To designate, or not to designate... what's next, good, bad... ???

[Hoot]

With all of the talk about designations (FT, FS, FBL, etc.) of late, I thought it would be interesting to gather as many and varied opinions in one thread. There are many questions to be posed here, but I'd like to form a single premise: we have designations and they aren't going away. So, the following questions come initially to my mind, and I know there are many more:

 

1) A two-parter: Why are the current designations so important? What do they convey to you about the series in question?

 

2) If the designations are not important to you, why? (Please omit flaming dismissals and articulate yourself ).

 

3) What, if any, designations would you like to see added to the lot and why? (e.g. full hand for Walkers).

 

4) Fully Struck vs. Well Struck... I read elsewhere (well stated) that Fully Struck coins are quite rare (I'd agree) and that a designation like Well Struck is too ambiguous, so why would we entertain going down either path?

 

5) Why pay the premium? Corrollary: Are sets constructed with coins of a particular designation any more or less impressive than ones without and why?

 

Enough questions. Please take a gander at any or all of the above and add salient questions yourself. I'd like to see as many well-articulated responses as possible, as this could be valuable for present and future understandings and directions of collection pursuits.

 

Thanks! Hoot

[jtryka]

I honestly think it depends on the series. Now in the most basic sense, all of these designations seem to be an attempt at determining how well struck the coin is. And that's fine, but as many have indicated before, having FBL or FB does not imply that the coin is fully struck. A great example is FH SLQs with shield details missing! I have a whole set of Franklins, and some are FBL and some aren't. The point is, when the price difference wasn't too outrageous, I would look at the FBL coins. On some, it just seems ludicrous to me to pay such premiums. Most importantly, I look at the coin! If the obverse caught my eye, and the reverse was good too, I bought it. On coins like Franklins (I am no expert here, but I do have a complete set), the most important thing to me was the obverse, and I found many great coins that were well struck on the obverse yet still have no FBL.

 

As far as other series go, it depends. I like the idea of FH on SLQs just because it's such an important piece of the design (who wants a liberty with no head!). On Saints, I always look at the head, and it's a way for me to see the fullness of the strike easily. So often I see coins in MS-63, 64 and even 65 holders where the face has problems. There's the pig nose liberty, the Frankenstein liberty, the dented chin liberty, and the blob face liberty, and I'm sure there are others, but each of these present problems with the overall coin, at least for me. Do I want a full head designation on Saints, not really. It doesn't bother me that there's no designation, since it's one of the things I look for anyway. If they had FH on Saints, I would still look at the head. The problem I would have is if all of a sudden the price of FH Saints skyrockets because of the designation. That always seems to be the pattern, new designation, new excuse to charge crazy prices for the same coins that were sitting in inventory yesterday. That is the part about all designations that I really hate!

 

Please excuse any of my ramblings that were incoherant.

[BankNote1]

For the most part the designations are unimportant to me. I guess if they added new designations to Morgan Dollars, I might change my mind. I do like fully struck coins but a weak strike with blazing lustre is O.K. to me as well.

 

If I was ever to buy a Franklin I would not just look for the FBL on the holder. I would look closer at the obverse, the condition of the obverse would be more important than a microscopic line on the reverse, to me.

 

The SLQ, IMO, is one of the most beautiful of all the U.S. coins. I put more importance to the FH designation than some of the other series, with designations for the reverses. But I have had several SLQ's with 80% to 90% FH, and they looked O.K. as well. I think that SLQ's that have almost a FH are way under valued. One thing I don't understand is why no one looks at the shield? A full shield or almost full shield is one thing I do look for. I must march to a different drummer?

 

I can't think of any other series that I would like to see with a designation...

[DavidSchweitz-migration]

Hoot- I don't mean to hijack your thread but I believe this is relevant to what you posted. Concerning the decision to designate full torch to rosies, I find this very unfair to current participants of the registry who have spent their hard earned money playing within the existing rules. NGC MS68 rosies have been selling for between $500 to $1500 as of late. Many, if not the vast majority of those coins will not qualify for the new designation of FT and will consequently be worth no more than what a 67FT will bring, probably a lot less. Take for example the value of an NGC MS69FB Mercury dime. This coin would be valued in the $6000 to $9000 range. I personally know of an NGC MS69 dime that is currently available for less than $1000. Are there any takers? NO, because it has little value in the registry. The same thing will happen with non full torch rosies. All the collectors that have been playing by the rules that the creators of the registry set up will now lose thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars because the rules are being changed in midstream. It surprises me that the collectors with the top sets who have been buying these coins have not spoken up about this issue. I was discussing this via email with one of these gentlemen last night and was told that he felt cheated by this change but that there was nothing he could do. I disagree, the creators of the registry should be required to foot the bill for the loss of value they will cause by this action. Just my opinion, but I am curious as to how those effected by this change view the new designation.

