• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

RAM-VT

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Journal Entries posted by RAM-VT

  1. RAM-VT
    Chapter 8 The Five Coins that never were and are worth a Fortune
    Anyone who has followed the trials and tribulations related to the 1933 Double Eagles in private hands knows simply possessing a coin does not mean you have the legal right to own it. I am no expert on what exactly the procedure is for coins and bank notes to become legal tender. From what I can gather from news articles the first step is that an order be placed for the coins or bank notes be produced. Once produced is this new currency now legal tender? Evidently not, the new currency must then be officially released which includes funds being transferred to the treasury equal to the face value of the new currency being introduced into circulation. In the case of the 1933 Double Eagle the coins were authorized to be struck but that is where it stopped. With the exception of one 1933 double eagle set aside to be presented to King Farouk of Egypt all other specimens were to be melted down. But even though King Farouk was officially presented his 1933 double eagle it was not officially removed from the mint in that the treasury never received payment from the State Department or any other government agency for release of that coin. The court ruling determined the coin was in fact a gift from the U.S. government to the King and was therefore allowed to exist in private hands but that it not come back into the U.S. until $20 in U.S. funds was paid to the U.S. treasury. The $20 was quickly paid and the coin is now in the U.S. in private hands.
    There are other strange situations related to U.S. coinage such as the 1870-S silver dollar. For example there are simply no mint records related to the production or release of these 12 coins. These 12 coins were all removed from circulation (1 is graded MS 62) and never known to have been in the hands of one family or individual thus implying they were released into general circulation as part of the normal operation of the San Francisco mint. This differs significantly from the 1933 double eagles being fought over in the courts that are all MS and in the hands of one family.
    But what upsets me the most are those #&*%!! 1913 Liberty Head Nickels. To me these five coins represent the darkest side of our hobby that is willing to reward individuals for thievery and allow their ill-gotten merchandise to be sold openly in the market place and to reap big bucks. What saddens me the most is that such practice is supported by the biggest and most prominent auction houses, dealers and collectors. Yes at least one 1913 Liberty Head die was made but that is as far as it went. When I started collecting coins in about 1950 (this was only 37 years after 1913) I heard stories of how these five coins were produced (either as a favor or for payment) for an individual who had an in at the mint. This position was reinforced three decades +/- later when I was living in Maryland and all five of these coins were placed on display at the Baltimore ANA show. I was a one man boycott of this show simply because these coins were being treated like royalty when in fact they were pretenders to the throne. While the ANA show was in town I heard and interview with the president of the ANA on the radio and when asked about the origin of these five coins he paused and the best he could do was imply they may have had a clandestine origin followed by a short laugh and that was all he would say. Please note that unlike the 1870-S dollars these five nickels are all MS, as with the 1933 double eagle, implying they were removed from the mint as group and kept way that until being split up.
    Also I would like to say thank you to those of you who have said they enjoy reading my journals.
    Best regards
    Ram
  2. RAM-VT
    Chapter 7 How many of you remember when NCLT was a four letter word
    As I remember it, I first came face-to-face with the acronym NCLT sometime in the very late 1970’s or early 1980’s. The first time I remember seeing it was in rants in the “letters to the editor” column in  coin newspapers (newspaper not magazine) and it had to do with what might be called “Commemorative Sets” or modified Proof/UNC sets. I believe several of the British Commonwealth countries started issuing these coins/sets in the around 1980+/- depending on the country.
    NCLT stands for = Non-Circulating Legal Tender, these are coins struck in silver or gold with a defined value in that country’s currency (thus the legal tender) and the quantity of silver or gold used to make the coins was well in excess of the coins monetary value thus the non-circulating. These sets sold well in excess of its total face value to cover the cost of metal used and to make money for the country.
    The rants basically charged that these were not “true” coins and it was just a way for these small countries to make money. Well in fact they really were coins even thought they would never circulate. But a funny thing happened on the way to the forum :>)  Countries like the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and China to name just a few saw how much money could be made and starting in the late 80’s the U.S. would issue “commemoratives” for any reason we dream up. Except for our half dollar commemoratives everything from the US, Canada, Great Britain and China are NCLT and some are hotly collected. What still surprises me is that a lot of these early NCLT coins have been melted down and their initial issues were not that large making assembling complete sets of these early NCLT coins a challenge and in some cases near impossible. One such set would be the 250 Cayman Dollar Gold Coins Issues. The set would consist of just seven coins 1985 estimated issue 250 coins, 1986 64 issued, ND 75 issued, 1988 86 issued, 1990 est. 500 issued, 1993 est. 100 issued and 1994 200 issued. All but the 1990 issue had 1.4016 troy ounces of gold. The 1990 issue had 1.0024 troy ounces of gold.
    I picked up a 1988 issue for just under $300 from an estate auction in Ohio in the mid-1990’s. The coin did not have a COA and nothing that showed the gold content so everyone but me had to guess at its gold content I had my KM with me so I knew. The $300 purchase included the buyer’s fee. I wanted to sell it for melt several times but the thought of selling a coin for melt when only 86 were minted seemed crazy. I can always get melt but I believe a true premium is warranted. My specimen is PF69UC NGC has certified one other and it also is PF69UC.
    The stigma applied to NCLT in the late 1970’s & 1980’s does not seem to apply to current day NCLT coins.
    Best regards
    Ram
     
  3. RAM-VT

    Ram’s Soap Box

    By RAM-VT,

    Learn Grading: What Are Full Bands and Full Torch?
    https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/6812/learn-grading-dimes/
    Nothing new here, I am back to my pet peeve – silly grading standards. You can go onto reading other posts – this is my pet peeve and I am going to continue with such posts until someone can provide a convincing argument on why what NGC is doing is superior to my approach.
    I will be referring to the NGC article with the above address so I suggest you bring it up.
    Welcome
    All U.S. coins above AU-58 are graded using a standard that magically combines strike and surface conditions. I want to discuss this concept. First let me just briefly touch on what can affect strike and surface.
    Strike – The physical setup of the presses, installation of the dies and collars as well as slight variations in the dimensions of the planchet can all play some part in the quality of the strike produced. Once the dies start to separate in the process of converting a blank planchet into a newly minted coin the quality of the coin’s strike is forever defined. Things can happen to the coin that affect the condition of its surface but not the quality of its strike. Minor imperfection from post production handling cannot hide the quality of the original strike even scratches do not hide the quality of strike. Yes one could say if hit by a hammer the quality of the original strike would be obscured but so would all the features need to define a grade and score for both the strike and surface. In just such cases the determination would have to read “Physically Damaged Coin” no grade determination is possible.
    Surface – The condition of a coins surface immediately following the completion of the strike to the day it is forever removed from circulation is continuously changing if for no other reason due to chemical contaminants in the air. There are also changes due to physical contact with mint equipment, bagging, counting, transport and activities related to getting the coins to the bank and into the hands of the collector. Once in circulation the surface changes due to wear and physical damage.
    Please look the NGC definition for the grades MS-66 to MS-70 which I present below.
    Numerical Grades
    MS/PF70      A coin with no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.
    MS/PF69      A fully struck coin with nearly imperceptible imperfections.
    MS/PF68      Very sharply struck with only miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF67      Sharply struck with only a few imperfections.
    MS/PF66      Very well struck with minimal marks and hairlines
    First for the grade MS/PF70 Strike is not discussed because the strike for a MS/PF69 is defined as being “A fully struck coin.” How can one improve upon the strike required for an MS/PF69. As such it appears MS/PF69 is as high a strike can be graded or as I prefer scored, besides it appears surface conditions is what controls the determination of whether or not a coin can be graded 70.
    The following discussion relates to the NGC article specifies above and I refer specifically to the coins shown in that article. The first photo shows a 1935S Mercury Dime graded MS67+ and a 1917 Mercury Dime graded MS67+ FB. When you use the option to enlarge the photos it is obvious that the quality of the strikes are significantly different with the bands on the 1917 dime being fully struck up to the point that all the detail related to the bands is there while the 1935S dime has noticeable details related to the bands of the fasces missing, yet NGC gives both coins the same grade MS67+, by grade definition both are defined as being sharply struck even though one has flatness in the design features where the other does not!!!! Come on, what the heck kind of grading system is this? But the best is to come.
    The other photo shows a 1988D Roosevelt Dime graded MS67 and a 1984P Roosevelt Dime graded MS66 FT. These coins confuse the heck out of me. First the strike of the 1984P FT is defined as very well struck while the center design devices from the torch’s flame to the bands on the torch are boldly struck just like those on the Mercury dime. To say the least definitely superior to those same features on the 1988D whose strike is defined as Sharply Stroke one notch above “very well struck.” Here is where things get tricky. Is this a weighted grade? That is, is it an average of the entire obverse strike with the entire reverse strike? In the case of the Roosevelt dime there are three components that make up the design elements on the reverse of the dime. These are the Olive Branch, the Oak Branch and between them the torch with flame. On the MS67 the strike of the Olive & Oak branches is much better than the strike for these design features on the 84P dime with a FT designation. To put a major premium on this coin only because 1/3 of its reverse has a full strike is totally stupid while the rest of the strike is definitely inferior to the MS67.
    The concept to blend strike and surface condition to come up with a single grade is just stupid. I continue to insist NGC should grade all coins the way they do ancients. That is a grade for wear, a score for surface and a score for strike. All UNC. Mint state and Proof coins would get a grade of 60 simply it is either uncirculated or it isn’t. Then the strike would be scored 1 through 10 and the surface would be scored 1 through 10. This way the 1984P dime might have actually graded MS60 FT, Strike 6 and Surface whatever, this approach would tell the buyer that even though it has a full torch the overall strike is just slightly above "about average" (what I would call a score of 5/10) with a bold torch but some weakness in the overall strike. In this way the buyer can determine how much, in the buyer’s opinion, that premium should be, if any. To be honest I don’t think every collector would pay big bucks for a full torch with a strike of 6 when FT dimes with strikes of 7, 8 or possibly 9 exist.
    Also how does the NGC system address a coin with a strike of 7 and a surface of 4? Don’t say they don’t exist. Simply it is stupid to think that strike and surface would always have a comparable score. Strike is the result of the minting process and Surface is the result of what happens after the coin is minted and simply these two factors have no relationship to one another.
    Although I keep insisting that NGC should use the same approach to grading used by the NGC Ancient Department, it appears that the NGC Ancient Department has lost its way with respect to grading Mint State coins. Rather than just use the designation UNC or Mint State the ancients department has embraced the following terms used by NGC:
    MS = Mint State/UNC = equivalent to the grades:
                60       Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. Numerous abrasions, hairlines and/or large marks.
                61       Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More marks and/or multiple large abrasions.
                62       Slightly weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More or larger abrasions than an MS/PF 63
     Ch MS = Choice Mint State/UNC = equivalent to the grades:
                63       Slightly weak or average strike with moderate abrasions and hairlines of varying sizes.
                64       Average or better strike with several obvious marks or hairlines and other minuscule imperfections
     Gem MS = Gem Mint State/UNC = equivalent to the grades:
                65       Well struck with moderate marks or hairlines.
                66       Very well struck with minimal marks and hairlines
                67       Sharply struck with only a few imperfections.
                68       Very sharply struck with only minuscule imperfections.
                69       A fully struck coin with nearly imperceptible imperfections.
                70       A coin with no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.
    Do you see the problem here?
    The terms MS, Ch MS & Gem MS are defined as being equivalent to the indicated NGC grades and these grades are defined by distinct conditions related to both strike and surface. So how is it possible for NGC ancient to score an MS ancient with either a strike or surface as a 4 or 5 (which many are) if by definition of these characteristics are typically weak and at very best average? The same goes for Ch MS and all Gem MS ancients must score at least 4 for both strike and surface.
    One thing is NGC Ancient may want to score MS state ancients on a scale of 1 to 10. However at a minimum NGC Ancients must define the designations MS, Ch MS & Gem MS (if they insist on using this approach) by using terms that in no way relate to the coin’s strike or surface conditions as the current definitions do since NGC Ancients already scores these features independently.
    I am not trying to give the NGC Ancient Department hard time. I was and still am super pleased when NGC Ancients decided to move from the 18th century and almost totally move into the 21st century by recognizing that grade and strike & surface are not related and must be addressed separately. NGC Ancient fell short only when they decided to force their grading of Mint State ancients to look like all the other grading done at NGC rather than accepting that they are the standard against which all other approaches to grading should be compared.
    By the way there is no need for Ch. MS or Gem MS, to a great extent Ch MS should be implied when one gets a high score for both Strike & Surface. This would be stronger if for Mint State coins the scoring for strike and surface was increased to 1-10 from 1-5. And there is no better way to imply a gem specimen then to assign the coin the highest scores (8 to 10 or 9 to 10) for strike and surface as well as designating it as having both eye appeal and Fine Style.
    Regards
     
