coin ever sold "the strike doesn't matter one bit".

 

Not to mention the fact that neither of those two AU coins, nor the MS64 coin's assigned grade had anything to do with strike.... that first one is a great looking, weakly struck MS coin, which is why it is limited at 64. Those other two were coins that had been slightly circulated... if you can't see that, I would practice up on your grading skills.

 

 

Being that I started learning how to grade last summer, I'm told I'm not half bad

at grading by seasoned dealers. In fact, I'm asked about my opinion on new material they acquire. Heck, your never too old to learn more!

 

After much ruminating on the remarks on this thread, I have found the Holy Grail of

Roosevelt's "Just For Fun's" identical twin for a fraction of the price tag. Enjoy!

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1947-D-Roosevelt-Dime-Monster-Gem-BU-Full-Band-Awesome-Toning-/121830427772?hash=item1c5da8cc7c

 

[PocketArt]

Beautiful Roosevelt but doesn't appear full torch- the vertical lines look a bit mushy about 3/4 up.

 

Nice though!

Edited May 8, 2016 by PocketArt

[AHFreak]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

 

They are clearly post-strike abrasions/hits. Either we're looking at different coins, or you need to get your eyes checked.

 

Thank you thats absolutely incorrect. Thanks for your pretty red arrows though.... those were exactly what I was talking about NOT BEING HITS, and they still arent.... I'll check my eyes if you go look at some coins... clearly you could use some experience.

 

AHFreak, the red arrows were there the first time I posted that picture on PAGE 2 of this thread. If you would have read the whole thread, you would know that.

 

As for them somehow being pre-strike planchet anomalies, you are simply wrong. As physics-fan has pointed out in his post above this one, that guess fails the logic test for how coins are actually struck between dies.

 

 

I never said they were pre-strike anomalies. They are not. Nor do they have anything to do with planchet roughness. I have no interest in getting into a technical conversation about the minting process. It makes no difference to me what they are, I'm simply pointing out that they are not hits, or scrapes, or bag marks. In other words it's not contact or damage. It came right out of the dies just like that. I have countless Franklins and pre1970 Kennedys that are bothe UNC and Proof with the exact same markings, and I'm not talking about bunch of bagged up raw coins. Im talking MS66 and better business strikes, and PR67 and better proofs. NGC and PCGS graded. PF3.14 I appreciate your thought out logic, but I can assure you they come on other areas of the devices... not just the "high points"... I couldn't care less if anyone believes me or not, what the red arrows point to on this ms68 dime simply are not hits.

[AHFreak]

Ok lets just pretend for one second they are hits/scrapes.... Can someone please just for a second tell me what kind of force it would take for ANOTHER DIME coming in contact with the coin in question to literally remove metal and leave gouges like that? Gouges that are thicker than the width of any dime ever made? I'm just curious what you guys think it would take for contact with other dimes to gouge metal like that, as far as the physics of it.? Maybe u could answer that PH3.14?

 

I might be the only I'd iot who looks at mainly 1950-1970 coins literallt all day long, every day for my living.... hopefully for everyone who isn't understanding what I'm saying, someone with a little more credibility around here will chime in and explain what those are, because all I know is they areally not hits/scrapes/etc... period end. In a photo they look 10 times more noticeable than they are in hand. IMO, it's because under light. Especially when grading a coin, they are hardly even noticeable. Opposed to bag marks/ hits/scrapes/ abrasions where when viewed under light they jump right out at you as the light reflects off said marks. These are nothing like that.

 

For anyone who truly is convinced otherwise, how many 50-60 Era coins are you looking at under light and submitting for grading everyday?

[AHFreak]

If the two marks labeled with red arrows are incuse, then the only way to make them during manufacture is by having corresponding raised features on the die. If the features are on the die, then thousands might have been made with identical marks (but no red arrows...).

