"Just Having Fun" MS68 PCGS Slab! 0

[Hard Times]

Classic example of grade the submitter, not the coin.

 

Really? So, you know WHO submitted the coin?

Are you assuming Wondercoin originally submitted it? If you are, I would wager some significant funds that you are wrong.

 

No one implied that. Given the pedigree, I would assume wondercoin purchased it out of the Just Having Fun collection? Is Just Having Fun the same person as wondercoin?? Don't get your britches all in a bunch Bochi.

 

 

Ignorance here abounds.

 

JHF was well known for many of the series/coins he collected that were the top of the top. Many of the sources of those coins, particularly Roosies, were known as well.

 

It has also been known that Wondercoins has been his agent at selling them.

 

And, yes, it was basically implied that Wondercoins was the submitter.

 

So, in short, because I have your alias on the PCGS boards ignored, but not here yet, the answer to your question if Wondercoins and JustHavingFun are the same person, is NO. Wondercoins has always been an upfront person and not hiding behind any other persona.

 

That shouldn't have even been a real question to ask, but since it was, I will answer it.

 

Rather than think that someone is trying to pull something, hide something, or get something over on another, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt when I see things being sold; story or no.

In this case, enough people that were around, and paying attention, on the PCGS boards some years back, would know the JHF story and coins.

 

All bow down to the great and all-knowing Bochiman.

 

1) I never implied nor stated that wondercoin was shady or doing anything wrong. I'm well aware of who he is, and his position in dealing and marketing ultra high grade ultra moderns. Much of that I find to be smoke and mirrors, but I have always found wondercoin as a dealer to be upstanding and honest on the PCGS boards. You, on the other hand, are like a toddler.

 

2) Please do block/ignore me here. I have had you on ignore for years, but I still like to "unmask" your complaining posts on occasion for S&G. You never let me down. Though, it is pretty humorous how you only show up here when you have to defend the honor of someone from ATS.

 

 

[Hard Times]

What I see is an overgraded coin, plain and simple.

 

From the PCGS website:

 

MS/PR-68 Virtually as struck with slight imperfections, slightest weakness of strike allowed

 

I see more than slight imperfections in those gouges that reside in a prime focal area. 65 at best IMHO. Not even close using PCGS Photograde online resource to a 66 let alone 68. Give it a + for eye appeal but that is all. Someone is going to be buried in that coin if they pay that kind of coin for it.

 

Best, HT

[robec1347]

It wouldn't be far fetched to believe Wondercoins submitted this coin. He has stated that in 16+ years he has submitted the better part of one million coins.

[MJ]

Forgetting about back stories and innuendo I don't like the coin as a 68 and don't find the toning special

 

mark

[Walkerfan]

Forgetting about back stories and innuendo I don't like the coin as a 68 and don't find the toning special

 

mark

 

+1

 

Crack it out and it is no longer a $10K coin and you'd be lucky to get $65 bucks for it.

 

That's some expensive plastic.

[mumu]

Classic example of grade the submitter, not the coin.

 

Really? So, you know WHO submitted the coin?

Are you assuming Wondercoin originally submitted it? If you are, I would wager some significant funds that you are wrong.

 

I'm no detective but the pedigree on the holder seems like a big clue.

 

Come out and be straight and say it then....you think/thought that Wondercoins did the submission and may be JHF himself?

 

As already answered, no, that is incorrect.

 

Within about 3 guesses, I could probably guess who a previous owner, and maybe the submitter was, but that isn't my place in this. I'm pretty confidant that it wasn't JHF himself, nor Wondercoins, though.

 

I never insinuated anything about Wondercoin being the submitter or the pedigree. I simply stated that when a coin like that, ends up in a holder like that, something nefarious is at play. My commentary had everything to do with the grader side, and nothing to do with the submitter side as far as implying any negativity.

 

The fact that your commentary and reponse centers around the owner of the coin and speculation as to what people might be implying about them, without any mention of the technical issues pointed out in the coin itself, goes far in proving the point being made, that some people get preferential treatment in this hobby in many ways.

Edited May 7, 2016 by mumu

[mumu]

How can a strike look au53?

 

Like this? I've heard the coins in the OGH aka "Rattlers" were graded more stringently.

More often than not, I find that to be the case.

