World Colonial

I only took a few law classes at university, back in 1986 and 1987. I know it wasn't comprehensive, but generally to win damages you had to 1) have a contractual relationship with "consideration" 2) suffer a loss and 3) prove the defendant was negligent causing your loss. I know this doesn't cover everything (like libel or slander). Is this right? Seems to me that this is something new which the was just "made up", again. I'm pretty confident no would have won this type of claim 35 years ago. These plaintiffs suffered a loss but blaming an endorser is ridiculous. So, everybody who lost money is going to claim it was because they couldn't help being persuaded by these celebrities that this was such a fantastic "investment"? You can't "fix stupid" and that's what applies here. If anticipating the potential consequences by every insufficiently_thoughtful_person is the legal standard, this country is truly doomed.

Ok, got you.

"Store credit"? I've heard some dealers purportedly agree to buy back coins they sell at "strong" prices (higher than other dealers will pay) but never heard of "store credit". That's the equivalent of expecting to "rent" a coin for free where you get to keep it for a time to admire it and then return it for a full refund. The dealer runs a business not a free perpetual approval service. Why would any seller of coins anywhere do that?

I've read the same thing, but not the legal basis for any of it. I consider it utterly absurd.

Therre is an article on CNBC.com today about supposedly financially knowledgeable people getting caught up in the FTX debacle. I can't find it, but one guy has $600K tied up now. Apparently, it's his life savings, most of it from a home sale earlier this year. His family is living with the in-laws and was intending to use that money to build another. He'll probably end up in divorce court. Collectively, they fell for something too good to be true, in this instance above market deposit rates which they naively believed to be realistic. One reason they gave was backing by well-known celebrities and investors. They should have focused on custodial risk instead.

There is only one motive I can identify. If it isn't the only one, it certainly appears to be the most believable one. It's to get this pocket change into an NGC holder with the right label so that it can be sold as "rare" for a windfall. Why else would anyone care about such trivial minutia?

No, I intended that quote to mean the preponderance of the evidence. Exceptions are exactly that, an exception to how collectors usually act.

Not sure that's really different than most other series, even from US coinage. There are clubs like EAC which I understand tracked this data but it's the exception to my knowledge. Coins not being available prior to hoard discovery is one thing. It means the supply probably wasn't available. Lack of knowledge for the available population is another entirely. There also isn't much point to tracking supply of known very common coins, unless you are referring to above a specific TPG number.

There are different grading standards for different series if that's what you mean. Part of it was how it came "off the press" and part of it is how someone preserved it subsequently. The rarity for these two series almost certainly has not changed noticeably from pre-1986. It's the perception. Traditionally, collectors must have mostly used the mintage records but with Saints and Morgans, many turned out to be hoard coins. These were scarcer in the sense that the coins were not generally available to collectors prior to the discovery.

I understand but it's also a matter of proportionality. You are familiar with that Franklin half which sold for around $150K, right? Or those common late date Mercury dimes which sold for six figures? In the early 70's before coins were widely bought as "investments, those are maybe $10 to $20, somewhat more at most, right? If a buyer paid a "large" premium, it was nothing close to the same multiple paid more recently. If I did happen, I'll qualify my prior comments.

I think you missed my point. I was stating that coin quality which is "dreck" in my series (pillars) is or might be desirable in another, like EAC. Someone owns both but the difference is that US collectors will pay "good" or "decent" prices for EAC coins with different issues whereas collectors of pillar coinage with a similar one almost never do. None in that quality is even close to "dreck", though it's my understanding that coins with issues (like minor corrosion) still end up in numerically graded TPG holders while coins in other series do not. This makes perfect sense, because EAC are the primary buyers and what others think who do not buy it should be irrelevant. IMO, there isn't one, but I think we can get an idea from the prices collectors pay for different coins or different series. As another example, I personally consider 16-D Mercury dimes in low grades "dreck". I don't care that it's a key date. It's very common and available in volume any day of the week, even excluding the numerous fakes. I don't remember seeing one I like (of any date) but in G-4, it's a $1200 coin. Considering the price, it's obvious my opinion is a distinct minority. For the coins I collect, there are a very low number of higher quality coins and for some but nowhere near most, reasonable availability but it's dreck by any sensible definition: holed (often), damaged (often), corroded (sometimes), and cleaned noticeably (almost always). There are virtually no comparable "collector" grades as with early US silver denominations (the best comparison). With US flowing hair and draped bust coinage, you can buy coins all the way down to AG-3 that still look decent, the coins have strong demand, and the prices reflect it. This does not exist with my primary series. There is very little and often nothing to buy.

I'm aware of that. To support my points, I don't need to disprove that somehow, somewhere in the world, someone might act differently than I write, I just need to provide better evidence and reasoning than those who disagree with me.