 

I literally have countless coins that prove otherwise. Again, Im not talking bagged up b.s. strike KEnnedys (aren't they all bagged up anyways?)... I am talking about proofs, again, markings like this are extremely extremely common on early proof Franklins, I am going to try to post a picture of a 1950 PF66+.... they have the same/similar markings on both the obverse and reverse devices.... everyone here should be able to agree they although they look similar, they are not hits/scrapes/or bag marks... otherwise, they wouldn't be on a proof coin graded PF66+ (currently in a ngc holder but was in a PCGS holder before that, graded PR66+. I did not cross it, I cracked it and sent it raw, meaning that both NGC and PCGS graded the coin a 66+ this year. absolutely wouldn't happen on a proof with bag marks/scrapes/hits/etc..

 

Roger, Im glad you chimed in, tell me what you think after you see the pic I will post shortly.

[mumu]

If the two marks labeled with red arrows are incuse, then the only way to make them during manufacture is by having corresponding raised features on the die. If the features are on the die, then thousands might have been made with identical marks (but no red arrows...).

 

You find em and well get the red arrows on them.

[AHFreak]

Im about to post them.. I will need someone to handle that MUMU. I can look at and discuss coins, but red arrows on photos are waaayyyyy above my range of abilities.

[AHFreak]

OK, First of all, I took these photos directly from HA's site, completed auctions.

 

First pictures are of a 1950 Proof Franklin. NGC graded PF67. Can we all agree if there were scrapes and bag marks all over the coin, that they wouldn't give it a 67? I agree, and I grade them... regularly. so if you don't agree, try looking at a few, then grade some;)

 

 

 

Now we have a business strike 1950 Franklin, MS67 is the grade.

 

 

Here are some Kennedys all MS67's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The exact same markings are on dimes, quarters, and halves from the same period... Not sure what they are, not sure I need to know the scientific extent of what they are.... I just know they are not hits/scrapes/dings/etc... The same exact way I know the two markings on the lower portion of the torch are not hits/scrapes/dings/abrasions/etc..

 

Before the next person calls me out, go look at some silver coins from the 50's and 60's and then lets chat;)

[MJ]

And there is a big crack on the bell

 

mark

[SkyMan]

Getting back to some factual data about this coin, it was lot 763 in the JHF 1/4/09 Superior auction. It did not sell (e.g. it didn't make it's reserve).

 

I do NOT know which are the more factual pictures, but there is a lot more visible color on the eBay pix of the 1964-D than on the catalogue pix.

 

EDITED TO ADD: The pix 2 posts above were added while I was adding the above post.

 

I've only been grading Franklins for 25+ years now, so I guess I just don't know how to do it. Those are nicks and dings. By definition a coin CAN have them up through a 69 grade.

[AHFreak]

And there is a big crack on the bell

 

mark

 

Shoot... I thought that crack was just on the holder.. Let me go find one that's not cracked

 

BRB

Edited May 9, 2016 by AHFreak

[AHFreak]

Getting back to some factual data about this coin, it was lot 763 in the JHF 1/4/09 Superior auction. It did not sell (e.g. it didn't make it's reserve).

 

I do NOT know which are the more factual pictures, but there is a lot more visible color on the eBay pix than on the catalogue pix.

 

EDITED TO ADD: The pix 2 posts above were added while I was adding the above post.

 

I've only been grading Franklins for 25+ years now, so I guess I just don't know how to do it. Those are nicks and dings. By definition a coin CAN have them up through a 69 grade.

 

These "nicks and dings" are more common on PROOF Franklins than b.s. how do you suppose those nicks and dings got on these proofs? Keep in mind we are talking 1950 and 1951 proofs, handled one at a time, by hand, never coming into contact with anything other than human hands and cellophone before being tucked into a proof set box?

[coinman_23885]

These "nicks and dings" are more common on PROOF Franklins than b.s. how do you suppose those nicks and dings got on these proofs? Keep in mind we are talking 1950 and 1951 proofs, handled one at a time, by hand, never coming into contact with anything other than human hands and cellophone before being tucked into a proof set box?

 

Coins can acquire hits through cellophane. Browse eBay and you will see no shortage of early proof sets with the cello folded over and stapled together, allowing ample opportunity for the coins to clang together.