 

Exhibit #1:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1881-1-au53-pcgs-pcgs-population-25-10912-ngc-census-43-9220-mintage-9-163-975-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem/a/131337-26184.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515#

 

Exhibit #2:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1881-cc-1-au53-ngc-ngc-census-6-9887-pcgs-population-6-19652-mintage-296-000-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem-f/a/131530-27834.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515#

 

 

 

 

So you are assigning a grade to the singular element of strike, which happens to coincide with the 70 scale used to do determine overall grade based mostly on wear, of which strike is a singular of many elements of? Is that correct?

 

I am just pointing out that while that may work for your own selection of coins, and there would be nothing wrong with that as I too value strike heavily at times in liking a coin, it has a lesser real world impact on grade, and as in the case of with the owner of the most expensive coin ever sold "the strike doesn't matter one bit". I don't completely agree with that in the MS range, but that appears to be the case.

Edited May 7, 2016 by mumu

[AHFreak]

How can a strike look au53?

 

Like this? I've heard the coins in the OGH aka "Rattlers" were graded more stringently.

More often than not, I find that to be the case.

 

Exhibit #1:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1881-1-au53-pcgs-pcgs-population-25-10912-ngc-census-43-9220-mintage-9-163-975-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem/a/131337-26184.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515#

 

Exhibit #2:

 

http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1881-cc-1-au53-ngc-ngc-census-6-9887-pcgs-population-6-19652-mintage-296-000-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem-f/a/131530-27834.s?ic4=ListView-Thumbnail-071515#

 

 

 

 

So you are assigning a grade to the singular element of strike, which happens to coincide with the 70 scale used to do determine overall grade based mostly on wear, of which strike is a singular of many elements of? Is that correct?

 

I am just pointing out that while that may work for you own selection of coin, and there would be nothing wrong with that as I too value strike heavily in liking a coin, it has very little real world impact on grade, and as in the case of with the owner of the most expensive coin ever sold "the strike doesn't matter one bit".

 

Not to mention the fact that neither of those two AU coins, nor the MS64 coin's assigned grade had anything to do with strike.... that first one is a great looking, weakly struck MS coin, which is why it is limited at 64. Those other two were coins that had been slightly circulated... if you can't see that, I would practice up on your grading skills.

[coinman_23885]

I simply stated that when a coin like that, ends up in a holder like that, something nefarious is at play. My commentary had everything to do with the grader side, and nothing to do with the submitter side as far as implying any negativity.

 

I don't think it is fair to automatically conclude that there is something nefarious at play here. Graders are human. For all we know, it could have been a typographical error or mechanical error. If submitted under the guarantee, I wouldn't be surprised if PCGS attempted to claim that it was a mechanical error. If I am not mistaken, HRH mentioned that anything over 2 points would be presumed to be a mechanical error, but someone please correct me if I am wrong on that point.

 

Other factors could be at play too. Allergies and dry eye (think about viewing hundreds of blast white common date Morgan Dollars or silver eagles) can cause eye strain and visual distortion. For all we know, it could have been graded around a holiday and the grader could have had too much egg nog.

 

[mumu]

I simply stated that when a coin like that, ends up in a holder like that, something nefarious is at play. My commentary had everything to do with the grader side, and nothing to do with the submitter side as far as implying any negativity.

 

I don't think it is fair to automatically conclude that there is something nefarious at play here. Graders are human. For all we know, it could have been a typographical error or mechanical error. If submitted under the guarantee, I wouldn't be surprised if PCGS attempted to claim that it was a mechanical error. If I am not mistaken, HRH mentioned that anything over 2 points would be presumed to be a mechanical error, but someone please correct me if I am wrong on that point.

 

.

 

Your own hypothetical implies nefarious possibilities. Their willingness to cover up or justify it some face saving way doesn't change anything.

[mumu]

The alternative to nefarious executive grading decisions here is another possibility.

 

In my fictional scene of what it must be like in a grading room, here is what I see. About 10-15 graders sitting at desks with magnifying glasses and light helmets.A couple really stern supervisors pacing around encouraging the graders to grade more more more faster faster faster...Common date morgan after common date morgan wizzing by from flip to slab in seconds. When suddenly, the top pop for a series enters the room. Surely the graders still have some semblance of collector like curiosity after years of sweatshop like conditions then enter the greatest 1964 dime and someone takes notice.

