J&T Coins LLC is now taking orders for the 2011 5 oz and Kilo Silver Proof Chinese Pandas. These beautiful proof like items will ship at the end of March 2011. With limited mintages this year of 20000 for the 5 oz and 8000 for the kilo these are expected to sell out quickly.  Demand should be strong as it is now legal for the Chinese to own silver bullion coins.

J&T Coins LLC as obtained a very limited amount of the 2011 5 oz and Kilo Silver Proof Chinese Pandas. Click here or call 866-267-6024 to order yours today.

J&T Coins LLC – Est 2001.

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

2011 Silver Proof Set

‘O’ Means New Orleans Seated Dimes

By Paul M. Green, Numismatic News January 21, 2011

This article was originally printed in Numismatic News.
>> Subscribe today!

The Seated Liberty dime’s arrival as a new design type and the first production of coins at the New Orleans Mint came at roughly the same time. That began a long string of years of Seated Liberty dime production at New Orleans and the dimes from that period make an interesting group to study and collect today as they were the first branch mint dimes and they reflect both the denomination and the new facility at New Orleans.

The first emission of Seated Liberty dimes at the New Orleans facility was a big event in that city. It must be remembered that the idea of branch mints was totally new for the United States. The approval of the new facilities made sense in the case of Dahlonega, Ga., and Charlotte, N.C., as the two facilities were located in the area where the nation’s first major gold discovery had been made. Rather than shipping that gold all the way to Philadelphia, which was long, costly and dangerous, it was decided to open branch mints to produce only gold coins at Dahlonega and Charlotte. They began production in 1838 as did New Orleans.

2011 US Coin Digest This easy-to-search downloadable pdf is purely focused on U.S dimes Get your copy today!

From the start, the situation in New Orleans was different. New Orleans wanted a mint and to get one an offer was made of a prime piece of real estate where the facility could be located.

There was another good reason to consider New Orleans as a site for a Mint, even more important than a gift of land. As a location, it was critical. It was a transportation center located near the mouth of the Mississippi River on the Gulf of Mexico. Much of the nation’s exports from towns and farms west of the Appalachian Mountains went by river to New Orleans. Imports went up river from New Orleans.

The city could receive gold and silver shipments from all over the world and then send coins out to areas where they were needed with relative ease. A nice piece of land sealed the deal and New Orleans was approved as a facility to produce both gold and silver.

At about the same time officials were in the process of a design change with the dime. With better equipment and progress being made on a national coin shortage there was the luxury of taking time to consider a new design and that design would be the Christian Gobrecht Seated Liberty design.

The first examples of the new Seated Liberty design would be made in Philadelphia and they would have no stars on the obverse. In 1838 the stars would be added to the dimes of Philadelphia.

But in New Orleans where the first production would not take place until 1838, the first dimes would not have the stars. The year-old obverse design already abandoned by Philadelphia was used. An obverse with stars was used for the issues of 1839. The reason other than possibly the fact that things were running behind schedule at New Orleans, which was just opening, is that the dies for all issues were produced in Philadelphia and then had to be shipped to New Orleans.

The 1838-O Seated Liberty dime started as a ceremonial issue with a mintage of 30 pieces representing the first coins to be produced at the new facility. Of the 30 pieces produced on May 7-8, 1838, it is believed that 10 were placed in the cornerstone of the New American Theatre in New Orleans with the other 20 being given out as souvenirs.

In June and July of 1838 an additional 367,434 examples would be struck with 121,600 more being produced in January of 1839, but with the 1838 date.

The assorted mintage results in a total of over 400,000, which makes the 1838-O an available and certainly historic date with a price of $40 in G-4 while an MS-60 is $3,500 and an MS-65 is $21,000. In fact, the 1838-O is also an important type coin as the following year the design was changed, but realistically for type collectors the choice is usually the 1837 Philadelphia piece, which is more available in all but the lowest grades.

In the case of Mint State examples of the 1838-O a suggestion has been made that any are likely from that first group of 30 coins of which 20 were handed out as souvenirs. In fact, that is not the case as some of the original 30 could have easily been mishandled. Based on the story of 10 being put in a cornerstone, 20 would potentially remain and PCGS alone reports a total of 24 examples of the 1838-O called Mint State. At least some of them were not from the original mintage and as there is no way to tell whether a coin was from the original group or not it would be unwise to pay extra assuming the coin you are buying is one of those first 30 struck. It is, however, fair to pay extra for particularly nice examples as they are elusive with PCGS reporting 7 examples of the 1838-O as MS-65 and none better.

In 1839 the New Orleans Seated Liberty dime would have stars added to the obverse although there would still be no drapery on Liberty’s left elbow as that would come with the mintage of 1841. That means two mintages of the star, no drapery type for New Orleans with the 1839-O having a mintage of 1,323,000 while the 1840-O was at 1,175,000 pieces. The two are available in circulated grades at $18.50 for either. The 1839-O is slightly more in MS-60 at $1,250 while the 1840-O is at $975, but the situation is reversed in MS-65 as there the 1840-O is $6,500 while the 1839-O is $6,000. Realistically in Mint State both are excellent deals. Consider the fact that the Professional Coin Grading Service has seen 23 examples of the 1839-O in Mint State with two being MS-65 or better and only 6 examples of the 1840-O in Mint State with none of them being called MS-65. For the prices today based on such numbers if you find a Mint State example of either offered it’s a great value.

In 1841 the final design change for a decade was made with drapery being added to Liberty’s left elbow. As was true with the other changes, that design change had actually been made to the Philadelphia issues the previous year, but again with the time taken to prepare and ship the dies to New Orleans a delay was natural. It was also natural for a branch mint at the time and in fact for decades that followed to use an old die until it was completely worn out. That was seen in San Francisco in the coins of 1866 as even if the dies arrived reflecting a design change, it was common to continue to produce old designs until those dies were worn out. It was a simple cost cutting measure at facilities that couldn’t produce their own dies and were on very tight budgets so New Orleans for whatever reason waited until 1841 to produce its first Seated Liberty dime with drapery at the elbow.