 

Nevertheless, your entire argument is predicated upon a striking anomaly. How is it that the metal never completely filled the die and yet (1) it was not the lowest point in the die and (2) we have a very strong strike (on the dime)?

 

Robec mentions a strike through, but there are even breaks in what I have labeled as a hit in the bottom. It would seem very unlikely to have that many strike throughs on one coin. More importantly, how could one make a principled distinction that could be consistently applied in grading these (i.e. strike throughs that look like this v. hit)?

 

Edited to add: I find it interesting that you chose the Franklin Half Dollar as one of the representative series to make your point - the series is notorious for grade inflation.

 

The following are the minimum standards for eye appeal on high grades: MS/PR68 – Must have positive eye appeal MS/PR67 – Must have above average eye appeal MS/PR66 – Cannot have below average eye appeal MS/PR65 – Cannot have negative eye appeal. AMS/PR65 coin can have below average luster or color (toning) if it is outstanding in every other way.

 

 

The hits, gouges, "voids," or {insert preferred term here} seem to detract from the eye appeal; at least the PVC colored stuff accents the brown toning reasonably well.

 

I find it interesting that PCGS has a code for putting coins with mint made planchet flaws in genuine holders. Those coins are as struck. Why should putative striking abnormalities be treated differently? It would seem that in market grading (which PCGS does), everything matters.

Edited May 9, 2016 by coinman_23885

[Hard Times]

I will be the first to admit I don't collect coins of this era in such uber grades. I don't find it reasonable to spend $10K on an uber grade for a very common coin - for that much money, one could instead, for example (of many), get a Dahlonega half eagle in AU where only 50 or so are extant and you get alot more history for the buck. ..

 

AH all of the images you show have lots of post strike damage, no question about that. Whether it happened in the mint or later, they are still there. One could argue that they are in the planchets that don't get struck up but then this would imply that planchet preparation was not so great or there were striking issues in that era - doubt this is true. So doesn't matter where all of these hits came from, they are hits and strongly detract in all of the images you show and the 68 OP roosevelt dime.

 

Apparently these marks are acceptable on uber grades for these series according to both NGC and PCGS grading standards as you show with your images. Yikes. If I buy anything at 65 or higher, I sure don't want a coin with so many detracting marks. Especially if they are common coins from that era. I would rather collect 64-65 and pick ones with few marks and cost little. That is just me and what I like. Here is an example below of a 65 from that era that I own and paid $50 for - it has marks, but more than those you show in uber grades? Maybe. No worries, I can buy 200 of these for $10K.

 

HST, it seems there must be a heck of alot of grade inflation in these series - I guess some coins get resubmitted again and again until they finally make uber grade - If you pay $50 for a coin and a grade bump or two is $10K, you can try 10-20 times and still make a killing. JMHO, that Roosevelt in 68 with damaged torch might have been resubmitted many times(?) to make that grade....

 

Best, HT

 

 

 

[Afterword]

Is the dime in the opening post an MS-68? Why do Franklins appear to be graded so generously? Does strike affect grade? Does one quality of a coin outweigh another?

 

These are just some of the questions presented in this thread. None of which have been answered adequately.

 

There are many unknowns and uncertainties. Exciting, is it not?

 

[AHFreak]

These "nicks and dings" are more common on PROOF Franklins than b.s. how do you suppose those nicks and dings got on these proofs? Keep in mind we are talking 1950 and 1951 proofs, handled one at a time, by hand, never coming into contact with anything other than human hands and cellophone before being tucked into a proof set box?

 

Coins can acquire hits through cellophane. Browse eBay and you will see no shortage of early proof sets with the cello folded over and stapled together, allowing ample opportunity for the coins to clang together.

 

Nevertheless, your entire argument is predicated upon a striking anomaly. How is it that the metal never completely filled the die and yet (1) it was not the lowest point in the die and (2) we have a very strong strike (on the dime)?

 

Robec mentions a strike through, but there are even breaks in what I have labeled as a hit in the bottom. It would seem very unlikely to have that many strike throughs on one coin. More importantly, how could one make a principled distinction that could be consistently applied in grading these (i.e. strike throughs that look like this v. hit)?

 

Edited to add: I find it interesting that you chose the Franklin Half Dollar as one of the representative series to make your point - the series is notorious for grade inflation.

 

The following are the minimum standards for eye appeal on high grades: MS/PR68 – Must have positive eye appeal MS/PR67 – Must have above average eye appeal MS/PR66 – Cannot have below average eye appeal MS/PR65 – Cannot have negative eye appeal. AMS/PR65 coin can have below average luster or color (toning) if it is outstanding in every other way.

 

 

The hits, gouges, "voids," or {insert preferred term here} seem to detract from the eye appeal; at least the PVC colored stuff accents the brown toning reasonably well.

 

I find it interesting that PCGS has a code for putting coins with mint made planchet flaws in genuine holders. Those coins are as struck. Why should putative striking abnormalities be treated differently? It would seem that in market grading (which PCGS does), everything matters.

 

Hey Coinman,

 

Every coin (95% of them anyway) from the era, Im talking cents through halves have it. Business strikes and proofs....... It is merely a coindidence that most my pics were PCGS... go look at only NGC pics and the coins from the years will have the exact same markings... They are not mint made planchet flaws..IMO they do not even have anything to do with the planchet being flawed and a more likely answer is that the coins have a high enough relief that when struck the metal doesn't entirely fill the device, so you get areas where the metal comes together in a way to cause these little anomalies. , meaning little creases or voids like this happen.

 

What everyone is failing to realize, is that we view, and grade coins while rolling them under light.... hits/scrapes/scratches/etc will reflect the light, shooting light back at the viewer saying, look at me, I am a bag mark or whatever... these absorb the light because it isn't a scratch, there is no raised metal, meaning under light they are not even noticeable unless u r looking for them... photographs show them in a way that viewing under light does not.

 

Also coinman... Your thought about the proof getting contact marks through cello.... no duh... of course a coin "could" get marked up through paper thin cello... But go figure out how a 1950 proof would get that marked up, and still make it into a PF67 holder... (NGC graded)... Then go look at every other 1950 proof in a 66 or 67 holder and notice they all have the same thing... Are they all marked up? I think not myfriend.

 

[RWB]

AH - from the photos, they all look like surface damage, and seem consistent with the comment I made earlier. FYI there are several years in the WL half series of proofs that have similar marks. They are too prominent and pervasive to be remainders from improperly polished planchets. All proofs were once handled entirely by people - some experienced and careful, and some temporary and careless.

 

BTW - no one claimed proof coins of any era were "perfect."

[mumu]

I would imagine picking the coins up off the strike area would create the occasional drop. Whether done by man or machine?

[mumu]

As an aside to RWB's BTW, just because other proof coins also have those marks and you have seen thousands of them daily, doesn't mean they aren't damage also.

[mumu]

And lastly, regardless of whether those hits are made by damage or some part of the minting process, the question remains whether a coin with those marks should be deemed a 68. There are plenty of coins that are held back because of poor minting processes. Franklin proofs are one example, 1955D Washington quarters are another and plenty of bad quality P$. Just because a coin is as minted, doesn't make that minting high grade worthy.

[brg5658]

And lastly, regardless of whether those hits are made by damage or some part of the minting process, the question remains whether a coin with those marks should be deemed a 68. There are plenty of coins that are held back because of poor minting processes. Franklin proofs are one example, 1955D Washington quarters are another and plenty of bad quality P$. Just because a coin is as minted, doesn't make that minting high grade worthy.

 

And, let's not forget the active PVC on the reverse. With that it shouldn't be in a slab at all...

 

No matter what stories people create about the defects on the fasces on the reverse -- I don't need to see it in hand, the pictures tell me enough to know that the coin in the OP is not an MS68FB dime by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I'm done with this thread...

 

[coinman1794]

How does a Roosevelt Dime with two huge hits/scrapes across the torch on the reverse grade MS68 FB? Is that active PVC on the reverse towards the top of the torch?