  4. RAM-VT
    Chapter 3 Grading is not a four letter word
    There is no way we can have a discussion of coin collecting without eventually getting to the subject of grading. The reason a coin’s grade is so important is that the coin’s grade is the key factor in determining the coin’s value but not the only factor. Technically the grade all by itself indicates the amount of wear the coin has experienced after the planchet was struck by the dies and became a coin. Sometime in the 19th century the production of coins became highly mechanized and exacting production standards were implemented and achieved resulting in almost every coin of a given denomination coming out of a major mint being identical to all other coins of that denomination. But in the early 1800’s and going back to the first coins struck at a mint there was no nice and neat uniformity in coins of the same denomination produced at a given mint. There were many reasons for this with the obvious reasons being as follows:
    1 - Each pair of dies were either totally or partially hand cut (thus no true uniformity in the dies);
    2 – Differences in the pressure used to produce the coin;
    3 – Varying planchet dimensions including non-uniform thickness across the same planchet;
    4 – The planchet was not parallel to both dies or both dies were not parallel to the planchet;
    5 – The hammer and anvil dies would wear out at different rates resulting in a used die (but not totally worn out die) being matched with a new die being combined and the appearance of one side of a coin having more wear than the other.  Let us be serious here, you have to admit that the grade XF/VF has to be one of the stupidest concepts ever devised in grading coins. Coins are small and totally randomly handled and could someone please tell me how in the act of commerce a coin could experience more wear to one side of the coin than to the other. Please reach into your pocket and pull out a coin making sure you only touch one side of the coin (and almost always the same side). Have any of you ever seen a real “Pocket Piece”? How many of these had wear to only one side?
    So with older coins we have reasons why just minted coins do not look the same. Then there are the post minting factors, Bulk transport/handling marks (bag marks), dropping the coin or dropping things on to the coins, scratches, environmental conditions, business related condition issues (chop marks & counter stamps) and then collector inducted condition issues resulting in surface problems due to stupid attempts to make the coin look better (improper cleaning) and last be not least the one thing that most likely has ruined many a nice coin and that is the staple. Fortunately 2X2 holders are not used that much today but in my day every collector and dealer carried around 2X2 boxes crammed full of coins in 2X2 holders with a staple in all four sides. The problem is these staples were not crimped down flat so that when a 2X2 was pulled out of those boxes the raised staples would scrape across the coins behind it. I have seen many a nice coin ruined by stapples.
    So how do we address these other factors that result in condition issues but do not affect the grade? Actually the approach taken by NGC in grading ancient coins is as far as I am concerned the only viable approach for a grading system for coins. This concept first grades the coin and second scores on a scale of 1 through 5 the coins strike, this would address items 1 through 5 above and then scores on a scale of 1 through 5 the coins surface, this would address the remaining issues listed above.
    For uncirculated MS & Proof coins NGC decided to combine strike and condition issues into an 11 point grading scale.
    MS/PF70 - A coin with no post-production imperfections at 5x magnification.
    MS/PF69 - A fully struck coin with nearly imperceptible imperfections.
    MS/PF68 - Very sharply struck with only miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF67 - Sharply struck with only a few imperfections.
    MS/PF66 - Very well struck with minimal marks and hairlines.
    MS/PF65 - Well struck with moderate marks or hairlines.
    MS/PF64 - Average or better strike with several obvious marks or hairlines and other miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF63 - Slightly weak or average strike with moderate abrasions and hairlines of varying sizes.
    MS/PF62 - Slightly weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More or larger abrasions than an MS/PF 63.
    MS/PF61 - Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. More marks and/or multiple large abrasions.
    MS/PF60 - Weak or average strike with no trace of wear. Numerous abrasions, hairlines and/or large marks.
    If this is what NGC wants who am I to say no. but I would prefer a purer system where all truly uncirculated MS & Proof would simply be designated "Uncirculated" and Strike and Surface would individually be scored 1 through 10 using the above standards. Another problem with the remaining grading system presented by NGC is that circulated coins is that it only address wear that the coin receives once the coin enters circulations. As far as NGC is concerned circulated coins have no strike or surface issues, could that really be true????????? Don’t you fine this to be strange particularly for pre 19th century coins from the U.S and older coins from around the world – why should they have no Strike or Surface issues while UNC’s do?????
    In a future post I will address an issue every collector's enjoys.  And that is “The Hunt” or search for a great find and believe me I have had more than my share which I will talk about later and why I was able to make these finds. But understanding grading from around the world can result in you making some great purchases. Many decades ago when I was building my numismatic library (an absolute must for serious collectors) I purchased an English equivalent to our Red Book published by I believe Seaby. The first thing I read was the section on grading. Now get this, an AU was defined as an UNCIRCULATED coin with poor eye appeal. Then the light bulb went on. How many AU, XF or even VF American coins can I purchase from English dealers or form dealers in countries using the English grading standards??? My most recent purchase was November of last year. I purchased the following coins:
    1900 Liberty Head Nickel
    1900 Barber Dime
    1900 Barber Quarter
    1900 Barber ½ Dollar
    The above were described as toned XF or better, the nickel, dime and quarter NGC graded MS-63 and the half dollar was graded AU50
    1912-S Cent listed as an XF graded AU55
    There still out there folks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    But be careful, foreign dealers don’t seem to mention problems and particularly if the coin has been cleaned (you really have to study any photos and send e-mails).
    Regards
     


  5. RAM-VT
    A Supplement to Chapter 3 Grading
    Look it I can talk forever on the subject of grading mainly because I have some very strong feelings on the subject. This may due to my age and a belligerent nature that I have developed on topics I feel strongly about over my years in this hobby. So now I am going to tell you how I really feel about grading.
    First let’s get one thing perfectly straight and that is everyone has biases. These biases influence our perception when we must interpret things like standards for grading. I had a political science professor that on the first day of class said “history is as perceived by the historians.” What he was saying was that there is no one real history. Political scientists tend to prefer historical accounts of events that support their perceptions. To give just one example I had always believed that FDR should have impeached for trying to stack (a term used within the FDR White House) the Supreme Court. Then one day listening to an interview with a political science professor on Vermont Public radio this very subject was addressed. The professor took issue with the term "stacking the court" and this was not FDR’s intent and that he totally dropped the issue once congress refused to support his plan. I said well I guess I was wrong and continue to listen to the interview. Then a few months later a documentary on FRD on the history channel again addressed this issue. It was pointed out that the action of congress to not support FRD in his attempt to stack the Supreme Court so upset FDR that in the very next election he spent all his remaining political capital (which evidently wasn’t that much) to defeat the twelve that voted against his plan. Only one of those twelve lost reelection. That is when FDR gave up on his plan to stack the Supreme Court. Two totally different accounts of one relatively recent event in American History. Which one is true? I depends on your personal bias or perception of FDR.
    What makes a good grader? As far as I am concerned what makes a good grader is reparation – reparation – reparation – reparation. From my days when I was routinely buying coins to acquire stock for coin shows I would go to local coin auctions and grade every coin up for sale and when at coin shows I would grade coins (to myself) of the other dealers. All this took place before third party grading took off. I knew I made it when a friend of mine that owned a coin shop in Rockville, MD would ask my opinion. Do I ever disagree with a grade I get back from a third party grader? Yes yet I accept it (I yield to overwhelming experience). I expect these professional graders grade more coins in a week than most collectors see in a year (in some cases years). This also goes for small time dealers. Well established coin dealers with high inventory throughput rates should also have excellent grading skills. Simply looking at a dozen or so coins a week just isn’t going to cut it. There are more than 15 grades between AG & AU-58 and 11 grades of UNC. At 12 random coins a week how long would it take the average collector to examine one coin of each type in each grade?
    The key grading tool related to grading is a well-established grading standard. When I started there was Brown & Dunn which used drawings to define the basic grades. Then came James Ruddy with Photograde (I still have my well-worn copy held together with Duct Tape) and this was followed by the ANA Grading Standards. Now to show a bias I had, I would buy coins using Brown & Dunn and sell coins using Photograde. Old timers wouldn’t think twice when someone checked their Brown & Dunn when assigning a grade. And Photograde was such an instant hit that no one questioned you when you handed them your Photograde to check grade. So yes I perceived a difference in accepted standards whether it was real or not. All I know is I made money in my sales. Today the major third party grading firms have reference collections something dealers and collectors don’t have.
    Do we now have acceptable/workable grading system? In my opinion the answer is not simply no, but HELL NO. I addressed this issue in my first Chapter 3 post. I am totally against the single designator grading system whether this designator be a number or an adjectival grade. First in grades above AU-58 it assumes that strike issues and surface condition issue exist in comparable relationship. For example using NGS grading standards:
    MS/PF68 - Very sharply struck with only miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF67 - Sharply struck with only a few imperfections.
    MS/PF66 - Very well struck with minimal marks and hairlines.
    MS/PF65 - Well struck with moderate marks or hairlines.
    MS/PF64 - Average or better strike with several obvious marks or hairlines and other miniscule imperfections.
    MS/PF63 - Slightly weak or average strike with moderate abrasions and hairlines of varying sizes.

