Proof Like Grading? 0

[Jason Abshier]

On 4/20/2023 at 8:59 PM, VKurtB said:

No one EVER wrote about the special 1994 nickels in the Jefferson C&C Set until I did

But you did ! So there’s some proof of their existence… I didn’t write it off to offend you in way but proof can be anything open up coin book you see that mint acknowledge public they struck a specimens that year or trial strike is kept in books … another issue is Medals (table medals is what I call them) European medals I notice the SP then a grade on the Slab some medals don’t get the SP assigned to it how they determine that I have no idea . 
 

on another note @VKurtB I don’t collect Jefferson nickels I heard some years the mint was working on special matte finish proofs if that what you were talking about ?  but I always have time to read writing on coins do you have the quick link so I can read up on what you wrote about 1994 Jefferson nickels ? I’ll be more than glad to read it bud 

[Cozdred]

On 4/20/2023 at 12:26 PM, RWB said:

Sorry you object to the truth. Maybe you should learn more before making assumptions.

FYI "lapping" "basining" and polishing are not the same thing. Lapping is/was done with a vertically rotating emery wheel as part of normal die maintenance; fine detail at the junction of field and relief would be lost only if the operator was poorly trained or inattentive. Basining was done with a rotating disc of iron which had been charged with abrasive. The disc was made with a specific radius of curvature. It was used to adjust the curvature of the field of a die that deviated from specification, or to accommodate differences in presses and blank upsetting at different mints. Polishing can refer to either of the previous in a generic sense; but, also to use of a wooden emery stick on parts of a die to remove minor cracks or clash marks without affecting the full die surface.

Correct polishing of a new die for use in striking proofs will not alter relief. The Royal Mint's large steam-powered proof & medal presses (in use until at least 1901) brought up all the detail in a die pair (and edge). Did Melbourne or Calcutta or Perth have one of  these presses? If not, how could they make an authentic proof?

"Special" or any other undefined term as used by TPGs and others is truly meaningless gibberish. Such terms MUST be backed by FACTS!

"Presentation pieces" certainly exist -- but not in an information vacuum as you imply. There MUST be documentation about the circumstances that caused a "special" coin to be made. Absent facts, visual opinions that something is "special" and not part of normal production or die use, are of no value.

I wish you well. Please learn more before you feign knowledge.

I never object to the truth, when I hear it.  And I haven't heard it from you.  I was responding to your assumption   The coin shows normal die maintenance. The field was polished down a little to remove surface cracks, spalling, or damage     Polishing and lapping are certainly different processes.  When did I say they weren't? Polishing was not used to remove cracks and spalling. That was die lapping my friend. Metal has to be removed from the die surface, which polishing won't do. A "little" polishing will not alter hardened steel. Try it at home and see for yourself! Since it was so time-consuming to create new dies in those days, dies were frequently lapped multiple times in order to extend die life. Collectors of world coins from the 1840's to 1870's encounter obviously lapped coins rather often, and they never look polished to mirror reflectivity.  If that were the case, there would be a huge number of designated "PL" coins from that era rather than just a paltry few.  

Regarding your assumption that Australian branch mints had no ability to produce "authentic" proofs, why should anyone care what you think? Who made you final judge of what a proof coin is? Spink in "Coins of England & the UK" and Marsh in "The Gold Sovereign" both list gold coins produced by Melbourne and Sydney mints from the 1870s and 1880s as proofs, based on extensive research of the original mint records.  I prefer to accept their established expertise rather than your rude bluster that has no basis in fact. If the mint director says they created proofs, then according to their definition the coins were proofs. Do you really think the mint directors would purposely lie in their official records? Seriously? These are the FACTS that you so desperately seem to require.  But apparently you ignore facts that don't coincide with your narrow pedestrian point of view. 

As far as mandatory documentation being required, you are truly laughable. Suppose I have a 1966 SMS set that has been broken up, and the original COA missing. Does this mean the coins are no longer presentation pieces?  As long as careful examination shows the characteristics necessary, then it's a presentation coin. A piece of paper does not alter the surface of a coin. 100 years ago, the mints handed out special pieces without formal COAs accompanying them, since they didn't anticipate your objections a century later! Newspapers of the time may show articles detailing these events. But in those days, such special pieces weren't listed separately in mint records. Same holds for modern proofs.  Do you need to see the original COA from the mint alongside a coin to determine if it is a proof coin? That says something about your ability to judge coins. If a proof COA is present, how do you determine if the COA was not removed from another coin and married to this MS PL item?  And if the COA is accidentally lost, is the coin no longer a proof in your opinion because there is no written evidence pertaining to that individual coin? Mint records saying a certain number of proof coins were produced certainly don't count in your mind, since anyone could pick up any coin of the right date and say "Wow! Proofs were produced in this year, so this is a proof." Gotta have that piece of paper with it, or no way! You are so comical. The features of each individual coin determine what it is. If I see a VF20 coin in a TPG holder that says MS60, does this evidence mean it's MS60? No, actually not. Coins most certainly do exist in a vacuum, since each one must stand on its own observable characteristics and merits, lack of evidence of its existence notwithstanding. 