David Schweitz

[Hoot]

David - I don't think your answer is any kind of a hijack! It's important to air your point as a question (and I hope the other questions will still be addressed):

 

If a coin is sent for designation review and the grading company knows that it was graded before the strike designation was made, then what will be done in terms of grade/valuation guarantee? Let's say that an MS68 Roosie is sent in for FT designation. It was graded before the designation was in effect and the owner paid current value of $1000 for it. Now let's say a reputable price/market guide/value can be placed on the following: MS68 (the original grade), MS66FT, MS67FT, and MS68FT. The coin does not get an FT designation. However, the price guide indicaes the following:

 

MS68 - $600

MS68FT - $6000

MS67FT - $2500

MS66FT - $1200

 

What now? Will the guarantees that the grading company currently have to protect someone for overpriced (overgraded) material kick into effect? (Someone help me out here with the right language).

 

Hoot

[keithdagen]

Maybe to even add further to the topic, how can a Mercury Dime, or any coin for that matter, grade MS-69 without being fully struck?

 

Isn't strike a factor in grading?

[Hoot]

Isn't strike a factor in grading?

 

Sure is with buffalo nickels! (I've always been against the "full tail" or "full horn" designations with buffs. They simply do not tell the tale, so to speak !

 

We live with market grading, of which strike is a definite factor. How about that question #5 above?

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

As to #5, I think paying a ludicrous premium is, well, ludicrous! I will pay a premium for a Saint in the same grade that has better strike especially on the face, but usually people don't really ask for much if any premium. But on Saints, the face is just one area, the torch is an issue too, as is the torch hand. You can look at the folds in the robe as well. Ultimately, it comes down to the full package. As others have said, all of these characteristics should be incorporated in the grade.

[IrishMike]

1. I ignore the current designations so they are not important and convey nothing to me.

2.I purchase a coin based on lustre, eye appeal and strike. A merc can be well struck but not make the fsb designation. Try to find the 45 in high grade fsb.We have all seen this on other mercs. Many Franklins are not FBL and are struck better and have more eye appeal and lustre than those that do.

3.none

4.I don't pay the premium, as Joe has well articulated, its a registry ploy.I would pay more money for an eye appealing coin for my registry set than one that met an arbitrary grading company designation.

[Hoot]

How about the Fully Struck or Well Struck designations/issues? When each of us looks at a coin, we have a general sense of what these mean, but can that be translated adequately into a designation? Why (if so/if not)? Would such designations be more subjective like the NGC * designation?

 

Hoot

[glassman-migration]

IMHO all of these qualifiers ( FT, FBL,FS, etc.) really have nothing to do with the grade of the coin, (other than a decision of strike). Could these qualifiers be a way of marketing the esoteric decimal divisions some would like to see added to the MS grades, ie; 64.7= 64 w/ FS ? Unfortunately, I see most of these designations being used as a marketing tool (certainly, not for the grading companies ) but, for the collector who probably couldn't grade the difference themselves and has to rely on the holder to give him a more perceived bump in value. . Doesn't this then become buying the holder, before the coin? For those who collect these series with desiginators I assume it becomes also a validation of their astute eye and "reward" for their "quest for the best". Who does the increase in price ultimate benefit the most?

 

However, I feel the "star" designation should not apply to the above argument as it has to do with the "exceptional" eye appeal of the entire coin and not a specific feature, but, isn't strike also a factor in this "star"?

 

Hoot-- By the way, great editorial in the current Coin World.. Thanx

[Hoot]

Could these qualifiers be a way of marketing the esoteric decimal divisions some would like to see added to the MS grades

 

Great question glassman!!! It sort of answers itself, IMO.

 

What do others think?

 

Hoot

[Wondercoin]

David Schweitz has raised an interesting issue involving designations which come years, sometimes dacades later, and greatly affect the prices of existing coins, graded at a time when there was no designation.