    Why can’t you have and MS-68 Strike and an MS-64 surface? I am sorry this is really not an ideal fantasy world. In the real world nature would not allow this assumed perfect relationship.
    Second in grades below MS-60 it ignores strike and issues that can affect the coins overall appearance/desirability. NGC’s grading standards for circulated grades does not address variances in strike and surface conditions? In coins from the mid-1800’s on up to present day this should be relatively negligible but just like with Mint State coins they are there and in earlier coins one would definitely expect to find circulated coins with variations in strike and surface on coins from all around the world.
    And talk about interpretation of a standard we have well struck, very well struck, sharply struck, very sharply struck and fully struck we have similar word play with imperfection and marks. In this case we cannot eliminate the possibility for different interpretations for such guidance. Here is where we must rely on the experience resulting from reparation – reparation – reparation – reparation.
    For me the perfect grading system would be based on that used by NGC’s ancient department, however, modified to address modern strikes. In this case every coin would be graded for wear with all truly uncirculated MS & Proof coins being graded 60 and then Strike and Surface being individually scored 1 through 10 or whatever scale you choose (ancients use 1 through 5). Similarly circulated coins would be graded e.g., XF-45 Strike 6/10 Surface 8/10. Wear is defined by XF-45, Strike is defined by 6/10 and Surface is defined by 8/10. Maybe circulated coins could use the 1 through 5 range used by NGC’s ancient department.
    Best regards
     
  6. RAM-VT
    Chapter 4 There are always unintended consequences
    For those of us into ancient coins (as I currently am) NGC is doing something long overdue in this field of numismatics, based on the coins they have certified, they are developing a condition census of sorts (i.e., not a true condition census) that will still provide very useful information to the ancient coin collecting community. I have no idea when the results of this project will be made available (if at all) to NGC members or the collecting community in general. However NGC has made its data available to Heritage Auctions who in turn provides this data as part of their online auction listings.
    When I found this data I was overjoyed. But I was also surprised at the large number of MS, Ch AU, AU and Ch XF coins some ancient issues had. I mean really surprised. I expected the data for this census to be skewed to the upper end grades because let’s face it unless you have a really rare coin who is going to pay round trip registered mail postage and grading fees for a common fine ancient and depending on the issue this question could include VF’s.
    It appears (I cannot document this) that ancient coin prices have started to drop in general because the upper end coin prices have dropped due to a perceived larger than expected availability of inventory in higher grades. This most likely is not true for the truly key/rare issues but rather those specimens typically found in ancient collections.
    Simply people see the data and apparently don’t try to understand it and may just assume this is representative of what is out there. Again just because of the cost to certify coins this data will always be skewed to the upper end.
    As an example I looked up my AU Strike 5/5 Surface 4/5, Gordian III, AR Drachm, Caesarea, Cappadocia and found 268 had been graded, with just 16 graded below XF. Now David Sear’s work on Greek Imperial Coins and their values released in 1982 with reprints (not new editions) up to 2006. So we are basically working with 36 year old valuations. And the value given for a VF specimen is 100£ or about $140 in 1982. On October 26, 2017 a high end VF (listed uncertified grade was "about XF") sold for $61!!! Between October 13, 2016 and November 2, 2017 Heritage had 11 sales of NGC certified MS specimens of this coin involving 7 different specimens ranging in price from $141 to $282 with an average selling price of $195.
    So what do we have here when in 1982 the book value for this coin in VF was $140 with the following guidance provided re. valuation: "Collectors must bear in mind that exceptionally well preserved examples are worth substantially more than the prices quoted, whilst very worn or damaged specimens can be almost valueless", in the case of common bronze coins. (The bold type is as give in the book.) So to go from VF to MS there are step increases in the coin's value as it goes to Ch VF, XF, Ch XF, AU, Ch AU and then Mint State in total six step increases. I am sorry but I do not believe a MS valuation of $195 meets Sear’s guidance on higher valuations for MS specimens unless the value for VF specimens is well below $140 as apparently it actually is.
    Until NGC came along grading of ancient coins was a total joke. Recently I was trying to research the value of some ancient coins in my collection and I was using auction results information from numerous dealers through NGC’s site. The auction result infomation lists 25 coins per page. One page had 20 coins graded some type of VF (yes 20) the remaining 5 were some type of Fine. Checking the photos the actual grade (based on my grading) was all over the place one VF looked like a well-worn slug as was no where near a VF specimen. Anyway these 20 coins had the following grades in their auction listings, Ch VF, Good VF, Nice VF, VF+, VF, About VF (this is really a high end Fine, I hate it when dealers use a higher grade designator to define a lower grade), Near VF (see previous grade).
    All I can say is thank you NGC for your efforts in developing this condition census. And I hope when you release this data to the general public you make it clear that the data is skew and why.
    Best regards
     
