MS70's & PF70s Are A Dime A Dozen Now 1 1

[Errorists]

Will find other coins to collect now.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Errorists

[GoldFinger1969]

What coin ?  You just said the grade.

[VKurtB]

On 12/2/2022 at 12:48 PM, Errorists said:

Will find other coins to collect now.

Of course they are. But MS70 on OTHER THAN NIFC coins are virtually unknown. You won’t find circulation MS70’s. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/2/2022 at 6:19 PM, VKurtB said:

Of course they are. But MS70 on OTHER THAN NIFC coins are virtually unknown. You won’t find circulation MS70’s. 

What's NIFC ?

What coins are you talking about with MS and PF70 ?

[Lem E]

On 12/2/2022 at 5:45 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

What's NIFC ?

Not Intended For Circulation.

[Sandon]

   The "population totals" page of the PCGS Population Report shows 32,845,056 coins numerically graded VG8 or better on 12/2/22. (Unfortunately, I can't find comparable information on the NGC Census.) Of these 6,845,056, or over 20.84%, are graded "70". An additional 9,178,934, or over 27.94%, are graded "69". All of the coins graded "70" are collectors' or other non-circulating issues, including proofs, other special finishes, commemoratives, and bullion coins, and none dated before around 1960. The overwhelming majority--probably over 99%--of the coins graded "69" are also of non-circulating issues.  Coins in these lofty grades are quite common among such issues, yet virtually non-existent among circulating coinage.  As the pieces graded "70" are hardly distinguishable from those graded "69", I've never seen the justification for paying the premium for the pieces graded "70", nor for that matter of third-party grading any modern non-circulating issues.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Sandon
correct typo

[World Colonial]

How long did it take you to reach this conclusion?

"Rarity" based upon a label is marketing.  Coin grades change regularly, though in very low proportion.  The rarity didn't actually change as it's the same coin, but that's what has to be true for this collector belief to be true.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/2/2022 at 9:14 PM, Sandon said:

All of the coins graded "70" are collectors' or other non-circulating issues, including proofs, other special finishes, commemoratives, and bullion coins, and none dated before around 1960. 

I'm not surprised, but you would think that collectors pre-1960 would have gotten some coins that were a 70 and properly protected them.  Morgan and Saint proofs, Proof and Mint sets in protective plastic, others, etc.

I'm surprised -- not shocked -- but surprised.

On 12/2/2022 at 9:14 PM, Sandon said:

The overwhelming majority--probably over 99%--of the coins graded "69" are also of non-circulating issues.  Coins in these lofty grades are quite common among such issues, yet virtually non-existent among circulating coinage.  As the pieces graded "70" or hardly distinguishable from those graded "69", I've never seen the justification for paying the premium for the pieces graded "70", nor for that matter of third-party grading any modern non-circulating issues.

Must be some circulated or other coins with a 69 -- I know there's one Saint DE from the Wells Fargo Hoard, even if it is overgraded.  Bunch of 68's -- again, many (but not all) overgraded.

For Morgans, I see 10 MS-69's via PCGS and 7 from NGC (probably some double-counts there).  Surprised no 1921's in those counts, you would think many preserved them for the return of the coin.

[GoldFinger1969]

I have lots of modern stuff, including commemoratives and specials.  I'll sometimes pay up for a 70 but if the premium is alot over a 69 then I'll ususally make repeat purchases in the 69 or 68 grades.  A good example would be the National Park Foundation commemoratives of the Saint-Gaudens patterns.

Technically, these aren't "coins" since they're not from the U.S. Mint....I do have ASEs and 5-ounce silver both U.S. NCLT and special strikes from private companies.

Even on the 5-ounce coins it's tough to tell the difference between a 70 and a 68, let alone a 69.  And those coins have HUGE fields.

Edited December 3, 2022 by GoldFinger1969

[VKurtB]

On 12/2/2022 at 9:07 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I'm not surprised, but you would think that collectors pre-1960 would have gotten some coins that were a 70 and properly protected them.  Morgan and Saint proofs, Proof and Mint sets in protective plastic, others, etc.

No, the quality of the products themselves precludes 70 grades, even in cases in which they were perfectly handled. You must realize how much the actual quality of coin striking has improved in the last 20-30 years. Just look at bullion ASEs. Something fundamental changed about 2006. 

Edited December 3, 2022 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

Note: Delay in posting due to moderation. May be inserted by the OP after LemE replied some 6 hours ago.

Some highly-irregular topics are being posted, of late. Mine remains among the all-time favorites:  Off-Topic.  Not to be outdone, a much-esteemed member took a powder recently with "Outta here." He remains greatly missed. Comes now, a gentleman who not only flouts the law and guideline, but violates Q.A.'s much-vaunted exemption No. 9: "nothing here happens in the absence of my knowledge and consent." 

Today's MS-70s and PF-70s may very well be tomorrow's TENS.  And they will be as uncommon then as they are today.  Near perfection is a finite universe.  The chances of discovering heretofore unknown examples only diminishes with the passage of time.  Only membership to the First Strike/First Day of Release club is more restrictive.  Accordingly,  the very rumor of a virtually perfect example is so suspect that TPGSs will generally view any submissions for that express purpose with skepticism.