 

IF THERE HAS TO BE A DESIGNATION ADDED TO ROOSIES, I have suggested to Rick M. to ONLY look at bottom bands and here is why:

 

1. A small % of coins will make the designation in the firstplace - there is no need here to create excessively stringent standards for the newly added designation. Yes, NGC has the most stringent designation standards in the industry for coins such as Jeffersons and Franklins - but, this designation change is coming a decade and half after thousands of coins have already been slabbed. Since the bottom bands are challenging enough (I have been unable to locate a single example of all the various dates in MS67 or better spanning more than 12 years of searching), there is no need to make it even more challenging by adding top bands to the equation.

 

2. I have seen myriad Roosies where the top bands have a scuff, contact mark or other problem on an otherwise "FB" specimen. Why complicate the graders lives by having to make a judgment call every time a scuff, contact mark, pinprick, etc. interferes with the top bands? And, why knock out even more coins which would otherwise qualify as "FB" simply because there is a pinprick on unrelated upper bands?

 

NGC-forget the top bands on these Roosies - EVERY TOP COLLECTOR THAT HAS WEIGHED IN WITH TOP REGISTRY SETS IN PCGS AND NGC HAVE OPTED FOR A DESIGNATION WITH BOTTOM BANDS ONLY BEING CONSIDERED. Why create a standard that invites the best dimes being crossed out of your holders where a collector feels the coin did not make FB simply because of some issue on unrelated top bands? If PCGS should decide to opt for upper and lower bands (unclear at this time) - who cares - recognize the desires of nearly every major collector/dealer/enthusiast who has weighed in the subject and keep it at bottom bands only. THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY TOUGH ENOUGH TO OBTAIN IN SUPERB GEM GRADE. There is NO REASON to have the tightest standard on every designation on the planet - give the collectors what they want - a bottom band designation (and make it easy on your graders as well)..

 

Wondercoin

 

 

[TomB]

Excellent questions, Hoot. The following are my thoughts on the issues raised here-

 

1)I believe the market values the current designations because collectors, like the general public, can have a heard mentality. This is not to say that all collectors behave this way, on the contrary, some of the best collections are built by those who buy in areas that are not hot or trendy. However, if the market (price guides, Red Book and now Registries) determine to add a designation then an enormous number of folks will ascribe to the bigger-better-faster theory and embrace the designation. Over time, as newer collectors enter the market, they are familiar with the designations and they seem natural.

 

I personally do not believe that the designations are important to me vis a vis the coin, however, they are important to my ability to obtain said coin. The relationship is driven by price.

 

The current importance of newer designations is, I am certain, their perceived ability to stoke an already hot market and to boost segments of the market that have kicked around the designation idea in the past but have never implemented one. This is good for the grading services and good for those fortunate people who grabbed coins ahead of time that fit the new criteria but I don't think it helps the hobby/market in the long run.

 

2)The designations are not important to me outside of the caveat mentioned in my answer to the first question. That is, with the designation the coins cost more and might be priced out of a range that I am willing to pay or am comfortable with. As has been mentioned, a coin is a balance of attributes and faults and this balance has to be made in one's own mind if one will have a terrific collection with direction. Therefore, I buy what I value and what I value is not a designation that broadcasts where 2% of the metal flowed to for that planchet.

 

3)As one may guess if they have read this far, I am not in favor of adding any new designations. I do believe, though, that if others are added it will most likely be for the WLH series and the hand and thumb will be the target.

 

4)I also agree that in general fully struck coins are exceptionally rare and it is these coins that are most likely to be undervalued when compared to coins that have some other criteria well represented. If strike qualifiers must be used then I would like to see a grade composite based on all the salient attributes where there are seperate qualifiers for luster, color, marks, strike and overall eye appeal. I don't think this will happen and don't think it would help the market; it would muddy it up.

 

5)It would be nice to avoid a premium on a designation that you don't think is that important, but, if the coin on balance is something that you want and the price intersects with that desire then I think you must buy the coin. In this case it is just an unfortunate by-product of third party certification greed (for new designations) or the status quo (for older designations).

 

Sorry for droning on and on but I wanted to give my opinions as you had asked.

[gmarguli]

Yes, NGC has the most stringent designation standards in the industry for coins such as Jeffersons and Franklins

 

David Hall called. He says don't come back.

 

 

Actually, I like the idea of making it both bands. Admittedly, this is a meaningless designation to me since I don't collect them, but like you said it does keep with the stringent standards that NGC has set. NGC has set the bar very high on those other series by requiring much more than PCGS requires, so why not continue it with this series.

[onlyroosies]

Wondercoin' you said at the end of your post "give the collectors what they want - a bottom band designation". The problem with this statement is the fact that we are way past that point. In my correspondence with other fellow Roosevelt collectors and after reading the message boards, what we collectors want is NO

designation. This designation has been crammed down our throats and we have no recourse. I don't know of one top Roosie collector that was asked their opinion.