  7. RAM-VT
    Chapter 5 Tools of the traded
    What “tools” do coin collectors need to support their interest in this hobby? As with most things related to coin collecting I have very strong opinions on this topic. I will however try to be realistic.
    I want to first address the tools that are available to collectors.
    1 – Numismatic Knowledge – This is without a doubt the key tool in the coin collector’s tool box. The truest guidance ever given the collector is the old adage “buy the book before the coin.” No one is born knowing all there is to know about collecting any type of coin. This knowledge must be developed with the creation of a numismatic library. The contents of this library will depend on the specific contents of each and every collection. Before I stopped collecting, my personal numismatic library contained over 450 volumes. I sold them over time in auctions conducted by Kolbe & Fanning and you can go to your search engine and find many more dealers in numismatic related books.
    2 – Some form of magnifying device. I always wanted a stereo microscope but could never really come up with the money to buy one and I really could not set one up at an auction site. I settled for a group of well-made handheld magnifying glasses 5X, 10X and 20X. Typically with the handheld glasses the higher the magnification power the small the field you look at when you use them. Why would you want/need this tool, first to assist in grading and second to assist in determining varieties and checking for doubled dies. If you want to know a secret the best magnifying glass I ever had was a lense from a home movie projector or home movie camera (I am not sure which). After I purchased one and found it to be such a great magnifying glass I purchased a second. Eventually I wore them both out. The lense had a zoom function and over time I just wore the zoom function out. If you ever have the opportunity to acquire one of these lenses don’t turn your nose up at it just because it doesn’t look like a magnifying glass.
    3 – A Vernier caliper this is more for counterfeit detection of colonial and truly early U.S. coinage. But here you must be sure of the value you are comparing your measurement against. About two years ago I was at a local auction which contained 1797 sixteen star dime. I closely studied the coin in order to make two determinations and these were; is it real and, what is it grade? I graded the coin XF and everything I saw said this coin is real. I won the auction and paid $4.600 including buyer’s fee. After I paid for the coin one of the bidders came up to me and said I really wanted that coin but I think it is a fake. He said according to the Red Book this coin is supposed to have a diameter of 19mm and that this coin has a diameter of 20mm and possibly a little over. He used a small plastic ruler he laid over the coin to measure it. I said that his info surprises me. And that was that. When I got home the first thing I did was get out Breen’s Complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins. Guess what Breen gave the diameter as 19.8mm or approximately 20mm vs the Red Book and approximately 19mm. Anyway the coin came back from NGC graded XF-45 and it also received a CAC sticker when I sent it in for that. The coin sold for $8,000 over what I paid for it.
    4 – A scale, I use a three beam balance beam good to 0.01 grams. The Caliper and scale combined are great tools to help in the detecting of counterfeits whether it be a contemporary or modern counterfeit.
    5 – A comparator Magnifier. I use a “Desk Model” and once you develop the correct technique for using one of these you will be glad you have one. You only need this item when identifying die varieties of colonial through mid-ninetieth century coins. These are not expensive items. Mine came with eight interchangeable end lenses (four in black markings and the same four in white markings). Coins of light metals or toning use the black and darker coins use the white. Mine brakes a centimeter into mm’s and mm’s into 1/10ths of mm’s. So you can accurately measure small variances in design elements or the location of design elements relative to one another. I also use it to grade stamps by measuring the distance from the bottom of the perf to the frameline of a stamp (usually in two locations on all four sides of the stamp). I strive to identify grades higher than VF and not a single stamp has comeback worse than VF-XF with XF being typical and an occasional XF-S.
    OK which if any of these tools do I recommend for you. – Trick question because my answer will depend on what you collect. So let’s take these tools one at a time.
    Show dealers – these are collectors that on weekends setup at coin shows to sell to the public. These individuals need the most accepted reference book related to every type of coin they sell. In addition they must attribute every coin they sell with the variety designator provided in the appropriate reference. Once one of these individuals offer a coins for sale they become a dealer and they are expected to be knowable on the material they are selling. To sell coins without attribution they’re telling those that visit their table they’re really just a hack who is either too cheap to purchase the necessary reference material and/or too lazy to put in the time to find out what it is they’re really selling. I once read a post where a “Show Dealer” whined and cried about collectors who would come to his table and cherrypick his inventory. He totally believed that when a customer found a rare variety in his inventory they should be obligated to inform the dealer of this. To this I say BULL! There is no reason that dealer cannot purchase the appropriate reference material unless the dealer is just too cheap to purchase the necessary reference material and/or too lazy to put in the time to find out what it is they’re really selling. So this dealer believes it is up to his customers to do his job – No Way.
    Show dealers must add to their library a decent number of references on counterfeit detection. In the 80’s & 90’s there were a couple of firms that several times a year published packets of 8½ X 11 sheets that detailing recent new counterfeits that came into the market place. If you can find any of these buy them because those counterfeits are still out there and some are quite good. I have a few ring binders full of these sheets. I would also include two general references these being the MEGA RED (the massive red book) and Walter Breen’s complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins.
    And last but not least a very good grading reference.
    If as a dealer one limits his inventory to 20th & 21st century coins you can skip the scale, calipers & comparative magnifier. If you are going to deal in a wide range of U.S. coins, in my opinion, you will need all of the tools listed above.
    Now the collector
    Once you have decided on what it you want to collect you have defined what it is that you need in your library. That is your library must be tailored to the material you collect. There is one exception here. If your goal is to complete type sets or a single massive type set covering all U.S. coinage you need not go after all the specialty books such as those dedicated to half cents, large cents, bust halves and etc., etc. Since all you are looking for are coins that represent each type the MEGA RED or Walter Breen’s complete Encyclopedia of U.S. and Colonial Coins will serve you well. When it comes to reference books stay away from simple reprints of monographs. In my library I had a copy of Valentine’s original monograph on half dimes and a newer reprint of the monograph. The photos in the reprint were nowhere near the quality of those in the monograph. Even though I wanted to protect that original work from wear and tear I ended up using the original monograph more than I wanted.
    When it comes to what tools to get to support his hobby, the collector should follow what I recommended for the show dealer. If the show dealer and collector both specialize in the same areas they should both be on the same footing when it comes to depth of knowledge and tools used. When the dealer prefers to support a larger base of collectors and purchases inventory for this larger base he may have a very good knowledge base to handle his inventory but the collector who specializes should know more about his area of specialization than the dealer.
    Best regards
  8. RAM-VT
    Chapter 6 The Hunt
    I don’t care what you collect, every collector dreams of that “Big Find,” that is the (put in your own value) dollar rarity that falls into your lap for a steal and it is all legal and aboveboard. Does this really happen? Yes and I want to tell you about mine. But let’s first discuss what makes such finds possible. With just a couple of exception all my successful hunts took place at local auctions. Some were estate auctions that had a few coins in them, some were regularly schedule coin auctions held by local auction houses that could routinely (once a month or so) pull together enough coins and related items to hold an auction and some were better known local auction houses who happened upon a large holding of coins in good enough condition to justify holding a special auction or incorporating the coins into a two day auction. Please note that all these coin auctions were well attended by all the local coin dealers and for larger auctions dealers from neighboring states would attend. So how does a nobody scoop the dealers? I wish I had an honest answer for you. In the accounts that follow when I think I know why I was successful I will tell you.
    Either Yogi Berra or Casey Stengel make a comment that went something like, you would be surprised at what you can see if you just look. I know for a fact that I had many good finds simply by studying every lot up for auction. This approach landed me numerous proof and mint state Doubled Die Washington Quarters, Franklin halves, Kennedy Halves and a really nice 1946 DDR Walking Liberty. All I needed was a good magnifying glass and a willingness to spend a little extra time to look at what was up for sale. My first successful hunt came when I was 5 years old. Every Saturday before my mom went shopping she use to let me go through her change for those coins I needed to fill the holes in my Whitman folder. I got to check her change before she left and after she came home. Would you believe I found a 1921-D walking liberty half dollar!!!!!!!!!!!  I ran to my mom and asked if I could have the half dollar. She said no. If you remember from Chapter 2 my parents worked in mills and 50C represented a half hour of labor before taxes. I kept pleading & telling her how few were made and when I pointed out it was $8.50 in one grade and $16 in another grade she decided to let me keep it. That coin was my lucky charm and I took it to every coin show I set up at until one day a fellow dealer stole it from my cash box. I say dealer because only dealers were allowed behind the tables. By the way I completed an entire set of Walking Liberty Halves from pocket change (I never purchase a single one).
    To support my hunts I had a “go box” ready, it always had the basics one or two standard generic references, magnifying glasses, note book and two pens (one wrote in red) I would then add other books based on the material listed to be included in the auction. The only items I would take into the viewing was a red book, magnifying glass & note pad. The rest I would leave in the car. After viewing the lots I would take my notes and go out to the car and check my notes against info in the appropriate reference book. Sometimes I would have to go back and check for additional characteristics. This was my preparation for the auction.
    Have good references for detecting counterfeits because they also tell you what to look for on the genuine coins. Whether you know it or not many, if not most, of our rarer coins were produced from one set of dies, thus the low mintages. But also the easier to verify it is what you believe it to be. Here is a mini test - where must you look to authenticate a 1942/1 dime? If you didn’t specify a particular location on the reverse of the coin please go back to class. Because only one die pair was used to produce ALL 1942/1 dimes, a genuine 1942/1 must have a die scratch on the reverse. No scratch no 1942/1 dime. The first lead authenticator for the ANACS (originally this was an authentication service only – no grading) told me when they got in 1942/1 dimes they always examined the back first and this check was always correct. You have a similar situation with the 1937-D three legged Buffalo Nickel. Both the obverse and reverse dies were rusted and the obverse surface produced by that rusted die is as important as the missing leg. Well I was at an auction in a firehouse west of Frederick, MD and I was impressed by all the key and semi-key coins in that auction. I was studying the list of items up for sale and there all by itself was a 1937-D nickel. I said to myself why in the world are they selling a 35c coin all by itself? Then the light bulb went on, this has to be a three legged nickel. I started to get up to check it out and I looked at the table where the coins were on display and it was surrounded by all the dealers from Frederick and surrounding areas and as far away as Baltimore. And any coin a bidder picked up to check out they immediately rechecked after it was placed back on the table. So I walked up to the table and didn’t pick up a single coin all I did was look at the obverse of that nickel and it screamed 1937-D three legged buffalo. The bidding started at a quarter and when it got to a dollar the chatter picked up and when I won the coin for $1.75 there were some snickers. When I looked at the back I saw the scratch in the area of the missing foot. I smiled sent it into ANACS and it came back a three legged buffalo. Had the other bidders looked at the entire coin and all its genuine characteristics the selling price would have been higher. I sold that coin for around $125. A strange example of how just looking happened to find me a good coin I was going through my own junk box. One day I decided to go through a box containing well-worn coins as well as world coins I could not identify. I was pulling out the silver coins to sell them for melt. As I pull out what looked like a slug I gave it an extra look to see if it was really silver and was amazed at how well-worn the piece was. Just as I was to let fly into the melt pile I realize there was actually a design on it that I could make out. It was a John Chalmers’ short worm shilling (1783) I had no idea where or when I acquired it. But since at the time I was living in Maryland I could only assume it was part of a box lot I picked up at one of the back woods country auctions I frequented. After sending it to ANACS I was able to sell it for about $100.
    My first true “hunt find” was at a fire station auction in Wolfsville, MD. I got there early on a Saturday because I did not expect to find anything and there was another auction I could go to. When I saw the coin component of this auction was only about 18 coins I wasn’t going to waste my time. But then I said I’m here there was only 18 coins take a look then leave. The only coin to catch my eye was an 1873 no arrows half dollar. The coin was totally undamaged and a very pleasing VG. When I checked the red book it catalogued for $20 BUT WAIT there is an open three and closed three and the closed three catalogues for over $1,000. At that time the red book did not have a photo of a closed three and if they did I probably would not have purchased this coin. Why? Do you know how small the opening is in the open 3? The opening is 0.4mm and the closed 3 is 0.2mm. Being half the size one would think that is easy to see but you don’t have them side by side and with just one coin to look at 0.4mm looks like it might be 0.2mm and 0.2mm might be 0.4mm. The only reason I did not pass on this coin was that I had once owned a closed three quarter and from what I remembered the date on that half dollar reminded me of that quarter. Because I got there early I drove 45 minutes back to my house ran down to my 450+ book library and guess what not a single photo of a closed three 1873 no arrows half dollar. Now I was almost out of time so back to car and back to the auction house. I decided to buy the half dollar. If I get it for $20 so what the coin was worth that and if I pay $5 or $10 more so what that isn’t going to brake me. I won the bidding at $20 and as I was handed the coin my hands were shaking and the person giving me the coin saw them shaking said you did good and I said “if you only knew.” Off it went to ANACS and I ended up selling it for over $1,000.
    Now for my ultimate “Hunt Find” this one is mind blowing at least for me. It was a two day “coin” auction that was held in Williston, VT. There was a full day of viewing the day before the auction started. When I say a full day I was there over nine hours, I was there as it was being opened and I was there as it was being closed. The dealers showed up in teams splitting up the work of checking out the lots. I was there by myself. I found several lots I would bid on. But just as they were asking me to leave I opened a small box that contained 13 ancient coins and the first coin I saw was an Aes Grave Semis (1/2 AS) from 280 to 269 BC. When I got home I got out my ancient books and determined it was a Sear 535 which has a decades old valuation of $500. This was a massive coin and hard to miss with a weight of about 130 grams. There were other Roman and Greek coins which I estimated to be worth another $750 to $1000 and about three Byzantine bronzes worth about $50 each. That night I decided this lot was mine and was willing to go at least $750. I knew I was going to get this lot because this is Vermont and this lot may represent half of all the ancient coins in the state at that time. The lots were sold in the order they were displayed for viewing so this lot sold at the end of the second day which also help me win it because most bidders had left by then. The lot opened at around two hundred dollars then moved down to $150 > then $100 then > $50 then $25 at which point I won the bid for $25 + buyer’s fee so $28.50 in total. I sold the poorest condition coins first and that netted me a little over $1,000 . I then sent the remaining coins to NGC Ancients. A few weeks later I get a call from Dave Vagi at NGC Ancients and he started questioning me about my submittal. He finally told me that one of my Byzantine coins was not byzantine but in fact one of the most important Armenian coins in existence and worth about $15,000. You can read the whole story at https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/1258. The article includes a photo which is better than the photo you get when you use the certification number 2406902-023.
    The results of this hunt was just dumb luck, but what I will take credit for is making sure everything in my collection is identified. I could have simply continued to assume that what I thought were three byzantine coins where just that and sold them for $50 each.
    This again brings up the question when should a buyer tell a professional/dealer what he is selling is worth more than what he is selling for? Look, I have been to hundreds of these auctions and everyone starts the same way. The auction house makes no claims that their descriptions are accurate, they do not stand behind any grade you might find on a holder and it is up to the buyer to decide what the auction house is selling is real or a fake item. So if the coin is damaged, a fake or not as described and I find this out one second after I purchased it, too bad that is my fault!!!! Well I am sorry I am not obligated to tell the professional/dealer that an item is worth more than they think it is.
    Regards
     
