Jaelus

Member
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jaelus

  • Boards Title
    Learning the Ropes

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Has to be political. No reasonable person would consider a coin from 1951 to be an antiquity. We have coins in the US currently in circulation that are decades older than that.
  2. Looks like the Hungarian Forint (1868-1892) set I requested got created as a type set (or rather, the existing 1868-1869 completely circulating issue set was modified to become one). That's fine to have a type set in the registry for this, however, what I was requesting was a complete circulating issue set of all dates and MMs. Could this be either changed to a complete circulating issue set, or could one be added in addition to the type set? The other two sets I requested for korona and krajczar circulating issues were created and look amazing. Thank you!
  3. Thank you. I was confused since I added the coins to my registry and it prompted me to add them to the set already. Please also add this set: Hungary Krajczar Complete Circulation Issues 1868-1892 1868KB Copper Krajczár (1868-1873) KM-441 1869KB Copper Krajczár (1868-1873) KM-441 1872KB Copper Krajczár (1868-1873) KM-441 1873KB Copper Krajczár (1868-1873) KM-441 1878KB Copper Krajczár (1878) KM-459 (Mule) 1878KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1879KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1881KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1882KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1883KB Copper Krajczar (1878-1888) KM-458 1885KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1886KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1887KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1888KB Copper Krajczár (1878-1888) KM-458 1891KB Copper Krajczár (1891-1892) KM-478 1892KB Copper Krajczár (1891-1892) KM-478
  4. Looks like this set got added, but it doesn't properly show up under competitive sets for Hungary. My coins add correctly to the set, but it looks to be in World (none)? Can you fix this please?
  5. Thank you! Please also add the following silver forint date/mm set for Hungary: Hungary - Silver Forint 1868-1892, Circulation Issues Coins in this set: 1868GYF AR Forint (1868-1869) KM-449 1868KB AR Forint (1868-1869) KM-449 1869GYF AR Forint (1868-1869) KM-449 1869KB AR Forint (1868-1869) KM-449 1870GYF AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1870KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1871GYF AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1871KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1872KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1873KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1874KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1875KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1876KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1876KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1877KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1878KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1879KB AR Forint (1870-1879) KM-453 1880KB AR Forint (1880-1881) KM-465 1881KB AR Forint (1880-1881) KM-465 1882KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1883KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1884KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1885KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1886KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1887KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1888KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1889KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 1890KB AR Forint (1882-1890) KM-469 (BAROQUE SHIELD) 1890KB AR Forint (1890-1892) KM-475 (FIUME ARMS) 1891KB AR Forint (1890-1892) KM-475 1892KB AR Forint (1890-1892) KM-475
  6. There's one world set missing for the silver corona/korona. We have for Austria: Silver Corona, 1892-1908, Circulation Issue Silver Corona, 1912-1916, Circulation Issue And we have for Hungary: Silver Korona, 1892-1906, Circulation Issue But the last of the four is missing for Hungary: Silver Korona, 1912-1916, Circulation Issue Please add the set in bold above. Thank you!
  7. In this case, I have auction records showing examples of a full set of uniface trials for one commemorative event. All known trials from this event have writing on the unused faces. This may not be iron clad proof, but it is highly compelling evidence as this was not an uncommon practice. Would you suggest I submit copies of these supporting records with the trial?
  8. Does the opposing face of a uniface trial affect the grade, or are uniface trials considered to have only one gradable face? I ask because not infrequently uniface trials have writing scrawled on them relating to planchet composition, type identification, etc. by the original minting authority. On a coin this would be graffiti, but on a uniface trial it can lend authenticity and be used to establish pedigree.
  9. The last update to the NGC Submission Tracking page eliminated any way to check the status of NCS submissions. There is no longer any way to even verify that a submission actually went through NCS before hitting the grading room, save for bugging customer service. Any submissions that are with NCS now just sit at "Scheduled for Grading" for a long time, but of course that is an erroneous and misleading status that should absolutely not be shown to the customer, because it falsely gives the impression that the submission is not with NCS. The bottom line, you guys need to either restore a way to track NCS submissions separately like there used to be before the update, or alternatively, show the correct NCS processing state for submissions instead of using a fake and misleading placeholder.
  10. My best results from NCS were conservation of uncirculated brown copper and silver proofs. Major improvement every time. Other coins have been hit or miss, usually no improvement if it's a miss. I've only had one come back that I thought was worse in terms of eye appeal, but it still graded well.
  11. I have an example of a rare Karl Goetz 1914 Austrian 1 krone pattern proof in copper with an apparent planchet flaw. The coin looks as though the coin blank was scored in a straight line against a ruler, from rim to rim across the center, and possibly prior to the blank being punched. On the coin, the scored line is aligned through the center of the bust across the center of the obverse. The line is faint in the fields where there was less pressure, but was widened proportionally where it passed across the devices when struck, depending on the depth of the devices on the dies. That and how it passes through the legends and rims make it apparent that the planchet scoring happened prior to striking, making the irregularity as struck. So, this is a little more unusual than a typical planchet flaw, in that it may have been done intentionally prior to the strike for some unknown reason, but it may also be a straight crack along the planchet. As I intend to submit this coin for grading, is this the sort of thing that I should submit on a standard grading tier (with the irregularity causing a grade deduction), or does this type of irregularity preclude a straight grade? If so, would this type of planchet irregularity be eligible to grade as an error? Thanks
  12. Thanks Matt. I started going through what I have and correlating it to the registry. I'm making a spreadsheet explaining all of the label errors I've found. This isn't a small amount of work, so I really hope these can all get fixed to make it worthwhile.
  13. NGC used to use the KM# to document the type on the label (where applicable), which was both accurate and easy to understand. I understand the desire to use descriptions that aren't tied to a particular catalog, however, since NGC has gotten away from using the KM#, many world coins have had to adopt "flavor text" on the labels to describe the types instead. Sometimes this has worked well, but many coins have ended up with type descriptions that are: Just plain incorrect. Whereas the KM# is just a catalog number and can't really be incorrect, the same cannot be said of the accuracy of the text descriptions for world coins in Krause. Some instances of incorrect type descriptions are unfortunately from NGC adopting incorrect text descriptions from Krause. Technically correct, but inconsistently applied. For example when one or two types in a series of coins are inexplicably using different type descriptions than the rest of the coins in the same series. Not incorrect per se, but do not match with how collectors actually refer to the type. This is when there is already an established and accepted way to describe the type, but NGC has made up their own text instead. Why arbitrarily make up a name for a type that already has a name? This would be very confusing to new collectors. I believe this is due to Krause not listing a description for a type, whereas other more specialized catalogs for a particular country may consistently be using the same type description. I have a pile of NGC graded coins that have disappointing newer labels with the problems as described above, that I would like to send in to get corrected. I'm not sure how to go about it since the errors on the labels are from how NGC has chosen to identify the types after getting away from the KM numbers. I also have raw coins that I haven't been sending in because I know if I sent them in they would get incorrect labels (I've seen other graded examples since the change from KM#s and they are incorrect). What I'd like to do is to be able to get NGC to correct these labels in the NGC catalog, so that if I send coins in for grading or label correction, the new labels would be fixed across the board. Thanks for your help.
  14. MS PL coins are no longer viewable on the world census since the site was revamped. I've got a couple NGC MS PL world coins that used to show up in the census under MS. Now when I go to check the census, these coins do not show up anymore. As far as I can tell, there is no way to make them appear. They don't show up regardless of the filters you select, and do not appear under either MS or PF designations.