Changes to the Panda Registry set

[Larry Dreher]

I'm going to start this post as an open invitation to panda collectors for your suggestions on changes we'd like to see to the registry set(s). Hopefully we can reach consensus on changes we'd like.

 

I've contacted some of you directly and asked for your contributions to this discussion.

[taz49-migration]

In my opinion what needs to happen is that jay with ngc needs to start from scratch and reor ganize the registry with the input from the current registry members.

there are way too many discrepancies in the current registry. I have had to send back several panda's for reclassification do to errors and have had to ask the registry be changed do to errors in attributio

 

actually in both registries there are panda's listed that make no sense since there is no true defining line as to what should be slotted.

 

Example:

look at both registries and the 1994 mint state panda. this is erroneous cause there is no true single mint state panda. there is a large date and a small date, or as some china delaers refer to them as small bar or large bar, some call it something else, but there are 2 coins issued for this year. this is just one example i am talking about.

i could on and on, but i will leave this post for now. anyone that wants to reply with ideas or comments please do.

 

Sorry, one more thing. My suggestion would be to take the complete registry and refine it so as to not include the date registry panda's( as Jay Turner calls it), and

have a registry of proof panda's and commemoratives and a registry for mint state panda's, just like we see in most all other categories. This could be refined somewhat but as a whole this would be mmore concise and much easier for all to build sets .

 

regards,

bob tuttle

[Larry Dreher]

Sorry, one more thing. My suggestion would be to take the complete registry and refine it so as to not include the date registry panda's( as Jay Turner calls it), and

have a registry of proof panda's and commemoratives and a registry for mint state panda's, just like we see in most all other categories. This could be refined somewhat but as a whole this would be mmore concise and much easier for all to build sets .

 

regards,

bob tuttle

 

Bob,

 

Help me understand what you are saying. Are you recommending three different registry sets for 10Y silver pandas? One for Mint state, one for Proof, and one for commemorative?

 

Aren't the commemoratives a mixture of both proof & MS coins?

 

look at both registries and the 1994 mint state panda. this is erroneous cause there is no true single mint state panda. there is a large date and a small date, or as some china delaers refer to them as small bar or large bar, some call it something else, but there are 2 coins issued for this year. this is just one example i am talking about.

 

The 1992 & 1994 are both wrong now in the registry as are the 1999 where there are three dates and the 1995 where there are two.

 

There is no doubt that there are problems with the attributions of the coins. I think this is simply growing pains for the China panda series. I think it's important to see how few pandas have really been graded to date. In the past, this series traded for the price of bullion and collectors didn't care about large or small date varieties. There is also no definitive source (like a Krause catalog) that lists the different varieties that NGC can rely on.

 

One other thing to note is that PCGS has no varieties noted. I give lots of credit to NGC and Jay for even being bothered with this.

 

I think we now have a critical mass of collectors interested enough in the panda series that we can help shape NGC's approach to this. I know I personally collect not only date varieties but also the frosted and bright varieties. Jay indicated that they aren't interested in defining those as separate varieties and I can understand why.

 

Lets keep constructive ideas going and maybe we can make progress.

[taz49-migration]

No, not suggesting 3 registries, guess i wasn't clear.

What i feel would be appropriate is 2 registries. one that contains proof panda's and commemoratives.

The other to contain only mint state pand'as which could include any and all versions of mint state panda's. IE: large date, small date, the frosted versions, mirror versions etc.

In other words take the mint state out of the complete set registry and vice versa.

hope this clears the air a bit,

regards,

bob

[taz49-migration]

LARRY AND OTHER COLLECTOR'S OF PANDA'S.

I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY THAT THERE ARE MISTAKES IN THE REGISTRIES AND I ALSO KNOW IT IS NEW FOR NGC.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE JAY AT NGC ALLOW US TO SUBMIT OUR IDEAS ON WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T BE INCLUDED IN THE REGISTRIES, WHAT DO YOU THINK? I AGREE AS WELL ABOUT PCGS NOT HAVING ANY REGISTRY FOR PANDA'S AND I HOPE IT STAYS THAT WAY,

REGARDS,

BOB TUTTLE

[Larry Dreher]

Bob and you other lurkers (come on, join in!)

 

Here is my recommendation specific to the 10Y silver panda sets:

 

I'd prefer three sets:

 

Set #1 is what I would call a starter set for people who find the larger set too intimidating. It is basically equal to the regular set we have today. There is basically one MS slot for each year and one PF slot. Any appropriate variety from that year should be able to fit into the slot. For instance, either a 1991 large date or small date would qualify for the MS 1991 slot.