  9. RAM-VT
    Chapter 2 – In the Beginning
    I am not unlike many collectors my age that started collecting by filling holes in those little blue Whitman booklets. I was really into it with booklets for pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters. I did have the booklets for Walking Liberty Halves but very seldom did I have a half dollar coin to place in the booklet. Since my basic source of collectibles was pocket change silver dollars were just out of the question even thought my dad’s pay envelope did contain them. Also since both my parents worked in mills $1 was close to an hour's pay back then and putting a dollar coin into a booklet was out of the question as far as my dad was concerned. Filling those booklets remained my basic approach to collecting even after graduating college although by then I was buying some of my coins.
    In the 1970’s I became aware of how broad the numismatic universe really is. I don’t mean just world coins vs. US coins. What I am talking about is US coins, world coins, ancient coins, medals and tokens. I cannot believe how beautiful many of the Swiss Shooting Medals are; they are for all practical purposes small works of art. My awaking to the numismatic universe was kindled by the sale of the Garrett collection which was sold from 1979 through 1985 (Seven auctions in total containing 2354 US pieces and 4841 world and ancient pieces). The sale of the Garrett collection was followed by the Brand auctions in the early 1980’s. The sale of the Garrett collection followed so closely by the Brand auction simply reinforced my belief I had to completely revise my approach to coin collecting. Did I really need well over 100 Lincoln cents all looking the same except for mint mark and the last two digits in the dates? I really became obsessed with variety or really diversity in what I added to my collection.
    I sold off all my sets and started to collect US Type coins, and coins from around the would. My world coins were much older than my US and in many cases much rarer.
    If I were to start collecting US coins again all my sets would be type sets.  Because collectors can define their type set anyway they want, one can get as simple or as far out as one wants. But a complete type set of US coins would be massive and every coin would be of a different type. There is one type set I am fascinated with, it has the simplest type concept yet I believe it would be a very difficult set to assemble in total. Simply it is a complete type set of 1873 US coinage. This set contains the following 32 coins, yes I said 32 coins for a one year type set..
    Indian Head Cent
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Two Cent Piece
    1873 Closed 3, Proof only
    1873 Open 3. Restrike Proof Only
    Silver 3 Cent Piece
    1873 Closed 3, Proof only
    Copper-Nickel 3 Cent Piece
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Seated Liberty Half Dime
    1873
    Shield Nickel
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Seated Liberty Dime
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    1873 Arrows at Date
    Seated Liberty Quarter Dollar
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    1873 Arrows at Date
    Seated Liberty Half Dollar
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    1873 Arrows at Date
    Seated Liberty Dollar
    1873
    Trade Dollar
    1873
    Indian Large Head Gold Dollar
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Coronet Quarter Eagle
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Indian Head $3 Gold
    1873 Open 3 Proof Only
    1873 Closed 3 Original
    Coronet Half Eagle
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Coronet Eagle
    1873
    Coronet Double Eagle
    1873 Closed 3
    1873 Open 3
    Best regards

  10. RAM-VT
    Looking back on my 70 years of collecting
    Chater 1 - The End
    My third try at posting this journal.
    Today I did something I hoped I would never have to do. I deleted my now much smaller ancient custom set. Due to finances I had to sell off a large portion of my ancient collection. Since I will no long have the financial means to meaningfully grow this collection I took the reasonable step of deleting that collection. I did however move my ancient coins into a much smaller custom set I have titled “Oldies but Goodies and other Pieces.” I was quite pleased when my Custom ancient set became the first ancient set that made it into the list of 50 most viewed custom sets.
    I do have a never say die approach to collecting in that the day I shipped off my ancients for auction I purchased three more ancients. Since then I have purchased what maybe my last ancient for some time to come. I believe it to be a beautiful specimen of a Roman Provincial Coin (RPC) by Macrinus, the coin is from Moesia, Nicopolis. It is an AE26. The coin grades Ch XF with “condition scores” of Strike = 4/5 & Surface = 4/5 (see photo). It is my belief that specimens of bronze RPC that grade XF and better are not that common. In fact I just input “Macrinus, Moesia, Nicopolis, AE26” into the NGC’s Ancient Coins Archives search engine and 40+ pages of results came up, I check Page 1 & Page 40 (50 coins total) and not a single bronze RPC graded better than Good VF (Ch VF).
    So for all practical purposes I have a coin collection but I have stopped collecting coins (i.e., growing my collection). Now what I am I going to do? I have decided to start a journal that discusses what I have observed and learned regarding coin collecting over my 70 years of collecting. If you have any topic you would like my thoughts on just let me know. As it stands right now I have eleven topics I wish to write journals on.
    Take care
    (Ram in VT)


  11. RAM-VT
    Can we find a way to increase the interest for collecting ancient coins?
    I just sent David Vagi an e-mail expressing my disappointment at the low parturition rate in the formation of Ancient Custom Sets, only 83 sets after several years (88 sets are shown but five have nothing to do with ancients and should be culled).
    I am a recent convert to collecting ancient coins, I started the year NGC started certifying these coins. And my custom set is pretty meager in that after all this time it contains only 159 coins. The reason I wrote David was to express my opinion that it might be a good idea to have competitive ancient registry sets. But I acknowledged that this most likely would not be possible because NGC keeps no info on the coins variety thus the registry points would be based solely on grade and condition and a very common variety denarius and very rare denarius in the same grade and condition would have the same registry points, definitely not fair.
    I then suggested a hybrid concept. That is custom sets whose contents are defined by NGC just like registry sets but no registry points are assigned. The point is that NGC come up with numerous sets containing 7+/- coins to let's say 30+/- coins. These would be manageable sets that would not take forever to fill and would allow NGC to compare the contents of sets against one another and reach some sort of objective determination of the best set in that category. I suggested a couple of obvious examples such as the 12 Caesars or a set containing one coin from each of the Ptolemy's. I don't know maybe these set could also be subdivided base on the metal used in minting the coins.
    These just my thoughts, I would like to see more interest in ancient coins and this is my proposed approach for increasing that interest.
    May I suggest that if any of you have additional ideas on this subject that you also write David.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  12. RAM-VT
    Simply put the third party graders appear to have shot themselves in the foot.
    When I first read this question I mused about it for a while and then moved on. But I could not get the premise presented by the question out of my mind. Then it hit me, welcome to the world of ancient coin collecting. I have been collecting coins since 1954/5 but in 2009 I made a total change in what I collected. I turned to ancient coin collecting and I totally enjoy it. One of the first things I learned is that when evaluating ancient coins, condition is far more important to me than grade. In fact on 12/30/2013 I wrote a post titled Ancient Coins and Grade Vs. Condition where I explain why for me a coins condition is far more important than its grade. I was surprised to find out that basically this is not just my opinion but evidently the prevailing opinion within the field of ancient numismatics. In this regard the following statement is made in ERIC - The Encyclopedia of Roman Imperial Coins:
    Unless you have come across a major rarity assume that the worth of your coin will very largely depend on its visual appeal.
    This reference also makes the following statement:
    *** one typically buys a coin from a well-photographed coin in a glossy color catalog, the internet or on site at a coin show. There is therefore little need for a grade as such since the visual confirmation of what you would be getting is infinitely more useful than the information conveyed by an assigned grade of questionable value.
    The ancient coin website titled Forum has a section called Ancient Coin Collecting 101, here it gives the definition of a grade -- Grade describes only the wear the coin suffered after it left the mint. This definition of a grade is not unique to ancient coins. It is simply the universal definition of GRADE. NGCs ancient department recognized from day one that grade and condition are totally different aspects related to the assessment of a coins preservation. Grade related to the wear or loss of metal from friction loses due to circulating and rub during transport. Condition relates to strike and surface issues. When NGC certifies an ancient coin it provides that coin a grade but it also provides a score from 1 to 5 for the condition of the coins surface and also the quality of its strike. NGC lists 15 factors that influence the score given to an ancient coins strike and 27 factors that influence the score given to an ancient coins surface. On the label placed in the NGC holder is provided the coins grade as well as its scores for strike and surface. This information is further modified if it is determined that there are some conditions issues which must be addressed separately. Such additional information could explain the reason for a low score while in some cases it could point out beneficial features such as eye appeal or fine style. So what NGC is providing the collector is a complete assessment of the ancient coin, not only of its grade but also all those factors influencing the coins appearance which is extremely important. Since it is condition that influences an ancient coins value more so than grade.
    This separation of grade from condition appears to be more theoretical than actual. A preponderance of ancient coin collectors still mix grade and condition and claim that simply saying a VF tells you all you need to know about a 1500 year old coin to understand both its grade and condition. To this point a few weeks ago I read a post on Forum where the statement was made that the coin was graded VF but in my opinion it was Fine to about VF because part of the legend was a little weak. Now let us face it on something as small as a 19mm diameter denarius it is physically impossible through routine circulation to wear away a fraction of the legend without wearing away nearby design elements as well as corresponding features on the reverse. Do I believe that there was weakness and it was limited to a part of the legend? Yes! But it was not due to wear but rather a result of the die or production process. So the grade would be determine by the overall wear on the coins highest design features and not a spot of localized weakness.
    This inability to differentiate between between grade and condition has always been a part of this hobby and it is imperative that the third party graders lead this effort to ensure grade and condition are addressed separately when evaluating coins. The question posed by Eagles-R-it clearly demonstrates that all third party graders are still attempting to combine grade and condition into a single designator such as MS-69. Taking the term Grade to describe only the wear the coin suffered after it left the mint. If something is UNC it shows no evidence of wear. How can an MS 65 have five additional grading steps of no evidence of wear over a coin MS 60 that has no evidence of wear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Simply the coin has evidence of wear or it does not. Here our third party graders have stepped into the world ancient coin collectors where many (except for NGC Ancients Dept.) try to combine condition and grade into a single grade. There is a simple solution and that is to start over again. All mint state coins would be graded MS-60 the coin would also be given a score of 1 to 10 for Surface and 1 to 10 for Strike. I will leave it up to the grading services to decided what factors would be addressed under surface (obvious ones would be attractive or unattractive toning, spots, bag marks, etc.) and strike at a minimum would address how well the coin is stuck-up, e.g., full-split bands would get a higher score than flat bands. I know this would cause pricing problems, how would you price a MS 60 Surface 8/10, Strike 5/10? The condition census would be a 10 X 10 matrix. But it would address this question because if the coin was originally certified Proof Surface 10/10: Strike 10/10 and if spots developed after certification then it would be obvious the coin no longer has a Surface that is 10/10.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  13. RAM-VT
    Sloppy Numismatic Research can benefit some and hurt others
    On Saturday June 28th I attended a local auction that had several coin lots. Viewing was on Friday the day before. Most of the lots were foreign except for one US lot and one ancient lot with the best coin in the ancient lot being a St. Patrick Halfpenny (U.S colonial). I really wanted a couple of the world coin lots and did bid on them but I had to drop out because I only had so much money and I know I would need most if not all for the lot I really wanted, that being a 1797 16 stars (JR-1) U.S. Dime.
    On Friday I study the heck out of this coin and liked everything I saw. No I did not bring my balance beam scale or micrometer to take physical measurements. However I have been collecting and studying coins for 60 years. I also took classes from the man selected by the ANA to originally head up their authentication service (not grading service). The one thing I took away from these classes was how to really look at/examine a coin. Everything I saw I liked, in addition die crack perfectly match the die crack on genuine specimens. The only thing I did not understand was the estimated value for this lot which was $500 to $1000?? I graded the coin as at least XF and hoped it would come back AU. Well today I checked the NGC web site and the result was in, it graded out at XF-45 (Not AU but better than a straight XF).
    After I won the coin (total cost $3,800 + $570 buyer's fee + certification fee and round trip S&H) = $4,500 you could heard the under bidders talking about all the problems the coin had and how it was a really low grade. I just smiled.
    As I was waiting to pay for the coin I was approached by a man who told me he really wanted to bid on the coin but he carries a little ruler with him and when he measured the coin it was a mm too large. And he convinced himself the coin had been placed into jewelry that cause a flattening of the rim. That caught me off guard, and to me the rim looked perfectly natural. So when I got home I got out my micrometer and measured the diameter to be 20mm. I then got out Breen's Complete Encyclopedia of US and Colonial Coinage. This reference gave the diameter as 19.8 mm, 19.8mm vs. 20mm close enough for me but nowhere near a mm off. I then looked at the Red Book and guess what it gives a diameter of 19mm. I checked out an older Red Book and there the diameter was approximately 19mm. They went from approximately to a definite 19mm. I then went to the NGC site and they just use the info from the Red Book so it also shows 19mm. I am somewhat disappointed that NGC does not (at a minimum) verify the physical information they provide on their website. I mean I cannot believe they authenticate coins without checking the physical parameters of the coins. So all this info would be readily available to NGC.
    Anyway the sloppy numismatic research provided in the Red Book and repeated by NGC saved me from a serious competitor for the coin I wanted and definitely saved me money. So thank you.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  14. RAM-VT
    Has NGC Ancients become the Black Hole of Calcutta?
    On May 16 a submittal of mine arrived at NGC. Those of you that follow your submittal through NGC know that the first step in the process is simply acknowledgement that you submittal arrive and the number of coins match the number on the order form. The next step is verification of the submittal. This step can be quick or take time based on the number of coins and how correct you were in providing info on each coin. Once this step is completed your status will be scheduled for grading. Well that submittal of 11 coins has been at NGC for over six weeks and has not moved past Received. In the past I have never waited anywhere near this amount of time to move from received to scheduled for grading.
    ADDED info: It is now seven weeks and the submittal is still at received.
    It is now eight weeks and the submittal is still at received.
     
