Specimen or Not, Wedding Set coins

[trout]

OK, after licking my wounds from my last failure to get PCGS to attribute and recognise the Wedding Set coins as either Proof Like or Specimen strikes I am ready to step into the breach again.
Regardless of the many emails and documentation I have sent them regarding the minting process that included polished blanks and extra pressure used when striking these coins I still failed in my last "sortie" to get these coins correctly attributed.
I know many of you think I am doing a Don Keota and am simply  fighting Windmills with this , But I do feel strongly about this and will persist with my efforts regardless.

PCGS prides itself on grading a coin for what it is and just because the RAM didn't call the Wedding Sets a Specimen set is irrelevant.
Even Murphy's Dog can tell that there is a profound difference between a Mint set/Circulating coin and a coin from a Wedding Set so why can't PCGS grow some Balls and call them for what they really are ?  

Any assistance with my Quest would be greatly appreciated.:yahoo:
If you can think of a valid reason why these coins should not be attributed for what they are , Say your piece in this thread :ok:

[Unicorn]

'Tis Don, 'tis good .......



I bet AJ will be Sancho! I can't decide whether to be the horse or the ass ........ probably the latter.

[trout]

Jesus Mate, I nearly wet myself laughing at that post.
I am still laughing as I type  this:wavemulticolor:

[Goldseeker]

I wish I could help but slabbing and grading is way over my head.

Goodluck on your crusade.

[autocoupler]

Any assistance with my Quest would be greatly appreciated.:yahoo:

I don't collect these, but they sure are pure.
PCGS are obviously not listening, so from whom would they seek advice? If that was known some progress may be had. From recent communication with them, I know they reference one of our more prominent publications when it comes to varieties at least.

[runway]

PCGS treat the specimen old wedding set coins as just another submission but they will grade high
Who should we direct questions to from PCGS for an enquiry about anything?

[trout]

In the latest edition of Macdonald's on page 246  describes the Wedding Sets up to 2009 as being a "Specimen Finish"  and lists the years from 2002-2009 under the heading of "Following coins are all Specimen Quality".
Also when you look at the PCGS population reports for these years you will notice that the grades are higher for these coins than most other years.

I have a spare copy of the 22nd edition of Macca's and am thinking of sending it along with a mint set and wedding set from the same year in their original packaging to David Hall at PCGS.
This way he can view the coins in hand and the difference in the finish for these coins will be blindingly obvious to him.
With the multitude of different coins from around the World that PCGS grades they are probably blissfully unaware that the wedding set coins are a different coin type than the circulating coins for the years 2002-2009,  I am hopeful that I will be able to enlighten them.
I will include any documentation I can find that shows that these coins have a completely different finish to the circulation coins and that they are indeed Specimen coins .

Most Australian collectors consider that these coins are Specimens and it is about time that PCGS did as well and that they grade them accordingly .

If anyone has any documentation that can assist me in this endeavour it would be greatly appreciated :good:
The Yarralumla 50c coin has been attributed as a Specimen coin now.
Well done to whoever championed that change :yahoo:

http://www.pcgs.com/pop/valueview.aspx?s=569220

[JeffH]

trout,
You are like a terrier with a bone. Don't give up.

[trout]

trout,
 You are like a terrier with a bone. Don't give up.

Not a chance Mate, BTW that dog has weird eyes :angel:

I have just sent yet another email to PCGS regarding the wedding sets.
Here is the content of it, I will post their reply when I get it :ok:

Hello There,
I have a few Wedding set coins that I intend to submit for grading and I would like them to be attributed as "Specimen" strikes rather than  be given an MS grading.
I have attached the content of an email that I received from Dion Buck at the Royal Australian Mint and a scan of the relevant page from the latest edition of A pocked guide to Australian Coins and banknotes by Greg McDonald to support this.
If needed I can send you a 2002 Mint set and a 2002 wedding set in their original packaging so that you can see for yourself that the coins contained in the Wedding set are indeed a "Specimen Strike" and are totally different to the Circulating coin finish.
I have noticed that PCGS Now recognise that the Yarralumla 50 cent coin has is "Specimen" strike and would be most grateful if PCGS could look into attributing the wedding set coins appropriately as well .
I am looking forward to your reply in this matter.

Best regards
James Hudson
"Trout"

These are the attachments I sent.

Hi Trout,

Our term for the wedding set finish up until 2009 (i think that was when it finished as gem and went to proof in 2010) was Gem Uncirculated. Other parties may refer to this finish as specimen, this term is subject to a little variance in meaning across the industry but is mostly approriate i guess, but I'll explain the nature of our term Gem Uncirculated.

The dies for these coins were polished to the same quality as proof dies, however no frosting was applied - to maintain the uncirculated appearance. The proof polishing process is extremely labour intensive, done by hand with tiny tools under binocular microscopes. The blanks used for Gem Uncirculated coins were proof blanks, of a higher quality than circ/unc blanks. The blank preparation process for proof coins was also followed, which uses a variety of techniques to purify, or clear the blank surface of defects (pickling, burnishing, heat treatment etc.). Finally the coins were struck as per proof coin process, on a proof press, hand loaded and inspected, struck four times precisely, and then encapsulated. These coins were absolutely unique, and while I never got around to asking all purchasers, I had a pretty strong inkling that more collectors bought this set, than wedding go-ers. Why are you getting this message? you partook in a thread that had some sort of technical fuzz out last year, and I have never been able to read it, or reply until now. I'll either delete or lock the thread but i wanted to share, as the Gem finish was one of my favourites!