 

Kenny, these were my exact same thoughts.

 

This is a blatant example of a little color massively inflating the grade of an otherwise truly pedestrian coin. The gashes on the fasces on the reverse would bring this coin down to an MS66 IMO. And, the color isn't even that great. I have NO idea how this got into an MS68FB holder. Is this really the best surviving example of the 1.3 billion minted? I'm also not convinced that "green stuff" on the upper reverse is toning -- looks like active PVC to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "gashes" are probably strike-thru imprints. That is the only possibly way this could grade higher than MS65. The bands appear to be very weak. Otherwise, the coin looks nice, except for the residue, which may or may not be PVC.

Edited May 9, 2016 by coinman1794

[AHFreak]

They are definately not strike throughs coinman , Although in terms of how they are seen in hand, they are much more comparable to strike throughs then they are to hits/dings/scrapes/etc...

 

Instead of everyone being so quick to right me and my remarks as I'm some blind insufficiently_thoughtful_person, can we try to put our minds together and figure out what they really are? Cause I'm 100% sure the marks in the dime and all the coins I posted pictures of are not anything along the lines of hits/drops/ scrapes/ gouges/ dings/ etc.

 

everyone picture for a second a coin that has 10 small and minor struck through small bits of thread on the obverse of the coin... this is very common on 1965-1967 SMS Kennedys, and to have a coin with 10+ small struck through threads is not hard to find. I see them frequently. Take that coin with 10 of those, and imagine 2 scratches/ bag marks/ dings/ etc in said coin... now imagine the coin is under light, rotating, like how u do when grading a coin... well those struck throughs will look nothing like the scratches because of how the scratches reflect the light, struck throughs do not reflect light they absorb it. That is how u find issues on coins is by hitting it at the right angle so the light illuminates them and therefore pointing them out. Agreed?

 

The struck throughs, while being very obvious in a photo are no where near as obvious when said coin is in hand being rotated under light. Think about that for a second. Think about why that is..

 

Now, if I haven't lost you yet, and if u care enough to be reading still, picture these anomalies we have been talking about behaving exactly how struck throughs behave...(while rotated under light). That's how these minor anomalies are, very obvious in a photo, appearing almost exactly like hits/dings... but in hand, very nondistracting and majority of the time completely unnoticeable at all. (Obviously the ones on the dime are relatively extreme). But still in hand, They look nothing like hits and dings. They look more like what a struck through would look like.

 

I'd be curious to know what causes it, if someone like RWB, or PF3.14 could allow themselves to understand what I'm actually saying before telling me to check my eyes, my head, or my understanding of simple science and how it relates to the minting process, I am confident one of you brilliant bastards could humor all of us by figuring out what causes them. Im quote certain it has nothing to do with the planchet.

 

One other thing, for all of you convinced these are all scratches/ dings/ hits/ etc.... think about what happens to the surface of the coin when something hito it hard enough to leave a mark... the metal is simply moved, displaced... it's never just gone or removed in any scenario in which hits/ dings happen to coins. Go look at a traditional bag mark, u will notice that next to where the metal is "dented" in, it is also raised.. this is the case on every single scenario where coins have dings/ bag marks/ scratches/ hits... the metal is displaced not evaporated... now go look at the coins I popted pictureso of... those are literally craters and gouges where there is no metal... WHERE DID ALL THAT METAL GO if these were traditional hits/ dings as so many of you are insisting? They flat out are not hits/ dings...

 

Regardless of whether or not coins with these anomalies should be graded the same as coins without them is irrelevant to me, I couldn't care less about that. Although I don't think they take away or detract from a coin grade wise ever, and I doubt any of you would be to worried about the markings had you first viewed the coin in hand instead of in pics. .

 

I am hoping that some of you who have commented about why you are right and I am wrong will get out of your own head long enough to read this post of mine and actually think about what I just threw out there, mainly, where did all that missing metal go when these coins were dropped/ dinged/scratched/ bruised/abused/molested/bagged up or whatever it was that caused these markings that you are insisting is literal damage.... ?