    I have a second submittal of only one coin there for one day short of two weeks now and it is also noted as received.
     
    Are those of you who routinely submit ancients experience such delays???
    Does NGC need to increase staff to handle the submittals they are now receiving??
    Any thoughts??
    Do you think they should provide some info on these very long delays or at least warn us that they are happening? After all we pay the fees that keep them going.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  15. RAM-VT
    This may have been a prototype for what was to become New London, Connecticut Gay 90's token Rulau #Nln 5 JOHN A. MEADE of which only two are known.
    Rulau #Nln 5 measures 25mm and has two sides
    This token measures 26.2mm, weighs 4.75 grams and has only one side which reads
    JOHN A. MEADE above 5C in the center and IN TRADE below
    I have had this piece for decades and have never been able to find anything out about this token.
    Any info would be greatly appreciated
    Best regards


  16. RAM-VT
    Or do we grasp for any straw to justify our OCD issues related to coin collecting?
    I have written two posts dealing with the fact that I have recently entered the world of collecting ancient coins and sometimes I feel like I stepped into the twilight zone. The quirkiness of some of those I have "met" (only via email or posts at ancient web sites) has occasionally totally dumbfounded me.
    The major issue with these collectors seems to be my preference for encapsulating ancient coins. Many of the comments I am hearing on this issue today as it relates to certifying ancient coins are almost identical to those I heard about 30 years when third party graders first started to certify U.S. coins. Many of the best and most respected dealers initially argued against third party grading claiming that the slabs interfered with their ability to touch and feel the coins particularly our colonials and earliest U.S. coinage which were already circulated and would not suffer from the occasional touching and this touching and handling (in their mind) makes the hobby that much more meaningful and enjoyable.
    I on the other hand I welcomed the encapsulation but not the third party grading. My love for all things numismatic drives me to do all I can to preserve each and every item in my collection in the condition it was in the day I purchased it and to protect those items from any further degradation. I have dropped too many nice pieces or dropped something onto my coins only to have them gain one or more nick, dent or scrape. In fact the last time this happened I was packing up my most favorite Swiss shooting medal for certification and yup I dropped it. I picked it up and there it was the slightest little nick on the highest point of the obverse. It really stands out because the newly exposed silver is quite shinny in contrast to the nicely tone silver around it.
    So here we are with these very serious collectors arguing against the encapsulation of ancient coins as if their life depended on it so they are able to FEEL their coins. Then these very same collectors post pictures of the wear and damage done to their coins as they slide around in their coin cabinet's draw (tray) openings every time a draw is opened and close or the coin cabinet is move. Does this perceived need to touch/feel ones coins justify this continued degradation of their coins which could easily be prevented? However, what really upsets me is that these collectors who take some perverse pleasure in the slow destruction of their coins so they can hold them treat me as if I am their enemy, in addition they will poke fun at and attack NGC for NGC's effort related to grading and authentication of ancient coins as well as NGC's encapsulating ancient coins. Why?
    The very first time I ran into this argument that coins should be held in order to appreciate them I viewed it as a smoke screen. I my opinion many of those presenting this argument resented he fact that the opinion of some third party would be accepted over that of a well know dealer or collector. But to sound credible they did not attack the third party but rather they attacked the process and specifically that process that removed the tactile component of the hobby. I think that eventually the larger dealers got behind the third party grades because they could transfer any issued related to grade and/or condition to the third party grader. Let's face it, there was and will always be a perceived conflict of interest when the seller is also the one setting the parameters (in this case grade) by which the item for sale is valued.
    I will continue to have my ancients certified; I feel it is best for the coin and best for the hobby. The certification process identifies fakes, provides unbiased grading and specifies any condition issues. In addition the encapsulation is a superior option to letting my coins slide around in a coin tray.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  17. RAM-VT
    When I started to collect ancient coins I found I had to change my approach to selecting coins.
    First let me say season's greetings and happy New Year to one and all.
    Those of you that have looked at my custom set of ancient coins and read my "Set Description" have seen my stated personal opinion regard the grading of ancient coins. It is here that I put forth my argument that when selecting ancient coins for a collection one must look beyond the coin's stated grade.
    Before I go one step further let me be perfectly clear about the meaning of the word "Grade." A coin's grade does one thing and only one thing and that is to define (using standardized terms e.g., F, VF, XF, etc.) how much wear a coin's surface has experienced since it was minted.
    So what exactly is my point here?
    Today (and for some time now) technology has permitted us to replicate virtually identical copies of the same type coin billions of times over. With strikes, design features, weight, planchet shape & size and centering being perfect controlled every coin produced is virtually an identical copies of a given type of coin except for the occasional striking error. However with ancient coins it is possible to find coins from the same die pair but you may never find virtually identical strikes. Why, because the production of each coin was a one off event. Ancient coins were produced using planchets that were all difference yet relatively "close" to one another, each die was hand cut and varied in quality, and each strike was unique based on die alignment, planchet placement between the dies, how perfectly parallel the dies were to one another and the actual striking of coin. Obviously efforts were taken to get all these factors right but very few ancient coins give the appearance that all these were as they should be at the moment the coin was struck. But none of these factors have anything to do with the coins grade. These are in fact condition issues which greatly influence a coin's appearance but not the coin's grade. However, quite often weakness in the design features on ancient coins is attributed to wear and not to the condition of the dies or the minting process itself.
    Ancient coins stopped circulating as currency at least 1500 years ago (the Medieval Period is defined as starting at AD 500) and their grades have remained the same as they were the day they stopped circulating whether that was 1500 or 2500 years ago. But their condition most likely continued to deteriorate due environmental factors such as moisture and chemicals in the air or soil surrounding the coins. Over time copper based coins may have developed terribly corroded surfaces while silver coins many have developed "thick" black coatings or horrible patinas while gold may not have been as adversely attacked as the copper based coins or silver coins. If the coin was buried in addition to the above conditions issues they can have deposits attached to the coin's surface. Other condition issues not related to minting issues included scratches, test cuts, banker's marks, graffiti, bronze decease, retooled surfaces, etc.
    So what does all this mean? It means you can have an ancient coin in a very desirable grade (XF, AU or even MS) based on wear that is in fact a real dog of a coin. Design features and all or part of its legends might be missing; it could have horrible surfaces, etc., again these and many more condition factors do not influence grade.
    I once tried to explain my approach selecting ancient coins for my collection as follows:
    I want coins that speak for themselves. That is if I was to show one of my ancient coins to friends who knew nothing about ancient coins they would all find the coin pleasing to look at and have a good idea of what the design features looked like and be able to read most of the letters in the legends. They may not understand everything on the coin but they could describe it. The last thing I would want is a coin that when I presented it friends I also had to show them a book with a photo of that type coin and say this is my coin and here is a photo so you can see what it actually looks like.
    Thus I say in my opinion when it comes to ancient coins, condition is a more critical issue than grade and I have rejected many more ancient coins for condition reasons than for grade.
    What is great about NGC's ancient service is that not only does it grade ancient coins it also scores the condition of the coin's strike and surface. In addition they will list both good (style & eye appeal) and bad condition issues on the label. The bad issues are factored into the scores. The scores run from 1 to 5. A typical or average strike or surface is a "3" with a "2" being below average and a "1" being inferior. Conversely a "4" is above average and a "5" is superior. However, as pleased as I am with NGC Ancients Department I will not purchase an NGC graded and scored coin sight unseen because I do not accept NGC's scoring of Surface (I have actually told David and we agree to disagree). Please remember although I have been collecting coins for 60 years, I have only been collecting ancient coins 5 years so let's face it David's opinion carries a lot more weight than mine.
    So does the ancient coin collecting community feel the same way I do regarding a coin's condition, in my opinion no! Condition appears to almost never be address whether it is when describing ones coins to a fellow collector or in sales listings. Don't get me wrong both good and bad condition issues are occasionally mentioned, but when it comes to selling ancient coins every coin should have a statement related to the coins condition. A statement such as "this coin has no condition issues" would be perfectly acceptable to me and I would expect such a coin to receive an NGC score of at least "3" for both strike and surface. Coins having any condition issue should have them listed in the coins description. To date I have purchased at least dozen ancient coins from dealers around the world including America's largest coin auction house and all were determined by NGC to have experienced smoothing or light smoothing and not a single one of these coins had this condition listed in their description and it can not be seen in a photo. To bring up negative condition issues is like waving a red flag, you are telling the collector the coin has a problem(s) and the price needs to be adjusted downward.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  18. RAM-VT
    I was hoping to convince you to consider collecting ancient coins, but after reading what I wrote I missed the boat on that goal but here it is anyway.
    I have been collecting coins for 59 years and have totally embraced the hobby. For many years I collected only US until I simply got sick and tired when looking over any one of my sets and seeing numerous coins that all looked identical differing only by a mint mark or a change in the numbers forming the date. Was I collecting coins or dates and mint marks? I then converted my entire collection over to a type set. And that was fun, each coin varied from the other and I got to define what my type set should contain. It got to the point after several years where all I had left was holes for coins I simply could never afford. So then I turned to a collection that took on the world. I simply purchased coins and medals from anywhere and everywhere that I truly wanted to own and this was really fun. When I retired I had to sell off most of my collection to augment my retirement income. I did however want to remain active collecting coins. In 2009 I turned to ancient coins. All I can say is that I wish I had started collecting ancient coins a lot earlier. It is a fantastic area of numismatics. There are numerous ways of collecting these coins. Ancient coinage can be grouped into Greek Civic, Greek Empires, Celtic, Roman Republic, Roman Imperial, Roman Provincial, Roman Provincial-Judaea and Byzantine. These are just the broad categories and all can be subdivided if you want to specialize.
    What is so special about these coins? Well first there is the history surrounding these coins you can always fantasize that your coin was carried by Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. But one factor that draws me to these coins is that many of these early ancient coins are true miniature works of art and some have never been surpassed in beauty during the more than 2000 years that have passed since they were struck. In addition, when it comes to collecting ancient coins one is truly collecting the coin and not the grade. There is no MS-70 freshly produced by the mint. Catalogue values for bronze ancients are usually provided for the grades of Fine and Very Fine and for silver and gold in Very Fine and XF. Why? Because in the case of bronzed coins Fine is the typical and/or minimum preferred grade and gold and Silver the typical and/or minimum preferred grade is VF. That does not mean AU and mint state coins do not exist, the grades for the coins in my collection range from Fine to Mint State with the average grade for the entire collection being XF and an average cost per coin of under $100 (one cost me over $500 and two cost me over $400 so you know a lot of my coins cost well under $100 and are in nice grades for ancients).
    There are so many different designs available (even for the same issuer) that you should never have two coins with the same design in your collection. And for as long as these coins have been collected they are still routinely finding new specimens. I have only been collecting ancients for about 4-1/2 years and in that short time I have been able to pick up some very nice rare pieces. Because I have limited funds my collection right now contains only 97 coins. However, once I get back the coins from my latest submittals to NGC that number will grow to about 110 coins.
    I purchase almost all my coins from eBay (this is because I live in Vermont and don't have access to a dealer in ancient coins). If you are patient and put in the time you can make some great purchases on eBay.
    Are there problems collecting ancient coins? Yes. As with any collectable you have to worry about fakes. But then you also have bronze disease, tooling in addition to 15 factors related to strike that can influence the coins desirability and 27 factors related to the coin's surface. Finding information whether for attribution or pricing is darn near impossible. The number of books needed is mind blowing and none are cheap. I am disappointed that NGC does not provided attribution for a fee. Then there is the issue of valuations, the must commonly used references were produced by David Sear and all are at least 15 years old (when you include the time it takes to produce the reference) and older. I complained about the lack of pricing info to someone I met on the Forum web site (if you get into ancient coins you will become familiar with this site) and this was his response "Price on ancients is completely arbitrary, what is it worth to you?" That is like trying to buy a mint state 1916-D for $100 by telling the owner or dealer that is all it is worth to me!!!!!!!!!! Where do these people come from?
    Buying NGC certified ancients can ensure that the ancient coins you buy are worth owning. But be warned, buying raw ancients from a big well known auction house offers no protection. Three of my most expensive raw purchases were from the U.S.'s two largest dealers/auction houses and all three were misrepresent in the auction listings. One of these auction houses claimed that physical impairments were subjective!!!! For example, Oh we felt that the graffito did not have to be mentioned since it was very light and contemporary to the coin!!!! That is being subjective about physical impairments, i.e. knowing it is there but feeling you don't have to state it. I however preferred purchasing raw ancients. There is no way I could have purchased many of my better ancients had they been certified prior to me buying them. Since NGC has started certify ancients they have been easier to sell but also the prices have definitely gone up for certified coins. It is also evident that many buyers and sellers of NGC certified coins don't understand how to use the scores assigned for strike and surface.
    Well if you want to check out the types of coins that can be collected under the ancient umbrella go to Custom Sets Ancient Coins and check out:
    The Goldsaint set, and
    The two Aspen Park sets
    I pick these sets because close-up photos of all the coins in the sets are provided. You can also check out my set if you want RAM-VT.
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  19. RAM-VT
    Maybe it is just my age and not being able to understand what to do.
    So far I have posted about five Journal entries. In all cases there was no option for readers to respond at the bottom of my post. Some readers went out their way to send comments via e-mails. This was very nice of them but I don't understand why the option to respond does not appear at the bottom of my post.
    I did e-mail NGC and ask for help and I thought I followed their instructions with my last post but guess what -- I evidently screwed up again.
    It may be just my age and an inability for me to comprehend what it is I am suppose to do, but I hate to think that at 67 I am that far out of it.
    So could someone simply tell me the steps to follow that will provide readers the opportunity to respond to my posts?
    I am preparing a post that might upset some so I want them to have the opportunity to have their say about what I say.
    A one sided discussion is not a discussion.
    Thanks for any help that might be provided
    Ram-VT
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  20. RAM-VT