I must qualify my last statement and say that since this designation for Roosevelt dimes was initiated by the grading service across the street, they are to whom I direct my last two sentences. I have to respect NGC's side of this and they have been in contact with several dealers and roosie collectors including myself. I don't believe NGC has any other choice but to follow. That still doesn't help the fact that I have to accept a new standard that will ultimately and dramatically effect the value of my set that I have spent over 15 years building.

 

I have to stop for a moment and apologize to Hoot for breaking into his thread. I know I haven't answered any of your questions but I believe this needs to be said. So with that I'll say sorry Hoot and continue. Thank you Hoot for the use of your thread.

 

David Schweitz brings up a very valid and important point. I rarely post on these boards but his comments really hit home and got me thinking. I am a collector of Roosevelt dimes. I'm not trying to gloat but yes I own the #1 NGC Roosevelt Dime registry set. What happens to the value of my set when my top graded dimes can't meet the requirements for full bands? Two weeks ago they had a known market value. What's an MS68 worth today compared to say an MS67FB or even an MS66FB. Take for example my 1946 MS69*. Here are the facts: I paid $7500 for the coin and I felt at the time it was well worth it. I must have been correct because just a month or so ago I was offered a five figure number for it and turned it down. The coin will not meet the requirements for the FB designation. The coin was on display at the Long Beach show so the individual that made the offer did view the coin and knew it did not possess a full reverse strike, i.e. full bands. That did not matter at the time as it was not a consideration for the grade. I just asked that same individual today what they would pay for the coin. I was floored as he was not even willing to make an offer for the coin and said he probably was not interested at any price.

 

Where does this leave me and all the other Roosevelt collectors with high grade coins in our sets that will not make the FB designation. It hasn't been a factor for the last 17 years and all of a sudden it is. I don't see the advantage for the collector here. I do see an advantage for the grading services. Who is responsible for my lost value? How do I recoup my loss for the difference between what I paid (forget about what I was offered) for my MS69* compared to its new value?

 

I'm trying to direct my statements towards Hoot's thread title "to designate, or not to designate". So as you can see I'm for "not to designate". The problem is a valuation problem as exampled above. I'm not trying to knock on NGC or direct this at them. NGC has done OK by me so far. They took the time to contact me and were interested in my opinion. There's still a lot more work to do regarding the valuation process and the grading services still have control over this. So if there has to be a designation for Roosevelt's and its going to be full bands, let's get the points in the registry right and not make the same mistake as in the Mercury

dime registry, where in some cases an MS67FB with over 85 graded is worth the same points as an MS69 with only 4 graded.

 

Well there you have my hooting and hollering and my opinion on the new designation for the Roosevelt Dime.

 

Nick Cascio

onlyroosies

 

[gmarguli]

This designation has been crammed down our throats and we have no recourse. I don't know of one top Roosie collector that was asked their opinion.

 

A few points. First off, you have recourse. If you don't like the designation, then don't pay a premium for it. Ignore it.

 

I asked about the FT a while back. I was told that there used to be a Full Torch Roosevelt Society or something like that. Obviously there was some demand for it at one point in time.

 

I was told this society is no longer together, but I'm sure many of its ex-members still look for FT on these coins.

 

[onlyroosies]

Greg, I can't ignore it. It involves value to my investment and position of my registry set. Whether I chose to pay a premium for the designation or not has no bearing hear. My concern is my diminished value of my current holdings which is no fault of mine.

 

Nick

[Architecht]

"So if there has to be a designation for Roosevelt's and its going to be full bands, let's get the points in the registry right and not make the same mistake as in the Mercury

dime registry, where in some cases an MS67FB with over 85 graded is worth the same points as an MS69 with only 4 graded."

 

Have you posted this concern to this thread? It would be a good idea to bring this to Dave Lange's attention, both regarding the mercuries and the roosies.

 

Arch

[Hoot]

Wow! Some absolutely amazing posts! (TomB and others, I love the "droning" and hardly consider it such ). It's too late in my day for me to have a lengthy reply (Whew! you say), but I really appreciate the amazing answers from everyone and hope that more will chime in.