 

There are currently 13 people who participate in this set so it's the most popular. Collectors wgho get more serious about the panda series can then "graduate" to the more detailed sets.

 

Set #2: I'd propose the current "complete" set be split into two different sets. One for regular MS & PF issues and the other for commemoratives. I'd propose that the regular set be called "10Y Silver Panda - All Varieties.

 

This set should then have separate slots for the large date / small date and proofs. I'd personally like to see NGC recognize the frosty varieties where they exist. Perhaps a compromise for that would be a Cameo or Ultra Cameo designation on the MS varieties where applicable.

 

Set #3: The third set woud be the commemorative set. This would help keep things cleaner in the all variety set and is consistent with other registry sets where commemoratives are kept separately.

 

Bob, I know you recommended splitting out proofs from the MS set but I don't see a lot of value in that. They are not issuing non-commemortive proofs any more so I don't see a harm in keeping them in the all variety list.

[taz49-migration]

Ok larry here we go.

I have responded so i'm not a lurker.

 

I totally diagree with your suggestions.

 

Now you want four registries and we can't even get the 2 we have right?

 

The current 2 registries are fine they just need some refining and correct designations for the slots that are already there. If any non current panda's want or should be added so be it but with someone from ngc verifying, and i stress verifying, that those actual panda's do exist and are verifyable for slotting.

 

As i said previously, a registry for proofs and 1 for mint state are really sufficient. If the concensus be that a seperate registry is warranted for comm's, so be it, i would agree with that.

 

But along those same lines then ngc and current panda collector's need to decide what they want included in the registries if ngc is willing to let us give out input.

 

And as a reply to your statement that china is not issuing any more proof commemoratives, that maybe true right now, but who is to say that they don't do exactly what the us mint did in 1986 with the silver eagles. And i know i'll get some torrid feedback about silver eagles being commemoratives, but i think you know what i mean.

 

Ok, my 3 cents have been applied and i have ceased to buy any more 10 yuan panda's until this issue is resolved with the current registries. I hope jay and his peers review these forums and reply so we can at least have some hope for the future investments of all involved.

bob

[taz49-migration]

QUICK QUESTION WHY IS ONLY ME AND YOU REPLYING TO THIS POST?

[Larry Dreher]

Why are we the only ones? Hmm, good question. I have received private mail from some who don't normally use the message boards. It's surprising to me that people don't use the chat boards to hash over things. I guess I'm just a geek.

 

First,

 

Let me start by agreeing with you. First and foremost they need to clean up the existing slots in the registry. I'm confident that will occur and all the small date / large date variations will be correctly identified. I've spoken with Jay and will be sending him some of my graded coins for variety review. Based on what he sees, he'll relabel them and then fix the registry slots. I think he's waiting on any changes to see what I send him.

 

Putting aside the frosty vs non-frosty issue for a moment. The issues I'm aware of in the current registry are as follows. Please add to this if I miss something.

 

- The 1992 needs two date varieties, small and large

- Ditto for 1994

- The 1995 small twig needs large and small date varieties

- The 1999 needs to recognize the two different large date varieties (or call one medium)

- The 1997 & 1998 Multicolor only allow coins to be entered if they graded UC. Cameo on regular coins won't slot

- There's a whole bunch of commemoratives that need to be added

 

Before we start disagreeing on how many sets we need lets see if we can agree on these things.

[MunkyMan95]

I would say that you two are the only really serious collectors of panda coins.

[Larry Dreher]

I would say that you two are the only really serious collectors of panda coins

 

There are some others but they don't hang out on the chat boards. There are also serious collectors who don't give a rip about the registry because they don't use it but I will grant you panda collectors, especially those that collect graded pandas, are few are far between.

 

Now is the time to get in on the ground floor

 

For example, you can get an MS69 1995 Proof panda in the $150 range. There were a total of 10,000 coins minted and there are billions of chinese who are potential collectors some day.

 

Have I convinced you eagle

 

Had I known Bob and I would be the only ones discussing this I would have just used email.

[Mike's Pandas-migration]

I agree with Bob's desire for two registries; one for proof and one for MS. The next thing to do is have NGC develop an acceptable list through their research. We could provide examples of varieties that we believe to be available for them to research and confirm. It appears that Jay is willing to work with us as they receive a variety for the first time. He has stated in an email to Larry in February that the list is evolving as new coins are submitted.