 

PF3.14, I'm still waiting for you to figure out and share with me what kind of force it would take for two dimes colliding to cause the gouges on the reverse torch of the ms68 1964 dime we are talking about here? If it wasn't caused by two dimes colliding, think of the other possible ways damage happens to a UNC MS coin and again, figure out the force required to cause a situation like what's on the reverse torch... dont go disappearing on me now.. im genuinely asking for your scientifically derived thought process to answer that.

Edited May 9, 2016 by AHFreak

[numisport]

One of the worst looking 1950 proof 67 Franklins I've ever seen. Note these are striations that didn't strike out, not hits. Also referred to as pitting, this is typical of 1950 proof coins. It's a 10k coin if it had deep mirrors and cameo devices. These kinds of coins end up at Heritage because no dealer could keep a straight face with that proof 67 label on it.

[coinman_23885]

AHFreak - No one here thinks or has suggested that you are an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. We disagree and are trying to have an intellectual discussion (or at least I was despite some of the distractions that dilute the discussion). I do not claim to know everything, so I always ask detailed questions before making up my mind even if I think I am correct and the issue straightforward. My initial post was interrogatory in nature for a reason.

 

My point is that whatever we want to call the marks, I do not believe the coin falls within the grading criteria or eye appeal standards that the services have announced for the grade of MS68 FB. If there is a change in standards, then it is a topic worthwhile of discussion and one that I would think modern coin collectors would want to participate in. If I collected condition rarity modern coins, coins like this would terrify me.

 

Imagine that you have a coin with a population of 3 or 4, and it is tied numerically for finest known. Imagine that two have imperfections and appear at auction, and then a third example appears without the distractions. Given that the other examples that have sold at auction had defects and provide the only pricing records, do you not think that the defective coins would artificially lower the price expectation of the good coin(s)? Most collectors look at auction records superficially without looking at the substance of the coin that sold. To be sure this is not unique to modern coins, but the effects seem much more pronounced IMHO. The coin may have a price guide value of $10k in the plastic, but outside of the plastic, based on the images, I struggle to see someone paying more than a few bucks given what I perceive to be defects. If I had a PQ, pristine condition rarity, I would worry that the increasing populations (caused in part by grade inflation) would destroy my investment.

 

Edited to add: Of course I am basing my comments on the photo, which is all we have to go on, but I find it hard to believe that an expert would leave a photo like that up to sell a $10k if the coin looked substantially better in hand. I respect Mitch very much, and do think he is observant enough that he would not overlook how the coin would be perceived to the public and would acknowledge this in the description (e.g. "Coin looks better in hand; what appear to be hits are really XYZ phenomenon... etc.").

Edited May 10, 2016 by coinman_23885

[Afterword]

"Imagine that two have imperfections and appear at auction, and then a third example appears without the distractions. Given that the other examples that have sold at auction had defects and provide the only pricing records, do you not think that the defective coins would artificially lower the price expectation of the good coin(s)?"

 

 

 

Is there not always lesser quality within any given grade of coin? Is that not why there is always a wide range of prices realized for the same type of coin in the same grade?

 

Assuming your statement below is correct, which I have my doubts, would there not still be enough knowledgeable/experienced collectors to compete for the superior example and realize an appropriate price?

 

 

 

"Most collectors look at auction records superficially without looking at the substance of the coin that sold."

 

 

 

This is a grim review of the numismatic community. I hope you are wrong.

 

I am not attacking you - just seeking clarification.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[numisport]

Unfortunately coinman is right on the mark. Price guides do reflect mostly auction results unless dealers report local sales. I once talked to a consignor at Heritage about selling some cameo Franklins and was given grim expectations on results. He referred me to past auction results of 550 at low end to 1350 on high end for a particular coin. Because I paid 1900 I decided to consign back to the original dealer I purchased from and after a few weeks it sold for 1800. Not that bad huh.This is just one example. Beware of buying or selling at auction. You usually get what you pay for.