 

One comment: I think there is great danger in what is implied by Nick's posts. I can feel great compassion for what he has said and I think it's something for all of us to be fearful of. A great deal of meaning is given to minutia in this game or these pursuits that is driven more by the competition for top slots in the registries than by honest, passionate collecting (sensu michael ). This is like applying meaning to each of the letters in a word rather than the whole word. I realize that's a simplification, but it conveys the message: it's intrepid ground we are entering, and it will be tough for this community to provide the support, vis-a-vis demand and reasoned argument, for collectors whose investments are at risk. I think that the grading companies need to be aware of the can of worms that they are opening. In that vein, I'll ask my other question again (and perhaps Nick can comment since he's been in touch with NGC):

 

If a coin is sent for designation review and the grading company knows that it was graded before the strike designation was made, then what will be done in terms of grade/valuation guarantee? Let's say that an MS68 Roosie is sent in for FT designation. It was graded before the designation was in effect and the owner paid current value of $1000 for it. Now let's say a reputable price/market guide/value can be placed on the following: MS68 (the original grade), MS66FT, MS67FT, and MS68FT. The coin does not get an FT designation. However, the price guide indicaes the following:

 

MS68 - $600

MS68FT - $6000

MS67FT - $2500

MS66FT - $1200

 

What now? Will the guarantees that the grading company currently have to protect someone for overpriced (overgraded) material kick into effect? (Someone help me out here with the right language).

 

Thanks! Hoot

[jtryka]

Hoot,

 

I am no Roosevelt expert, but I do make my living analyzing companies and business practices. My guess as to the application of the grading guarantee is that it applies but the result will not be favorable. Here's what I think would happen:

 

Grade was given before designation, so does the grade still apply? If it was an MS-68, is it now an MS-68 FT, still an MS-68, or something lower? If it's something lower, the guarantee would apply and you would receive compensation for a loss resulting from their error. Is it MS-68 FT or higher? If yes, then you are really happy, and the grade guarantee would provide no relief (but why would it?). If it is still an MS-68, but no FT, then any difference in the value would be a result of market forces, and not their grading hence no relief would be necessary (the same as if you bought a top pop coin for ludicrous money and then they graded one higher, and now you can only get 10c on the dollar for your original investment). They are specifically not responsible for changes in market prices.

 

You may be able to seek a secondary remedy in the courts arguing that adoption of a new standard harmed the value of all coins on the market, but you would have the burden of proof. They could just as easily argue that the market was already valuing the FT roosies as such given the premiums paid for certain specimens over sheet, and they cannot be held responsible for the poor choices made by collectors to pay high prices for certain coins, that may not meet the new standard.

 

Keep in mind, I am not offering any opinion on whether this is fair, moral etc, just giving my opinion on how a business person would look at the situation. The fact that a lot of people will lose money on coins they've already purchased is unfortunate, but it is also a very real risk to anyone involved in coins. We all make decisions based on the best available information we have at the time, but sometimes the circumstances change. Just ask all those folks that paid lots of money for 1903-O Morgans 50 years ago.

 

Finally, I have a question for the Roosevelt specialists. What is the designation exactly? First I hear "Full Torch" which to me implies the actual flame, but then we hear about the bands on the torch? I looked at my set the other day (keep in mind these are raw BU coins in a Dansco album) and in my opinion, the majority of them had fully split bands on the torch, but very few had a fully struck flame. I know neither service has identified the specific criteria, but perhaps some experts can offer their opinion or understanding of what it means? Am I looking at something wrong when I see the split bands on my dimes?

[keithdagen]

Nick,

 

I think one of the problems with the arguemen you make is that at this time, there has been no value shift. There is a lot of wondering because the services have issued a new designator, but since none have been graded of any date, rarity can't be determined yet. PCGS still hasn't published a standard. (Kudos to NGC for stepping up to the plate and getting a standard ready rather than wasting collectors' time).

 

Because the NGC FT designation is very hard, there are going to be a lot of dates that only have a few examples qualify, and I think that if you are holding your dimes for a long-term investment, you'll see that the market value doesn't change that much. In the case of your 46-P, it may not qualify as FT, but no MS-68 does either, your value won't decrease.

 

[paigow_johnny]

My general answer to the list of specific questions....designations are not important to me. I am not and will not play in any registry, so I don't need the extra points. I personally think all that stuff should be rolled into the numeric grade given to the coin...if a WL half has a full hand or a roosie has a full torch or a Buffalo nickel has a full butt line....well maybe that would be just enough kicker to push it into the next point. Otherwise, I think the desigs are just superfluous.

[bigd5]

1. Current designations aren't important to ME. Plenty of interest from other collectors though. The designations don't convey much importance at all. I don't need a slab designation of a Full Head, to tell me my SLQ has a full head. That's me though.