The mintage of the 1841-O was 2,007,500, which makes it an available date in G-4 at $18.50. In MS-60 the 1841-O lists for $1,500 while an MS-65 is $5,000. There is also an 1841-O which had a large “O” and it is significantly more difficult at $600 in G-4 with no price above VF-20 as they are rarely, if ever seen even in upper circulated grades.

In 1842 the mintage would be an almost identical 2,020,000, resulting in another available date with a G-4 price of $18.50. The 1842-O lists for $2,900 in MS-60 and does not even have a price listing in MS-65. The reasons can be seen in a total of 10 examples called Mint State by PCGS with none of the 10 being better than MS-64.

The 1843-O is a different situation. It had a mintage of just 150,000. This was the first year since 1838 that Philadelphia outproduced New Orleans for dimes. That low mintage translates into a G-4 price of $50 and that is an awfully good deal when you consider the fact that the 1843-O had a mintage of more than 100,000 pieces less than the 1916-D. It was also not likely to be saved by collectors over the years as at the time most collectors were worried only about dates.

The collecting of any denomination by date and mint was not becoming even widely recognized until the 1890s. There was also no saving of the 1843-O at the time it was released as there is no price listing in any grade above AU-50 where it currently lists for $2,250. In fact there is good reason for no Mint State listings as PCGS has seen just one, an MS-65, with the next best example seen being an AU-53. That is an enormous spread between the best and second best 1843-O and it should be more than enough to see that MS-65 if ever offered for sale realizes a surprisingly high price.

There would be no New Orleans Seated Liberty dime production in 1844 and the 1845-O while higher than the 1843-O at 230,000 pieces was still a lower mintage date. This results in a G-4 price of $25, although that certainly is not expensive for another date with a lower mintage than the 1916-D, which is close to $800 just in G-4. In Mint State the 1845-O also has no listed price as PCGS has again seen just one and that was an MS-62 with the next best being an AU-55.

It was clear by the low mintages that whatever need there was for dimes in New Orleans, it was being met by the large coinages earlier in the decade. That situation is shown more starkly by the fact that after 1845 the next Seated Liberty dime coinage in New Orleans would not come until 1849 when there would be a mintage of 300,000 pieces. That mintage, while low, does not produce much of a premium in G-4 with the 1849-O being at $21.50, which is just $3 more than an available date of the type. In Mint State the 1849-O has a $2,200 MS-60 price and that appears to be a bargain as PCGS has only seen 8 examples in Mint State with none of them being better than MS-64.

The trend of low mintages would continue in 1850, but at this time there was another reason for the low mintages. By 1850 the price of silver was moving up. The discovery of gold in California had upset the traditional gold to silver ratio. It was rapidly becoming a case where it cost more than their face value to produce a silver coin.

The Congress was slow to act, leaving the Mint in a difficult situation as they could produce coins at a loss and have them hoarded by the public or not produce any coins and leave themselves open to the suggestion they were doing nothing to combat a national coin shortage. A bad compromise of sorts was reached in that mintages until 1853 would be relatively low as there was simply no incentive to make more coins in order to lose more money.

The 1850-O is the first date where such thinking might have played a role as it had a mintage of 510,000, which would be the top total for the period. The 1850-O lists for $21.50 in G-4 today with an MS-60 at $1,250, which is another good deal as PCGS reports just 7 coins in Mint State although 3 of the 7 were MS-65 or better.

The 1851-O would have a mintage of 400,000, although that lower mintage still produces the same $21.50 G-4 price. In MS-60 the 1851-O lists for $1,850 and again it’s an excellent value with PCGS reporting only 4 examples called Mint State and none of the four were MS-65 or better.

The 1852-O would finish the string of low mintages potentially resulting from the silver situation with a mintage of 430,000 although a slightly higher G-4 price of $22.50. In MS-60 the 1852-O lists for $1,800, although in this case there are a few more reported at PCGS with the service having graded a total of 11 examples in Mint State although none was above MS-64.

The Congress finally took action in early 1853 to reduce slightly the amount of silver in the silver coins including the dime. To mark the change, arrows were placed at either side of the date. The arrows would last for two years, making the 1853-O and 1854-O the only years of the type for New Orleans.

The 1853-O mintage was 1,100,000 while the 1854-O was at 1,770,000 and that made both available in circulated grades with a G-4 price of $10 for the 1854-O and $11 for the 1853-O. The Mint State prices are also far lower than the dates prior to the change with the 1854-O at just $600 in MS-60 while the 1853-O is at $900.

The 1853-O does not have large numbers seen in Mint State with PCGS reporting just 7, with one in MS-65 but the 1854-O is a different matter with PCGS reporting 39 including 5 in MS-65. That is a significantly larger total than was seen in the case of earlier dates and is almost high enough to suggest that someone at the time might have set aside a small number as collecting interest did not increase significantly in a few years but our supply of Mint State examples certainly did based on those totals.

In 1856 the arrows were dropped from the date and the 1856-O and 1857-O had mintages just over 1 million pieces each, making both of them readily available at $16 and $14, respectively, in G-4. In Mint State the 1857-O is much less expensive at $375 while the 1856-O is at $625 although prices are well below the levels of Mint State coins from the 1840s. The PCGS totals show higher numbers with the 1856-O having been seen 16 times in Mint State while the 1857-O total in Mint State is very high, topping 70.

The 1858-O mintage would again drop to just 290,000, pushing it to a $19 price in G-4. In MS-60 the 1858-O lists at $800, which is a higher price for dates from the 1850s, but certainly justified as PCGS reports only 9 examples in Mint State.

The 1859-O would have a mintage of 480,000 pieces and that produced a $16 price in G-4 while an MS-60 is at $550 and again we see unusually high totals with PCGS reporting a total of nearly 85 examples called Mint State.

The design would change again in 1860 with the stars on the obverse being replaced by “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.” It was an interesting change on the verge of a Civil War. We do not know the reason for the low 40,000 mintage of the 1860-O, but we can almost suspect the impending conflict had something to do with it. There was also a very poor survival rate for the 1860-O. Today just in G-4 the 1860-O lists for $450 and as interesting there is none reported in PCGS in a grade higher than AU-55, so in one year we go from over 80 examples in Mint State for the 1859-O to zero for the 1860-O.