Let's take a more recent example that proves how extremely ridiculous your demand for documented FACTS about minted coins is. Move up to the 20th century.  Since you fancy yourself to be the world's leading authority on numismatics, surely you've heard of the famous 1913 V nickel. But wait! According to Professor RWB there can't be any such coin, because there are no mint records that such a coin was ever produced. In fact, the real evidence is that Mint Director George H. Roberts sent a letter to Philadelphia Mint Supervisor John H. Landis specifically instructing him NOT to produce any 1913 V nickels.  So In your mind, there is no such thing as a 1913 V nickel since there are no official FACTS to verify its existence. How extremely clever you must be, certainly way smarter than the fools that have paid megabucks for those obviously counterfeit coins that don't really even exist in the first place.

So your "requirement" that there be records saying a certain number of special "non-circulation strike" coins were made is totally irrelevant.  It's the coin itself that determines what it is!  If the coin shows distinct evidence of being struck on a highly polished planchet, then it's probably not a normal circulation strike.  If mint directors 150 years ago chose to include production of such items under "circulation strikes" for convenience, it's really too late to do anything about that.

** Well, it's been fun chatting with you again, but I have a suggestion to lighten the situation going forward. I will agree never again to make any comment on any post you make, and you agree never again to make any comment on any post that I make. There seems to be an unpleasantness between us that is unhealthy, so let's just pretend that you don't exist to me (since I have no birth certificate proving that you exist) and I don't exist for you (same reason). Do feel free to leave one of your usual rude, banal responses to this post if you care to, and I will let you have the last word. Then, let's never meet again in print, OK?  

----------------------------------------------------------------------

One last thing.... I'm extremely curious to see what the world's greatest coin authority actually collects and has registered for competition. But when I look up RWB in the list of registered collectors, it shows an RWB starting in 2005, which matches your profile date, but shows that you only have ONE competition set registered, consisting of only two coins. Have I missed something? Do you truly just lurk around here to troll real collectors and complain about how extremely stupid NGC is, while not actually participating yourself? Or do you compete in PCGS?  If so, please leave a link so that all of us can see what you're into. I'm sure others must be as curious as I am. 

 

P.S.-- forget about listing the collection link if only on my behalf, since I've just placed your account on my Blocked User list and I won't be able to see it.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Cozdred

[Jason Abshier]

On 4/20/2023 at 8:59 PM, VKurtB said:

Both you and Roger are to be congratulated and honored for your research and writing contributions

@VKurtB I’m far from Rodger , don’t include me in with him that guy is walking encyclopedia on US minting processes and so … I’m just a Humble collector that reads as much as I can. In the end of the day everyone is entitled to their opinions on here but facts are fact sometimes I get it , and I don’t argue with folks on here but I do disagree with Rodger when he said SP or other such term have no meanings … They do and there’s a time and place when a coin should be assigned that along with Number grade TPG need be more clear on why and when they use that term 

 

On 4/20/2023 at 12:59 PM, RWB said:

"SP" or other such terms have NO accepted meanings

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Jason Abshier

[Jason Abshier]

On 4/21/2023 at 5:29 AM, Cozdred said:

So your "requirement" that there be records saying a certain number of special "non-circulation strike"

I’m not trying to pick a fight with you or disagree with you but from one coin collecting brother to another Rodger might of came off a little harsh in his statement I don’t fully agree with everything he saying either …. We have to remember when we send a coin in for TPG to be graded by grader we also have keep in mind they need to be authenticate and how do they do that ? They need some type of information to be documented on it wether it is in book or Krause publication or some other catalog book that is what determines a coin to be authentic without it they won’t be able to really complete the grading process although there are tons of specimen that are put in the book by Mintage value However they are recorded somewhere in order to be authentic  

@Cozdred don’t take Rodger’s “gibberish” to personal on here, we are all used to it on here by now… that’s Rodger ! There’s an old saying around these forums “I hope you got thick skin” sometimes on here the water gets really murky ! 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Jason Abshier

[Cozdred]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:44 AM, Jason Abshier said:

I’m not trying to pick a fight with you or disagree with you but from one coin collecting brother to another Rodger might of came off a little harsh in his statement I don’t fully agree with everything he saying either …. We have to remember when we send a coin in for TPG to be graded by grader we also have keep in mind they need to be authenticate and how do they do that ? They need some type of information to be documented on it wether it is in book or Krause publication or some other catalog book that is what determines a coin to be authentic without it they won’t be able to really complete the grading process although there are tons of specimen that are put in the book by Mintage value However they are recorded somewhere in order to be authentic  

@Cozdred don’t take Rodger’s “gibberish” to personal on here, we are all used to it on here by now… that’s Rodger ! There’s an old saying around these forums “I hope you got thick skin” sometimes on here the water gets really murky ! 

Hi Jason, What you say about TPG requiring authentication of some sort is dead-on accurate.  I specialize in UK gold sovereign varieties, and the most authoritative book on that is the 2021 edn of "The Gold Sovereign" by Marsh/Hill. I've actually discovered several new significant varieties which are exceedingly rare and unknown at the time of publication, so they are not listed.  Some of these are raw ungraded coins, and I've been advised not to submit them to NGC for certification since the new variety will almost certainly be denied, even though it's plainly evident by close examination of the coin.  Kind of frustrating.  I've corresponded with Steve Hill, the editor of this book, regarding many of my findings, and he is generally in agreement with what I've found. But until a new edition appears assigning a "Marsh number" to these varieties, I'm just out of luck.  When it comes to unusual varieties of coins, US or World, it seems that some random individuals like you or me are not allowed to make "discoveries". That is reserved for folks that have a published track record.  To get around this, what I've decided to do is publish short articles on my findings in various British publications like Coin News, and possibly the proceedings of the BNA.  I will load them up with high-res images detailing what I'm talking about, and then see what response there is from the collecting public. 

Since neither of the major TPGs will guarantee correct listings of varieties, I really don't see why they care. On my home comp, I have a large file full of incorrectly assigned varieties, almost all by PCGS, so I can understand their reluctance to stand behind their work in this area.  But since they have nothing to lose, other than reputation, I don't see why they won't consider certifying new varieties that are plainly evident.  But these seem to be the rules of the game, and we have to play by the rules.

By the way, for the record I come from a background in science, where difference of opinion is quite common and debate is encouraged. But discussions both live and especially in print are always carried out with respect for the other person and courtesy towards their positions. There are plenty of ways to disagree with someone politely, without castigating them. Since this Rodger fellow doesn't have the ability to do that, then I will simply ignore him in the future. There are plenty of polite folks around to have enjoyable and informative conversations with. I'm certainly no expert on coins, and I need all the legitimate advice I can get!  

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Cozdred
grammar error

[Jason Abshier]

On 4/21/2023 at 6:54 AM, Cozdred said:

Since neither of the major TPGs will guarantee correct listings of varieties, I really don't see why they care. On my home comp, I have a large file full of incorrectly assigned varieties, almost all by PCGS, so I can understand their reluctance to stand behind their work in this area.  But since they have nothing to lose, other than reputation, I don't see why they won't consider certifying new varieties that are plainly evident.  But these seem to be the rules of the game, and we have to play by the rules.

@Cozdred well said ! I agree a lot on what you said about PCGS … from what I see when it comes to world coins PCGS does not have expertise and Data like NGC would … NGC is leader in World coins in my opinion… 

Not to get to far off topic I collect German coins in both PCGS and NGC , I’ve notice that “Buying hype” in PCGS world holder coins folks still believe PCGS is leader worth more money and so on when it comes to buying higher graded world coins why ? I have no idea ! Just like PCGS dominated TPG coins claiming they are worth more than NGC coin of same domination and grade and so on … I see it as a bunch of hooey baloney ! I buy the coin not holder I see nice coins in both holders so it doesn’t matter to me 
 

until the next book comes out anytime soon on the varieties you found NGC probably would be your best bet to get them to authenticate your coins you have I wish you luck 

[Cozdred]

On 4/21/2023 at 6:35 AM, Jason Abshier said:

 

until the next book comes out anytime soon on the varieties you found NGC probably would be your best bet to get them to authenticate your coins you have I wish you luck 

 

Right again Jason!  After a short power nap, I just thought of another interesting item that I own.  Pic shown below.  This is a gold 1/2 sovereign dated 1891. The specific variety is known as the "high shield."  Oddly enough, there are no mint records that such a coin was ever produced.  And for 130 years it was thought not to exist, since not a single one had ever been seen. But in late 2022, one was discovered, and like a total fool I purchased it because I was not aware at the time that things which are unrecorded by the mint cannot actually exist.  Thanks to some not so friendly advice I now know better, but too late.   Anyways, I wasted even more money sending this mythical coin in to NGC, and they certified it as real (XF40), even though the mint obviously couldn't have made any since there's no record of it.  Hmmm.  What to think?  I'm currently holding it in my hand, and it seems to be there, but since the Royal Mint didn't list any as being produced, this must be some kind of illusion. Scary! 