 

In terms of the varieties that Larry listed above, I would agree that the date variations for the 1995 small twig and the three 1999 dates need to be added. The 1992 and 1994 date varieties have been added to the census. I have seen these from different sources, but they should be confirmed by NGC. I think the problem may be that these date varieties and the newer commemoratives that have recently been graded and added to the census have not yet been added to the registry.

 

In terms of the proof-like and frosted varieties, these typically correspond to the date variations (except 1989 and possible 1990). Jay has stated in a January email to Larry that the 1989 frosted variation has been recognized by NGC. Some people has "extra" proof-like or frosted varieties, but I view these more as a difference in grading, not a new variety.

 

By the way, I have large and small dates for the 1996 Beijing Coin Show that may need to be added to the census/registry, if they can be confirmed.

 

If there was a third registry, I would suggest one for metals made for the various coin shows (Munich, Hong Kong, New York) that do not have a Yuan value assigned.

 

Mike

[taz49-migration]

AT LEAST WE ARE GETTING SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE 2 REGISTRIES.

PLEASE, LET'S JUST AGREE ON GETTING THE BASIC 1, 2, OR 3 REGISTRIES LEVELED OUT AND THEN START DISCUSSING ALL THE DIFFERENT VARIETIES, FROSTED VERSION'S ,ETC.

THE CURRENT REGISTRIES ARE FLAWED, AS YOU BOTH KNOW, SO PLEASE LET'S GET THESE RIGHT BEFORE EVEN THINKING ABOUT ALL THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES THAT THESE 2 REGISTRIES CAN BECOME!!!!!!!!!

 

SINCERELY,

BOB

[MunkyMan95]

COULD YOU PLEASE NOT USE THE 'CAPS LOCK' FEATURE ON YOUR KEYBOARD WHEN REPLYING TO SOMEONE'S POST? IT MAKES THE POST HARD TO READ, AND MAKES IT LOOK LIKE YOU DON'T CARE ENOUGH ABOUT YOUR POSTING TO KNOW THAT CAPS IS PRETTY MUCH OFF LIMITS.

 

Okay?

[Mike's Pandas-migration]

Bob,

 

I like the idea of having the two registries (proof and mint state) and as you stated earlier would be receptive to a separate registry for commemoratives, if others wanted it included. I also believe the first task should be to determine which registries should be included then to determine which coins should be included in each group. Some, like the proof coins would be easy to get agreement. Groups and coin lists could then be provided to NGC for their approval and to verify the coins on the list.

 

I haven't talked to anyone at NGC except for a couple of emails on grading (not getting the date variations on the 1995 small twig) or the grading of BU coins as proof in the census. I have, however, read through email reponses Jay had to primarily Larry's questions. Reading these responses gave me the opinion that Jay felt that the Panda coins registry was dynamic and would expand as new coins were submitted. There does appear to be a lag between newer coins being graded and listed in the census to the time that they are put into the registry. It appears that this is the ideal time to work with Jay and others to get comprehensive registries put together.

 

I probably shouldn't have brought up the metals as a registry (a long term goal) in my earlier response since it takes away from the main concern on getting the current registries corrected.

 

Mike

[Larry Dreher]

Mike,

 

Thanks for joining into the discussion. It seems like you and Bob both agree on two registries: One for MS and one for proof. Just so I understand, where would the commemoratives go? Into either set depending on if they are MS or proof? I can live with any group decision but I just think it's cleaner to keep the commemoratives separated into their own registry.

 

Jay felt that the Panda coins registry was dynamic and would expand as new coins were submitted.

 

That's the impression I got too. When I submitted my batch of 125 coins it had all the varieties I knew about separated out into individual lines (including frosty and bright). Unfortunately they did make some errors in attribution but I have every confidence Jay will correct them.

 

In my opinion here's the problem NGC is up against: There is not a definative source of documentation for panda varieties. Right now, the best I've found is pandausa.com. Colin, the owner, has been incredibly helpful to me but NGC can't base their variety list on a dealer's web site.

 

In my most recent discussions with Jay he indicated they were very reluctant to designate the frosty versions as separate varieties. I can understand that the dfference is sometimes subtle. My suggestion as a compromise is that they allow cameo and ultra cameo distinctions on MS coins in the series but not create separate slots in the registry for them.

 

There does appear to be a lag between newer coins being graded and listed in the census to the time that they are put into the registry.

 

I think the delay is longer than usual because Jay is waiting to fix some attribution errors from my set and see what we come up with for registry suggestions.

[Larry Dreher]

By the way, I have large and small dates for the 1996 Beijing Coin Show that may need to be added to the census/registry, if they can be confirmed

 

Interesting... Could you send me scans of those two varieties?