The 1860-O was almost the final New Orleans Seated Liberty dime as the facility would cease coin production after being taken over by the State of Louisiana at the start of the Civil War. There were probably no plans to have the facility begin coin production again once the war was over, but there were a couple factors influencing the situation. One was that there was some movement in New Orleans to take back the facility as the initial agreement with the government had involved a mint that was producing coins and since that was not happening, why shouldn’t the donate land be reclaimed?

The other factor was that legislation was being approved requiring enormous silver dollar mintages. The required mintages saw New Orleans repaired and brought back on line primarily to produce silver dollars. Even so, in 1891 the New Orleans facility produced its final Seated Liberty dime with a mintage of over 4.5 million pieces.

The 1891-O with that mintage is certainly available with an MS-60 at just $175. There is a better 1891-O/horizontal O which starts at $65 in G-4. It’s an interesting coin as for years New Orleans produced Seated Liberty dimes with relatively few errors and varieties but in one year of production over 30 years after the last mintage there was an 1891-O/horizontal O.

With the 1891-O, the days of New Orleans Seated Liberty dimes were over as the design would be changed in 1892 to the new Barber design. The Seated Liberty dimes of New Orleans were certainly an interesting and historic group. They are fun to study, but as seen in case after case they are also great values today and that adds to the enjoyment of collecting the New Orleans Seated Liberty dimes.

New Orleans would go on to produce Barber dimes coins until it closed in 1909.

	Nine reasons why gold is not in a bubble…yet
	By Andrew Mickey The “Gold is a Bubble” crowd has been reawakened.CNN warned earlier this week: Gold is a bubble, resist its charms. Gold’s six percent fall in the last six weeks and the Amex Gold Bugs Index (HUI) nearly 20% decline have signaled the gold correction is here. The correction has emboldened the anti-gold crowd more than they have been since the 2008 credit crunch. The correction has been a tough one so far. But it hasn’t shown itself to be anything more than just a correction. And if history is any example, it will last about two more months and gold will be returning to new highs by the end of 2011. Despite the needed correction, gold’s future is as bright as ever. Contrary to rising opinion, gold is not in a bubble…yet. Here are nine reasons why. 1. Still waiting for the blow-off top The top of every bubble has been marked by a massive, parabolic surge in prices. The NASDAQ rose from 1500 to more than 5,000 between October 1998 and March 2000. That was an 18 month increase of 233%. The last gold bubble ended in three years of significant and accelerating increases in annual average gold prices. Gold went up 30.81% in 1978. It rose 58.72% in 1979. And “the top” was marked by a parabolic 99.74% increase in 1978. Gold prices have risen at an annual average rate of 18% in this current bull market. In the last three years gold has risen at a 16% annual rate. Even best-case scenario intended to skew the numbers to the most extreme fails to match previous bubble tops. Gold rose at annual average rate of 29.8% from its 2008 lows to its 2010 all-time high. These increases are indicative of a bull market, but pale in comparison to past bubbles. 2. Gold hasn’t gone mainstream…yet Bubbles suck a lot of investors in at the top. Panic buyers, fearful of missing out on an opportunity to get rich quick, rush in at the end in droves. For example, in 1970, investors had $48 billion in stock mutual funds. By the top of the stock bubble in 2000, investors had more than $7 trillion in stock funds. In 2000 investors plowed $309 billion of new capital into stock funds. That’s five times more than all of the money invested in funds in 1970. Stock fever was well-dispersed too at the top too. The New York Stock Exchange found 7.5 million Americans own stock in 1954. The number of stock investors rose 10-fold to 78 million in 1999. Currently, gold and gold stock investors are still very much the minority. 3. The “we buy gold” advertising fallacy One of the often cited signals of a gold market top is all of the “we buy gold” companies which buy jewelry from people. The argument is completely misguided. These are service companies which buy gold at discount (ranging from 20% to 40%) and then have it refined. A higher gold price makes the business more profitable, will attract more customers, and allow for greater advertising budgets, but it’s not a signal of the top. A better signal would be seeing these companies failing as the masses refuse to sell their gold because “it’s going to make them rich.” 4. Gold pays no dividend It’s true, gold doesn’t pay a dividend. It has no earnings. It’s not an investment. There is no way to value it using traditional measures of stocks and other financial assets. Gold’s benefits comes during periods when real dividends and income-producing assets’ yields are so low, gold is a much better alternative. These periods where gold outperforms income-producing assets is when real interest rates (interest minus inflation) are negative. Consider this, a long-term U.S. Treasury bond currently pays about 4% per year. Inflation, as tracked by rising cost of living and excluding housing price declines which have kept official inflation numbers down, is greater than 5%. As a result, the real rate of interest is a negative 1%. In real terms, it costs 1% a year to hold the long-term Treasury bond even though it yields 4%. This is why investors turn to gold when interest rates are negative and gold prices are driven higher by negative real interest rates. Gold pays no nominal dividend or income. But it does retain its purchasing power while other income-producing assets decline. . 5. Interest rate increases will not send gold prices tumbling The current gold correction has been exacerbated by liquidity fears and traders’ risk reduction resulting from expected hikes in short-term interest rates in China, India, and other countries. Many pundits have already started confusing small hikes in short-term rates as the catalyst to pop the “gold bubble.” This makes sense on paper, but is historically incorrect. Interest rate increases determined by the market and not resulting from arbitrarily imposed short-term rates central banks have historically been an indicator of rising inflation. Rising interest rates are bad for stocks, housing, and bonds, but have coincided with increases in the prices of gold 6. Customer service and innovation have nothing to do with sentiment In 11 Signs that Gold is in a Bubble That is Going to Burst” the author notes, “For the first time ever, gold ATM machines are dispensing bars of bullion. The first ones opened up in Abu Dhabi, Munich, and Madrid. Next in line are Boca Raton and Las Vegas in the US. What are you doing to do with all that gold? Bury it in your backyard? Have no fear.” Service innovation from businesses which earn wider profit margins as gold prices rise and demand for gold increases are hardly a signal investor sentiment is too high. Whether a bullion buyer picks up gold at a store, online, or at a gold-dispensing ATM, in no way signals sentiment is too high. In a way, these innovations are actually helping turn new investors onto gold by making it easier to buy gold. 7. The closed-end fund indicator well within historical norms One of the best indicators of true investor sentiment (which is driven by their investment dollars rather than surveys) is closed end funds (CEF). Since CEFs trade at a discount or premium to their underlying Net Asset Value (NAV), they serve as a reliable indicator of extreme optimum and pessimism. For example, at the height of the China bubble in 2007, investors were clamoring to get Chinese “A-Shares.” These shares were only traded in China and most foreign investors were barred from owning them directly. Investors could get direct access to A-Shares by buying the Morgan Stanley China A-Share Fund (NYSE:CAF). At the height of the China bubble, the A Share Fund was trading at a 40% premium to its NAV. A-Share demand and optimism were so high, investors were willing to pay $1.40 for each dollar of A-Shares. It was clearly an extreme high. There are two closed end funds which own physical silver and gold. Both of them show optimism is hardly at an extreme high. The current premium on the Central Fund of Canada (NYSE:CEF) is a mere 3.09%. Its five-year average premium is 9.0%. The current premium on the Sprott Physical Silver Trust (NASDAQ:PSLV) is a bit higher at 14.8%. Although relatively high, that’s still below the new fund’s all-time high premium of more than 17%. When the gold bubble reaches its peak, there will likely be a very large gap between the price of physical gold and paper gold as it’s traded on the major exchanges. As a result, the premiums on the closed end funds which own physical gold and silver reflect that difference through some very large premiums. 8. Gold stocks show gold is a “hot money” trade and investor conviction is low A surprising anomaly in the gold market signals the top in gold is still a long ways away. The price of gold has increased 22% in the past twelve months. The Amex Gold Bugs Index (HUI) meanwhile has only increased 27%. Normally, the HUI would significantly outpace the price of gold, but gold stocks have failed to really outpace gold as they have and will again as gold prices rise. The chart below shows how investors still lack the conviction that higher gold prices are here to stay as gold stocks are still significantly lagging the price of gold: When we do reach the top in the gold market, valuations for gold companies will be significantly higher than they are now. At the top, gold mining shares won’t be based on the current price of gold. They’ll be based on how much higher gold prices can go. Remember price-to-eyeballs and other new valuation metrics for dot-coms? The same thing will happen to gold stocks at the top of the bubble. 9. The “how to” market still lags All investment manias have attracted the majority of investors at the top. And when these new speculators move in, they want to learn how to do it. A willing and ready publishing community has been there to sell the information at the worst possible time. For example, the top selling non-fiction books in 1999 included: #8: Wall Street Journal Guide to Understanding Money and Investing #9: Investing for Dummies #11: How to Get Started in Electronic Day Trading Those are very high positions for a segment normally dominated by high-profile biographies and self-help books. They also show how the top of the 90s was led by inexperienced day traders and first-time investors. At the height of the gold bubble in the late 1970s, the #3 best-selling non-fiction book was Howard Ruff’s How to Prosper During the Coming Bad Years. The book warned of social chaos, end of the family, and hyperinflation. It recommended “protecting” yourself by hoarding gold, silver, and dried food. The “safe” investments performed terribly for the next two decades. In 2010, no investment-themed books made even made it in the Top 10 of best-sellers. The masses still don’t want much to do with gold and learning about how to “get rich quick off of it.” There are so many fallacious arguments cited by the gold-is-a-bubble crowd. But long time investors have seen all this before. A bull market rises. Investors jump on board. It corrects and the weak hands walk away. It sets new highs and attracts still more investors. It corrects and the weak hands walk away. The process repeats until euphoric highs attract everyone in. That’s when conviction is strong, everyone is betting on how much money they’ll make, and no one sees a bubble forming, they just a great opportunity for quick riches. There are a lot of signs when a bubble is peaking, but none of them are appearing right now. In fact, by the end of year, this correction will be likely viewed as a great time to start reloading on high quality gold and silver stocks. Good investing!!! Courtesy: http://www.q1publishing.com/

ATB Doubling, but No Doubled Die

By Ken Potter, Numismatic News January 20, 2011

This article was originally printed in Numismatic News.
>> Subscribe today!

David S. Brenner of Delaware found what appeared to be a bona fide strong doubled die on a 2010 Grand Canyon 5-ounce silver bullion coin showing in images he sent to Numismatic News. It wasn’t.

As I was talking to him and he reminded me that the inscriptions about the rim of the coin were incuse rather than raised, it set off alarm signals in my head, which turned out to be justified after I examined the actual coin.

In previous articles I’ve written over the years, I’ve explained that the most common form of Strike Doubling is generally accepted to be created by looseness in the press, which in turn causes vibrations to set up during the coining operation. This may cause the upper and/or lower die to bounce against the struck coin a split second after the coin is struck but just prior to ejection, resulting in an area of the field parallel to a design (on the die) smashing down a section of raised design(s) on the coin.

Depending on the orientation of the coin on the lower die, (which may shift slightly during ejection) this flat shelf of doubling that borders one side of raised design elements may be found on the obverse and/or reverse and is usually what researchers point to as a diagnostic of strike doubling (also known as Machine Doubling Damage and Mechanical Doubling).

However, in other previous treatments of this subject I have examined variations from this flattened-to-the-field rule, including doubling formed as a design when smashed down a slope, how some design elements in the field that closely border a design may be raised up into another design area during die bounce, and the effect of a die that slides and pushes metal up the side of a design.

However, as much as Brenner’s coin appeared to exhibit a doubled die in his images, it is in fact regrettably not so. What many folks don’t know is that strike doubling that affects incuse designs results in split serifs and separation of elements that closely mimics true hub doubling. Due to the optical illusion of incuse designs appearing raised in photographs it is virtually impossible to tell the difference between this type of strike doubling and hub doubling when viewing images alone.

While Brenner found this effect to a greater or lesser degree on the reverses of all five coins in the 2010 5-ounce silver series, the one that was the strongest was on the Arizona Grand Canyon issue, so it is the one we will focus on here.

While it showed on every single character that bordered the rim, I shot photos of the date, PLURIBUS and the AN of CANYON. Notice the separation of images that is not typical to the more common forms of strike doubling. In particular, I have pointed out the obvious split serifs on the “1” of the date. Conspicuously absent is the flat shelf-like type of damage typical of strike doubling.