 

"Hey look at this" he pulls his neighbor grader over to see..."this is the greatest 1964 dime I have ever seen". A crowd begins to gather with curious excitement. |A manager plows his way through the crowd eating his bag of Cheetos and demands a look. HAIL ALAS he bellows...THE FIRST MS68 DIME IN HISTORY.

 

A slabber quickly wisks the coin away and it is mailed back to the submitter.

 

Youre going to tell me all 15 gaders, 2 supervisors and manager missed those hits at the bottom of the torch and the verdigris all over the reverse? I'll give the slabber a pass on this one.

Edited May 7, 2016 by mumu

[coinman_23885]

"Hey look at this" he pulls his neighbor grader over to see..."this is the greatest 1964 dime I have ever seen". A crowd begins to gather with curious excitement. |A manager plows his way through the crowd eating his bag of Cheetos and demands a look. HAIL ALAS he bellows...THE FIRST MS68 DIME IN HISTORY.

 

A slabber quickly wisks the coin away and it is mailed back to the submitter.

 

Youre going to tell me all 15 gaders, 2 supervisors and manager missed those hits at the bottom of the torch and the verdigris all over the reverse? I'll give the slabber a pass on this one.

 

You have a wild imagination. I imagine that many graders are probably like me and couldn't care less if it was a true MS68 FB.

[MarkFeld]

"Hey look at this" he pulls his neighbor grader over to see..."this is the greatest 1964 dime I have ever seen". A crowd begins to gather with curious excitement. |A manager plows his way through the crowd eating his bag of Cheetos and demands a look. HAIL ALAS he bellows...THE FIRST MS68 DIME IN HISTORY.

 

A slabber quickly wisks the coin away and it is mailed back to the submitter.

 

Youre going to tell me all 15 gaders, 2 supervisors and manager missed those hits at the bottom of the torch and the verdigris all over the reverse? I'll give the slabber a pass on this one.

 

You have a wild imagination. I imagine that many graders are probably like me and couldn't care less if it was a true MS68 FB.

 

It would be impossible for all those people to miss the flaws, in large part, because not nearly that many would view the coin.

[physics-fan3.14]

This coin was also graded 68 (NGC MS-68 * PL):

 

I keep it because it is so ridiculous its funny, and its an inexpensive coin.

 

(sorry for the crappy old pictures, but you get the point)

 

[brg5658]

This coin was also graded 68 (NGC MS-68 * PL):

 

I keep it because it is so ridiculous its funny, and its an inexpensive coin.

 

(sorry for the crappy old pictures, but you get the point)

 

 

 

Well, it appears to be of the extremely rare "one sided coin" type, so that makes it special.

[bochiman]

Please do block/ignore me here. I have had you on ignore for years, but I still like to "unmask" your complaining posts on occasion for S&G. You never let me down. Though, it is pretty humorous how you only show up here when you have to defend the honor of someone from ATS.

 

 

 

So, you only "unmask" to troll? Got it.

 

As for only showing up to defend someone from PCGS boards, you prove your ignorance again.

 

Go back to trolling...seems that is what you are here for

[bochiman]

Classic example of grade the submitter, not the coin.

 

Really? So, you know WHO submitted the coin?

Are you assuming Wondercoin originally submitted it? If you are, I would wager some significant funds that you are wrong.

 

I'm no detective but the pedigree on the holder seems like a big clue.

 

Come out and be straight and say it then....you think/thought that Wondercoins did the submission and may be JHF himself?

 

As already answered, no, that is incorrect.

 

Within about 3 guesses, I could probably guess who a previous owner, and maybe the submitter was, but that isn't my place in this. I'm pretty confidant that it wasn't JHF himself, nor Wondercoins, though.

 

I never insinuated anything about Wondercoin being the submitter or the pedigree. I simply stated that when a coin like that, ends up in a holder like that, something nefarious is at play. My commentary had everything to do with the grader side, and nothing to do with the submitter side as far as implying any negativity.

 

The fact that your commentary and reponse centers around the owner of the coin and speculation as to what people might be implying about them, without any mention of the technical issues pointed out in the coin itself, goes far in proving the point being made, that some people get preferential treatment in this hobby in many ways.

 

You said, and it was quoted above "grade the submitter".

Sure sounds like your focus was on WHO THE SUBMITTER was.......what else would "GRADE THE SUBMITTER" mean?

