Proof Like 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagles Fetch Big Premiums
Last year the United States Mint released one of their most anticipated products in years, the 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coin. The coin is a digitally reproduced version of Saint-Gaudens' original 1907 ultra high relief $20 gold piece, which is viewed as one of the nation's most beautiful coins ever minted.
The Ultra High Relief Double Eagles were available for sale directly from the United States Mint from January 22, 2009 to December 31, 2009. During this period, the Mint recorded sales of 115,178 coins.
With US Mint sales officially ended, a robust secondary market exists for the coins. While coins graded PCGS or NGC MS70 are commanding solid premiums above the price of raw coins, the biggest premiums are being paid for coins which have received the "PL" designation from NGC, signifying proof like surfaces.
Realized prices from recent eBay auctions show that UHR Double Eagles graded NGC MS 70 have sold for approximately $1,800-$1,900 each. Coins graded NGC MS 70 PL have sold for more than $4,200 each, with some of the current listings at even higher fixed prices.
NGC's online census indicates that out of the 9,585 coins submitted for standard grading, there were 1,098 that received the Proof Like "PL" designation. Of this amount, 600 received the highest grade of NGC MS 70 PL.
Out of the 1,018 coins submitted under the "Early Releases" classification, there were only 18 that received the Proof Like designation. There were only seven coins graded NGC MS 70 PL Early Releases.
With such large premiums attached to proof like coins, many collectors have been seeking more information on the specific characteristics of PL coins and how to identify them. Bob and Rich Lecce of Robert B. Lecce Numismatist Inc. (http://rareusgold.com) were willing to lend their expertise.
Can you describe the appearance and surfaces of 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagle Gold Coins that have received NGC's "PL" designation?
Robert B. Lecce: A PL coin has a definite Proof Like and Shinny Mirror Surface on ALL of the Obverse and Reverse of the coin. The only difference from the UHR PL coins and other Modern Proof coins is that the UHR PL coins do NOT exhibit the Cameo Contrast that is evident on standard Modern Proof Coins. In our opinion they fit the standards of Proof in all other aspects. Once you have seen a PL and a NON PL UHR side by side the difference becomes more obvious. A NON Proof Like coin has a satin matte like surface not unlike a standard MS or burnished modern coin.
The problem lies in that there is a wide range of "in between" surfaces. They range from almost PL to very slight faint hints of PL. There are also coins that are PL on the Obverse but not on the reverse. From our experience a UHR is much more likely to have a PL Obverse and NON PL reverse. It seems to me that the definitive distinction of a PL coin is a coin that has FULL PL surfaces on Obverse and Reverse including and MOST importantly in between the rays on the reverse of the coin. That is the most likely part of the coin to lack the true PL surface.
Do you have an estimate of the proportion of all UHR Double Eagles that would qualify as proof like?
Robert B. Lecce: It is very hard to say. You can have a group of coin that have a much higher chance of PL and another group of coins that would have no chance of a PL grade. We have had groups of 100 and received 10 PL's! and then we have had a group of 1000 with Zero PL's. These were all Fresh coins not sorted. I can tell you from someone that has probably bought and sold more of these than anyone that the overall percentage of PL's is very, very low. The best estimate I think would be the NGC population report which shows 10,603 Ultra High Relief's graded total. Of those 1,116 have been graded PL. That is roughly about 10.5%. That percentage seems a little high to me. I do not believe that 10% of the coins that I have sent in graded PL. I think I would be very happy if my percentage of PL's were 3% to 4%. But, the numbers at NGC do not lie.
Was there any period of time when more PL coins seem to have been released by the US Mint? Collector awareness of the distinction doesn't seem to have developed until after the early release period.
Robert B. Lecce: I can say the there have been PL coins made from the very beginning. I remember because when I received my own personal coins for my collection I noticed the difference in surface. I even went through the coins that we began to purchase from other dealers and separated the two different types. This was before we were aware that coins were going to be called PL's. At the time I did not know which would be more desirable so I put some of each into my collection. These were the very first ones that came out from the mint.
I believe that the PL coins are very early struck coins on newly prepared dies. I believe the High Relief of the coin requires the changing of the dies at specific intervals which affect how often a PL strike is possible. I also believe that the metal flow from the High Relief dies cause the early struck coins to have a PL Surface. Since the Obverse and Reverse dies may have been changed at different periods that could explain the coins that have a PL Obverse and NON PL reverse. Please note this is all conjecture and my opinion. I do not have any empirical evidence behind it. I am sure there or other people that are much more educated in the minting process that might have other opinions on that.
Photos for this post are courtesy of Robert B. Lecce Numismatist Inc. (http://rareusgold.com)
(4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...Related Posts:
PCGS does not offer the PL designation for this UHR coin because none of these coins fit the definition of PL-Prooflike or DMPL Deep-Mirror Prooflike as it has been defined since the inception of third party grading services. This is an excerpt from the correct definition of PL and DMPL. A coin fitting the description of PL or DMPL must display at least a slight contrast of cameo effect.
“Deep mirror prooflike (D.M.P.L. or D.P.L., depending on the grading service you use) coins have fields that are nearly devoid of any cartwheel lustre. In addition, the term “cameo” is sometimes used to denote a P-L or proof coin with exceptional contrast. A cameo coin should have mirror fields, and the devices should display mint frost or “cartwheel” with little or no mirror-like reflective qualities.”
NGC is incorrectly grading these coins that should only be deemed “Early Die State”, not “PL”!
-Educated Numismatist!
Ultra High Relief Saint Guardens 2009 is investment when come to PCGS and NGC which is graded MS70 give better premium than raw coins. Since PCGS and NGC has graded with Cameo or proof-like also can have better premium!
It goes without saying that looking at a “Prooflike” UHR and a standard “Matte” finish coin side by side … well … they’re just two different coins. NGC deserves credit for taking the lead in recognizing that objectively this hobby that prides itself on precisely these kinds of distinctions can’t ignore the very significant difference. It’s so obvious that the buying public is already willing to bid premiums as they too can easily see the difference. Time will tell if their exuberance is improperly fueled by misperceptions of rarity, or their guesses are spot on.
NGC absolutely did the right thing by pointing out the distinction early on and helping to define a standard. Once the mint comes clean with their interpretation of the cause it will be part of the issue’s legacy. Though academically interesting, whether these “prooflikes” turn out to be earlier or later issues from working dies will ultimately be unimportant compared with the discovered numbers of examples. This is how surprising rarities are born and what makes the hobby fun and exciting.
Perhaps NGC should desginate and grade “full Matte” examples as well, since the extremes of full matte and prooflike no doubt exceed the “in betweens” in terms of eye appeal in any case. PCGS seems to have totally missed the boat on this one. I wonder how long it will be before they acknowledge the “type”?
By the way, am I the only one surprised that the consistency of finish varies so much between extreme examples of this type, considering the incredible painstaking we are told the Mint took with this product? I bet over the 115,000+ total mintage that the finish of the impressive yet unimportant wooden boxes the coins came in doesn’t vary as much!
Ross
Ross,
I don’t think you get the point! These coins DO NOT fit the definition of “PL”. If you want to know what a “PL” coin would resemble, simply look at the obverse of the American Eagle Gold Proof Coins. Absolutely none of these coins deemed “PL” by NGC have a contrasting cameo appearance. I have some business strike Silver American Eagles (minted prior to 1996) that may qualify for “PL”. They have a reflective field and frosty devices giving them a slight cameo appearance. This would fit the definition of “PL”. NGC is trying to pull strings to gain market share. It is truly a shame when it ends up cheating the collector who inappropriately pays more for a coin that is incorrectly graded!
Richard,
Respectfully, your point of disagreement seems to me to be semantic. These “PL” coins look just like many run of the mill uniformly “shiny” proofs from the 50’s and sixties; a term like “prooflike” for the UHR is completely appropriate in my opinion in comparison to those actual proof coins. These coins exist, and they are different. How would you describe them?
You may just be used to seeing the typically (and more consistently) frosted devices of modern proofs. We have all sorts of descriptives like “cameo”, “deep cameo”, “ultra deep cameo” that no one objects to graders using when splitting hairs describing these coins. It would be incorrect to call them “proofs”, but prooflike? Please don’t tell me you think a “Good” coin looks good! It’s not a perfect world.
