Tempvs Fvgit

Member
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tempvs Fvgit

  • Boards Title
    Just got here
  1. Tempvs Fvgit

    Does NGC Recognize this as a Variety?

    That's a really good rule of thumb to follow. So, it sounds like it's still possible to have such varieties created in the future, especially if CONECA or Wexler decide to assign them varieties. In the meantime, I'll just be collecting these varieties, whatever may come of it! Thanks again!
  2. Tempvs Fvgit

    Does NGC Recognize this as a Variety?

    Will NGC label the coin as a variety just like the 1921 Peace Dollar VAM-1H? That particular coin is a business strike coin that was struck with satin proof dies. So, something like "1893 Columbian Half Dollar VAM-1H", wherein the VAM-1H refers to the coin having an obverse proof die. Put another way, is there a VAM-1H equivalent for the circulation strike Columbian half series that were struck using proof dies? Note that obviously VAM-1H may not specifically be the correct designation depending on how the numbering system gets used; I'm merely using VAM-1H as a variety designation example.
  3. Tempvs Fvgit

    Does NGC Recognize this as a Variety?

    If I were to submit an 1893 Columbian half dollar with the obverse proof diagnostics (shown in the following NGC link), along with a VarietyPlus submission, then will NGC mark it as a variety on the graded label? Here's NGC's own article confirming that a proof die was used for business strikes, which clearly indicates that a distinct variety of die was used from most other circulation strike Columbian half dollars: https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/3083/1892-Columbian-Half-Dollar (image below). I understand that the article discusses the 1892 Columbian half dollar, but the dies were reused the following year as the same exact die diagnostics are found on 1893 Columbian half dollars. Also, for both the 1892 and 1893 years, NGC does not show different varieties. Here are the two NGC pages for the Columbian halves: + https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/silver-commemoratives-1892-1954-pscid-71/1892-columbian-50c-ms-coinid-19294 + https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-explorer/silver-commemoratives-pscid-71/1893-columbian-50c-ms-coinid-19297
  4. As I understand it, proof-like assignments are determined by holding the coin perpendicular to a flat surface (with text or a ruler on it), and measuring the furthest distance that text can be read off of the coin's mirrored surface. Specifically, 2"-4" is proof-like (PL), over 4" is deep mirror proof-like (DMPL), and just barely shy of 2" is a star grade (semi-PL). Is this the same process that NGC graders undergo to determine a coin's proof-like qualities? If not, what is the exact process? Do graders only take the time to do a PL test for coins that are obviously mirrored, and does this mean that coins that meet the lower threshold of PL (i.e. 2") should be accompanied by a note to check for PL on the submission form?
  5. Thanks - based on your response, I take it that it'll be called a "struck on type 1 blank" or "struck on type 2 blank", obviously assuming that those blanks miss the upsetting mill and get struck as-is.
  6. Would it be called a "Struck on Blank" error by NGC?
  7. What do you call a blank that somehow skips past the upsetting mill so that it doesn't have a rim (and is not technically a planchet yet), and gets struck directly? I guess it's sort of like the occasional mishaps of getting coins struck on a wrong planchet... but not exactly. Does NGC or the current numismatic standard call it something like a "struck on blank" error?