    OK I don't believe it

    By RAM-VT,

    What the heck did I do correctly
    I don't know what I did but now it works
    Sorry for wasting your time with my last post
    Ram-VT
    To see old comments for this Journal entry, click here. New comments can be added below.
  21. RAM-VT
    Businesses will do whatever it takes to succeed.
    Let's first go over a little history. The first important grading standard was Brown & Dunn, that was followed by Photograde and then the American Numismatic Society published its grading standards. Overall these three standards were very comparable (some could argue that there were inconsistencies). Anyway the ANA grading reference has become "THE" grading standard for U.S. coins. So when the ANA formed the first major 3rd party grading firm (ANACS) it was only logical that they be considered the top tier grading organization. And believe me I sent all coins to them for certification. Who in the world could best apply ANA grading standing standards then the ANA itself? Isn't this only logical?
    Then along came the NGC and PCGS and before you know it all the dealers and many of their followers are saying they are in fact the top tier 3rd party graders and can do a better job of applying ANA standards than the ANA. This upset the heck out of me. And how can this be possible. In my opinion it simply came down to payola. Dealers made money submitting coins to NGC or PCGS (they do not have to pay the published rates we pay when submitting coins) and they get the opportunity to charge service fees for preparing the coins for submittal. I could submit my coins directly to ANACS. So who are the dealers going to support? They are going to push the companies that give them an opportunity to make money, those being NGC & PCGS.
    Now on a very infrequent basis I visit a Burlington area dealer to buy submittal flips. This dealer does advertise himself as being both an NGC and PCGS related dealer. Each time he asked me who I was going to submit my coins to and I said NGC. Here is what happened next.
    1st time - He recommended I use PCGS because he "heard" that there had been reports some time ago that NGC had become very sloppy and over grading when they hired some graders with questionable capabilities but he also heard that they maybe correcting this problem. But this problem had turned many dealers against NGC.
    2nd time - Before he was able to start his spiel I said I was submitting ancients and NGC is the only game in town. His response was how long have they been grading ancients? And he advertises himself as an NGC submitter!
    3rd time - He recommended I use PCGS because (now are you ready for this) NGC has a reputation for under grading! (Please see #1 above). I just smiled bought the flips and left.
    After my third visit I started to think about what was going on here. First he could not get his story straight, but it was months between visits thus he did not remember me and had no idea he contradicted himself. He didn't even know what services NGC provides but that is beside the point. Then it hit me. I can bypass the dealer and submit directly to NGC. He has lost an opportunity to make money (sound like what happened to ANACS?) so what does a dealer do? You give the customer a reason to use a product that requires you to use a dealer while at the same time providing reasons why the customer's desired product may not really be as good as the dealer's supplied product.
    Look it I have certified coins from both PCGS and NGC. I have been disappointed with coins grade by both firms and more than pleased with coins graded by both firms. Based on my personal experience they are both excellent firms and can I say one is better than the other? Absolutely not. I am with NGC because being a member of the ANA I can submit directly to NGC without paying for any membership fee. For me it comes down to cost and for dealers it comes to profit. The common factor - MONEY
  22. RAM-VT
    Or do some of us just have more money than common sense? - Another long one
    As we all know when Dr. Sheldon had his book Penny Whimsy published he was presenting the numismatic world a detailed catalogue of early large cent varieties (known at that time for the years 1793 to 1814) as well as an approach for pricing these cents. Under his concept every die variety/die combination would be assigned a value in its basal state (1) which was the lowest collectable state. Now more than likely his basal state was better than today?s poor or fair in that a coin in its basal state was still required to have enough detail to determine its Sheldon variety not just its date. The basal state valuation would reflect various factors including its rarity. So how did this pricing system work? For each of the standard grades Sheldon assigned a single multiplication factor, except for UNC where he provided a range of from 60 to 70. To determine a large cent?s value in a given grade you would take the basal state value and multiply it by his assigned multiplication factor for that grade. Thus if a large cent was assigned a basal state valuation of $1.50 it would have the following valuations as a function of grade.
    Grade Multiplication Value
    Factor
    G 4 = $6
    VG 8 = $12
    F 12 = $18
    VF 20 = $30
    XF 40 = $60
    AU 50 = $75
    UNC 60?70 = $90 to $105
    I am not saying Dr. Sheldon?s scheme for developing prices for large cents was right. But what I want you to look at is where the emphasis was placed when it came to pricing such coins in the 1950?s. Let?s remember Dr. Sheldon was no dummy when it came to collecting (and thus purchasing) large cents.
    The first big jump in price comes at XF. When you get to the grade of XF most of the coin?s detail is there (in effect the design is complete, but the high points are worn, not necessarily totally missing). As you progress up from XF the price increases really are not that significant, why because you are not gaining that much more in detail features. When it comes to the grade UNC, the detail in theory is complete but that is not really the case. You have full strikes and weak strikes. It is totally possible to find an AU (maybe even an XF) with more detail than an UNC. I would argue that Sheldon?s system assumed full strike coins from the grade of XF up. Thus there was no real reason to pay super premiums for a high end UNC versus a low end UNC since the detail was there and all you are talking about are differences in surface marks.
    So how does this 1950?s approach to pricing large cents compare to today?s approach? The following values for a 1795 Lettered Edge Large cent comes from NGC?s coin price guide.
    G = $540 (the corresponding basal state value would be $135)
    VG = $660
    F = $1,140
    VF = $2,100
    XF = $4,810
    AU = $7,310
    MS60 = $10,630
    MS61 = $12,190
    MS62 = $14,690
    MS63 = $21,880
    MS64= $47,190
    MS65 = $66,880
    I will let you decided how closely current prices correspond to Sheldon?s system for the grades G through XF. There is a larger jump in valuation at AU and from AU to MS-60 the valuation increase is reasonable. But oh my word, going from MS-60 to 65 forget it. We still have contact marks with an MS65. Tell me how many fewer contact marks does one get paying and extra $20,000 to go from MS64 to MS65 or paying $25,000 to go from MS63 to MS64? It appears that Dr. Sheldon?s emphasis on detail has given way to the number of minute surface marks but most importantly bragging rights on grade. I would be the first to admit that a 62.5% increase in price you would have to pay going from XF to MS-65 using Dr. Sheldon?s approach appears to be low. But I really can not understand the rational that gets you the 1,390% increase we have today. Are we collecting the coin or the grade? Take my word for it I?ll take an MS-63 to save $45,000. Heck I love great looking AU?s and would be perfectly happy with a beautiful brown AU 1795 large cent with just the slightest hint of circulation and at the same time save almost $60,000 over an MS-65 with possibly more surface marks than an AU but I will admit the MS-65 gives one the plus of the UNC having no indication of circulation.
    My custom set ?Diversity in Numismatics? contains an AU-58 1827 Bust Half Dollar. Why in the world would I or anyone spend an additional $9600 to replace what I believe is a truly beautiful coin to go to an MS-65???
    As a collector I think Sheldon had his head screwed on straighter than most of today?s collectors which appear to me to have more money than brains, but I also will have to admit that Sheldon?s approach to pricing any type of coin is not valid for today?s market place.

