Boone 1937 Commemorative P-D-S proofs – technical corrections 1 1

[MarkFeld]

17 minutes ago, RWB said:

Sandblasting always suppresses some of the finest detail - depends on the grit used, duration, angle and experience of the person in the Medal Department doing the work.... might even change depending on whether the worker had post-lunch (oops -- they called it "dinner") heart burn from bad salami. Acid pickling was worse because it lacked the sparkle of sharply cut metal facets.

Also, the original hubs were reduced from models (usually bronze casts) and instructions were not to touch-up with hand engraving. The results are not as crisp and sharp as manually finished hubs. The product has less life and character the the old hubs. (Look at the Pilgrim half. Using 5x magnification and a little patience you can see where manual touch-up was done by Morgan.)

Thank you, Roger.

[gmarguli]

4 hours ago, Alex in PA. said:

And with each one of these designations the 'collector' was bestowed with additional cost.  Now I don't begrudge a person to make his fortune but once in a while I would have like to have seen the average run of the mill kid collector get a break.  These are just my thoughts and my humble opinion.  Proof Like - Nope.  If it isn't a Proof coin it isn't.

You're making the assumption that the coins blessed with a "new designation" ended up costing the collectors more. It is entirely possible that those coins without the new designation were reduced in value at the same time. And regardless of what designations the TPG wish to assign, it is up to the marketplace to decide if they have value.

And I'm not so sure what problem you have with understanding that "prooflike" is used to describe a coin that looks like a proof, but is not. 

[Henri Charriere]

I don't think the Judge is going to allow me to cross-examine the witness at this late juncture what with argumentation well on its way, but I would nevertheless be curious to know why a former grader, sharing recollections as to the way things were done during the last millennium, sat there quietly, with nary a peep, as various commentators, some presumably experts in their respective fields, regaled the rest of us with tales of roguish rascality including, but not limited to, cracking out coins, questionable re-submissions and errors brought about by purposeful defacement with chemicals one of which is banned in California and from export as a Listed II precursor to at least one South American country? No further questions.

[Henri Charriere]

7 hours ago, gmarguli said:

 

And I'm not so sure what problem you have with understanding that "prooflike" is used to describe a coin that looks like a proof, but is not. 

I will confide in you the problem I have with this artificial flavoring from my perspective. With this term, we descend unwittingly into the ill-defined bottomless pit of the realm known by its colloquial name: Subjectivity.  After all, just how proof-like must a coin be to earn that honorarium? Where "Used" was once used, we now say "Pre-owned."  Or wait, my cherry-red Corvette stingray may be an antique, but I drove it home from the dealership in 1970 and it's been up on blocks since. Ok, we will call it "like-new." But it still retains it's new car scent!  Like I said, like-new, with low mileage, okay? Maybe we ought to have a grading system for cars. Proof-like is like saying you live on Park Avenue. The only problem with that is Park extends thru Harlem and the South Bronx, the latter described as the poorest Congressional District in the nation. Proof-like leaves a funny aftertaste in my mouth.

 

[VKurtB]

3 hours ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I will confide in you the problem I have with this artificial flavoring from my perspective. With this term, we descend unwittingly into the ill-defined bottomless pit of the realm known by its colloquial name: Subjectivity.  After all, just how proof-like must a coin be to earn that honorarium? Where "Used" was once used, we now say "Pre-owned."  Or wait, my cherry-red Corvette stingray may be an antique, but I drove it home from the dealership in 1970 and it's been up on blocks since. Ok, we will call it "like-new." But it still retains it's new car scent!  Like I said, like-new, with low mileage, okay? Maybe we ought to have a grading system for cars. Proof-like is like saying you live on Park Avenue. The only problem with that is Park extends thru Harlem and the South Bronx, the latter described as the poorest Congressional District in the nation. Proof-like leaves a funny aftertaste in my mouth.

 

You surely are a unique and unicornish fellow in the world of modern numismatics. You need to keep up or you get crushed. When you, and our travel industry, are over this mishigas, might I suggest a course in modern coin grading? Brian Silliman teaches a humdinger of a two or three day course for the ANA. You'll lose the 1970's and 1980's ideas, and you'll learn something.

By the way, I also use a stereo microscope for coins. The range of magnification I use most with my stereo microscope is 3.5x to 7x. If I can't see "it" at 7x, it basically doesn't exist numismatically.