 

Jay has stated in a January email to Larry that the 1989 frosted variation has been recognized by NGC.

 

In my latest correspondence with Jay he was thinking they were going to remove the 1989 frosted variation. I sent a coin that was clearly the frosted variety and they chose not to designate it as such.

[taz49-migration]

i also would like to see a scan of the large and small bejing coins larry if you don't mind,

bob

[Larry Dreher]

i also would like to see a scan of the large and small bejing coins larry if you don't mind

I don't mind but Mike's the guy. I suppose he could just post them here.

 

 

I see that eagle scared you so much about the caps now nothing is uppercase

 

It is funny that in chat conversations people do get really annoyed by all caps. I saw that note coming but I didn't have the heart to tell you.

 

Back on topic....

 

What's your recommendation for the commemorative coins? Split them between the proof and MS sets?

[taz49-migration]

old habits are hard to break sometimes, i am a lousy typer so i HAVE used caps alot in my emails and i surely didn't think i would get a response like i got , but oh well going to [embarrassing lack of self control] some people off no matter what you do or say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OK

[taz49-migration]

a seperate registry for commemoratives is fine by me.

[Larry Dreher]

Ok. Good. Mike is out till Sunday but be said he'd comment then.

 

The proposal on the table is three registry sets. One for MS including any varieties NGC chooses to recognize. One for Proof, non commemorative issues. And one for Proof and MS commemorative issues.

 

Did I get that right? Mike, do you have a comment?

[taz49-migration]

I don't think that the third was intended to be proofs and commemoratives, just commemoratives.

Let me see if i can clear up what i suggested.

 

1. Mint state: to include ms coins only, any varities such the different dates, large or small, frosted versions, (or cameo's as you suggested), or as ngc has included in the current registry, mirror finish.

 

2. Proof panda's only. To include any varities, such as colorized, which i am told by my chinese contacts, that no panda's where minted in ms version of colorized. Jay you might want to verify this but my contact in china strongly verifies that no colorized panda's where minted in ms version.

 

3. Commemoratives, all current worded, or commemorative panda's, all varities included. There are many more commemoratives on the market that could be included to this registry.

 

To me this would eliminate any doubt's about what goes where?

Let me know what you guys think, I am open to most anything but I do strongly feel that these panda's should be seperated.

Regards,

Bob

[Larry Dreher]

Bob we are saying the same thing. Some of the commemorative issues are struck in proof like the 1991 10th anniversary. Others are struck as BU like the 1995 Beijing Expo. All would go in the commemorative set. Regular issue proofs would go in their own set. Examples wpould be 1983, 84, 85, 87, 89, 91, 91, 92, 93, 94, 96, 96, 97 colored, 98 colored, and 99 colored. There have been no proofs issued since 1999.

[taz49-migration]

Sorry, i misread what you were saying Larry.

1- for ms, 1 for proofs and 1 for commemeoratives: (proof and ms combined), is that correct.

[Larry Dreher]

Yes,

 

Now we just need to wait to see if Mike agrees.

[Mike's Pandas-migration]

I'm good with the three registries (MS, proofs, and commemorative).

[taz49-migration]

Ok, so now we wait for ngc, right Larry? Thanks Mike.

[Larry Dreher]

I'll follow up with Jay. Maybe he can even comment in the thread.

 

Now that we all agree we want three... What needs to be fixed / added in individual coins? Here are the things I'm going to follow up with Jay.

 

-1992 & 1994 need small and large date split out

-Two 1995 date varieties exist for the smal twig coin

-Three 1999 date varieties exist.

 

-Many of the bank commemorative coins need to be added (and mine graded as PF need to be switched to MS)

 

-I'm going to lobby that there should be some way to differentiate frosted varieties even if it's just a cameo designation without any special slots in the registry.

 

Anything else?

 

MIke, Maybe to you to submit those commemoratives with the different date varieties so Jay can look at them before he creates slots for them.

[Mike's Pandas-migration]

As of this afternoon, the 1992 and 1994 has been split to show large and small dates. Everyone lost some points, since the coin you had in those slots were removed.

 

I made a mistake on the 1996 Beijing. What I have is large and small date 1999 that have a gold plated Panda like the Beijing coin for that year. Since plated by others, its not a gradable coin. Was typing from memory at work.

 

I do have a coin that I have not seen yet graded - 2004 " 20th Anniv. of Commercial and Industrial Bank".

 

Also, I saw today on chinagoldcoin.net that there is a new bank commemorative that came out on May 31, 2006. This is in addition to the Horticultural Panda that came out on May 1, 2006.

 

Mike