ngcmember2018

Member
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ngcmember2018

  • Boards Title
    Hobbyist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Dear NGC, I recently had a 1961 50c PF Franklin graded. Cert # 4723031-001 I wasn’t aware it was a ddr. Is the process of having it redesignated the same? Does NGC not identify and notify of such varieties during grading? I realize there is a variety plus check box. Thanks
  2. I’m including a few pictures of a 1959 dime with the number “5” in front of Roosevelt’s eye. I see no variety plus for this attribution/designation. Have you seen this before and had inquiries regarding it?
  3. I assumed (and that is not always safe to do) they made proof sets in durable plastic for the year of 1964 like they did for 61 and 62 in the photo. Did they strike proof coins to sell in durable plastic in 64? If not, was a business strike the only strike offered in durable plastic in 64? The top set came back ms graded. I don’t see why they wouldn’t offer 64 proof struck coins since they did in prior years. Confused.
  4. I agree with you, BillJones. Conservation, in my experience, has simply exposed the surface of every coin I have submitted for that tier. And, for that, it has exposed micro, hairline scratches that can end up making the grade of such surface preservation lower when such marks are seen and noted, versus left in question without conservation. It helps when the coins submitted have good surface preservation. And marks can be covered up through various natural ways of toning and dirt build up. It has also taught me to study coins at a greater length to know only a couple of variables should exist on a coins surface that may help to preclude an upgrade when using conservation. Has anyone sent in a graded coin for conservation to receive it back at a lower grade? I'm curious.
  5. I think the teardrop, aka the dangling4 die marker is only found on SMS coins. There is one SMS coin where it was not found to be on. I'd like to know which grading service graded that one. I believe yours is an SMS coin if it bears the teardrop, dangling4 die marker, but I've been told through email by NGC that they do not recognize the dangling4 die marker. Not sure if they call it a teardrop but I'd hope they would mean that term, as well. And I am not sure for what reason they do not recognize it...
  6. I have spent a lot of cash sending in coins I thought would grade high just to find out I didn't evaluate the coin correctly. I'm sure many collectors may have done the same thing, initially. Well, the disappointment and anger (of spending money on those coins) has made me change the way I initially evaluate a coin. I started looking at coins with a 40x, then a 10x. Now, I evaluate with a carson 6x loupe which can be lifted to go way beyond 6x, and to evaluate each coin as Matt advised in a well controlled room with one light source. These two things have helped me to submit smaller orders that better reflect the conditions of declared coin values.
  7. These coins came out of unc mint sets that were in a plastic sleeve inside of the envelopes. They had been together in a plastic bin with nearly a hundred other mint set envelopes side by side. They were being sold for $5, so I took a chance on finding a gem or two among them. Boy, it was a job cutting the plastic away, lifting it up, and allowing each coin to slide out onto an airtight capsule for evaluation. I agree that they look inconsiderate for grading. Here is one 1996d lincoln I may send in.....
  8. It may not be. The lot of silver also consisted of 21 Roosevelt unc rolls 1959, and 1962. Both plain. Plastic rolls with screw caps still had the scotch tape (which had turned brown) around the cap preventing opening.. They wanted $75 per roll. They had never been opened. Thanks for your reply. It’s good to be informed of such things. I do wish you could hold the coin in hand, though. Sigh.
  9. Well, it matches the reverse designer initials and the front die marker as far as diagnostics go for SP/SMS coin descriptions. And it looks much different than the business strike coins from the same unc roll. The finish is smoother, and the strike has a different relief.
  10. Here are closeups of the dangling 4. I have emailed NGC to to ask if they recognize the “dangling4” die marker for sms/sp coins. Do you know if they do? I received an email back from NGC saying they don’t recognize the “dangling 4” die marker. Maybe, they call it a teardrop. Makes me wonder.
  11. I discovered this a couple of weeks ago by being allowed to cherrypick two unc rolls of 1964 halves. I bought seven halves. When I got home, I noticed one was different than the rest. I, then discovered the “dangling 4, or teardrop” marker after some research. One of the coolest moments in my life’s history of collecting coins. Let me know what you think.
  12. I wondered if anyone may give it that grade because of the spot.
  13. It looks good in the capsule, so I took the photo in it 😜
  14. It sure will be :-) I still think submitting coins in 2x2 flips is high risk for high valued coins. A 2x2 flip doesn’t insure against additional surface marks when paired next to another 2x2 flip. Weight and sliding/bouncing can even create marks reducing grade potential. :-(