Boone 1937 Commemorative P-D-S proofs – technical corrections 1 1

[MarkFeld]

32 minutes ago, RWB said:

Nope. Insider's conclusions are invalid due to flawed methodology.

Your "sample" is too small to be useful. (Were there 2,500 students in the same class at the same time? Were all tested at the same time on the identical set of coins?)

It is also biased toward only those who attended some sort of class and absorbed certain content, and were given a very tiny sample of coins to examine (under 1,000 pieces). If the student sample were enlarged to representative of "coin collectors" your "success" would fall apart. Likewise, if the number of samples examined after instruction were increased, the failure rate would decrease due to unavoidable sample ambiguity. Last, if the same "98%" were tested a week later their success rate would fall due to memory loss and absence of continual reinforcement; extend the test delay a month and the effects would be much more pronounced.

Further, from a prior post, the date/mint of a coin is irrelevant to whether its surface is PL, DMPL, Frosty (Wendy's or Bugger King), or Watery, Buttery, or just plain Maudlin. A calibrated assessment system will not "pull punches" or bias results - "it is what it is."

You started off by describing the term “semi-prooflike” as meaningless. It probably is to people who aren’t familiar with the term and/or who haven’t seen such coins. But to those of us who are and have - and there are a great many of us - it’s pretty easy to agree as to whether a coin meets that description. You can talk all you want about samples, bias, memory and so on. And those points aren’t without some merit. But in the real world, many of us experience that which you say can’t be.

[Insider]

18 minutes ago, RWB said:

The conclusions remain invalid.

Technology can be used to stabilize and correlate many things in numismatics - but it also fails are other tasks. I doubt a computer system would ever grade a coin EF then MS-63 the next time the same piece was handled. Computers are not inherently dishonest or present fraudulent results.

 

I've used up my "likes" for today.       How silly.   

Hey Roger,  I want to see the NGC Forum rise out of the grave and eventually topple the PCGS forum.  I'm glad to see you and Mark posting over here.

[Insider]

2 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

You started off by describing the term “semi-prooflike” as meaningless. It probably is to people who aren’t familiar with the term and/or who haven’t seen such coins. But to those of us who are and have - and there are a great many of us - it’s pretty easy to agree as to whether a coin meets that description. You can talk all you want about samples, bias, memory and so on. And those points aren’t without some merit. But in the real world, many of us experience that which you say can’t be.

Ditto.  "LIKE!"

[gmarguli]

1 hour ago, Insider said:

Hey Roger,  I want to see the NGC Forum rise out of the grave and eventually topple the PCGS forum.  I'm glad to see you and Mark posting over here.

I want to see Roger add the e back in Boone. 

[RWB]

RE: " But in the real world, many of us experience that which you say can’t be."

That is because you are experiencing self-deception. If you used an objective measurement - even if based on opinion - the results would be defensible. As it is, it's just about greed, money, and promoting ignorance for profit.
 

[RWB]

17 minutes ago, gmarguli said:

I want to see Roger add the e back in Boone. 

I wondered where that "e" went ! Likely on the floor under may desk with a bunch of deleted expletives to be named later, a copy of Richard Nixon's biography, "I'm Not A Crook," and a bit of sourdough pretzel.

[MarkFeld]

12 minutes ago, RWB said:

RE: " But in the real world, many of us experience that which you say can’t be."

That is because you are experiencing self-deception. If you used an objective measurement - even if based on opinion - the results would be defensible. As it is, it's just about greed, money, and promoting ignorance for profit.
 

None of what you claim its about is accurate. A coin that a majority of viewers consider to be semi-PL need not be any more costly than one that isn’t. And in some cases, a semi-PL coin is worth less. 

[kbbpll]

I love watching the heavy hitters discuss something. It's a privilege on here. 

[Henri Charriere]

3 hours ago, Insider said:

I'm sure (?) you know what a mirror surface looks like.   I do, and ever since I was a YN, we knew that coins with a mirror surface that were mot manufactured as Proofs were called Proof-like because they had a mirror surface like a Proof.  Coins that were not Prooflike but were arguably close were called Semi-Prooflike.  As you point out, there is some subjectivity involved - less among knowledgeable and experienced numismatists.   

There is a larger problem with PL coins.  Many obvious PL coins of certain dates are not given that designation (even though their depth of mirror is the same for a common PL) because they would be too valuable.  Those coins need to be borderline DMPL to get the PL designation.  It makes me want to pull my hair out as "any non-numismatist on the street" could see the coins have the identical dept of mirror.  

Your explanation of "mirror" triggered both a memory, and a recollection: "Hmm, so that's what that was." . My brother and I began collecting Morgan dollars straight from the bank, as teenagers. I recall checking tail feathers for one date (we found both 7- and 8-tail varieties, 1878?) AND one that was exceptionally bright and shiny. This was very likely a PL specimen whereof you speak. Now I get it. 

[Henri Charriere]

16 minutes ago, kbbpll said:

I love watching the heavy hitters discuss something. It's a privilege on here. 

Dem's fightin' words. I am glad I gave these gentlemen extra-wide berth...

[RWB]

Context alters what we can and cannot perceive.

 

Mr. Feld is within the structure.

He sees only what is there for him to see.

 

I am on the outside.

I see through the glass walls.

I hear through open windows.

I watch what leaves and what is left behind.

[VKurtB]

Going strictly from memory, I could swear that at least one TPGS, and I believe it may be our august hosts, has an objective scale for measuring PL or DMPL. Am I mistaken?

[VKurtB]

13 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Your explanation of "mirror" triggered both a memory, and a recollection: "Hmm, so that's what that was." . My brother and I began collecting Morgan dollars straight from the bank, as teenagers. I recall checking tail feathers for one date (we found both 7- and 8-tail varieties, 1878?) AND one that was exceptionally bright and shiny. This was very likely a PL specimen whereof you speak. Now I get it. 

Check your 1904-O examples. Lots of PL in that date and Mint Mark. 

[Henri Charriere]

8 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

Check your 1904-O examples. Lots of PL in that date and Mint Mark. 

(Can't. All I've pretty much  got left are Roosters, remember?)

[MarkFeld]

12 minutes ago, RWB said:

Context alters what we can and cannot perceive.

 

 

 

Mr. Feld is within the structure.

 

He sees only what is there for him to see.

 

 

 

I am on the outside.

 

I see through the glass walls.

 

I hear through open windows.

 

I watch what leaves and what is left behind.

 

 Even if (as you say from your perch), I see only what's there for me to see, it's enough to see that you made an untrue assertion. Using the term "semi-prooflike" isn't necessarily about asking or charging extra money for a coin. I know, because I sometimes use that term in write-ups of coins we offer for sale. And in each and every case, the asking price has already been determined, before I write a single word.

Also, as I mentioned previously, some coins - such as rare business strikes that can be very difficult to distinguish from more common Proofs - are worth less (not more) if they exhibit semi-prooflike or proof-like surfaces.

[gmarguli]

1 hour ago, VKurtB said:

Going strictly from memory, I could swear that at least one TPGS, and I believe it may be our august hosts, has an objective scale for measuring PL or DMPL. Am I mistaken?

Many years ago there was at least one TPG that on their website listed the minimum number of inches to get the PL/DPL designation. That inches requirement is long gone.

[Insider]

16 hours ago, RWB said:

RE: " But in the real world, many of us experience that which you say can’t be."

That is because you are experiencing self-deception. If you used an objective measurement - even if based on opinion - the results would be defensible. As it is, it's just about greed, money, and promoting ignorance for profit.
 

 Well IMO, we are lucky to have all those self-deceiving numismatists in the marketplace and at the TPGS.  Much better today than in the "Wild West" when most folks were raped, robbed, and rolled over until dead.

[Insider]

15 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Your explanation of "mirror" triggered both a memory, and a recollection: "Hmm, so that's what that was." . My brother and I began collecting Morgan dollars straight from the bank, as teenagers. I recall checking tail feathers for one date (we found both 7- and 8-tail varieties, 1878?) AND one that was exceptionally bright and shiny. This was very likely a PL specimen whereof you speak. Now I get it. 

More likely a polished coin.  Most new to coins prefer the look of a heavily polished XF over a frosty Uncirculated coin.

[Alex in PA.]

3 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

(Can't. All I've pretty much  got left are Roosters, remember?)

