Wedding Sets

trout · October 07, 2016, 10:08:24 AM

I think that the people at NGC have more pressing issues as Hurricane Mathew bears down on them than worrying about getting my coins graded.
Here's hoping that they stay safe and its business as usual in a few days :ok:

trout · October 10, 2016, 08:57:20 PM

This is an example of an extremely high grade Non Wedding set 2006 5c coin at MS68+
It is easy to tell that it isn't a wedding set coin by the texture of the fields, If the Wedding set coins were not mixed up as they are now with the business strike coins I imagine that I would have had to pay a hell of a lot more than $33 for this coin because it would probably be equal or single finest graded :ok:
For its type this is an absolutely stunning coin :yahoo:

trout · October 11, 2016, 07:03:39 AM

r9453 Wrote:

QuoteYou are correct, including the wedding sets (2002 - 2009) distorts the results.

According to the proposition, "The more coins you send over, the more 70s you'll get", if you sent enough coins for the other years then the MS70 populations would rise (and presumably match the wedding set years) but I'm not sure about that. There is a thing called diminishing returns and I doubt they made enough coins to produce that many 70s.

The chances of submitting batches of coins for the years other than the 2002-2009 Wedding set years to produce the same amount of MS69 and MS70 coins is extremely remote.
The thinking that "The more you submit, the more MS70's you will get" using coins other than the wedding sets and now the "In come the dollars cents" sets is completely flawed because for all practical purposes MS70 coins simply don't exist or is highly unlikely that they exist in coins other than the Wedding Sets/in come the dollars cents sets.
I think that MR Cotton has done me a favour by submitting the Wedding Sets "En Mass" because by doing so the population figures for coins graded MS68-MS70 that are the same coins found in the Wedding Sets are ridiculously out of proportion to any of the other coins in the decimal sets.
This can only help to support my case with PCGS that the Wedding Set coins are indeed a completely different coin to the rest of the business strikes and should be attributed differantly, The grading results that they themselves have provided proves this without a shadow of doubt :good:

Will PCGS take any notice that NGC have now attributed these as SP and also look at the highly disproportionate results for the coins that they themselves have graded in the Wedding Set years and make the correct call to attribute them as SP as well ??
Only time will tell But the longer they leave it the harder it will become for them to rectify their mistakes by attributing these coins as MS/Business strikes.

Surely PCGS should realise by now the evidence is overwhelming that the Wedding Set coins ARE completely different and a superior strike to ALL the other Business strike coins

RAM didn't call these as a "Specimen" set But they Did describe them differently to the other Mint set and circulating coins at the time.
And they were Minted as per a Specimen or even Proof coin as well.
Using the lame reasoning that RAM described these as a "Gem Uncirculated Finish" so they can't be described as Specimens doesn't hold any water Because "Gem Uncirculated" isn't a coin type it is a GRADE and the coins themselves are a VERRY different finish to the Business strike coins from the same years.

trout · October 12, 2016, 03:31:02 AM

The results are in from my last Wedding set submission, Here are the numbers and I will do a proper breakdown tomorrow evening when I get home.

1x SP67 :cray: 2004 $1
1x SP68

2005 50c
25x SP69

15x SP70 :yahoo:

My best results were from 2006
5c SP70
10c SP69
20c SP70
50c SP70
$1 SP70
$2 SP70

r9453 · October 12, 2016, 04:08:43 AM

Quote from: 'trout' pid='99836' dateline='1476205262'15x SP70 :yahoo:

Fifteen! :yahoo: indeed!

trout · October 12, 2016, 08:06:53 AM

Quote from: 'r9453' pid='99837' dateline='1476207523'
Quote from: 'trout' pid='99836' dateline='1476205262'15x SP70 :yahoo:

Fifteen! :yahoo: indeed!

Forty out of forty two coins grading SP69 or better gives a pretty good indication of just how good the coins in the Wedding Sets are :good:
It is No wonder that Dealers and Canny collectors have been sending these type of coins to PCGS knowing that they would be graded as High MS to boost their profits/registry sets over the years.

Triggersmob · October 12, 2016, 08:35:47 AM

Wow, nearly a full set of perfect coins in 2006.
well done.

trout · October 12, 2016, 09:15:11 AM

Quote from: 'Triggersmob' pid='99842' dateline='1476223547'Wow, nearly a full set of perfect coins in 2006.
well done.

HeHeHe
I cheated and sent 2x 2006 sets away to get those results

I only sent 1 set of the 2003 coins away and they all graded SP70 except for the 5c and $2 coins that graded SP69 thought :good:

Unicorn · October 12, 2016, 12:48:51 PM

Great work Trout!!! :good:

I remember when AJ showed me some of his wedding sets, they are certainly in a league of their own.

trout · October 13, 2016, 03:57:38 AM

Goldseeker · October 13, 2016, 07:21:08 PM

Um, can't see any photos at all for any of the above.

trout · October 13, 2016, 10:35:15 PM

Quote from: 'Goldseeker' pid='99915' dateline='1476348668'Um, can't see any photos at all for any of the above.

That is strange , They were there earlier.
Maybe NGC are doing some site maintenance as usually when you do a cert look up you get the images as well.
Not to worry I will post the images on the wedding set images thread when they get here :ok:

trout · October 14, 2016, 01:53:09 AM

The images are now back Bruce :ok:

Goldseeker · October 14, 2016, 09:45:39 AM

All is good now, thankyou.

trout · October 14, 2016, 10:46:26 AM

I have noticed on my Shipping invoice from NGC that this 42 coin submission has been sent in two separate packages with different tracking numbers.
This is fantastic as if they had been sent in the one package I may have had dramas with Customs at this end :yahoo:
The postage was also still Way cheaper than it would have cost me for the same submission from PCGS as well :good: