What are some of the Seven Questions you feel you can never get a straight answer to on the Forum? 1 1

[Sandon]

    @USAuPzlBxBob--Coins in type sets are scored differently than when used in other NGC registry sets. In a type set, each coin of a type receives the same score in a specific grade, while in a date and mint set the score in a specific grade varies with the rarity of the issue. In "My Competitive Coins, the coin receives the highest single number of points it has received in any set in which you have used it. This may explain the discrepancies you note. I understand that the NGC Coin Explorer values are based on the scores for date and mint sets. I check the points awarded to coins in specific sets by clicking the "Points" column in the slot in question.

[USAuPzlBxBob]

Thanks, Sandon.

I'll have to drill down on this a little more, see where my Points are coming from.

It sounds like what you are saying is that because I have the adjunct sets — e.g. Denver Mint Gold Issues, Complete — in addition to my Gold Type Set 1834-1933 (Puzzle Box Gold), I have garnered much higher Points because each of the adjunct sets I created have made my coins reflect rarity since they are not Type Sets, and for that reason only.

I have not looked at any of my Competitive Sets in over six months.  I just look at My Competitive Coins.  The only reason I made the adjunct sets was so that I could include a cover-photo of the Puzzle Box Gold Strongbox "solve" at various times in the "solve" ordeal, for a total of seven extra photos.  I had no idea there would be a fringe Points benefit, not that I'm much of a competitor for Top Collectors.

This is a very interesting research project.  I'll have to do some experimenting, like remove the 1839 $2.5 MS 61 from the Philadelphia Mint Gold Issues, Complete Circulation Issue but leave the coin in the Gold Type Set 1834-1933, and see if the SCORE in that type set plummets by 4,844 points.

I'll be following up with yet another question, slightly related to all of this, but I have to be careful, so as not to step on any toes.

Good thread, Henri.  I would never have learned any of this without it.

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/14/2024 at 10:00 AM, zadok said:

...is there a way to totally delete an entire thread, ones that serve no beneficial purpose n just clutter up the menu?...if not why not?...it would be most helpful....

I should like to direct your attention to the two posts immediately preceding this one, and do so politely. 

(Thanks karma. You owed me one.)  🤣

[Henri Charriere]

On 1/15/2024 at 10:19 AM, Coinbuf said:

Agreed.

Ditto, Chopper-One.  🤣

[Henri Charriere]

Here's a tough one:

How does one contact a Set Registrant who has never posted a comment?

I have a User Name for the.member, but have not been able to insert a "search term" because technically, there is none.

What is my next move?   Whom do I contact?

[Henri Charriere]

Another enduring mystery...

To my knowledge, the term "business strikes," for whatever reason, is not used on the massive Set Registry.

Instead, the original, tried-and-true term used since caveman days at the dawn of civilization is: "Circulation strikes".

The old-school crowd, "pre-clad coinage" persists in using it (as do I) to the never-ending consternation of New Jacks.

[Henri Charriere]

Here's a real doozy.  I intentionally post it here though it's premise lies at the heart of the "gradeflation" controversy.

First, off-tangent thought:  I thought it rather odd that only one coin and currency business, appeared to have cornered the market on currency anomalies like "radar" notes, e.g., serial sequences like [Letter] 12344321 [Letter] Straight numbers like 222222, or 23232323, etc. All the notes appeared to be of recent vintage. To make a long story short, on the line reading CONTACT SELLER, I did just that stating boldly the sheer number of such bills offered by a single dealer simply suggested a BEP employee's integrity had been compromised.  Los vaqueros vamoosed, or, if you are partial to Civil War military slang, the scamsters skedaddled.  Their site evaporated in lieu of a formal reply.

This brings me to the question which may make me the intended target of a drive-by:  IS IT WITHIN THE REALM OF POSSIBILITY FOR ANYONE NOT DIRECTLY AFFILIATED OR RELATED TO A MEMBER OF A TPGS, TO SEE TO IT HIS SUBMISSION IS GIVEN SPECIAL ATTENTION?  I bring this up because in practically every other endeavor human beings engage in, access is gained, inadvertently or by design, and the outcome sought attained.  The POTUS, SECRET SERVICE, CIA, FBI, DOD, U.S. MINT etc. have all been compromised at one time or another.  THERE'S ONE GUY WHO CLAIMS AN ELECTION WAS STOLEN FROM HIM! 

I believe we all know what to expect from any TPGS, but my question is are such concerns exempt from Murphy's Law and if not, what checks and balances are in place to insure against such an irregularity?

Hey, how's that for one of the questions you may feel you'd never get a straight answer to?  Any thoughts?

 

[Treeman]

Simple question: Why, from both major services, are MS69 Modern Coins often actually nicer than MS70 coins from the same service?

[Henri Charriere]

A related question:  why do some collectors prefer certain coins in higher AU grades, such as AU-58, over their lower MS grade counterparts, such as MS-62?

[RWB]

Same as "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" by Thomas Edward Lawrence (aka Lawrence of Arabia).

Edited March 1 by RWB

[Sandon]

On 3/1/2024 at 1:00 PM, Treeman said:

Simple question: Why, from both major services, are MS69 Modern Coins often actually nicer than MS70 coins from the same service?

  Simple answer: Because the only objective difference between most modern coins of the same issue graded "69" or "70" is the price you pay!

[VKurtB]

On 3/1/2024 at 12:00 PM, Treeman said:

Simple question: Why, from both major services, are MS69 Modern Coins often actually nicer than MS70 coins from the same service?