While the doubling on this coin seems to break all the rules of what we have learned to expect strike doubling to look like, the answer is simple and easy to understand.

Unlike the majority of coins that boast raised images, the affected elements noted above are incuse designs on this coin and are thus raised on the die. Since they are raised on the die, any bouncing of this portion of the die into the coin will be exactly like a hub or punch (which is generally raised) sinking images into a die blank. The result is an effect exactly like that found on a doubled die yet it is simply another manifestation of strike doubling, a form of damage that adds no value to a coin.

However, there is one catch and that is that we do know that on genuine doubled dies that might have an incuse area (such as Emanuel Hahn’s initials on the Canadian Voyageur nickel dollars) may also bear hub doubling. The trick is to first realize that a coin that shows absolutely no hub-like doubling anywhere other than in the incuse areas is highly suspect. Then study the raised areas of design and if they show strike doubling of the more commonly seen type, then you’ve nailed it 99.9 percent as being strike doubling on the entire coin’s obverse and/or reverse.

In this case we were able to find the flat shelf-like strike doubling on the base of the design but the clincher was in Designer/Engraver Phebe Hemphill’s initials within Grand Canyon just above the second “0” of the date. Here we can see that the coin was actually at least struck twice (as is typical for these large 3-inch diameter coins) and that strike doubling occurred right after the second strike to the east of the normal initials and then the strike doubling was flattened down even to the field by the second strike. This form of doubling (known as “flat field doubling” is a legitimate error since it occurred within the minting process but is largely ignored by collectors. It is pointed out by the black arrows. Additionally, we see that on the second strike our shelf-like type of doubling has also occurred on the west side of the initials as pointed out by the red arrows.

Since every one of Brenner’s coins in this five-piece set showed doubling or tripling to a greater or lesser degree in the recessed characters about the reverse rims, I expect that many of these coins will turn up in collector hands. The fact is, the larger the coin, the harder it is to eliminate strike doubling due to the higher pressures involved. So when you see one of these “fantastic” so-called doubled dies online, consider yourself warned. They are not errors or varieties but a mint-caused form of damage to the coin that occurred within a split second after the coin was struck, just prior to ejection.

What Do Original United States Gold Coins Look Like?

By Doug Winter

Around a year ago, I wrote a blog that discussed original 19th century United States gold coins and used photos of specific coins to illustrate the points I was attempting to make. This was one of the most popular blogs to ever appear on www.raregoldcoins.com and I was pleased to get the positive feedback it generated.

At the recent FUN show, I was shown two collections of coins. One consisted of around two dozen Charlotte and Dahlonega coins while the other had around 30 early gold coins. All were graded by PCGS or NGC and in both instances the owner prefaced his show-and-tell by informing me that all the coins were sold to him by dealers who stressed their “originality.”

Out of the 50 or so coins I looked at, around five were what I would describe as being “original.” This made me realize that most collectors do not understand the concept of originality and that it would be a good time to dust off the old “how to tell originality” blog.

1. 1807 Bust Left $5.00 Graded AU55+ by PCGS

To me, this coin is just about the most perfect piece of lightly circulated early gold that you are likely to find. I think its an AU58 instead of an AU55+ but that’s just splitting hairs; what can not be denied is this coin’s exceptional color and overall originality.

There are a numbers of factors that make me believe that this piece is original. First is the depth and evenness of its color. Note the “age” of the color and how well it blends. Artificial color looks “newer” and never blends as well as old, mellow natural color. Secondly, note how the underlying luster is still undisturbed and in a perfect cartwheel pattern. This is most clear at the obverse border where there is considerable mint luster at the stars. Thirdly, note the absence of hairlines or other imperfections that might have been caused by a prior cleaning.

2. 1852-C $5.00 Graded AU53 by PCGS

I almost decided not to use this coin as an example. Its sort of like going to the gym, choosing the biggest lunkhead you can find and then holding him up as an example of a fit guy to a bunch of scrawny non-lifters. Just not fair, right?

The first sign that this coin is very original is the depth of its coloration. Note the very deep and very even hues that can be seen on the obverse and reverse. Coin doctors are never able to reproduce this deep green-gold hue and most artificial toning on gold tends to be more of a bright orange or slightly off-kilter red hue. Another sign of this coin’s originality is the fact that the few marks on the surfaces are not shiny or bright. On artificially toned or processed coins, the chemical agents used to color the coins tend to break down over time and there is often discoloration or brightness within the recesses of the marks on the surfaces.

3. 1856-O $10 Graded AU53 by NGC

This attractive coin has a few things that lead me to believe that it is original. The first is its deep, even green-gold color. Note that the hues are consistent on the obverse and reverse. The second is that there is no “filminess” atop the surfaces that might be caused by it having been puttied. The third is the presence of dirt deposits in the protected areas of the obverse and reverse. Note around a number of the stars and within the reverse lettering: there are raised black dirt “chunks” which would quickly dissolve if this coin were dipped in a chemical solution or even put into a soap and water bath to lighten it.

4. 1833 Large Date $5.00 Graded MS63 by PCGS

The common theme so far in with these coins have been their deep, dark original coloration. But what about coins that are lighter in hue and higher in grade? Can a coin that is not dark still be original? In the case of this 1833 half eagle, a coin that I bought and sold at the 2011 FUN show, it certainly can. One of the first things of note about this coin is the fact that it is an old green label PCGS holder. This, of course, doesn’t mean it is a guaranteed original coin. But what it does mean is that it was graded at least 15 or so years ago and nothing was placed on the surfaces by a coin doctor as a chemical or substance would have broken-down by now and become visible.

This coin is bright and vibrant but it isn’t too bright or too vibrant. I’m not sure this makes sense to a new collector but long-term collectors will immediately realize the difference between a coin that is naturally bright and one that has been brightened. The luster on this coin is completely undisturbed and, as is typical for half eagles from this era, it has a sort of “pillowy” texture. Also, note that the color is a rich light yellow and green-gold. This is characteristic of original Fat Head eagles and this is something that is not seen much, anymore, on the surviving coins from this era.