If you want to see something mind blowing go to Collectors Universe website.  They have a post called Great Display by PCGS  some of  Bruce Morelan coins.  10 million dollar 1794 $1 PCGS SP66.  there's also another thread on that dollar.  Just for your info.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Alex in PA.

[Henri Charriere]

[Aside:  I'd be willing to bet Mr. RWB, the scholarly author of the OP -- (which, being unfamiliar with the 1937 D. B. commemorative, was a revelation to me) -- never in his wildest dreams would have thought a straight-forward critique of a COIN WEEK article would provoke such a tangential fury in the hornet's nest this thread has become.]

[Alex in PA.]

Oh Quintus:  In the words of a great Northwest trapper:  "You ain't seen nuttin' yet!"

[Just Bob]

5 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

Oh Quintus:  In the words of a great Northwest trapper:  "You ain't seen nuttin' yet!"

I thought that was Bachman Turner Overdrive

[Alex in PA.]

2 minutes ago, Just Bob said:

I thought that was Bachman Turner Overdrive

Oh no!  You found me out.  Now I'm done for sure.  Great album.  

Edited August 10, 2020 by Alex in PA.

[VKurtB]

Couple of notes:

1) It’s good to see the ‘e’ back in Boone’s name, says the man currently wearing a Daniel Boone Coin Club (Reading, PA) shirt. Perhaps it became available from all those spare e’s floating over the Atlantic as whiskey becomes whisky when eastbound. 
2) Re the original subject: The British Royal Mint for many years created such matte pieces strictly for photography purposes. Any idea if this was for that purpose?

3) The “Strike a Coin Yourself” coins available as part of the BRM “experience” are struck 4 times, not 1, 2, or 3. How would @RWB classify those? Mine was the 2019 “Snowman” 50p, and it shows detail no production strike ever did. No mirrors of a proof nature however.

Edited August 10, 2020 by VKurtB

[RWB]

On 8/10/2020 at 4:58 PM, VKurtB said:

Couple of notes:

1) It’s good to see the ‘e’ back in Boone’s name, says the man currently wearing a Daniel Boone Coin Club (Reading, PA) shirt. Perhaps it became available from all those spare e’s floating over the Atlantic as whiskey becomes whisky when eastbound. 
2) Re the original subject: The British Royal Mint for many years created such matte pieces strictly for photography purposes. Any idea if this was for that purpose?

3) The “Strike a Coin Yourself” coins available as part of the BRM “experience” are struck 4 times, not 1, 2, or 3. How would @RWB classify those? Mine was the 2019 “Snowman” 50p, and it shows detail no production strike ever did. No mirrors of a proof nature however.

The coin is, as and what it is....we know the technology used and can correctly describe it in the context of modern machinery - not something a century ago..

[James_OldeTowne]

On 8/5/2020 at 2:57 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

The earthshaking Richter, pardon me, Sheldon Scale, was introduced and with it ten, count 'em, TEN! gradations for UNC alone

Didn't Sheldon propose eleven grades for UNC?

[Henri Charriere]

1 hour ago, James_OldeTowne said:

Didn't Sheldon propose eleven grades for UNC?

I don't know.  I'll ask him tomorrow when we have lunch.

[RWB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I don't know.  I'll ask him tomorrow when we have lunch.

Sheldon's "system" was constructed only for early large cents and was usable for about 2 weeks before publication. It was useless then and it is useless now. His "divisions" of Unc coins were there solely to allow for estimation of price. Of course, that is ideal pickin's for modern ignorance, greed and "grade inflation."

[Henri Charriere]

2 hours ago, RWB said:

Sheldon's "system" was constructed only for early large cents and was usable for about 2 weeks before publication. It was useless then and it is useless now. His "divisions" of Unc coins were there solely to allow for estimation of price. Of course, that is ideal pickin's for modern ignorance, greed and "grade inflation."

[Attn: RWB.  Thanks for bailing me out on this.  I am much obliged.  I wanted to test-drive my best VKurtB-like reponse. "Imitation," they say, "is the sincerest form of flattery."]

[RWB]

But -- "flattery" is, itself, insincere; so there cannot be a "sincerest form of flattery" unless one is humiliating the comment recipient.