Gold Kennedy flaws...?

Well, the Kennedys finally arrived Friday. They're pretty coins, to be sure, but all of them appear to have flaws, and I'm trying to decide what to do about it.

First, disclosure/statement-of-purpose: I bought five with the notion that I might flip at least three of them, helping to subsidize one or two that I would keep. I was intrigued by MCM's $1350 offer.

The first three I opened were quite similar -- no glaring flaws at first glance, but a filmy area in a circular pattern around the obverse, visible only under certain angles of lighting. No big reverse problems. I was starting to wonder if it was present on all coins of this issue, but the fourth and fifth coins didn't display it -- the fourth had a similar effect in a different area, and the fifth has an out-and-out smear in the left obverse field, looks like an imprint from a cotton glove with some grease on it.

It's easy to find flaws under strong oblique light and high magnification. I don't know whether these are 69s or something lower, but I'm pretty sure none of them would make 70.

So, my dilemma (trilemma?):

I could send them back to the mint for exchange. I'd presumably have quite a wait for the replacements, I'd miss any opportunity to get First Strike grading (I don't care, but the irrational market does), and it seems likely that the current "gotta-have-it-now" premiums will have evaporated by then.

I could send them back for a refund. I'd lose no money other than shipping, but it feels kind of pointless -- and I would like to have at least one nice example.

I could send them to MCM; I'd happily take $1350 each for them. But I saw a comment that MCM reserves the right to refuse and return them -- and if they did that, I'd be past the window for returning them to the Mint, most likely. I don't know how large the risk is that MCM would reject them.

I'll post some images shortly. Here's an overview of the field:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oh, and another horn for the polylemma: I could put 'em up on eBay, but that would likely get me less of a premium than MCM, and expose me to open-ended risk of returns or fraud.

 

Here's the first one I opened (at the top of the overview).




That little obverse smear below Y is part of the smearing I mentioned above. I'll post pictures highlighting the rest of it later.

 

Here's the big obverse smear on the fifth one. I used strong oblique light and stretched the contrast to bring out the (mis)feature.

 

...and here's the circular smear on the first one's obverse, lit from two different directions to show how its appearance shifts (a bit like luster). Again, contrast stretched for improved visibility.



That's all the images for tonight; time for bed. I welcome opinions and suggestions.

 

Hmm I looked at my one and did not see anything like this. If your sure that it is not on the holder then I am not sure what to do. I will look at mine again later. Here are my pictures but they are not as good as yours.

 

If they were mine, I'd send them back. I could care less about the "First Strike" designation.

Chris

 

+1

 

ishould have some coming today as soon as i get them off to pcgs with a 81 type 2 dime

 

I am not sure how I feel quite honestly. The mint has never, ever guaranteed a 70. I dislike the idea of people ordering from the mint just to flip the coins if they are 70's, and returning anything less. However, a couple of these have defects I would consider out of bounds for "normal" coins, so I wouldn't think badly of sending those back.

So, just personally, I would send back the coins that a normal collector would not accept. I just do not think its right to send back a coin just because a TPG would not grade it a 70, when the mint has never promised a 70 coin. That is just my opinion though.

I would say, though, that I have all of the respect in the world for JeffB, and this is simply my personal viewpoint.

 

Try selling them to a dealer locally

 

Well I had to come home and fix the truck. I now am 6 beers in and not really wanting to do close ups. I have a big next two days so I guess I will just have to wait.

In summation - this was a coin I wanted, I wanted bad, I saved for it, and I have it. Labels I could care less.

Rock on! Oh by the way, I added 8 40% halves this week in my CRH adventure. The odd part was 2 of them were 76s. I have only found one of those in the past. The wife found them both....she is lucky that way.

 

I sent my five to pcgs today other then a tiny dot on one rim I couldn't find a blemish. I would sell them now on eBay before 9/3

 

I really do appreciate that. But I can't claim completely noble motives in this particular instance. I wanted to take a chance on getting into the game early, and being able to make some slight profit as a result. I was ready to break even, or simply to hold the coins if things went south quickly. I did think about slabbing them, but it wasn't my first or second choice; with the initial population numbers so heavily weighted toward 70s, I really don't see how the slab market in these will support itself over time, and I just don't have much respect for that corner of the slabbing game anyhow.

But these coins really were a disappointment, even to my not-terribly-discerning eye. I don't expect gunk on my proofs, and these appeared to be five-for-five gunky. If I'm just being overly picky, and all proofs have some degree of this filming, I'd like to know about it before I go to the expense of returning them -- but I don't think that's the case.

...well, I didn't. (Good thing I hadn't gone ahead and hit "Post Reply"!)

I just finished going back through many of my proof $5 commemoratives, including one NGC PF69. All of them showed this same sort of haze, to varying degrees. I don't have a lot of PF70 gold to compare -- okay, I don't have any -- but I'm beginning to think that this is actually par for the course. It's not really in your face; in fact, it's barely visible in normal lighting. I'm actually a bit proud of myself for being able to bring it out in the photos.

I'm going to see if I can get some comparable shots of the PF69 through its slab, although it'll be hard to compare optical effects behind reflective plastic. I'll also shoot a few of the raw proofs. If nothing else, it may serve as a useful benchmark for others trying to figure out "what's normal" on gold proofs.

 

didnt send my dime they said i would have to send it in seperately

 

0/5 on PR70 thru pcgs I am very disappointed

 

All 69's??? That's bad...

 

Yeah it is, not even sure how it's possible they looked perfect.

 

A lot of people "could care less" about labels on this thread. Umm, I think you mean couldn't.. haha