5. 1814/3 $5.00 Graded MS62 by NGC

This is a tricky coin and one that would probably cause the greatest amount of dissent if I showed it to a number of experts. As you can see from the photos, it is very richly toned, in fiery reddish-gold hues. Red is often a color on early gold that has been applied. But in the case of this coin, the hue and intensity of the red is “right” and it has, to the best of my knowledge, never been duplicated by coin doctors. You can also see that the color lies nicely on the surfaces and is variegated with a number of different hues. Artificial color is more monochromatic and does not have the subtle gradations that a natural piece like this displays.

A few other facts about this coin are compelling. First, it is interesting to note that I have handled at least three 1814/3 half eagles in Uncirculated that have had reasonably similar intense reddish-based color. Having seen similar colors on other examples makes me even more certain that the color is genuine. And, the coin is housed in a very old NGC “fatty” holder which means that it was graded nearly two decades ago. If this color wasn’t real, it wouldn’t look so good after two decades in an NGC holder.

6. 1880 $20.00 Graded PR63 by NGC

Brilliant Proof Liberty Head gold coinage is almost never seen anymore. Most examples have been dipped and/or conserved in an attempt to generate higher grades from the third-party services and in order to receive Ultra Cameo designations.

In the 2011 FUN auction, Heritage sold a number of superb quality Proof gold coins from the Miller collection that were notable for having natural coloration. These coins were purchased in the 1970’s and 1980’s; back when collectors knew what original proof gold looked like and it was appreciated for what it was. This 1880 double eagle was from that sale and collection.

There are a few things that immediately show this coin is original. As simplistic as this sounds, the first is that it isn’t blindingly brilliant. Note, instead, how there is rich copper-orange toning which deepens towards the borders. Also, there is a copper spot on the reverse between the two L’s in DOLLARS. Proof gold that has been conserved doesn’t have these spots. Finally, there is an even natural “haziness” atop the surfaces that exists on original Proof gold. Note that I did not say “filminess” as in “this coin has been puttied and is now filmy.”

Hopefully, this blog has been helpful. There is, of course, no substitute for seeing original coins live and in person but in the absence of doing this, these images and descriptions should be a step in the right direction.

An Introduction to Paper Money Grading

By Standard Catalog of United States Paper Money January 20, 2011

Introduction

Grading is the most controversial component of paper money collecting. Small differences in grade can mean significant differences in value.

To facilitate communication between sellers and buyers, it is essential that grading terms and their meanings be as standardized and as widely used as possible. The standardization should reflect common usage as much as practicable.

The grades and definitions as set forth below cannot reconcile all the various systems and grading terminology variants. Rather, the attempt is made here to try and diminish the controversy with some common-sense grades and definitions that aim to give more precise meaning to the grading language of paper money.

Grading Guide

Crisp Uncirculated (CU): A perfectly preserved note, never mishandled by the issuing authority, a bank teller, the public or a collector.

Paper is clean and firm, without discoloration. Corners are sharp and square, without any evidence of rounding. (Rounded corners are often a tell-tale sign of a cleaned or “doctored” note.) An uncirculated note will have its original, natural sheen.

About Uncirculated (AU): A virtually perfect note, with some minor handling. May show evidence of bank counting folds at a corner or one light fold through the center, but not both. An AU note cannot be creased, a crease being a hard fold which has usually “broken” the surface of the note.

Paper is clean and bright with original sheen. Corners are not rounded.

Extremely Fine (XF): very attractive note, with light handling. May have a maximum of three light folds or one strong crease.

Paper is clean and bright with original sheen. Corners may show only the slightest evidence of rounding. There may also be the slightest sign of wear where a

Very Fine (VF): An attractive note, but with more evidence of handling and wear. May have a number of folds both vertically and horizontally.

Paper may have minimal dirt, or possible color smudging. Paper itself is still relatively crisp and not floppy.

There are no tears into the border area, although the edges do show slight wear. Corners also show wear but not full rounding.

Fine: A note which shows considerable circulation, with many folds, creases and wrinkling. Paper is not excessively dirty but may have some softness.

Edges may show much handling, with minor tears in the border area. Tears may not extend into the design. There will be no center hole because of excessive folding.

Colors are clear but not very bright. A staple hole or two would not be considered unusual wear in a Fine note. Overall appearance is still on the desirable side.

Very Good (VG): A well-used note, abused but still intact.

Corners may have much wear and rounding, tiny nicks, tears may extend into the design, some discoloration may be present, staining may have occurred, and a small hole may be seen at center from excessive folding.

Staple and pinholes are usually present, and the note itself is quite limp but no pieces of the note are missing. A note in VG condition may still have an overall not unattractive appearance. Good (G): A well-worn and heavily-used note. Normal damage from prolonged circulation will include strong multiple folds and creases, stains, pinholes and/or staple holes, dirt, discoloration, edge tears, center hole, rounded corners and an overall unattractive appearance. No large pieces of the note may be missing. Graffiti is commonly seen on notes in Good condition.

Fair: A totally limp, dirty, and very well-used note. Large pieces may be half torn off or missing besides the defects mentioned under the Good category. Tears will be larger, obscured portions of the note will be bigger. Poor: A “rag” with severe damage because of wear, staining, pieces missing, graffiti, larger holes. May have tape holding pieces of the note together. Trimming may have taken place to remove rough edges.

The above Introduction and Grading Guide is an adaptation work prepared under the guidance of the Grading Committee of the International Bank Note Society.

How To Look At A Banknote

In order to ascertain the grade of a note, it is essential to examine it out of a holder and under a good light. Move the note around so that light bounces off at different angles. Try holding it up obliquely so that the note is almost even with your eye as you look up at the light. Hard-to-see folds or slight creases will show up under such examination.

Cleaning, Washing, Pressing

Cleaning, washing or pressing paper money is generally harmful and reduces both the grade and the value of a note. At the very least, a washed or pressed note may lose its original sheen and its surface may become lifeless and dull. The defects a note has, such as folds and creases, may not necessarily be completely eliminated and their telltale marks can be detected under a good light. Carelessly washed notes may also have white streaks where the folds or creases were (or still are).

Processing of a note will automatically reduce it at least one full grade.

Other Defects

Glue, tape or pencil marks may sometimes be successfully removed. While such removal will leave a cleaned surface, it will improve the overall appearance of the note without concealing any of its defects. Under such circumstances, the grade of that note may also be improved.

The words “pinholes,” “staple holes,” “trimmed,” “writing on face… tape marks,” etc., should always be added to the description of a note.

The Term “Uncirculated”

The word “Uncirculated” is used in this grading guide only as a qualitative measurement of the appearance of a note. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not an issuer has actually released the note to circulation. Either a note is uncirculated in condition or it is not, there can be no degrees of uncirculated. Defects in color, centering and the like may be included in a description but the fact that a note is or is not in uncirculated condition should not be a disputable point.

Excerpted from Standard Catalog of United States Paper Money 28th Edition by George S. Cuhaj and William Brandimore. Order it at www.shopnumismaster.com.

News and Analysis on scarce coins, coin markets, and the coin collecting community #36

A Weekly Column by Greg Reynolds

Last week, I covered the FUN Convention in general and, soon, I will post a review of the Platinum Night event. The primary purpose of the PCGS Luncheon on Jan. 7 was to formally introduce the PCGS Coin Sniffer, and this is the topic here. This sniffer is a machine that is able to detect most of the substances added by coin doctors, who modify coins for the purpose of deceiving experts and others into believing that doctored coins are of higher quality than they were before they were doctored. Generally, coin doctoring reduces the true quality and numerical grades of coins. Frequently, severe damage is done to rare coins by coin doctors.

Usually, PCGS graders are able to detect doctored coins when they are submitted to the PCGS for grading, and will refuse to assign numerical grades to doctored coins. Even the best of experts, however, will be deceived by some doctored coins.

As I, with the assistance of John Albanese, emphasized in my initial analysis of the PCGS lawsuit against alleged coin doctors, there are a small number of advanced experts who are able to surgically change (or otherwise transform) rare coins in ways such that a significant number are erroneously assigned numerical grades by the PCGS or the NGC.

My columns of June 2nd and Sept. 8th, discuss coin doctoring in general and the PCGS lawsuit in particular.  In the third of my three part series on natural toning, I focus on the reasons why coin doctoring is terribly harmful and poses a threat to coin collecting in general. In that series, I discuss the difference between natural and artificial toning (Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3).

For the present purpose of discussing the ‘Sniffer and its role in the PCGS SecurePlus program, it suffices to say that it is very common for coin doctors to add putty, films, waxes, gels and oils to cover or deflect attention from imperfect areas of coins and/or to give coins an artificially induced false ‘attractiveness’! Consider that, as blue or green films tend to often form naturally on some kinds of coins, it it is difficult for expert graders to detect those that are added.

I. The SecurePlus Program

In March 2010, the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) introduced the SecurePlus program. As I recently devoted a two part series to this program (Part 1 – Part 2), and discussed it in earlier writings, I will not explain the whole SecurePlus program here.

The PCGS has two tiers of submissions for rare U.S. coins, SecurePlus and standard. In the SecurePlus program, coins are specially screened, scanned with a CoinSecure CoinAnalyzer (for identification if the same coins are ever resubmitted), and now ‘sniffed,’ before being examined by PCGS graders, who are human. Other anti-doctoring technologies are, or soon will be, employed as well, including a ‘ray gun.’

Coins sent under the standard tier are typically just examined by graders, without the use of new technologies to detect doctoring and curtail grade-inflation. The standard program is thus ‘business as usual’! Coins that are submitted under the SecurePlus program and are found to qualify for numerical grades are placed in holders that contain a printed insert (label) that is slightly different from the standard blue insert. The ‘Secure’ program insert (label) features a gold-colored eagle on the left

At the PCGS Luncheon on Jan. 7 in Tampa, I argued that, from a marketing and educational perspective, it would be beneficial for the PCGS ‘Secure’ holders to feature dramatically different inserts that would grab the attention of collectors and remind them of the features that characterize the SecurePlus program. My impression is that most collectors hardly notice the gold-colored eagles and many collectors do not know (or do not remember) that the gold colored eagle refers to the SecurePlus program.

Wayne Herndon, an extremely active and highly regarded dealer, disagrees with my view on this matter. Wayne maintains that the gold-colored eagle inserts are distinctive and noticeable. Indeed, Herndon finds that collectors recognize the gold eagle inserts and link them to the SecurePlus program.

I (this writer) also maintain the coins certified under the PCGS SecurePlus program in 2011 should be openly distinguished from those so certified in 2010. Last year, the ‘sniffer’ and the ‘ray gun’ were used only to limited extent, when used at all, on coins submitted under the SecurePlus program. The SecurePlus program began in March 2010. (Please see my article on the PCGS graded MS-68+ 1901-S quarter.)

A coin certified under the PCGS SecurePlus program in 2011 has been inspected by human graders AND examined with a ‘coin sniffer’! I contend that this dual review should be noted in some way on the holder. When I expressed my view on this point to Dr. Steven Duckor, he said, “yes, a distinction should be made, [perhaps] a dog on the label,”A dog seems to be the informal mascot for the PCGS ‘Coin Sniffer’! Duckor maintains, though, that the overall design of the “label [insert] on Secure holders is now okay because the PCGS emblem,” which is PCGS on a gold colored shield, clearly refers to the SecurePlus program. Herndon agrees with Duckor in that “the big shield” on the SecurePlus insert “is easy enough to see.” (The label in a PCGS or NGC holder is usually called the printed insert, or just ‘the insert.’)

In contrast, John Albanese strongly believes that the PCGS “should come out with a new holder, or a new insert, that says that the coin has been sniffed. How do you know that coins have been sniffed? The sniffer is coming in post-SecurePlus holders. I [John] agree with Greg [this writer] that the 2011 Secure holders should be different from the 2010 Secure holders; they should at least signify that a coin has been sniffed.”

At the PCGS Luncheon, neither David Hall nor Don Willis found my arguments for a new or different insert (label) to be overwhelming. In any event, the technologies employed in the SecurePlus program are dramatically more important than the aesthetics, or overall distinctiveness, of the printed inserts in the ‘Secure’ holders.

II. The Sniffer

The coin ‘Sniffer’ directs beams of light at targeted areas of each coin that is placed in the device. It is not harmful to coins. With human guidance and computer software, the sniffer is able to determine which substances are in particular areas of each coin. If there is auto body putty in the right obverse (front) inner field, such putty can be found and located. Different substances are ‘excited’ by rays of light on different frequencies of the light spectrum.