 

Now, since you say that isn't true, and that it is a grader issue (and, by extension, a TPGS issue), then you must think all the top TPGSs are "nefarious" (your own word...again) as they all have some coins in top holders that get questioned on the boards....?

[AHFreak]

Now, I am convinced that I am missing something. What am I missing? Am I really this oblivious to the series? The hits on the reverse would preclude anything above a 65 for me.

 

Offered here is THE nicest 1964-D Roosevelt Dime ever graded at PCGS in their near 30 year existence as the TOP grading service!! A pop 1/0 coin...!

 

The state of preservation of this dime (especially the obverse) is utterly amazing. Bear in mind, this coin was graded PCGS-MS68FB a long time ago and any suggestion of "recent gradeflation" simply does not apply to this coin that has been in this holder for a long, long time!! ...

 

I am on PCGS' prestigious "Board of Experts" having been hand picked as PCGS' top (outside) modern coin expert at the time.

 

 

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

[coinman_23885]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes".

 

When you begin talking about metal not filling the die completely, that sounds a lot like a striking anomaly from insufficient striking pressure. And if this is the case, wouldn't the coin have a weak strike at least in the immediate vicinity of the afflicted areas? The coin looks very well struck to me even in areas surrounding what you are labeling as voids. The marks also appear to be on top of the devices as if made after striking. What are the guidelines used by PCGS to distinguish a void versus hit?

 

On another note, with regards to grading, isn't eye appeal a component of grading? To have large marks in prime focal areas seems to lower the eye appeal to me. I am very interested in this topic because it appears that the modern coins often have issues - like bubbling in zinc lincolns, planchet roughness on Jefferson nickels, etc.

[brg5658]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

 

They are clearly post-strike abrasions/hits. Either we're looking at different coins, or you need to get your eyes checked.

 

[AHFreak]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

 

They are clearly post-strike abrasions/hits. Either we're looking at different coins, or you need to get your eyes checked.

 

Thank you thats absolutely incorrect. Thanks for your pretty red arrows though.... those were exactly what I was talking about NOT BEING HITS, and they still arent.... I'll check my eyes if you go look at some coins... clearly you could use some experience.

[mumu]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

 

They are clearly post-strike abrasions/hits. Either we're looking at different coins, or you need to get your eyes checked.

 

Thank you thats absolutely incorrect. Thanks for your pretty red arrows though.... those were exactly what I was talking about NOT BEING HITS, and they still arent.... I'll check my eyes if you go look at some coins... clearly you could use some experience.

 

Just to be clear, you are stating that those are not hits, but rather portions where the die failed to make contact with the planchet?

 

What conditions in your opinion cause this to happen? Something in the planchet; Something in the die? What causes the missed contact to create grooves of that shape?

 

Wouldn't the oppsite happen with no contact? Wouldn't there be raised planchet area since the rest of the coin is being struck and pressured out and down? No contact wouldnt push metal down more than areas around it with contact...

Edited May 8, 2016 by mumu

[19Lyds]

Right - for enough $ PCGS will be happy to reholder a registry set with a special attribution label.

 

Any clue what the cost is?

 

To have "Just Having Fun" to the label is a free service PCGS offers to the top 5 sets in a series that have a certain number if coins registered in the set.

 

Specifically:

 

"If you participate in the PCGS Set Registry program your set may qualify for the free pedigree service. The free pedigree service policy is as follows:

The set must be 100% complete.

The set must be in the top 5 in the Registry.

PCGS does not pedigree modern Mint and Proof sets (1965-present), Everyman Collections or Low Ball sets.

Sets with less than 10 coins may be pedigreed if warranted. The decision will be that of PCGS experts.

The Registry member is responsible for shipping and handling costs.

The fee for pedigrees for upgrades to your set submitted after the initial pedigree is $10 a coin. PCGS will not pedigree duplicate coins. You must submit both the upgraded coin and the coin it will be replacing. The coin that will no longer remain in your set will be reholdered without the pedigree and returned to you along with the newly pedigreed coin. Your set must remain 100% complete and in the top five to qualify.

 

To confirm that your set qualifies for the free Pedigree Service, contact customer service at setregistry@collectors.com. Then mail with your coins a PCGS submission form and a printed page from the set registry that lists your set in the top five."

 

 

[19Lyds]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

 

They are clearly post-strike abrasions/hits. Either we're looking at different coins, or you need to get your eyes checked.

