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

That may be the "point." With enough sets to go through someone may get a composite grade of 67 or higher due to the toning boost.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I disagree that Double Mint Set toning is distinguishable.

I am familiar with this toning, and have spent a lot of time studying it, but I don't think that toning is something subjective enough to use as a validation key for a coin.

Too many artificially toned coins out there... Mint Set toning is an aspect of storage as well as source. How are you going to verify it?

 

Ha ha. I see what you did there. Double entendre on the word "point". Excellent. Actually, the grading aspect can go away completely as far as I care. I don't do registries, never will. But having a DMS verification is worth it all by itself to me.

 

Are you denying major auction catalogs frequently represent coins as double mint set coins, Mike? If so, you need to read more catalogs, my good friend. I swear, man, if Heritage and S/B can do it, AND THEY DO, so can other people. I've never ascribed abilities to major auction houses that others can't have. And I never will. I maintain a library of now over 30 linear feet of major auction catalogs and virtually every one has "double mint set" coins described in it. For the most recent years, all those coins are slabbed.

 

Unfortunately, you, me, Kurt, or anyone else here (Any ANACS guys members?) won't have anything to do with the determination. If the folks that do say they can and the "market" agrees, it's a done deal.

 

I'm a "paleo-member" of ANACS. I haven't sent them a single coin since the "small slab" era, and won't.

 

First, sir; an inquiring mind must first come to an understanding of what has actually been said. Please allow me to quote myself....

"...but the idea that this entity can guarantee a set is completely original, containing only the original from-the-mint coins is wholly ridiculous..."

I don't care how learned one may be or how much studying they've done; there is no way they can guarantee a set to be completely original, meaning that the set contains the same coins it was originally shipped with, based upon toning or anything else.


Once this mountain has been climbed, I'll happily discuss/debate whatever you wish.

 

Agreed.... was just one rather obvious issue of many.

 

The same way that the market speaks about the current ANACS slabs in general.

They are met with a collective yawn and virtually no premium based on grade.

 

Frankly, it never even occurred to me that certifying the same DMS coins remaining with each other throughout their history was even a "thing". To me, there's only one question - Is it a DMS coin or isn't it? Period. That's all I care about. No "same coins always together throughout their history". No grading garbage (which composite grading for certain is - garbage).

Now Mike seems to deny even what I am looking for is possible. Where do YOU stand on the single "Is it or isn't it?" question? I want to gang slab, preferably by NGC, a complete set (complete, not necessarily original) (agreed, no way to tell) of 1956 DMS coins, period. Both sets present and complete. Besides, NGC already slabbed mine for Stack's/Bowers' ANA sale last year, and it has a collection provenance and NGC submission form number with numbers that match, and sequential line numbers. I guess they tossed the cardboard. S/B didn't send it to me.

Again, that's all I want. The rest of it can go away.

 

You're ignoring a majority of what was said in favor of auction house descriptions? In NO way have I said, nor remotely implied, that mint set toning isn't a reality or a reasonable identifier of where a coin originated. What I did say is that it is NOT something each and every set displays to a level where it and it alone can he used to guarantee the originality of a set.

One can fairly easily cherry coins from other sets, including those that displaying said toning; all would be original mint set coins, but not an original mint set. How is it okay or a remotely good idea for such a set to be certified as original? This whole thing reeks of a way to remove money from gullible collector's pockets, and is the very definition of a gimmick.

 

I don't think that your request is unreasonable, Kurt, but if this is so simply done, why hasn't any TPG graded a coin as Mint Set Toning in the past if it is so desirable and so readily provable?

 

One of the second tier services has. Additionally, they'll specify on the label the BU coins that were removed from US mint sets in their office. IMO, it does not add any extra value at the moment. Perhaps in 2088?

EDIT: I may be incorrect about "Mint Set Toned" on the label.

 

Okay... now we're getting somewhere, or are at least on the same page; perhaps I should've read this before responding to an earlier post.

Regardless, if a set is being graded as a whole, which is exactly what they're doing, and guaranteeing that it's "original", logic dictates that the coins within must be the originals and not, perhaps, ones cherried to bump the "grade". It would (or may) be one thing if each coin was "certified" to have come from an original set (still questionable imo), but that's not what they're doing; they're, this "Original Set Verification Corporation" is "certifying" the set itself as being "orignal", and again, if toning is the basis for this "expert opinion", what about the perfectly original mint set coins that do not display it?

If they want to certify a set, that's fine... certify a 1956 "set". Just don't call it an "original 1956 mint set" or mislead consumers with such a ridiculous "company" name.

 

Hmm, I can honestly say I've never had the pleasure of seeing a DMS without the signature DMS toning, and I've looked at high three to low four figure numbers of sets. I'm sitting here imagining it. Sounds awesome. And when I say DMS toning, it goes beyond the "anthracite" on silver pieces. It extends to the yellow/green on nickels and some truly unattractive yet identifiable schmutz often seen on cents.

 

Your welcome

 

I would pay to see y'all discuss this face to face!!! I got tired just reading all of it! LMAO!! If you do not like the composite grading part of it how can you agree with or like the rest of all this OSV?!?!?!? Somebody is missing the whole point of this OSV crap! Even my wife, who does not collect, knows what OSV is about. And I agree that it is just another way to take money from collectors.

 

Congratulations to you both. The thing is, I have no interest in the particular way ANACS and OSV are going about this. They are targeting it at an audience that cares about different things than I do. I readily admit I'm the odd one in this picture. I don't care about having a higher grade piece than the other fellow and I never have. I want to own a coin, or set in this case, that a) pleases ME, and b) protects the set for passing down to my son, who very much DOES care about coins.

I like the base concept of having a durable protective holder in which a complete DMS can be housed, along with an authoritative statement that yup, these 18 coins comprise a 1956 DMS. An original one? Cripes, at this point in time we can't know. An educated guess based on the totality of the circumstances is the best we've got.

Here's the thing. Just having that protective joint holder, and a certification that all 18 coins in it are a 1956 DMS would be a VERY valuable thing TO ME PERSONALLY. That's the only part of this that appeals to me, and I'll just bet I'm not alone in that.

To me, the rest of what OSV and ANACS are trying to say about this is pure fantasy world stuff. But that doesn't change the fact that I believe DMS coins are eminently identifiable.

We know that S/B and Heritage are not the least bit shy about identifying them and both NGC and PCGS are reluctant. That, to me, speaks poorly of the TPGS firms generally, not poorly of the auction houses, on THIS issue.

On the NEXT issue, I reserve the right to reverse my position, slamming the auction houses and backing the TPGSs. Nobody gets everything right. I don't DO idol worship. I take issues a la carte.

My exception is that I rarely believe ANYTHING coming from PCGS, but that's MY particular fetish, and even that has exceptions.

 

PCGS and NGC won't identify something that they aren't sure about. Doing so would open them up to having to make payouts and risk their reputation. In this instance their adhering to the side of caution is what people should be doing when the market shows that it would bring higher prices. Auction houses interests is in getting the highest price possible. Their job is to present things in the best light possible without being dishonest

 

Well said, and doubtless correct all 'round. Still, for as careful as they are and should be, their error rate is still high enough to get them all fired, were they in the election administration field. That and LPG tank filling. The first error is your last.