The numbers are what they are, but that's not where the real difference of opinion exists. It's perception of significance. Traditionally, collectors (everywhere) used the absolute number of survivors which is usually estimated and not known, even now. Before the TPG populations "matured" (overwhelming majority is not even close to complete, even in higher grades) and especially the internet made most coins available on demand or short notice, collectors generally used the mintage as a proxy, even though survival rates differ widely. This meant that many more common coins were believed or considered to be scarcer, which is my primary explanation for the inflated prices on actually common US key dates. The primary reasons for different perceptions in quality were twofold: First, the price differences between what are now proximate TPG grades were almost entirely immaterial. No one would have paid anywhere near current premiums because there was no market for it due to the far less affluent collector base and limited financially motivated buying. Second, the internet and more recent communication has made acquiring most coins so easy, it's my inference collectors adopted new practices to create a challenge that otherwise does not exist. This includes (near) condition census coins, strike designations, toning preference, and "low ball" collecting. Die variety and error collecting long preceded TPG, though I equally believe that both are more popular now due to the inflated price level which makes a higher proportion of US type coinage beyond the reach of the (vast) majority of the collector base. What I describe, it's still apparent in collecting outside the US, at least where the local market doesn't have a similar preference for TPG. Me personally, I use number of survivors in "collectible quality". Yes, I know that every coin is in theory owned by someone and therefore "collected", but it's evident that coins in equivalent quality from two different series (world or US) are viewed differently by those who actually buy it. Coins in one series are highly sought after (like EAC collecting) are viewed as "dreck" or essentially unmarketable in another one (like my series, pillars).

It's 99%+. The number of participants proves it. Registry set is marketing. Nothing wrong with that but that's all it is.

Rarity is never determined by demand. Demand is demand and supply is supply. There is no absolute definition of "rare" or "scarce" or "common". It's only relative to something else. Concurrently, claiming "rarity" due to a specific number on a holder label turns the concept on its head and makes it meaningless. It's farcical, especially when "large" numbers of coins exist eligible for the same or slightly lower numerical grades. That's why I have compared it to the "participation trophy" culture prevalent in modern society. Especially with the highest TPG grades, there is no practical quality difference between proximate grades and only motivation to inflate the price and exaggerate the significance will ever lead anyone to claim it. This statement isn't specific to 69 or 70 grades or modern coinage either. The easiest way to demonstrate my claims is by comparing TPG dominated collecting to US collecting in the past and elsewhere in the world now. These collectors didn't and don't claim this rarity and no collective epiphany occurred in 1986 either where collectors miraculously discovered that this coinage is so much better than everyone believed/believes.

Rarity based upon date, mintmark, and type was something collectors came up with a long time ago. This "rarity" is a pure contrivance which is why it took marketing to create it. Once again, you look for baseless reasons to be offended when nothing in my post limited my comments to US moderns. I can't help it if my comments are contrary to your personal preference, again.

This and the fact that these minor differences were irrelevant at the time. No one would pay TPG driven premiums for such common coins due to the actual quality difference in a 69 and 70.

How long did it take you to reach this conclusion? "Rarity" based upon a label is marketing. Coin grades change regularly, though in very low proportion. The rarity didn't actually change as it's the same coin, but that's what has to be true for this collector belief to be true.

I looked yesterday and there are plenty of seven coin sets on eBay right now from about $5 on up. I didn't look for graded coins, but the populations aren't low. Finding high grade eligible coins in circulation probably isn't going to happen, unless someone dumped their change jar in a Coin Star machine. It's 40 years old.

Looks more like a scratch to me. What coin is this anyway? One of the newer US quarters I don't recognize? The most likely reason this type of coin would get a star (given how common it is) is "monster" toning. You can always artificially tone it.

To answer the original question, a die crack is a defect. So no, I wouldn't think one of these coins should get a * for it. Yes, I know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and in today's world of basement level standards, I suppose it makes total sense.

I read Coin Week because it's free and on occasion has interesting articles. Concurrently, they exaggerate a lot.

This is the only reason that makes sense, modern US commemoratives and maybe world counterparts if eligible. I provided the same reason earlier in the thread. It's been a long time since I've watched "Coin Country" or similar shows on cable TV (about 15 years). I used to see US modern proof sets offered, not in a TPG holder. I can see Ike dollars since it's not viewed as a circulating coin. Maybe proof Kennedy halves since the public doesn't see it often either. I don't see any marketing of any coin design which the public sees or has any reasonable probability of seeing in circulation because to them, that's what it is, circulating change. Enough of them aren't going to pay a premium for it, regardless of what number is on the TPG label.

Where it belongs, in someone's change jar, 2x2 flip, or coin album.

It's been a long time, but I received coins back from NGC with a note that they thought the coin would benefit from conservation. It was a Post It note attached to the slab. Happened a few times and the coins came back straight graded. My inference from the OP is that they took this suggestion as a(virtual) guarantee. Not sure why anyone would do that. My understanding of the notes I received is that it would improve the coin's appearance, not that it would necessarily result in a higher grade, be worthwhile financially or anything else. I'd only have submitted a 1936 dime if I thought it would grade at least MS-66. Not financially worthwhile otherwise. I'd just buy one in the TPG grade I wanted otherwise. I wouldn't have conserved it either, as at $30 plus the grading fee, it's not worth it either.