The hobby got third party grading because collectors couldn’t always agree on the meaning of vague descriptives. Most would probably agree it’s been a good thing for the most part. We expect (and actually pay) NGC and PCGS to do the job of “judging” our coins. I won’t argue that they’re perfect or that their motives are always pure. I just don’t agree in this instance that they’ve gone too far.
In the final analysis you or I (or NGC for that matter) will not be the arbiters of the debate. Collector’s tastes, judgement, and the marketplace will ultimately decide the issue despite any agency’s or individual’s attempts to manipulate markets or the dialogue, and that’s probably the way it should be. Relax and enjoy the show!
Ross
Ross,
One should consider the meaning of “Early Die State” and compare this to these UHR coins graded “PL” by NGC. The major stumbling block here is that PCGS started the “First Strike” program and NGC faught a lawsuit over the terminology. Hence, NGC cannot use the term “First Strike” and are calling their program “Early Release” (a more accurate term).
NGC cannot label these coins as “First Strike”, but should label them correctly as “Early Die State”. The only contributing factor to this is that these “PL” UHR coins do not appear to have polishing marks from re-polished dies. Hence, these are more correctly “First Strike” coins from the dies. I can see a numismatic premium for a coin carrying this terminology as part of its grade, not based on a program outlining a timeline that costs more to the submitter of the coin. It should be deemed as part of the overall grade.
You need to physically inspect these coins side-by-side in hand! The difference is very subtle and relates to what I have already mentioned. Even the worst examples of these UHR coins have a reflective finish with die polish marks evident. The full 100% of the UHR coins look like the non-cameo brilliant proofs from the 50s and 60s. The defining elements of “PL” are not all there to deem any of these coins as “PL”. They are actually true “First Strike – Early Die State” examples without die polish. That is the difference. They are not prooflike!
Richard, you state:
“…The full 100% of the UHR coins look like the non-cameo brilliant proofs from the 50s and 60s. The defining elements of “PL” are not all there to deem any of these coins as “PL”…”
so … they are proof”like” the brilliant proofs of the 50’s and 60’s but we can’t call them prooflike because they’re not proof”like” the cameo proofs currently produced?
I agree with Mr. Lecce who states…
“A PL [UHR] coin has a definite Proof Like and Shinny Mirror Surface on ALL of the Obverse and Reverse of the coin…In our opinion they fit the standards of Proof in all other aspects. Once you have seen a PL and a NON PL UHR side by side the difference becomes more obvious. A NON Proof Like coin has a satin matte like surface not unlike a standard MS or burnished modern coin.”
Again, you’re taking issue with nomenclature. It seems to me the more valuable point to debate is whether there is a significant enough difference between the NGC declared “PL”’s and the average strikes for NGC to justify “some” special designation. The absence of typically expected polish marks and/or some clarification from the mint confirming the cause as early die strikes would seem to set these coins apart.
I think a third party grading distinction based on a coins surface appearance rather than based on an early submission date is a hell of a lot more significant, but that’s my opinion.
So do the coins themselves justify a special designation based on the actual differences in appearance? NGC seems to think so. The Lecces seem to think so. Perhaps you don’t think so, which is certainly your right to say. I plan to make up my mind at the Baltimore show this week where hopefully there will be sufficient examples to inspect. I’ll also stop by NGC’s booth and get their take and report back.
As I said before though, in the long run the marketplace will decide if the NGC UHR “PL” is a distinction without a difference. Current prices certainly indicate that they’ve gotten people’s attention, but I don’t think it’s fair to jump on NGC because some wise or stupid speculators are knee jerk running amuck as a result. As for me, I choose to reserve my outrage for the Home Shopping guys who sell gold plated quarters to the unwary public!
Ross,
I wish you well at the coin show. You will understand the difference when you investigate the coins, especially with a loupe. I am simply stating facts and what I and others have observed. The coins deemed “PL” by NGC have the original die finish. All others still have the same shiny brilliant appearance, only they have die polish marks. The term “PL” is being used incorrectly by NGC to denote the differences between the coins. NGC should be correctly calling these coins “Early Die State” or “Original Die State” if they want to label the difference within the grade. This is the argument! I trust you will see my point when you investigate at the show. The two experts above could tell a difference, but they do not know the definition of “PL” prooflike in terms of legitimate third party grading. There is a distinction and this is the point that I am making and it is also why PCGS has not graded a single one of these 2009 UHR coins as “PL”.