The PCGS maintains a database of the ‘light signatures’ of substances employed by coin doctors and of many other substances. The mere presence of a wax does not prove that a coin has been doctored. A microscopic quantity of wax can ‘end-up’ accidentally on a coin. A century ago, a collector may have stored coins in wax paper. The amount of an unwanted substance has to be significant, above a rationally determined threshold, for the sniffer and accompanying software to flag a coin for further study.

III. The ray gun

In addition to introducing the PCGS ‘Coin Sniffer’ device, the PCGS revealed the existence of a ‘ray gun’! It looks like a weapon that might be seen in a science fiction movie. While the sniffer is employed to identify the presence of various non-metallic substances that are deliberately or even accidentally added to coins, and materials that may cling to coins by chance, a ‘ray gun’ is used to determine the metallic composition of each coin.

The ‘ray gun’ can detect metals that have been added by coin doctors along with traces of metals that are not part of the prescribed alloys used to manufacture the respective coin. Sometimes, a slightly different alloy was erroneously employed by Mint personnel. Other times, traces of various metals at the Mint may ‘by chance’ be mixed into the alloy, be present on minting equipment, or land on annealed blanks before striking.

Richard Haddock is the inventor of the CoinSecure CoinAnalyzer, which is used to identify specific coins and to alert PCGS officials when the same coin is re-submitted under the PCGS SecurePlus program. Haddock is also serving as a consultant to the PCGS regarding the PCGS ‘Coin Sniffer’ and the ‘ray gun’! Richard is particularly involved in the development of software that is used by PCGS personnel with all three devices.

“The Sniffer sees the presence and characteristics of molecular bonds by the way they vibrate under light of specific wavelengths in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum,” Haddock explains. “As most materials commonly around us are molecules, this is the most general purpose type of analysis to do when looking for foreign materials on a coin.”

On “the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum,” Richard continues, “the ray gun shoots a high energy beam of electrons, like the old cathode ray tube TV sets. This is for elemental analysis that identifies almost all atoms.” Haddock states that metal “contamination due to doctoring” can be found with this ‘ray gun’!

At the PCGS Luncheon, I (this writer) asked about the adding of gold to gold coins by coin doctors, who frequently employ gold of the correct alloy for this purpose. Metal from a low quality, relatively common New Orleans Mint gold coin may be taken by a coin doctor and added to another New Orleans Mint gold coin to ‘smooth out’ contact marks or hairline scratches. Such added gold would then be of the correct alloy or nearly so. Don Willis, the president of the PCGS, conceded that the ‘ray gun’ may not be able to find such added gold. Willis indicated, however, that PCGS experts use other methods to identify added metal of the proper alloy on gold coins.

IV. Secure vs. Standard Submissions

As I emphasized in the column that I devoted to advocating reform of the PCGS SecurePlus program, the program is not the tremendous success that it could be due to the ability of coin doctors and others to avoid the special screening and anti-doctoring technologies by submitting coins under the standard PCGS program. (Please read Part 2: Reform.)

At the PCGS Luncheon, Stewart Blay asked if the $100,000 threshold would be lowered in 2011. Currently, all coins valued under $100,000 each may be submitted to the PCGS under either the SecurePlus program or the standard tier. In another words, only coins valued at more than $100,000 must be submitted under the SecurePlus program.

Blay is an exceptionally accomplished collector and is a widely recognized grading expert. He has formed the all-time best collections of early Lincoln Cents and of Indian Cents. His collections of Barber coins are amazing as well.

“All coins with of value of $2,000 and higher should mandatorily go through SecurePlus,” Blay declares. “There is a loophole so big that a freight train can be driven through it, unless PCGS does the right thing and lowers the $100,000 minimum value.”

Wayne Herndon agrees, “the value threshold for SecurePlus should be much lower. I would like to see the threshold lowered from $100k to $5k, for now. Eventually, it even needs to be lower, but at $5k it will start to be a lot more difficult to make money” doctoring coins,” Herndon argues.

Dr. Steven Duckor would like for PCGS to require that “ALL coins that are submitted” be under the SecurePlus program. The PCGS “should raise the fee of coins submitted by let’s say $10 to $15 to cover the” additional costs of the SecurePlus program, including the possible loss of submission “volume.” If the PCGS requires all scarce or rare coin submissions to be under the SecurePlus program, Duckor asserts, “it will be great for the hobby!”

IV. Importance of Such Technology

How important are the coin sniffer and related technologies? Dr. Duckor, a famous and highly respected collector, declares that the “use of sniffer technology is extremely important, and will clean up to a large degree ‘coin doctoring.’ I [Duckor] rely on PCGS and CAC to help me” avoid buying doctored coins. Moreover, Dr. Duckor maintains that “collectors need to pay a premium for this great technology. It will save them $$$ in the future.”

Wayne Herndon remarks that, “if the sniffer does all that PCGS says it does, then it is a wonderful tool for the hobby. However, its role is limited if it is only used on a small subset of coins. For it to really have an impact, it needs to be used on a much larger pool of coins. Ideally, it would also be great if PCGS would license the technology to other grading services,” Wayne concludes.

John Albanese founded the NGC in 1987 and the CAC in 2007. He has seen large numbers of doctored coins that have ‘turned’ while residing in PCGS or NGC holders. “The CAC buys back coins every month that have turned in their holders.” Albanese reveals, “there is no way that they looked the same when we approved them. If the sniffer could catch those before they turn, it would be good for collectors.”

Doctored coins often ‘turn’ while residing in their respective holders. After-effects of a coin doctoring procedure may occur days, weeks, months, or even years from the time a coin is doctored. There is much discussion of this point in part 3 of my series on collecting naturally toned coins. Consider that the ‘turning’ of doctored coins may involve unsightly colors, substances moving on a coin’s surfaces, the revealing of areas that have been nicked or damaged, the spawning of powders, and/or weird chemical reactions that would almost never occur on coins that were properly stored. I (this writer) am confident that sniffer technology can and will be employed to detect doctored coins that human graders may miss, and will provide scientific evidence to document that specific rare coins have been doctored.

Newer Posts »