No need to announce your intentions publicly.  In point of fact, though there are those who would disagree, the very existence of a 70, uncirculated or proof, is a form of error, only an avowed errorist could appreciate the true significance of.

As a dues-paying member in good standing, do make yourself at home and if there is anything we can do to help broaden your body of knowledge, do not hesitate to let us know.  

[Thanks and Good-nite Moderation!]

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/2/2022 at 9:14 PM, Sandon said:

.... All of the coins graded "70" are collectors' or other non-circulating issues, including proofs, other special finishes, commemoratives, and bullion coins, and none dated before around 1960.... 

Coins in these lofty grades are quite common among such issues, yet virtually non-existent among circulating coinage....

The uncomfortable truth is, by definition, coins graded 70 are little more than inadvertent and coincidental sought out by the perfectionist hobbyist much as one would a curiosity, oddity or error though not as rare.

Edited December 3, 2022 by Quintus Arrius
Die polishing.

[World Colonial]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:20 AM, VKurtB said:

No, the quality of the products themselves precludes 70 grades, even in cases in which they were perfectly handled. You must realize how much the actual quality of coin striking has improved in the last 20-30 years. Just look at bullion ASEs. Something fundamental changed about 2006. 

This and the fact that these minor differences were irrelevant at the time.  No one would pay TPG driven premiums for such common coins due to the actual quality difference in a 69 and 70.  

[cladking]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:22 PM, World Colonial said:

How long did it take you to reach this conclusion?

"Rarity" based upon a label is marketing.  Coin grades change regularly, though in very low proportion.  The rarity didn't actually change as it's the same coin, but that's what has to be true for this collector belief to be true.

I suppose rarity based on date, mint mark, or type is also some kind of contrived marketing scheme.  

One of the primary things collectors do is to define and collect rarity.  Who are you do it for them?  

Quality is quality whether it's a proof 2022 dime or an MS-68 '72-D dime.  The exact same thing applies to 1894-S dimes and 1822 dimes.  

Edited December 3, 2022 by cladking

[World Colonial]

On 12/3/2022 at 10:58 AM, cladking said:

I suppose rarity based on date, mint mark, or type is also some kind of contrived marketing scheme.  

One of the primary things collectors do is to define and collect rarity.  Who are you do it for them?  

Quality is quality whether it's a proof 2022 dime or an MS-68 '72-D dime.  The exact same thing applies to 1894-S dimes and 1822 dimes.  

Rarity based upon date, mintmark, and type was something collectors came up with a long time ago.

This "rarity" is a pure contrivance which is why it took marketing to create it. 

Once again, you look for baseless reasons to be offended when nothing in my post limited my comments to US moderns.  I can't help it if my comments are contrary to your personal preference, again.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:20 AM, VKurtB said:

No, the quality of the products themselves precludes 70 grades, even in cases in which they were perfectly handled. You must realize how much the actual quality of coin striking has improved in the last 20-30 years. Just look at bullion ASEs. Something fundamental changed about 2006. 

I know overall quality wasn't as good...and there was the issue with the proof surface-appeal....but I thought lots of coins did come out very nicely.  No 70's ?  Wow...

Also, if a particular coin year/mint had an upper threshold for that particular strike, I thought it was "graded on a  curve" and if no coins for a particular year/mint were really top-notch, then the best of that year would be the 70's.  

[GoldFinger1969]

"Rarity" can be defined several ways:  absolute numbers....price (because demand is high)....relative to other coins of a similar type...condition (grade)....etc.

For my #1 interest, Saints, you have the registry players.....the Type and Gold collectors....and then the general investor class among the public buying the surplus for a few coins with tens of thousands available.  So depending on where the coin supply exhausts demand, that determines scarcity (and price).

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:40 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I know overall quality wasn't as good...and there was the issue with the proof surface-appeal....but I thought lots of coins did come out very nicely.  No 70's ?  Wow...

Also, if a particular coin year/mint had an upper threshold for that particular strike, I thought it was "graded on a  curve" and if no coins for a particular year/mint were really top-notch, then the best of that year would be the 70's.  

Absolutely NOT!

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 12:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

"Rarity" can be defined several ways:  absolute numbers....price (because demand is high)....relative to other coins of a similar type...condition (grade)....etc.

For my #1 interest, Saints, you have the registry players.....the Type and Gold collectors....and then the general investor class among the public buying the surplus for a few coins with tens of thousands available.  So depending on where the coin supply exhausts demand, that determines scarcity (and price).

It may surprise you, and nearly every member of this board, that there is a HUUUUUGE portion of this hobby that doesn’t give a rip about registries. 

[World Colonial]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:43 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

"Rarity" can be defined several ways:  absolute numbers....price (because demand is high)....relative to other coins of a similar type...condition (grade)....etc.

For my #1 interest, Saints, you have the registry players.....the Type and Gold collectors....and then the general investor class among the public buying the surplus for a few coins with tens of thousands available.  So depending on where the coin supply exhausts demand, that determines scarcity (and price).