-Richard!
Richard,
I’ll concede we’re beating a dead horse here, but given that NGC has slabbed over a 1,000 of these coins as “PL” over the past year, what would you honestly suggest at this point to address your concern? What harm is really done in any case by their “broad” use of the term prooflike?
NGC took an initaitive in acknowledging the special circumstance following their observation of a large sample of coins. Without Mint confirmation that the cause is indeed “early die strike”, or some other rationale for a different descriptor, “PL” seems no worse or better a shorthand than alternatives at this point, and to many (myself included) it does seem a reasonable choice. To change it now would only cause further confusion. As far as Nusmismatics goes, there are far worse sins on the books regarding this kind of academic hair splitting (”Mercury” dimes come to mind). I see your point, but just don’t agree it’s that important or that it somehow misleads the unwary to their detriment. You may not like it, but given the vested interests all around, “Prooflike UHR’s” are probably here to stay.
Ross,
Ask them what the definition of PL is. Ask PCGS why they have not graded one of these coins “PL”. This is the prime example of a case in which the term “First Strike” could legitimately be used within the grade of the coin and actually mean something. However, the grading companies started the problem and now cannot use the terminology correctly!
-Richard
Does anyone know where the grade MS70 PL Early Releases for the 2009 UHR Gold Eagle can be found for purchase. I am interested in obtaining this coin for my private collection.
If anyone knows and would rather keep it confidential – please feel free to email me.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Many thanks,
Regards,
Michael
Michael… according to the NGC census for Early Release MS70 Prooflikes, only 7 have been graded so far. If you don’t have to have an early release, there are 600 graded MS70 PL examples. Expect to pay $4,000 +. Some have sold on ebay recently, so check it out.
Richard
I just Returned from Baltimore. I saw a few NGC and PCGS graded coins I would have thought were “prooflike”… very shiny surfaces, though perhaps not uniform enough for the grade. None of these (NGC) coins were actually graded PL though. There may be many PCGS slabs out there that NGC might grade prooflike. If high premiums continue for the PL coins, it seems reasonable that some might break open their PCGS slabs and re-submit to NGC hoping to score a winner. What seemed in short supply to me were the more satiny surface coins like the ones I received directly from the mint. That may mean the the shinier ones are more likely to get graded, or it may mean nothing. The sample size I looked at was too small to be significant in any case. I did try to talk to the NGC folk at the booth about the issue, but folks working the booth were not knowledgeable. The actual graders are off hidden in a room someplace. Guess the jury will be out for awhile on this controversy.
Appreciated BOTH your positions above tremendously. Being BIASED (I have a UHR NGC Early Release * Proof Like *) you encouraged me to send in a few of my IN THE BOX ones, thanks.
As for PCGS well I’m BIASED (since they lost 11 on my $20 saints a few years back [2- 65s, 4- 64s, 3- 63s, and 1- 62] for 11 weeks and that made me terrible awful crazy nervous) so I just BUY their slabs never and send thm anything. The did give me the fickle finger of fate as a reward however.
I have quite a few of the PCGS (even a First Strike) and NGC UHRs and do see a tremendous difference; not to mention the ones in the boxes. Thanks again for your time and trouble spelling out your positions. I was absolutely captivated. Thank YOU both.
Ross,
Thank you for the input from the show. I will definitely keep my eyes open for a true “PL” UHR example. The lone coin I have is graded by PCGS and was one of the first coins shipped out. However, I do not agree with the “First Strike” and “Early Release” jargon. “Early Release” is too vague and “First Strike” can mean a number of things. These companies and the numismatic public need to get back to the basics of grading coins, not labeling something based on shipping time. These UHR coins in question are most representative of the term “First Strike” meaning that the coins were the first coins struck with the dies with the original finish before the dies received routine polishing to continue production with the same type of finish.
All
As an NGC collector society member, I decided to pose my questions on NGC’s blog and I am happy to share their response. Hope this helps the discussion.
