ANACS Partners With OSV To Certify Double Mint Sets-1947-58

The full press release is available on ANACS site. For your information folks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Really not a fan of their "composite grade" they are gonna use on them

 

How can you certify sets when you cannot even verify that the coins that it contains belong to the set?

 

Hey, Coin show radio!!!! I love listening to you alll =) and I agree, it does not make any cents to me

 

Hi! Thanks for listening!

 

Very good question.

Got a link to that press release I can't find it anywhere on the ANACS website.

 

Here is the coin week article:
http://www.coinweek.com/dealers-com...-verification-certification-double-mint-sets/

 

Though I had never heard of them before that seems to be what OSV says they can do.

 

Can we say gimmick? I too think the "composit grade" is preposterous and is ripe for the playing of games, but the idea that this entity can guarantee a set is completely original, containing only the original from-the-mint coins is wholly ridiculous imo.

 

I think it is too, but we will see if the market embraces it.

I've been wondering what took them so long. ANACS originally announced they were going to be doing this almost three years ago. At that time they were planning on using holders similar to what NGC does for the GSA softpacks. with the coins staying in the boards. I didn't think that would fly because you wouldn't be able to see both sides of the coin. The hard multi-coin holders are a better way to go. (I think this may be the first ANACS multi-coin holders. I wonder if it will encourage them to enter the multi-coin holder market that PCGS and NGC both toyed with and abandoned. I think there is still a market out there for multi-coin holders.)

 

Somewhere in the video they imply that OSV does microscopic analysis of the board. The FAQ doesn't say...

http://www.osv.expert/about.aspx

http://www.osv.expert/FAQ.aspx#q5

They also indicate the coins are individually graded (and those grades will be available on the ANACS site) and then the composite grade uses a formula developed by an OSV consultant...

(edit to add)

 

Mike,

I think that "double mint set toning" is well understood and established enough of a thing to make this pretty easy to determine. Of course if the coins were ever dipped, all bets are off. I have a rooting interest here. I bought an entire 1956 double mint set spread across two consecutive lot numbers at a Stacks/Bowers sale at an ANA auction a year back, all in NGC plastic. I'd like to have them uni-slabbed, but not by ANACS. I'll wait for NGC to "me too" the idea.

 

I don't know if basing authentication decisions on toning is such a good idea. There is nothing that verifies the origin of the coins, and so how can you certify the coin as a Mint Set coin?

 

I guess the whole point is that ANACS is representing that they can know. In my case with my NGC slabbed set with consecutive numbers from the same original NGC invoice number, a named collection provenance on the slabs, catalog listing as to their source, the matching S/B invoice, and typical mint set toning (from the cardboard and colored paper - it's a unique thing), the evidence compounds.

This is a recommended topic to discuss with Matt after the summer break. BTW, I just bought my first Matt Dinger coins from one of his eBay auctions - a sweet 1887 BU British shilling and a 1952 Finland Olympic 500 Markaa.

 

When you've studied "double mint set toning" enough, it is not ridiculous at all. It really requires no guesswork. If the unique toning is there, it's a double mint set coin. No question at all in my mind. But yes, it takes lots and lots of experience and study as a specialty. I applaud ANACS for taking this on. I hope NGC does as well. PCGS? "Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a ... "

 

Okay... now please go back and reread what I actually said; do you wish to rephrase?

Let's see now... did you happen to notice the "composit grade"? What is to stop someone, as I've done many, many times myself, from cherrying coins from one set and placing into another, now for the purpose of upping the composit grade? This approach to grading the entire set is ripe for abuse and it's as simple as that. Oh, and "if the unique toning" isn't there, does this mean a genuinely original set will be bagged? If these esteemed experts will rely only on such a trivial and at times meaningless qualifier to determine the originality of a set, the problem is compounded.

Perhaps I should dig a few photos out for you, and see if you can tell me which came from original double mint sets and which did not. Something tells me your hit rate would be far from acceptable, and for the simple fact that the toning, indeed common to such sets, is not something found on or unique to all.

 

Which is utter BS, and is why this is nothing more than a gimmick.

 

In all honesty it's just a terrible idea the potential abuse inst even the biggest problem with it. The best coins get dragged down and the worst ones get elevated.

 

Then how, prey tell, do you account for the all too frequent auction catalog listings (by the dozens) with phrasing like "this piece shows the distinctive double mint set toning desired by specialists"? It is not at all an uncommon phrasing, or do Heritage and Stack's/Bowers own a monopoly on it? Pffft!

I agree with you on the composite grading aspect - sheer folly. But being able to tell a DMS coin from another coin, while a learned art and science, is nonetheless done quite regularly.

 

So is everything that someone else knows or can do that you don't or can't ALWAYS "utter BS", or is it just this one? Inquiring minds want to know.

What has always puzzled me is the fact that having the set unopened in the original cardboard bringing a huge premium seems to violate "Coin Law #7" - "Buy the coin, not the holder". Just like many numismatic "old bromides", it's pretty much bull.