  23. RAM-VT
    Just what is really disliked ? a long post
    For those of you that may have looked at my custom set you know that my total collection contains well less than 200 items which includes ancient, medieval, world and U.S. coins as well as medals, tokens and jetons (so really not much of any specific collectable area). I have started selling off my collection to supplement my retirement. Anyway with well less than 200 items in my collection it must be considered small. However it does contain a couple of coins that I simply could not replace. Let?s face it the last thing a collector wants is a collection that can?t be viewed because it is locked away. Thus I am thankful to NGC for its Registry in that it allows me to store my coins at my bank while at the same time providing me the opportunity to view my collection anytime I want. This is the best of all worlds, total protection of my collection while at the same time having unlimited access to my collection.
    Also the registry allows me and other collectors to share their collection with the numismatic community. I can not be the only one who checks out other registry sets. Maybe in hopes of viewing items I could only dream of owning or for ideas of what I might want to add to my own collection. Since my interest is in effect the entire numismatic universe I am not limited in what I chose to look at.
    As happy as I am with the NGC Registry I will at the same time admit I am totally disappointed by it. I guess my major problem is that based on what I have viewed or better yet not viewed when I ?tour? through the registry sets. Basically I have no idea why in the world most of you use the registry. It definitely is not to share your collection with the rest of the collecting community.
    The following data is based on the first page of listing for custom sets in early April. (Yes I have been composing this post for some time.)
    Number of sets = 98 (I think there are 100 per page so I missed two)
    Number of sets with no items in them = 21 with an average view of 257 per empty set
    Number with at least 1 but no more than 5 items = 31
    - At 0 to 5 coins we have already covered more than 50% of the 98 sets
    Number with at least 6 but no more than 10 items = 13
    Number with at least 11 but no more than 25 items = 22
    Number with at least 26 but no more than 50 items = 7
    Number with at least 51 but no more than 100 items = 4
    Average number of items per set = 15
    Number of the 77 sets having at least one item with an attached photo = 40
    I can not say how representative the above numbers are of NGC Registry sets in general but out of 30 competitive sets titled ?US Colonial Issues, Complete? 10% had ?0? items in the set and another 14 sets out the remaining 27 sets have so few items in them they are shown as being 0% complete. Thus more than 50% of the sets are shown as 0% complete. In addition out of 30 listed sets there are a grand total of just 63 photos? There are some phenomenal coins listed in some of these sets and all we get is just 63 photos out of 30 sets. FYI this set of ?US Colonial Issues, Complete? is a large registry set. (Again these data are from early April.)
    So just what the heck are you collectors doing here? Let?s face it, many if not most of these ?sets? are just taking up NGC computer space and with the dearth of photos no meaning info is being shared with the collecting community. Looking at most of these sets is like going to an art museum only to find empty frames on the walls along with a little card providing the title of the picture and name of the artist that would be there if the museum ever decided to take the picture out of the vault. No one can find this enjoyable, interesting or enlightening.
    Maybe the old saying that goes something like, ?the road to hell is paved with good intentions? is applicable here. Maybe many of the collectors actually intended to build on their initial listings and eventually provide a ?set? listing but got disappointed when they saw what they were up against. Or maybe some were just proud of a truly rare specimen they have and are using a Registry Set Listing to allow the collecting universe to also enjoy that one item. I am sure there are numerous reasons why we have so many registry sets with virtually no contents and no photos. But isn?t it time we do some house cleaning of the sets we listed? It is only reasonable to recognize that those presenting "registry points? only sets" have no reason to post photos since photos don?t add to registry points also I must therefore assume that photos of the coins in these points only sets would not provide enjoyment or enlightenment to the rest of us collectors. But come on, custom sets get no registry points so why no photos?
    I would like to make the following suggestion to NGC.
    NGC should create of a Registry Photo Gallery to supplement the galleries NGC already offers. However in the Registry Photo Gallery I am recommending the photos would be posted by the members of NGC?s Registry and not NGC. Here NGC members could up load photos of NGC certified numismatically significant coins. These would be coins that are truly rare in any grade and/or coins that are in superior grades (when it comes to superior grades I personally would exclude modern issues where MS-70 is not unusual). The gallery post should require a short discussion of the significance of the coin posted to the gallery. Look it, we all know there are some phenomenal coins sitting out there in NGC holders. I would love to be able to look at these coins and it just is not happening through the registry. Also I would request that those posting the photos really do a close up of the coin. We don?t need to see the entire holder, the holder is unimportant. All the text on the holder label could be automatically uploaded via the NGC data base much as is done now with the registry sets. In addition NGC should show the registry points earned by the coin being presented in photo as well as where it is within the census. I would allow only one photo to be posted for any specific item (defined by date/mm/type/variety/etc.) with the criteria being the item being shown is the one with the highest grade actually posted to the photo gallery (higher NGC grades may exist but the owner has not posted the photo) I don?t really know if this would possible because it would require that the software be able be accepted to a new post over an old post of a lower grade. For ?coppers? each date would have a posting for brown, red-brown and red. Proofs and mint state coins would have their own listings.
    My goal here is two fold. First I will support anything that adds to my enjoyment of this hobby. Second for those who want to share such material with fellow collectors this would eliminate the need to create of a registry set just to share one or two coins with the collecting community.
  24. RAM-VT

    RE. RE. Just exactly

    By RAM-VT,

    To some extent your idea was attempted more than 20 years ago.
    The first coin authenticator for the ANA was Charles Hoskins. When he left his position with the ANA he moved back to the Washington, D.C. area which is where I met him. He started the INS (International Numismatic Society) which provided a coin authentication service. Over time the INS started a grading service which I firmly believe was the first third party grading service. They started grading on an informal basis and then started issuing photo certificates as the demand for their grading service grow, but the first step was always authentication. If the coin was not real it was returned. Near the end of the INS? existence the ANACS and other services were providing third party grading and the problem with resubmitting coins for higher grades was in full swing. At this point in time Charles was approached by an investor who wanted to use a laser scanner to grade coins. The objective was to provide totally objective grading and to do away with the issue of knocking out coins and resubmitting them. A lot of money was invested in the project and they were able to demonstrate that once a coin was scanned it would always be recognized by the system unless marks were added to the surface (which would only lower the grade). The problem was in defining for the computer what exactly determined each grade. A speck of a given size on a three cent piece would be more of a defect on that coin than that same speck on a silver dollar. So each grade in the grading spectrum had to be tailored to the coin being graded. This effort provided proof of principle in that the computer could pick up all the imperfections on the surface of coins and recognize specific coins once they were scanned, but that is as far as it went. Personally I think the grading services should laser scan all submittals just to stop the resubmittal issue. The grading services should share this data bank.
  25. RAM-VT
    I figure that currently there are either 30 or 39 distinct grades of UNC.
    There are many of you out there (if not most of you) that were not in this hobby when the Sheldon pricing system for large cents was converted to a grading scale for U.S. coins. At the time UNC?s were graded 60, 63, 65 & 67. The were those out there at that time that were jumping up and down saying that greedy dealers would some day use all eleven grades (60 to 70) to grade coins so they could charge incrementally more for each grade while those selling the coins said no we won?t do that? Well guess what they started using all 11 grades of UNC and if you go to NGC?s price guide and check out Morgan dollars each UNC grade is priced individually.
    Now we have the ?+?. A coin receiving a ?+? with its grade is said to be at the high end of its assigned grade, approaching the quality requirements for the next grade and it must have above-average eye appeal. The ?+? designation is used for grades 60 through 68. Now this concerns me. I always assumed that the differentiation between grades was linear. That is the grading scale from MS-60 to MS-70 could be represented by an 11 inch ruler with the requirements for each grade being representing by one inch of that ruler. MS-60 coins would fall in the 0 to 1 inch band, MS-61 the 1 to 2 inch band and so forth. Well what I find out now is that the ?grading band width? for MS-69 & MS-70 coins is so narrow or tight that it is not possible to designate a ?high end? for these two grades. Well what does this mean about the other nine grades? Do the grading requirements get ?wider? as you go down in grade such that when you get to MS-60, MS-61 & MS-63 the ?grading bands are so wide? you really don?t know what you have or are the bottom nine grades linear re. their grading standards? So if the grading standards for the bottom nine grades permit differentiation to the point that the grade can be determined to have a ?high end? by definition that grade must be capable of having a middle and low end. So now we have a situation were you try to sell your MS-65 and the dealer tells you, ?well you know that coin is really at the low end for the grade and I can not offer you what you want.? All coins not having a ?+? next to their grade automatically become low end coins for the grade. Why? Why not? You?re the one selling the coin can you prove it isn?t a low end coin? We now know if it was at the high end coin the label would indicate it. In effect each coin has now become a high end coin or low end coin. So at a minimum we have 20 grades of UNC (2 X 9)+2 and if you buy that those that matter can differentiate between low, middle and high end coins within the same grade we have 29 UNC grades (3 X 9) +2.
    Well then how do you count an MS-63* (great eye appeal but not high end for the grade)? Since the grade has an assigned modifier it must be treated as a unique grade. The ?*? is used for grades 60 through 69 so we are really adding ten more grades. That brings us to either 30 or 39 grades of UNC depending on how you count the situation with the ?+?.
    I can only guess this is what everyone wants because we got it. I would be happy with MS-60, 63, 65 & 67.
    Happy collecting to everyone, 39 UNC grades or not, it is still a great hobby.