Rarity is never determined by demand.  Demand is demand and supply is supply.

There is no absolute definition of "rare" or "scarce" or "common".  It's only relative to something else.

Concurrently, claiming "rarity" due to a specific number on a holder label turns the concept on its head and makes it meaningless.  It's farcical, especially when "large" numbers of coins exist eligible for the same or slightly lower numerical grades. That's why I have compared it to the "participation trophy" culture prevalent in modern society.

Especially with the highest TPG grades, there is no practical quality difference between proximate grades and only motivation to inflate the price and exaggerate the significance will ever lead anyone to claim it. This statement isn't specific to 69 or 70 grades or modern coinage either.

The easiest way to demonstrate my claims is by comparing TPG dominated collecting to US collecting in the past and elsewhere in the world now.  These collectors didn't and don't claim this rarity and no collective epiphany occurred in 1986 either where collectors miraculously discovered that this coinage is so much better than everyone believed/believes.

[World Colonial]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:57 PM, VKurtB said:

It may surprise you, and nearly every member of this board, that there is a HUUUUUGE portion of this hobby that doesn’t give a rip about registries. 

It's 99%+.  The number of participants proves it.

Registry set is marketing.  Nothing wrong with that but that's all it is.

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:33 PM, World Colonial said:

It's 99%+.  The number of participants proves it.

Registry set is marketing.  Nothing wrong with that but that's all it is.

Correct. I don’t keep any registry sets, but I do have two Abafil coin cases, which hold, among other things, my Shillings by Spink Number set, each and every one of them raw (two even removed from slabs to MAKE THEM raw). Yes, competitive live exhibitors like me are surely a niche, but so are Registry participants. I do get coins slabbed for SOME exhibits. The uniform look helps the aesthetic scores. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:57 PM, VKurtB said:

It may surprise you, and nearly every member of this board, that there is a HUUUUUGE portion of this hobby that doesn’t give a rip about registries. 

Unfortunately, this information remains classified for which TOP SECRET clearance is required. Not to be deterred, I have taken the liberty of reviewing the available statistics of two sites.

Presently, NGC boasts 1.2 million coins featured in 150,000 registered sets by 17,000+ members from around the world.

PCGS boasts 130,829 U.S. coin sets and 156,725 registered sets overall.

My discovery of Set Registries was entirely incidental.  I had never heard of them and did not know they existed.  Do I "give a rip about them"?  Not especially.  As one TPGS described them, they are a tool for managing one's inventory. I don't know that I need one to keep track of only 16 coins. If I were younger, my perspective would probably be different. As it is I am too old to be a cut-throat now.  

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 9:58 AM, cladking said:

One of the primary things collectors do is to define and collect rarity.  Who are you do it for them?

The hobby does that quite well. The Exhibiting Committee of the ANA has spent countless recent collective hours doing precisely that - defining what rarity is and is not. You’re welcome to participate. 

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 3:55 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

Unfortunately, this information remains classified for which TOP SECRET clearance is required. Not to be deterred, I have taken the liberty of reviewing the available statistics of two sites.

Presently, NGC boasts 1.2 million coins featured in 150,000 registered sets by 17,000+ members from around the world.

PCGS boasts 130,829 U.S. coin sets and 156,725 registered sets overall.

My discovery of Set Registries was entirely incidental.  I had never heard of them and did not know they existed.  Do I "give a rip about them"?  Not especially.  As one TPGS described them, they are a tool for managing one's inventory. I don't know that I need one to keep track of only 16 coins. If I were younger, my perspective would probably be different. As it is I am too old to be a cut-throat now.  

I also discovered them relatively recently. I found the idea too tedious to bear and rejected them. 

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 3:55 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

As one TPGS described them, they are a tool for managing one's inventory

And an even more effective tool to separate collectors from their money. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:50 PM, VKurtB said:

.... I don’t keep any registry sets, but I do have two Abafil coin cases, which hold, among other things, my Shillings by Spink Number set, each and every one of them raw (two even removed from slabs to MAKE THEM raw)....

I tell you, you've got to admire the rugged individualism of someone who regards an encapsulated coin as a superfluous impediment to viewing a coin up close and personally, in hand.  

[VKurtB]

I’ll add here that one of the main reasons I prefer NGC slabs is the opaque inner holder does NOT cast annoying shadows under convention hall lighting like P-something slabs do. At Rosemont this past August, Tom Uram’s set of 2-cent pieces were all in P-something slabs and the four shadows caused by the slabs on each coin from the overhead lights just looked horrible. 
 

(He still won Best in Class. The material carried the day.)

Edited December 3, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

rugged individualism

My essence. I refuse to follow others’ better ideas; I’m surely not going to follow the sketchier ones. Most collectors would not appreciate my Leuchturm/Lighthouse coin capsule budget. ¡Caramba!

Edited December 3, 2022 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:10 PM, Quintus Arrius said:

of someone who regards an encapsulated coin as a superfluous impediment

I feel unrestricted by a past owner’s decisions. His needs are not my needs. I wouldn’t expect anyone else to keep my slabbed coins that way if it didn’t suit their purpose.