I also never buy any "important" coin that I haven't actually held in my hands and examined it under my definition of proper light. I even was at a live auction yesterday.

Edited August 7, 2020 by VKurtB

[numisport]

On 8/6/2020 at 10:42 AM, leeg said:

Thanks Roger.

I learned from the best.

 

Is your work finished yet ? Link to it ?

[Henri Charriere]

5 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

You surely are a unique and unicornish fellow in the world of modern numismatics. You need to keep up or you get crushed. When you, and our travel industry, are over this mishigas, might I suggest a course in modern coin grading? Brian Silliman teaches a humdinger of a two or three day course for the ANA. You'll lose the 1970's and 1980's ideas, and you'll learn something.

VKurtB, what a pleasant surprise early in the mrng! A grading course?  I am not buying. And I am not selling. On all numismatic matters, I defer to you. I don't need to forge ahead; I follow in your wake. Incidentally, my knowledge is not '70s and 80's; it's vintage 50's and 60's. All I have now are my roosters. They are like pet rocks (remember them?).  Low maintenance, requiring minimal care. I am just an onlooker now, my friend. I may jump in now and then but no one takes me seriously. And no one should. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

[VKurtB]

3 minutes ago, Quintus Arrius said:

VKurtB, what a pleasant surprise early in the mrng! A grading course?  I am not buying. And I am not selling. On all numismatic matters, I defer to you. I don't need to forge ahead; I follow in your wake. Incidentally, my knowledge is not '70s and 80's; it's vintage 50's and 60's. All I have now are my roosters. They are like pet rocks (remember them?).  Low maintenance, requiring minimal care. I am just an onlooker now, my friend. I may jump in now and then but no one takes me seriously. And no one should. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

A little cracked corn and they're good to go, right? I started in 1963 too. I just kept up with the industry's changes, deciding to embrace, rather than resist them.

Edited August 7, 2020 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

2 hours ago, VKurtB said:

A little cracked corn and they're good to go, right? I started in 1963 too. I just kept up with the industry's changes, deciding to embrace, rather than resist them.

Not resistance, just disenchantment with the hobby in general when "silver" no longer contained any and old-time coins slowly disappeared from circulation.  [I am also less than thrilled with present-day currency. No comparison to Watermelon notes, overprints and the lovely Educational series.]  This Rooster-meister is pretty much retired.

[Alex in PA.]

3 hours ago, VKurtB said:

A little cracked corn and they're good to go, right? I started in 1963 too. I just kept up with the industry's changes, deciding to embrace, rather than resist them.

1963 was a very good year.  I hope you got the PM?  I share Quintus disenchantment with our hobby in its present state.  I miss the old days of the ANA and ANACS before it moved to Colorado.  

I also have, and prefer, the large notes with a complete set of Silver Certificates.  Hand in there Quintus; this is, an ever changing hobby.

[Henri Charriere]

20 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

1963 was a very good year.  I hope you got the PM?  I share Quintus disenchantment with our hobby in its present state.  I miss the old days of the ANA and ANACS before it moved to Colorado.  

I also have, and prefer, the large notes with a complete set of Silver Certificates.  Hand in there Quintus; this is, an ever changing hobby.

Thank you kindly!  You even threw in a reference to "horse blankets" which I haven't seen in the flesh since the 1960's.  Thanks again, for the memories and encouragement!

[Alex in PA.]

1 minute ago, Quintus Arrius said:

Thank you kindly!  You even threw in a reference to "horse blankets" which I haven't seen in the flesh since the 1960's.  Thanks again, for the memories and encouragement!

I meant a complete $1.00 set of Silver Certificates.  I like the large notes.

[Henri Charriere]

3 minutes ago, Alex in PA. said:

I meant a complete $1.00 set of Silver Certificates.  I like the large notes.

Ha! Ha! Ha! "Horse blankets" was the term they used for the oversized bank notes from another time and era.

[leeg]

20 hours ago, numisport said:

Is your work finished yet ? Link to it ?

My book project is probably 80% done.