 

Edit: I'm back after 10 minutes thinking about this.  I wonder... could it be possible that the mint actually produced a few items that they didn't record, and some of them escaped into circulation?  Hmmm. Interesting concept. 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Cozdred

[Jason Abshier]

@Cozdred I don’t know a whole lot about Half Sovereign coinage I haven’t really researched it much … but the way your describing this coin seems like they used reverse dies from The previous earlier years to strike this coin in 1891 ? From understanding Half Sovereign came in High and Low shield variety so No high Shield should have been produced in 1891 ? Correct ? …

If that’s the case ? thats rare find just like a 1959-D U.S “Mule” Lincoln cent !  

it highly possible you own the “mule” of gold Half Sovereign! I have read into that more pretty interesting 

Edited April 21, 2023 by Jason Abshier

[Cozdred]

On 4/21/2023 at 8:38 AM, Jason Abshier said:

 

it highly possible you own the “mule” of gold Half Sovereign! I have read into that more pretty interesting 

 

I haven't collected pennies for 50 years, and was not aware of the 1959-D coin you mention.  Had to look it up. Interesting story.

With regard to 1891 1/2 sov, the Royal Mint produced only "high shield" coins in 1887 when the Jubilee Head design started.  They took a couple of years off, and when they recommenced production in 1890 they found there was a problem with metal flow with this design, and so they revised it to create the "low shield" variety.  A mix of both was minted in 1890. By the time 1891 rolled around, mint records show that they only produced coins with the new modified "low shield" reverse. In 1892 they produced an enormous amount of 1/2 sovs, and the mint actually records about 5% of the total being of the "high shield" variety. So obviously at the end of 1890 there were still a few "high shield" reverse dies lying around which were available if needed.  Low production runs in 1891 supposedly didn't run them out of "low shield" dies, or at least that was the going assumption for 130 years. Apparently they did run out of 'low shield" dies near the end of 1892, and used up the remaining "high shield" dies they had on hand.  

Since the "high shield" dies were used extensively in 1890, and used to finish up annual production in 1892, it's possible that they may have also made a run at the very end of 1891 using the ones on hand, and just didn't record it. Unlike the penny mule you mention, a second one of the 1891 1/2 sov was discovered in England just a few months ago, so there are now two of these known to exist. I own about a dozen different examples of ultra-rare varieties of gold sovereigns, with known examples of less than 10 in existence (R5). So having something with only two (R7) is not a huge shock!  NGC certified it immediately, so they had no issue with it, and I would imagine that they examined it with every known test since at the time it was considered unique.  My guess is that either some mint worker accidentally pulled up the wrong reverse die in 1891, and as soon as the error was discovered they swapped it out, or else they used it on purpose but struck so few coins with it that they simply didn't bother to list the number separately from the main production.  Like the aforementioned 1913 V nickel, it seems to be an item that was actually produced at the mint, but not recorded anywhere. 

[Jason Abshier]

@Cozdred the glorious infamous 1913 V Liberty head nickel ! was Indeed “illegally” minted by Samuel Brown at Philadelphia Mint , I believe it been long while since I read an article about 1913 V nickel (why collectors got to keep the 5 known illegally struck 1913 V nickel? I don’t know ) I consider it a counterfeit coin anyways  … why all the high praise and high dollars spilled over a counterfeit coin anyways  

That’s just as rare as owning 1933 St.Guadens double eagle which also illegal to own…

Edited April 21, 2023 by Jason Abshier

[pogohatesme]

I appreciate everyone's input. It's all been very informative and intriguing. 