Thanks, dion.

[kchan1111]

Try your luck with NGC? Then perhaps they might follow?

[notcb]

Trout,  

Could it be that PCGS are reluctant to reclassify 2002 to 2009 as SP?

This would mean (potentially)  8 by 6 = 48 x total mintage,   different coins to be reclassified.

It was different with the Yarralumla 50 cents as there was only a maximum of 2000 coins ever likely to require re-classification.

Cheers

Peter  (notcb)

[runway]

trout,
 You are like a terrier with a bone. Don't give up.

Not a chance Mate, BTW that dog has weird eyes :angel:

I have just sent yet another email to PCGS regarding the wedding sets.
Here is the content of it, I will post their reply when I get it :ok:

Hello There,
I have a few Wedding set coins that I intend to submit for grading and I would like them to be attributed as "Specimen" strikes rather than  be given an MS grading.
I have attached the content of an email that I received from Dion Buck at the Royal Australian Mint and a scan of the relevant page from the latest edition of A pocked guide to Australian Coins and banknotes by Greg McDonald to support this.
If needed I can send you a 2002 Mint set and a 2002 wedding set in their original packaging so that you can see for yourself that the coins contained in the Wedding set are indeed a "Specimen Strike" and are totally different to the Circulating coin finish.
I have noticed that PCGS Now recognise that the Yarralumla 50 cent coin has is "Specimen" strike and would be most grateful if PCGS could look into attributing the wedding set coins appropriately as well .
I am looking forward to your reply in this matter.

Best regards
James Hudson
"Trout"

These are the attachments I sent.

Hi Trout,

Our term for the wedding set finish up until 2009 (i think that was when it finished as gem and went to proof in 2010) was Gem Uncirculated. Other parties may refer to this finish as specimen, this term is subject to a little variance in meaning across the industry but is mostly approriate i guess, but I'll explain the nature of our term Gem Uncirculated.

The dies for these coins were polished to the same quality as proof dies, however no frosting was applied - to maintain the uncirculated appearance. The proof polishing process is extremely labour intensive, done by hand with tiny tools under binocular microscopes. The blanks used for Gem Uncirculated coins were proof blanks, of a higher quality than circ/unc blanks. The blank preparation process for proof coins was also followed, which uses a variety of techniques to purify, or clear the blank surface of defects (pickling, burnishing, heat treatment etc.). Finally the coins were struck as per proof coin process, on a proof press, hand loaded and inspected, struck four times precisely, and then encapsulated. These coins were absolutely unique, and while I never got around to asking all purchasers, I had a pretty strong inkling that more collectors bought this set, than wedding go-ers. Why are you getting this message? you partook in a thread that had some sort of technical fuzz out last year, and I have never been able to read it, or reply until now. I'll either delete or lock the thread but i wanted to share, as the Gem finish was one of my favourites!

Thanks, dion.

What's the email address you sent this to?

[trout]

Trout,  

Could it be that PCGS are reluctant to reclassify 2002 to 2009 as SP?

This would mean (potentially)  8 by 6 = 48 x total mintage,   different coins to be reclassified.

It was different with the Yarralumla 50 cents as there was only a maximum of 2000 coins ever likely to require re-classification.

Cheers

Peter  (notcb)

All PCGS have to do is create new coin identifying numbers to accommodate the SP graded coins and keep the existing numbers for the MS coins.
They do this on pretty much a daily basis as new or different coins come in for grading, So it really isn't that much of a big deal.

I doubt that PCGS would be concerned about being "overwhelmed" with a demand from collectors to re classify their coins because they know as well as we do that most collectors are simply too lazy to bother or the shipping expenses would deter most of them even if a free reconsideration was offered.
The Upside for PCGS is that may encourage new memberships by doing this, at the very least they will create an increased demand for their grading services from collectors that want their Wedding set coins graded accordingly.
As far as the set registry goes it should remain unaffected as I imagine both MS and SP coins would be acceptable for the various sets and Nothing would change.

I am Not trying to rewrite history here , I am simply trying to get a particular coin type to be recognised by PCGS and to be graded accordingly.

[trout]

Try your luck with NGC? Then perhaps they might follow?

I have a membership with NGC but have only had about 40-50 coins graded by them.
As PCGS is my preferred TPG and I have had over 500 coins graded by them that is where my efforts will be targeted.
I have emailed a couple of prominent and well respected Australian Numismatist's and have asked them to send PCGS an email to support this request and I am hoping that this will help to sway PCGS's decision :angel:
Some of Australia's finest Numismatist's are members here and it would be of immense help if they could send PCGS an email  supporting
this request as well :angel:
If this is done as a group effort it will have a far better chance of success than just one voice in the wilderness :ok:

[duggee27]

well trout all you may need is a signature .... :angel:

https://www.ngccoin.com/news/article/5126/Ed-Harbuz/?utm_source=Marketo&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=NGC%20eNews%20February%202016&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonuK%2FNZKXonjHpfsX%2B6e0qWrHr08Yy0EZ5VunJEUWy2YcDTtQ%2FcOedCQkZHblFnVoOTK2%2BWroNoqcP