[Insider]

On 8/6/2020 at 6:10 PM, Alex in PA. said:

Quite so Conder101.  The coin dealers were not satisfied with the monies they were getting on the Sheldon Scale Grading System so they got creative.  Hence, we, the average coin collector (not to be confused with dealer) were blessed with

+ and * and PL DPL Cameo Ultra Cameo BN RB RD etc. etc.  They're really pushing to get some more in such as 'Semi Prooflike'.  And with each one of these designations the 'collector' was bestowed with additional cost.  Now I don't begrudge a person to make his fortune but once in a while I would have like to have seen the average run of the mill kid collector get a break.  These are just my thoughts and my humble opinion.  Proof Like - Nope.  If it isn't a Proof coin it isn't.

No one is pushing for Semi-PL.   That was a perfectly good designation (PL was the ONLY other at the time) long ago before it fell out of favor and all the mirror like ranges were expanded.  There is more of a chance to see something stupid like Very Deep Ultra Blast White Cameo.   

[RWB]

12 hours ago, Insider said:

No one is pushing for Semi-PL.   That was a perfectly good designation (PL was the ONLY other at the time) long ago before it fell out of favor and all the mirror like ranges were expanded.  There is more of a chance to see something stupid like Very Deep Ultra Blast White Cameo.   

Without empirical definitions, the terms are as meaningless as "New - Improved" and "Highest Prices Paid."

[MarkFeld]

19 minutes ago, RWB said:

Without empirical definitions, the terms are as meaningless as "New - Improved" and "Highest Prices Paid."

I disagree. I believe that if you showed a coin that I’d describe as semi-prooflike to 100 numismatists, a significant % of them would concur. While the term lacks an empirical definition, it has more meaning than you state.

[RWB]

51 minutes ago, MarkFeld said:

I disagree. I believe that if you showed a coin that I’d describe as semi-prooflike to 100 numismatists, a significant % of them would concur. While the term lacks an empirical definition, it has more meaning than you state.

Unfortunately, that is a false presumption. People have multiple layers of bias and different sensory perceptions (just ask your wife what color the wall is painted...). ONLY an objective measurement, using clearly defined parameters will produce consistent results.

[Henri Charriere]

[Aside: On the matter of wall color, my wife said eggshell, I see off-white. I am staying clear of this heavyweight championship bout.]

[MarkFeld]

25 minutes ago, RWB said:

Unfortunately, that is a false presumption. People have multiple layers of bias and different sensory perceptions (just ask your wife what color the wall is painted...). ONLY an objective measurement, using clearly defined parameters will produce consistent results.

My presumption might be false, as might yours be that mine is false.

[Alex in PA.]

While I am forced to admit that 'Proof-Like' coins are very pretty did you know that there is no definition of 'Proof Like' in the United States Mint Glossary of Terms and that you can not buy a 'Proof Like' coin from the US mint.  These coins referred to as 'Proof-Like' are nothing more than Business strikes.  When a new die is installed, or a die is polished,  and used the first coins off are very attractive coins.  The Term 'Proof-Like' is a description for a coin and nothing more.  Even though it is commonly accepted criteria for use the term 'Proof-Like' is subjective.  In difference 'Proof' is a verifiable objective quality.   I wonder how many ANA or ANACS slabs with that designation we can find between 1972 and 1986.  'Proof-Like' is a designation designed by coin dealers for coin dealers profit is it not?  PCGS and NGC were both founded by coin dealers; were they not?  As I stated before; I DO NOT begrudge an American individual or a American company the ability to make a profit.  My only interest is:  When will the ordinary coin collector, he or she, who does not sell coins for a living, get some benefit?  The answer to that is:  Never.  Long ago, coin collecting ceased to be a hobby and became a business.  The day of the true collector has long since passed.

Edited August 9, 2020 by Alex in PA.
Misspelled

[Henri Charriere]

Remember the time I was shouted down by one irate viewer, with "Coin collecting is unfair. Get over it." Yeah. Another viewer, without referencing a specific comment I made, probably within the last 30 days, departed from the Rules governing this Forum, and denounced me with a crude pejorative term camouflaged with asterisks to pass the censors.  You have spoken the truth, Alex.  The way I see it, your comments are valid. And if there is someone out there who begs to differ, they are free to do so hopefully without challenging your credentials and resorting to name-calling. Not only do I agree with your opinion, I would venture to say you spoke from the heart with remarkable restraint. Good for you!

Edited August 10, 2020 by Quintus Arrius
Word addition/substitution

[Insider]

On 8/7/2020 at 6:49 AM, Quintus Arrius said:

I will confide in you the problem I have with this artificial flavoring from my perspective. With this term, we descend unwittingly into the ill-defined bottomless pit of the realm known by its colloquial name: Subjectivity.  After all, just how proof-like must a coin be to earn that honorarium? Where "Used" was once used, we now say "Pre-owned."  Or wait, my cherry-red Corvette stingray may be an antique, but I drove it home from the dealership in 1970 and it's been up on blocks since. Ok, we will call it "like-new." But it still retains it's new car scent!  Like I said, like-new, with low mileage, okay? Maybe we ought to have a grading system for cars. Proof-like is like saying you live on Park Avenue. The only problem with that is Park extends thru Harlem and the South Bronx, the latter described as the poorest Congressional District in the nation. Proof-like leaves a funny aftertaste in my mouth.

 

I'm sure (?) you know what a mirror surface looks like.   I do, and ever since I was a YN, we knew that coins with a mirror surface that were mot manufactured as Proofs were called Proof-like because they had a mirror surface like a Proof.  Coins that were not Prooflike but were arguably close were called Semi-Prooflike.  As you point out, there is some subjectivity involved - less among knowledgeable and experienced numismatists.   

There is a larger problem with PL coins.  Many obvious PL coins of certain dates are not given that designation (even though their depth of mirror is the same for a common PL) because they would be too valuable.  Those coins need to be borderline DMPL to get the PL designation.  It makes me want to pull my hair out as "any non-numismatist on the street" could see the coins have the identical dept of mirror.  

[Insider]

4 hours ago, RWB said:

Without empirical definitions, the terms are as meaningless as "New - Improved" and "Highest Prices Paid."

I disagree.  I have found that 98% in a class of students can easily tell  a PL from a semi-PL  after instruction.  It is harder to teach PL vs DMPL.   

Unfortunately, they will still be ignorant because of "DATE GRADING" of  PL coins and commercial values.  That come from experience.  

[RWB]

30 minutes ago, Insider said:

I disagree.  I have found that 98% in a class of students can easily tell  a PL from a semi-PL  after instruction.  It is harder to teach PL vs DMPL.   

Unfortunately, they will still be ignorant because of "DATE GRADING" of  PL coins and commercial values.  That come from experience.  

Nope. Insider's conclusions are invalid due to flawed methodology.

Your "sample" is too small to be useful. (Were there 2,500 students in the same class at the same time? Were all tested at the same time on the identical set of coins?)

It is also biased toward only those who attended some sort of class and absorbed certain content, and were given a very tiny sample of coins to examine (under 1,000 pieces). If the student sample were enlarged to representative of "coin collectors" your "success" would fall apart. Likewise, if the number of samples examined after instruction were increased, the failure rate would decrease due to unavoidable sample ambiguity. Last, if the same "98%" were tested a week later their success rate would fall due to memory loss and absence of continual reinforcement; extend the test delay a month and the effects would be much more pronounced.

Further, from a prior post, the date/mint of a coin is irrelevant to whether its surface is PL, DMPL, Frosty (Wendy's or Bugger King), or Watery, Buttery, or just plain Maudlin. A calibrated assessment system will not "pull punches" or bias results - "it is what it is."

Edited August 9, 2020 by RWB

[RWB]

A significant proportion (my guess) of modern coin collecting is screwed up because the money people are trying to force humans to do computer work, and fail to separate/understand the capabilities of either. (Long ago Birdseye Frozen Foods paid women to seal the external packaging on frozen food packages with hot irons. Even after competitors began using machines to do this, Birdseye thought their way was best - of course they rejected anything showing their ironing method was slow, inaccurate, wasteful and vastly more expensive per unit than machine sealing. Then the bottom line caught up to them and bit some butts. Suddenly everything changed.)

[Insider]

4 hours ago, RWB said:

Unfortunately, that is a false presumption. People have multiple layers of bias and different sensory perceptions (just ask your wife what color the wall is painted...). ONLY an objective measurement, using clearly defined parameters will produce consistent results.

Actually, it is not a presumption.  While the % may be "off" most students have no trouble picking out semi-PL coins.  In the grading room all it takes is a light and a finger.  Anyway, I believe the Morgan dollar literature may contain some useful measurements.  Again, only experience and the TPGS
Gods" can differentiate between the depth of mirror needed for various dates to get the designation so measure all you want and you'll be wrong some of the time.  BTW, I'm in your camp.  I love measurable STANDARDS that take out the wiggle room.   

[RWB]

1 minute ago, Insider said:

Actually, it is not a presumption.  While the % may be "off" most students have no trouble picking out semi-PL coins.  In the grading room all it takes is a light and a finger.  Anyway, I believe the Morgan dollar literature may contain some useful measurements.  Again, only experience and the TPGS
Gods" can differentiate between the depth of mirror needed for various dates to get the designation so measure all you want and you'll be wrong some of the time.  BTW, I'm in your camp.  I love measurable STANDARDS that take out the wiggle room.   

The conclusions remain invalid.

Technology can be used to stabilize and correlate many things in numismatics - but it also fails are other tasks. I doubt a computer system would ever grade a coin EF then MS-63 the next time the same piece was handled. Computers are not inherently dishonest or present fraudulent results.

[Insider]

1 hour ago, Alex in PA. said:

While I am forced to admit that 'Proof-Like' coins are very pretty did you know that there is no definition of 'Proof Like' in the United States Mint Glossary of Terms and that you can not buy a 'Proof Like' coin from the US mint.  These coins referred to as 'Proof-Like' are nothing more than Business strikes.  When a new die is installed, or a die is polished,  and used the first coins off are very attractive coins.  The Term 'Proof-Like' is a description for a coin and nothing more.  Even though it is commonly accepted criteria for use the term 'Proof-Like' is subjective.  In difference 'Proof' is a verifiable objective quality.   I wonder how many ANA or ANACS slabs with that designation we can find between 1972 and 1986.  'Proof-Like' is a designation designed by coin dealers for coin dealers profit is it not?  PCGS and NGC were both founded by coin dealers; were they not?  As I stated before; I DO NOT begrudge an American individual or a American company the ability to make a profit.  My only interest is:  When will the ordinary coin collector, he or she, who does not sell coins for a living, get some benefit?  The answer to that is:  Never.  Long ago, coin collecting ceased to be a hobby and became a business.  The day of the true collector has long since passed.

NUTS!   Any knowledgeable collector knows when a coin looks like a Proof.   LOL. I'll bet there is no definition of a "Scratch" either!

As for this:  "'Proof' is a verifiable objective quality."   I guess you have not examined many coins struck in nickel.   Knowledge is often accompanied with change.  I've been told that coins with only a Deep Mirror obverse are worth more money so the term OBDM started to be used to describe these coins.  Both the dealer and the collector can benefit from this change.

BTW, do you consider Mr. Hansen a collector?

Is Hansen a collector?   

 

[Insider]

24 minutes ago, RWB said:

Nope. Insider's conclusions are invalid due to flawed methodology.

Your "sample" is too small to be useful. (Were there 2,500 students in the same class at the same time? Were all tested at the same time on the identical set of coins?)

It is also biased toward only those who attended some sort of class and absorbed certain content, and were given a very tiny sample of coins to examine (under 1,000 pieces). If the student sample were enlarged to representative of "coin collectors" your "success" would fall apart. Likewise, if the number of samples examined after instruction were increased, the failure rate would decrease due to unavoidable sample ambiguity. Last, if the same "98%" were tested a week later their success rate would fall due to memory loss and absence of continual reinforcement; extend the test delay a month and the effects would be much more pronounced.

Further, from a prior post, the date/mint of a coin is irrelevant to whether its surface is PL, DMPL, Frosty (Wendy's or Bugger King), or Watery, Buttery, or just plain Maudlin. A calibrated assessment system will not "pull punches" or bias results - "it is what it is."

Until computer grading, you will not get a valid calibration.   

As to a small sample, after you get out of the house and teach over a thousand students your opinion will mean much more to me.   I once told a group of this country's well-known numismatists that I could take a photograde book and a large cent down to the streets of NYC and the majority of them would grade the coin XF because it matched a photo.  They would have no idea how the professionals had graded it - from VF to AU and all had a valid reason for their opinion!!!!! 

Sample-Wample.  Starting with one to as high as you wish to go, the results would be the same because the people would be random with no pre-knowledge of grading or value.   The round, brown lump of metal looks like the image in the book!