[VKurtB]

On 4/21/2023 at 4:12 AM, Jason Abshier said:

But you did ! So there’s some proof of their existence… I didn’t write it off to offend you in way but proof can be anything open up coin book you see that mint acknowledge public they struck a specimens that year or trial strike is kept in books … another issue is Medals (table medals is what I call them) European medals I notice the SP then a grade on the Slab some medals don’t get the SP assigned to it how they determine that I have no idea . 
 

on another note @VKurtB I don’t collect Jefferson nickels I heard some years the mint was working on special matte finish proofs if that what you were talking about ?  but I always have time to read writing on coins do you have the quick link so I can read up on what you wrote about 1994 Jefferson nickels ? I’ll be more than glad to read it bud 

They were matte. They LOOK LIKE matte proofs. The detail is of that fineness. Absolutely mark free, also. Jason, this sort of thing is why the entire field of numismatic forensics exists. The coins can (sometimes, not often) figuratively "speak for themselves". The presence or absence of documentation is utterly irrelevant.

[RWB]

On 4/21/2023 at 5:30 AM, Jason Abshier said:

I do disagree with Roger when he said SP or other such term have no meanings

There are no accepted meanings to these terms. They are spewed about like fizz from a shaken soft drink bottle; but, the spewers never clearly define them. Rather, individuals make assumptions of meanings. Certainly, a coin can be made for a special occasion, but there MUST be a relationship between the coin and the event, AND the TPG must publicly establish that relationship. Then, and only then, does "Special Strike" have  meaning in relation to that coin, and that coin ONLY.

The term "Specimen" is especially vague, again because those who stick this on a slab label fail to state what that means. If it means the coins looks different, then the label make MUST state exactly why and provide documents to support that. Strangely, few seem to understand that there is a considerable range in appearance of normal coins. These are the result of changes in die wear or damage, die maintenance ('proof-like' is one of the most obvious), planchet finish and upsetting, and even press set-up and adjustment. (See the bologna about "1964 special mint set coins" - they are simply early strikes off new dies.)

Sure, if some want to open their wallets and close their minds to being conned, that is there prerogative. But I'm confident that some people remain with a little common sense and the ability to think through a situation using logic and facts.

[VKurtB]

On 4/21/2023 at 11:56 AM, RWB said:

There are no accepted meanings to these terms. They are spewed about like fizz from a shaken soft drink bottle; but, the spewers never clearly define them. Rather, individuals make assumptions of meanings. Certainly, a coin can be made for a special occasion, but there MUST be a relationship between the coin and the event, AND the TPG must publicly establish that relationship. Then, and only then, does "Special Strike" have  meaning in relation to that coin, and that coin ONLY.

The term "Specimen" is especially vague, again because those who stick this on a slab label fail to state what that means. If it means the coins looks different, then the label make MUST state exactly why and provide documents to support that. Strangely, few seem to understand that there is a considerable range in appearance of normal coins. These are the result of changes in die wear or damage, die maintenance ('proof-like' is one of the most obvious), planchet finish and upsetting, and even press set-up and adjustment. (See the bologna about "1964 special mint set coins" - they are simply early strikes off new dies.)

Sure, if some want to open their wallets and close their minds to being conned, that is there prerogative. But I'm confident that some people remain with a little common sense and the ability to think through a situation using logic and facts.

So, are there universally agreed upon meanings to these terms? No. Does that really matter? Also, no. So I ask YOU, @RWB, two questions. 1) What are the nickels in the two Coin & Currency Sets of the 1990's?, and 2) What are the coins struck individually by Royal Mint guests? I'll be glad to take up your answer now, and take up the entire subject with Mssrs. Montgomery and Wengel in June.

Edited April 21, 2023 by VKurtB

[J P M]

On 4/21/2023 at 12:41 PM, VKurtB said:

They were matte. They LOOK LIKE matte proofs. The detail is of that fineness. Absolutely mark free, also. Jason, this sort of thing is why the entire field of numismatic forensics exists. The coins can (sometimes, not often) figuratively "speak for themselves". The presence or absence of documentation is utterly irrelevant.

In 1994 they made the SP Nickel then in 2005 - 2010 they made the SMS Nickels. I am not sure why they called them SMS to me those were the 65.66.and 67 years. 

[VKurtB]

On 4/21/2023 at 7:44 PM, J P M said:

In 1994 they made the SP Nickel then in 2005 - 2010 they made the SMS Nickels. I am not sure why they called them SMS to me those were the 65.66.and 67 years. 

IMO the 1997 nickel is even nicer. Certainly fewer of them out there.

[J P M]

On 4/21/2023 at 10:40 PM, VKurtB said:

IMO the 1997 nickel is even nicer. Certainly fewer of them out there.

Yes I am still looking for one of those. Most of the SP coins sell off fast and to high a price. Kinda like the Denver ANA, 2017-S 225TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MINT - ENHANCED UNC I am always seeing that one go for a high price.