Ross
My questions:
The Prooflike designation (PL) for some NGC graded 2009 UHR $20’s is quite controversial on a few website blogs. Would you consider offering some authoritative insight to the community as to why you chose to “create” this designation, why you feel the term “prooflike” was the best or most appropriate term, and how specifically you define the characteristics that distinguish these coins from those without the designation? Thank you very much.
NGC’s (Rick Monthgomery’s) response…
It was quite apparent from the beginning of the Ultra High Relief program in 2009 that there were substantially different looking finishes to the surfaces of these coins. While many exhibited a frosty and satiny finish, there were others that displayed a remarkably “dark”, reflective surface. These were the coins that would be designated “PL” or proof-like by NGC. To qualify for the PL designation, NGC requires that the fields exhibit a pronounced reflectivity on both sides of the coin. One sided PL coins will not receive the designation. Because of the deep concave design, the reflectivity can be challenging to discern, and this is why NGC looks not only at the “blackness” or “darkness” of the fields, but also demands that a clear reflection is noticeable at shorter distances than one would expect for other series of US coins. The distance from the surface that you can realistically expect to capture the reflection may only be a maximum of an inch away before the concavity no longer allows you to see the reflection. Therefore, NGC relies heavily on being able to capture a clear reflection at these shorter distances to still qualify for the PL designation. As with other PL determinations, it is the clarity of the reflection that is key coupled with the fact that both sides must display this reflection. There are many of the Ultra High Relief issues that show prominent reflection on one side or the other. But these can not be deemed PL unless both sides demonstrate the necessary clear reflection.
Ross,
Thanks again for the insight from NGC. I have observed these differences myself. I guess if NGC can certify some business strike statehood quarters PL, then they can use similar characteristics with this UHR coin. However, it does not fit the standard for the grading term and definition. If NGC wants to denote the difference, simply deem these coins as “First Strike” within the grade or designate them with the NGC STAR.
Regarding the hypothesis that the PL designation may be skewed toward early mintage UHR coins: I ordered my coin from the mint in August 2009, and sent it to NGC in September 2009, and it came back MS 70 PL. I has wondered if they “got better at making them” after 8 months of practice!
Steve: Are you interested in selling your early PL? If so eamil me.
Mike- I’ll pass your contact info onto Steve.
Wow… there is a current auction on eBay that our friends the Lecce’s are running with an Early Release MS70 PL … bids have reached $10,000 and the reserve has not yet been met! I understand a premium based on a coin’s appearance but to more than double the price for an already high price (and controversial) MS-70 PL just because it is an “early release”? We are talking about a more than $5000 premium just because the coin is an early release. Again, “Wow”. What can the Lecce’s ‘reserve’ be? Looks like a “speculative bubble” to me. Who would have thought less than a year after the UHR issue of more than 100,000 coins that an early release example could fetch a five figure price? All because of an NGC label?! What ever happened to buy the coin, not the slab? How will catalogs like the Red Book note the price of this coin?
I really can’t believe this … not only have 23 bids pushed this to $17K … THE RESERVE HASN’T BEEN MET YET! On the surface it looks like a case of stupid buyers meet piggy sellers. Though, with less “EARLY RELEASE” prooflike MS70’s than there are 1933 double eagles out there … well … who knows how this will end. All this premium ($ 12,000 over a “standard” MS-70 Prooflike) just for a third party grader Early Release label? True insanity. Fun to watch though.
Ross
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-20-Ultra-High-Relief-NGC-MS-70-EARLY-RELEASE-PL-/160425487170?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Coins_Bullion&hash=item255a1aab42
Ross – or anyone else that cares to comment/explain this to me.
I do not consider myself a “coin collector”. I purchased my first gold coin (a 2008 Proof American Eagle) and the UHR Gold Coin on it’s first day of sale (I ‘d say I was one of the first 15,000) since I made my purchase as soon as I was able to speak to someone from the mint. I think it was around 12:30 pm or so. I made my purchase strictly as a “gold” investment since my primary investments have been stocks. I learned a little about Nusmismatic coins shortly after my first purchase (2008 American Eagle).