2. Articulate myself??? Stop putting pressure on me. A couple of examples: Full Head......if the SLQ doesn't have full shield detail, as well as full head detail, I have a coin with the upper portion of the design fully struck, but the centers not fully struck. Does the FH designation mean anything with this example? Full Bands, So, the reverse, which doesn't play as important a role in grading a coin, has fully split, minute lines seperating some bands on some fasces. So, if the tops of the letters along the rim are melted into the rim itself, is the Full Band designation important? I can go on. The whole coin matters, not one little designation. The designations do make marketing certain coins much easier.

3. I'd like to see the designation of NICE FREAKIN COIN put on my coins. Then everyone would KNOW they were nice coins, and I wouldn't have to explain why. Actually, I could appreciate a "Fully Struck" designation on any coin, but again, if you look at the coin, you could see that for yourself.

4. Fully struck, well struck, usually just a play on words, but I'd say that well struck coins are fully struck wanna be's.

5. Human nature. Many of us want the best, even if the rules as to what constitutes the "best" are clouded. In this hobby, right now, coins that meet certain designations are more widely accepted and persued than non-designated specimens. More demand, higher prices. For me, a blast white set of FB Merc's compared with a toned set of non-FB Merc's...........I'd most likely go with the color coins. The "look" of the coin impresses. The designation doesn't. Again, for me.

Good thread Hoot.

[bigd5]

Ok, I read the rest of the posts. Although I can feel for anyone "investing" in Roosies, and having them in the Registry and potentially losing a lot of value with their coins.......it happens.

Have any gold left that was purchased in the 80's? A lot of collectors "invested" in nice quality sets back then, that lost their shirts. It happens for a lot of different reasons. When you start off in this hobby, everyone and their brother will tell you to collect what you like, and enjoy yourself. As soon as you start relying on that collection as an "investment", you open up the possibility for trouble. Risk comes into play, just like stocks.

I don't think the financial ramifications for the top registry participants should be weighed into the decision to designate, or not designate the Roosies.

[jtryka]

I'd like to see the designation of NICE FREAKIN COIN put on my coins.

 

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! I couldn't agree with you more!

[dime_time-migration]

No FT. That's my vote and will continue to be my vote. To me, it all about the collector BUT to the grading sevices, its all about money (like that's something new). Do we need the FT designation: NO. Do collectors want it: Some Yes and some NO but the question I must ask is do the grading companies REALLY care? They'll make money, dealers will make money, some collectors will make money, some collectors will lose, and 95% of the rest of the numismatic community could care less.

 

Personally, I really don't care but I just don't seeing it adding value to the collector community at large. The good news is that I don't force my opinion on anyone else and I believe in others rights to voice and believe as they will. But I tell you, to me it would be REALLY REALLY telling to have a vote of the collectors - the REGISTRY collectors to see what they want - bands or no bands. There aren't that many - and here's an idea, tell EVERONE that the vote will take place on 4-1 ....ok,how about 4-3 (no April fools joke here) and tell them everyone that Registers a set gets to vote - IF they want bands designation and if so, bottom, both or ?

 

LET THE COLLECTOR VOICE AN OPINION & BE HEARD.

[BankNote1]

Welcome Dime Time!

[onlyroosies]

Arch, I will be directing my concerns regarding the scores on the Merc dimes and the new Roosie designation soon, Thanks for the heads up on where to go.

[onlyroosies]

I have to agree with jtryka's post and the fact still remains that the coin will still grade the same, just without the new designation and of course a valuation adjustment. I personally and truthfully would not say this situation qualifies under the guarantee policy and as far as my damages go. Its as Keith said there is no way to know what the new value would be until sometime in the future when the market values the new designation. I do like the way NGC's point system for the registry coins work compared to PCGS. Where PCGS will be adding bonus points for FB dimes NGC actually has control as to where to value the designation. For example. If PCGS allows 2 bonus points for an FB Roosie then that

would make an MS66FB equivalent to an MS68 in the registry regardless of pop or value. That is ludicrous!! That's the same as saying that a coin that was valued at 5K and a coin that was valued at $20 become equivalent on the registry. Now tell me how is that going to effect the value on both ends. This is the dilemma on the PCGS side but not so on the NGC side. NGC has control by way of there point system to not let this happen. NGC needs to make sure that the points assigned to the grade and the designation are in direct correlation with rarity and value. I also believe the Merc dime point system needs to be tweaked to reflect rarity and value also. That should be a whole other thread.

 

Nick