Simple answer: The changes that occur inside modern slabs, AFTER encapsulation, can be, and often ARE, larger than the difference between an MS69 and an MS70 coin. Makes it seem silly to pay for MS70’s, doesn’t it? Yeahhhhh. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/4/2024 at 9:01 PM, VKurtB said:

Simple answer: The changes that occur inside modern slabs, AFTER encapsulation, can be, and often ARE, larger than the difference between an MS69 and an MS70 coin. Makes it seem silly to pay for MS70’s, doesn’t it? Yeahhhhh. 

An MS-70 whispers perfection and top of the line.  The MS-69 inspires further scrutiny:  so what prompted that demerit?  Unspoken is the fact that not enough research has been done to guarantee an MS-69 or MS-70 will maintain the grades awarded them forever

Edited March 7 by Henri Charriere
Omit errant ampersand.

[mlovmo]

I don't know about 7, but I have one that seems to have produced various shades of opinion in the past:

What is "wear" on a coin? 

Really, it seems to boil down to: When does "wear" begin for a coin:  Immediately after it freed from between the coining dies?  After the struck coin slides off the chute and into a hopper or bag?  After it is released by the Mint's Coiner (since it's not "officially a coin" until then)?  Or after it is freed from a mint roll or mint bag?  Perhaps it's only after it leaves its source financial institution (a bank) and gets used as money for the first time?

Related issue:  Is "cabinet friction" or "roll friction" a more allowable form of wear that is essentially tantamount to being given a higher coin grade than if it hasn't been blessed with such names?

Edited March 7 by mlovmo

[Henri Charriere]

A TRADE DOLLAR CHOP-MARKED TO HELL AND BACK IS OKAY BY THOSE WHO BEHOLD SUCH THINGS IN SEPULCHRAL AWE, but mention wear, a four-letter word, and you will be told to watch your language in mixed company.

[Henri Charriere]

Here is a simple enough straightforward question that I defy anyone, rank amateur or experienced, credentialed pro, to answer without an explanation:

Do TPGSs appraise coins?

My view: of course they do... unofficially. Doubt me? Then allow me to direct your attention to the standard Submission Form, and more particularly to Section 11 and its last column cordoned off in red, marked: "Declared Value (REQUIRED)." The Instructions accompanying the Form, states:  "Declared value is required. If NGC determines that coins are undervalued, NGC will assign its determination of the fair market value and adjust the conservation and/or grading fees accordingly." This provision bespeaks volumes of foreknowledge of current coin values.

Let us also consider, figuratively, the lone voice crying out, intermittently, in the wilderness:  "No objective, repeatable standards!"  With a single digit Sheldon scale point difference in grade, e.g., MS-66 vs MS-67, not to mention augmentation via suffix ( + / ++ / ☆) which could result in a seismic shift in value, one would be hard-pressed to argue graders work independently of each other with horse blinders on.  IMHO.  What say you?

Edited March 18 by Henri Charriere
Die polishing to improve viewers' experience.

[VKurtB]

On 3/18/2024 at 2:25 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Here is a simple enough straightforward question that I defy anyone, rank amateur or experienced, credentialed pro, to answer without an explanation:

Do TPGSs appraise coins?

My view: of course they do... unofficially. Doubt me? Then allow me to direct your attention to the standard Submission Form, and more particularly to Section 11 and its last column cordoned off in red, marked: "Declared Value (REQUIRED)." The Instructions accompanying the Form, states:  "Declared value is required. If NGC determines that coins are undervalued, NGC will assign its determination of the fair market value and adjust the conservation and/or grading fees accordingly." This provision bespeaks volumes of foreknowledge of current coin values.

Let us also consider, figuratively, the lone voice crying out, intermittently, in the wilderness:  "No objective, repeatable standards!"  With a single digit Sheldon scale point difference in grade, e.g., MS-66 vs MS-67, not to mention augmentation via suffix ( + / ++ / ☆) which could result in a seismic shift in value, one would be hard-pressed to argue graders work independently of each other with horse blinders on.  IMHO.  What say you?

Oh there’s horse “something” at work, but I don’t think it’s blinders. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 3/1/2024 at 1:00 PM, Treeman said:

Simple question: Why, from both major services, are MS69 Modern Coins often actually nicer than MS70 coins from the same service?

I haven't seen that, though at times seeing the imperfection on normal-sized 69's is VERY tough.  A bit easier on those 5-ounce coins. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/15/2024 at 1:09 PM, J P M said:

Certification is required at GC and I think at Heritage also. GC does not sell raw coins.

Really ?  HA too ?  

I would think they wouldn't accept large consignments because they don't want responsibility for them...it also might "cheapen" their brand...but if someone was a collector and had dozens or hundreds of certifified coins....I would have thought HA and GC might allow a few raws to be sold by them as an exception to the rule.

Caveat Emptor, of course.

No distinction between raw bullion vs. raw numismatic coins either, I presume ?

Edited March 29 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

I'm not sure about in this forum but over ATS they have had some doozies with back-and-forths by ex-graders and really knoweldgeable folks (not that we don't have them, too, just not in the quantity over there)...about wear, cabinet friction, rub, and friction. 

It's gotten more prominent and heated ever since CACG came on the scene and some coins went from initial grades of MS to AU under the CACG regime.  I've learned alot, but if these experts and professionals can't agree on the definition -- or when it should come into play -- then how the heck can a lowly peon like me figure it out ?  

 

 

[VKurtB]

On 3/28/2024 at 11:30 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

I'm not sure about in this forum but over ATS they have had some doozies with back-and-forths by ex-graders and really knoweldgeable folks (not that we don't have them, too, just not in the quantity over there)...about wear, cabinet friction, rub, and friction. 

It's gotten more prominent and heated ever since CACG came on the scene and some coins went from initial grades of MS to AU under the CACG regime.  I've learned alot, but if these experts and professionals can't agree on the definition -- or when it should come into play -- then how the heck can a lowly peon like me figure it out ?  

 

 

Truth: You’re not meant to be able to figure it out.