 

Thank you thats absolutely incorrect. Thanks for your pretty red arrows though.... those were exactly what I was talking about NOT BEING HITS, and they still arent.... I'll check my eyes if you go look at some coins... clearly you could use some experience.

 

Just to be clear, you are stating that those are not hits, but rather portions where the die failed to make contact with the planchet?

 

What conditions in your opinion cause this to happen? Something in the planchet; Something in the die? What causes the missed contact to create grooves of that shape?

 

Wouldn't the oppsite happen with no contact? Wouldn't there be raised planchet area since the rest of the coin is being struck and pressured out and down? No contact wouldnt push metal down more than areas around it with contact...

 

He may be implying transient annealing marks? But IMO, they do not look like typical annealing marks and I would expect that a strike that was full enough to produce the FB would be enough to eliminate any annealing marks.

[numisport]

Couple hits in the hair and bagmark on the cheek although small keep this coin out of 'superb gem' category. Would be MS 66 at most (50 dollar coin ?)

 

So not only do we have to deal with grade-flation but PCGS is going to 'market grade' what they think might be their finest 64-D dime. Yes I'm still proud to be involved in a hobby that breeds suckers everyday.

Edited May 8, 2016 by numisport

[mark]

AHFreak:

 

I am aware that some coins tend to come with planchet roughness showing, for example BTW commemorative halves. So, that said, what do you see that leads you to believe that the flaws on the dime as pre-strike issues as opposed to being post-strike hits?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mark

[RWB]

If the two marks labeled with red arrows are incuse, then the only way to make them during manufacture is by having corresponding raised features on the die. If the features are on the die, then thousands might have been made with identical marks (but no red arrows...).

[physics-fan3.14]

AHFreak:

 

I am aware that some coins tend to come with planchet roughness showing, for example BTW commemorative halves. So, that said, what do you see that leads you to believe that the flaws on the dime as pre-strike issues as opposed to being post-strike hits?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Mark

If the two marks labeled with red arrows are incuse, then the only way to make them during manufacture is by having corresponding raised features on the die. If the features are on the die, then thousands might have been made with identical marks (but no red arrows...).

 

An incomplete strike can leave planchet roughness on the surface of the finished coin. Any hits to the planchet before striking will be leftover after an incomplete strike. Franklin halves are also notorious for this on the cheekbones.

 

The hits on this coin are *not* planchet roughness from an incomplete strike. This only occurs on the highest points of the coin (which correspond to the lowest parts of the die). If the dies don't come together sufficiently, then the design transfer will be incomplete on the highest points.

 

The bottom of the torch is *not* the highest point of the coin. There is no trace of planchet roughness on the high points - the center bands of the torch, the flames, Roosevelts hair, and his cheeks. If there is no trace of planchet roughness there, then I would strongly suspect that the strike was strong enough to eliminate any hits on the planchet. They would have to be mighty gashes indeed to survive that strike.

 

No, these marks are regular post-strike hits.

[brg5658]

Maybe what you are missing is that those "hits/scrapes" you are talking about most definately are not hits or scrapes on the torch. Most coins that I've looked at from the same period have them. They are voids from where the metal didn't fill in the die completely when coin was minted. Had you been looking at the coin in hand, under light, you probably wouldn't have noticed them, but even if u did you would have known right away that they weren't "hits/scrapes". I don't know if any 1964 Kennedy halves exist without those same characteristics to some degree. They are also very commonly found on Franklin halves and especially early Franklin proofs. (50-51 mainly) although common on 53 & later.

 

They are clearly post-strike abrasions/hits. Either we're looking at different coins, or you need to get your eyes checked.

 

Thank you thats absolutely incorrect. Thanks for your pretty red arrows though.... those were exactly what I was talking about NOT BEING HITS, and they still arent.... I'll check my eyes if you go look at some coins... clearly you could use some experience.

 

AHFreak, the red arrows were there the first time I posted that picture on PAGE 2 of this thread. If you would have read the whole thread, you would know that.

 

As for them somehow being pre-strike planchet anomalies, you are simply wrong. As physics-fan has pointed out in his post above this one, that guess fails the logic test for how coins are actually struck between dies.

 

[RWB]

I like that! Coin collectors discussing coins logically and relying on factual analysis!

Edited May 8, 2016 by RWB