I read many articles on the internet trying to decide if I should get the UHR graded (directly from the US Mint) but based on my findings, I thought it was a rip off and chose not to. I now wonder if that was a costly mistake, although I’m not entirely sure about that either. It is obvious to me that there is a problem in the grading of coins in that – each wants to be the “authority”.
That alone makes me very skeptical. I have two questions/comments:
1. If the US Mint sold 115,000 UHR coins, and out of those 115,000 coins – 75,000 or so (give or take) were “graded” by one of the grading authorities – then 40,000 (give or take) coins are “still in the original packaging”. Would not those coins in the “original packaging from the mint” become more valuable especially over time? Who cares about grading? Original Packaging is everything in collecting is it not?????
2. What difference does it make or would it make if I have my UHR coin graded now versus then, if I had sent it directly from the US Mint? The Coin is still encapsulated and untouched.
I appreciated any and all comments as I learn how to make the most of my investments.
Thank You.
Ron
Hi Ron,
Coincidentally, I also purchased a UHR 2009 $20 on the first day, though the mint’s foul ups with shipping resulted in my not receiving it until the “early release” window of the 3rd party graders was closed.
I’m no expert, but I think I can answer your questions.
First of all, you reference trying to decide “if I should get the UHR graded (directly from the US Mint)…”
The Mint only sells coins to dealers and citizens, and does not offer any “grading” services to investors or collectors. The controversy you reference about competition in grading is with regards to THIRD PARTY GRADING SERVICES (i.e. independant of dealers and the mint). Generally only two rise to the TOP of everyone’s lists, Professional Coin Grading Services (PCGS) and Nusmismatic Guarantee Corporation (NGC). Both are recognized as quality operations, and despite frequent criticism, most feel they have brought a standard of objectivity in coin grading to the hobby. Are they perfect? No. Do their pronouncements nonetheless influence prices paid? Absolutely.
Regarding the UHR coin, only NGC has added the term “Prooflike” to their MS69 and MS70 graded coins which satisfy their self defined criteria. See posts above for ad nauseum arguements pro and con about that.
Should you get your coin graded? If you plan to sell it, probably yes. There are costs for grading, but substantial premiums accrue if your coin comes back MS70 or “Prooflike” or especially both. As to “being worth more in the original packaging”, you can always break it out of the slab and put it back in the original capsule box and packaging, but generally coins selling in the aftermarket sell higher and faster in slabs (i.e. graded).
As to your second question… if you’re gonna send it in, sooner is probably better than later, as you’ll reduce the risk of damage (those capsules can pop open, UHR’s are solid gold = soft metal. One drop… ouch! A graded coin is easier to insure (should you want to). Unless you hate looking at slabs (and it sounds like you’re more of an investor than a collector), I would say send it in to NGC and hope it’s a prooflike. an MS70 PL UHR is selling now for $4-5K.
Hope this helps.
Ross
Ross,
Thanks for the information. I did not mean to imply that the US Mint “grades” coins, as I know that is not the case. I was referring to having my coin shipped directly from the Mint to the 3rd party for grading before it was shipped to me. I read online that it must be sent directly from the mint “unopened” to receive a particular rating (First Strike I believe). I don’t know how the 3rd party grading the coin would rate a coin as “First Strike” anyway because as you know – there were numerous delays with the shipment of the UHR. In addition, “How” would they determine where to set the limit of a “First Strike” rating? Is it the first 10,000, 25,000, 50,000 coins?? I just don’t get it. It seems like a bit of a Con game ) and I’ve read similar thoughts online prior to my purchase which was why I did not have it sent to a 3rd party.
What difference it makes is beyond me because if it is really important, why wouldn’t the Mint just “serialize” the coins based on mint date or something to “Prove” that it was one of the First Strike Coins (1 of 10,000 or something). Even a serialized Certificate of Authenticity of sorts. That way – there would be ZERO chance for it to be disputed by a 3rd party. Then grade as they do in addition which would then make it more or less valuable based on the criteria for the grading. They way I see it is – if your a novice (as I was and still are to a lesser degree), you wouldn’t be screwed out of a significant potential premium simply by not sending it to a grading service because of ignorance to the “system”.
Then comes the question of the dealers. Don’t dealers get coins before the general public release date? How do First Strike Coins factor into that equation? Seems like technically – the general public would have access to “VERY FEW” if any “First Strike” coins if that were the case, which also would mean that the deals would have a monopoly of sorts on Premium Coins. Again, sounds like a bit of a racket.
This all of course is based on my interpretation of “First Strike” and how the system works.
I would hope there is much more to it and alot more oversight to make it fair for all collectors/investors, but knowing how people can be swayed by greed, I unfortunately have little confidence in the system until I know much more about it. Same thing goes for stocks. Manipulation happens every day.
So my question is this:
Since the coin was shipped to me directly from the mint and not to a 3rd party for grading, am I correct to assume that I cannot get a First Strike rating for my coin even if it were one of the first 15-20,000? Also – I assume I can always get it graded (ie. there is no time limit on grading a coin) but does that have ANY bearing on what the grading would be? Again, not to be a conspiracy theorist but — If I were a grading company who had say — 10 coins with a MS70 grading, my coins would be way more valuable with fewer MS70 coins on the market. So chances of me getting a MS70 grading becomes much less (regardless of whether or not it really is a “PERFECT” coin). Correct?
And once I send the coin out – there is a ZERO guarantee that I get the “EXACT” same coin back. Also Correct??? Where as – right now – I have complete control of the coin and it’s condition and value (to a lesser degree). About the best I can do is take a high resolution picture of the coin as proof of it’s condition prior to shipping it out.
Thoughts?
By the way – even though you may not be an expert – I do appreciate your insight as you may have more experience than I do. I am simply trying to gain as much information so as not to make any mistakes in the future with regard to coin collecting/investing.
Thanks again,
Ron
Well, you have asked alot of questions and raise many points. I’m not aware of any direct submissions from the Mint to the graders. They just manufacture coins and do not generally participate in aftermarket activities. They are not even forthcoming as to explanations (re: prooflike, are they really early die strikes as some allege?)
As to Early Release or First Strike, this is an invention of the graders based solely on how soon after a coin’s (mint announced) release it is received at the grader’s office for grading. Not sure on this one and it might vary by grader, but I think the rule is 30 days from the coin’s release date. Any coin received by them for grading within that time is eligible for a “First Strike” (PCGS) or “Early Release” (NGC) notation on the slab label. After that window is closed, that’s it. This is why there will only EVER BE 7 (or is it 8?) MS70 UHR Prooflike “EARLY RELEASE” $20 coins. You can submit raw (mint packaged) coins from now until doomsday, and some might grade MS70 prooflike, but Early Release is done on that coin.
Joke of the UHR is that the mint announced it had been producing them and had a “stockpile” of thousands before the official order date. Then they started shipping somewhat randomly. There is absolutely no substantive meaning behind “Early release” in terms of “minting order”… just that the coin received in the hands of the submitter was sent in “in time”. The Horror is that the current coin on ebay is up to $18,000 when last I looked… a $14K premium JUST FOR THE EARLY RELEASE DESIGNATION. It is an obvious violation of the often heard maxim “Buy the coin, not the Slab” and to my mind makes no sense. But ultimately the market makes its own rules.
Give up on expecting the mint to serial number coins. They are a part of the government beauracracy remember! I think they do what they want with little input or consideration for rank and file collectors. As to special rules for dealers, I don’t think they dare (with the exception of bullion coins they ONLY sell through dealers).
As to your concern about “switched coins by graders” I’ve never heard the charge levied, and if it were ever even slightly suspected, it would kill their business model in a New York Minute! Without the trust of the community they are dead. One way to minimize your concern over this would be to submit your coins at a show where you can pick them up the same day. Such express services carry hefty premiums, but it is an option available to you.
Some other good reasons to embrace grading. It gives you “the hard number” (MS-whatever) that allows you to know the market value of your goods by checking in any current periodical. The investor in you should like that. It also relieves you heirs of guess work should you “check out” unexpectedly and they have no idea about the value of “Dad’s coins”. I’m sure many a dealer has taken advantage of a seller’s ignorance of grading, generally the most important value consideration for a given coin.
I’ll finish just by saying what every collector/investor has heard the big guys say: Learn as much as you can. Educate yourself with books, the internet, and especially by going to shows, examining a lot of coins and talking with folks. Don’t invest or collect without making some commitment to self education. It’s too easy to make costly mistakes.
Ross
Ross,
Thanks again for you input. You make a few noteworthy points and I do plan to continue educating myself. I guess at this point in time, there is more to gain by having coins graded than not however I still have a huge problem someone placing labels on a coin that cannot in any way be authenticated but command a premium. Something sounds suspicious and almost criminal about that.
I personally believe that my purchase receipt from the Mint should carry the most weight regarding proof of my coins “Early Release”. I know that can be debated as well but no more or less than anything else regarding a coins value can be debated.
Again, thanks for you inputs and best regards to you and your collecting/investing endeavours.
Ron
Wow…
http://cgi.ebay.com/2009-20-Ultra-High-Relief-NGC-MS-70-EARLY-RELEASE-PL-/160425487170?cmd=ViewItem&pt=Coins_Bullion&hash=item255a1aab42
is over … $30,100 for the MS70 Prooflike EARLY RELEASE (one of 8 coins). Unreal.
Ross
Ron,
Concerning your comment “…I personally believe that my purchase receipt from the Mint should carry the most weight regarding proof of my coins “Early Release”…”
The graders would have to believe that you didn’t “switch coins”… i.e take one already graded MS70 PL out of it’s slab, place it in your original mint packaging, and send it off with your receipt… that would turn a $5000 coin into a $30,000 (apparently) coin instantly creating #9 MS70 PL EARLY RELEASE. So you see why a receipt alone can’t be used. Their rule insures that on the day THEY are looking at (and grading) a coin, it has been in the public domain less than 30 days.
I greatly dislike the Early Release designation as it has nothing to do with the coin itself, only it’s shipping logistics. A perfect, sharply struck coin from a “new” die pair can occur any time throughout a coin’s production year, not just in the first month. Without some direct connection with the coin’s condition or appearance, I feel the grading companies are frankly “out of line” by creating scarcity based on “their slab” rather than the coin itself. The “Prooflike” designation’s validity is at least based on the coin, not the slab.
Hey, maybe the graders should issue slabs without any coins in them at all? Then they can create rarities any time they like! Really this kind of thing makes them no better than the “Coin Vault” guys with their “faux rare” gold plated quarters.
As the recent MS70 PL EARLY RELEASE auction shows, it certainly fuels irrational speculation on the part of both dealers and investor/collectors alike. One good thing is it does separate cash from idiots who play the game (though it rewards the sellers). I only wish the ANA would weigh in on issues like this. It’s not just Wall Street that could use some regulation.
Ross
The fact is that none of these coins have been designated as proofs by the United States Mint. The claimed “variations” in these coins, which will never see circulation, only serves to provide profit for those seeking to make a quick profit on this coin. The truth about the coin is that only 115,000 plus were produced, and more are not going to be made. Therefore, it makes this coin an extreme rarity. This coin is being sought by collectors, world wide. A boxed coin, in it’s original plastic holder, with book, will, in the long run, fetch more than a coin that has been taken out of it’s original holder, by any “grading” organization. Grading organizations is one of the biggest farces heaped upon coin collectors. It’s simply an opportunity to create an unnecesary middleman. Coins directly from the mint, in their original holders, do not need to be “graded.” However, grading organizations are beneficial for older coins that have been in circulation. Again, anything that comes directly from the mint, particularly in a special box, with a special book, needs to be left alone. Every “grading” company that cracked the original plastic holder for “grading” ought to be shot. It was an unnecessary and stupid thing to do, and will only serve to lessen the value of the coin. Ten to twenty or more years from now, you’ll see these coins autioned by Christy’s or some other notable aution house. You will see that those coins, left in their origninal holders, with original box and book, will fetch the highest prices. Graders be damned, because you’ve damaged original 2009 Ultra High Relief Double Eagles so you could whore yourselves out for a quick buck. You could care less about real collecting.
One other comment, is that what happens to the original box and booklet once the “graders” get their grubby little hands on them? They’ll sell them to the same people they sold their graded coin to. These people are just as evil as Wall Street, the insurance industry (AIG) and the international bankers. Grading organizations need to be shut down. It’s a fraud.