We bought 10 sets when the gate opened. Gave two away as gifts. Then a couple days later, when we saw they were still available, ordered two more sets as replacements -- two orders of one set each (free shipping on both). We were planning on never opening them and at some point selling them as never opened NIB in US Mint sealed packaging -- but now I am not really comfortable with that -- but that's the least of our worries at the moment. After reading a few horror stories and seeing some truly horrendous examples of damaged coins some people had received, I decided I'd better give our coins a close look (closer than the cursory examination I gave them upon receipt). Out came the 30x loupe, and I found two coins with "P"MD -- the scare-quotes because the damage clearly occurred after the coins were minted, but, they were damaged by the Mint and in the Mint. I don't know if we should return them, or keep them -- because I don't know if -- like "normal" PMD -- the damage will reduce the value of the coins. Or, if, owing to the unique nature of the damage (i.e., sealed in lens, obviously inflicted by the Mint while in their custody), will be a sort of unique "Conditional Rarity" and increase their value. The situation is complicated by the realization that they might sell out at any moment, and in fact may already have sold out since I last checked the order page to see if it was still accepting orders (it seemed to be, but I didn't actually try putting anything into the cart -- I just entered "100" and then tapped the button to up it to 101, and it popped up a notice in red text informing me that it had reduced the quantity to 100, which it's been doing since the second day, and, as it has since that day, the blurbbage on that page says there is NO limit. Uh huh. New math, I guess. 100=infinity. I digress. Assuming they do still have inventory on hand, will they reserve two sets for us when they issue an RMA when we call about the defective sets? Or will we get a refund and a "sorry, no more available" message? (As of the last official report they were about 3/4 sold out -- assuming they actually do mint the maximum quantity specified, never having stated an actual amount to be minted. That report was last Sunday. I assume that tomorrow they'll update it with figures as of today.) I would desperately appreciate some advice based on having thoughtfully analyzed consideration of the situation. Or, if anyone knows of something similar having occurred in the past, and has empirical knowledge of what direction the valuation took, please let me know! I'm going to try to post two images to show the damage. They are not particularly high quality but they are the best I am currently able to produce. The dime has some scratches on the rim (barely visible in the image -- they look significantly worse in real life). The dollar has some scratches on the rim (again, same deal as with the dime), and some "marks" of (to me) undetermined cause, in the field adjacent to the rim scratches. These do show up fairly accurately in the image. If one of the damaged coins were on a quarter, I could consolidate (swap) lenses and only have one damaged set to deal with. Story of my life. (Down With Murphy!) Dime: Dollar:
It's 5AM eastern time and they are not sold out YET. Send them back. Call the mint and get the return shipping.
Are you saying that you are 100% certain that this "unique" form of damage will not increase the value of the set? If so, is that based on knowledge of previous similar cases, or on a belief that "PMD is PMD," or... some other factor? I am not trying to be (or even sound) confrontational. I am just trying to get a handle on this situation, and get a consensus on it. And now, as I peel my forehead from my keyboard, I'm going to hobble over to my sleep station and depart this earthly realm for at least a few hours. <g>
From what I see from your images, I would send them back. They are your coins do as you please. Enjoy your rest.
There is no limit to how many you can order, but there is a limit f no more than 100 per online order because that is all the software can handle in one order. But you are free to make multiple orders to one household. But the M in PMD actually MINTING, it has nothing to do with whether the coin is in or out of the Mint. (This is why I prefer the term PSD Post strike damage, it tells you when the damage occurred and it doesn't confuse newbies. It deals with WHEN and not WHERE.)
First mistake was using a 30x loupe..........you start seein' pink elephants with magnification that high.
Right; this was never an issue for me - I undersand that it's damage that happens between the strike and the coin's delivery to me (or after, if I'm a real klutz). But what I am wondering is does the time and place of the damage affect the product's value? It's clearly a distinction that does "matter" in at least one context -- i.e., in this case, they bear the liability for refund or replacement, whereas, once it leaves their hands (in good condition, properly packaged), they no longer have any liability at all. The moment the mail carrier picks up the box, it becomes the USPS's problem if they damage it. I only use that example to point out that there is a difference between "in-house" PMD and "in the wild" PMD. If a mint employee "goes postal" and shoots a hole into poor JFK's bust, I'd wager that the bidding would be fierce on that coin. But, if a theoretical "advanced box-sorting machine" being tested at the Post Office were to accidentally punch an identical hole in the coin, its value would be reduced to "melt." In the first case, there'd be a perhaps slightly "adjusted" form of Conditional Rarity, enhanced by the (ahem) "historical" nature of the cause of the damage. In the actual case, there is no controversy WRT the agent responsible for the damage (actually, cases, plural -- not because I own two, but because so many others have received damaged coins in their sets; in one case, the customer bought four sets, all damaged; in another -- with images posted -- the coins were brutalized in comparison to the slight damaged in my sets). So this discussion can potentially affect quite a few others, and I believe the issue is both unique, and nontrivial. The only question being, "Does it decrease, or increase the value of an affected set?" As a former "software guy" my logic may seem a bit twisted to a normal person <g>. I often "extend the logic" to see where it takes us. That's frequently an effective tool for determining if a particular routine is going to "break under pressure" when the application goes to production. So, a probably flawed analogy (did not get that much sleep, argh...): Let's look at a scenario in which two coins, freshly minted, are chopped in half by the poorly tested machine that picks up the coins from the coin press and then inserts them into the carrier. They are the Michigan ATB quarter (since I'm in Michigan<g>). The machine then inserts two halves of that coin into the carrier. They are both the top half of the coin. (The next set gets two bottom halves of the coin.) The machine then resumes normal, and correct handling of the remaining coins as they are struck. I then receive both sets in the mail. I have two sets with obvious PMD, which was obviously caused by the Mint. Two coins' value has been reduced to melt value -- a fraction of what I'd paid. At least, that's what they'd be worth if someone handed them to me sans any provenance. Are these two clearly defective Mint Sets worth less, or are they worth more, owing to their provably known provenance? I believe they'd be worth more. I believe that if sent to auction, they would fetch a closing price far in excess of the price non-damaged examples were at that time fetching. But, I may be wrong. This is what I'd like to know! I am not arguing that they're worth more money! I'm merely pointing out what I believe to be obvious, i.e., they might be worth more money in this (to a "civilian") somewhat crazy world of numismatics, in which a millimeter or less difference in the space between two letters on the back of an ugly brown penny (zinc, no less!) can increase its value from one cent to something in excess of ten thousand dollars. Much in excess. Who is to say that in this case, it's not going to be worth more? Someone who knows the answer, of course! And that's not me! (Or else I wouldn't be here, asking!) All I'm really asking for is an articulable rationale for the nay -- or, the yea. As to our little gedankenexperiment... There are two strikes against it. First, it is a gedankenexperiment (rather than a "post-mortem" examination of a real-life example), and second, no one ever knows how any auction will turn out ahead of time, although it is arguable that general trends and so forth can be estimated with a fair measure of accuracy. So, in this little thought experiment, the "extreme conditional rarity" (the term perhaps a tad tortured to fit the situation, just as the coins were tortured to fit the carrier) would likely IMO make the sets desirable to certain types of collectors. In a sense -- again, IMO -- it's not that different from a Sac dollar struck on an SBA planchet (the pre/post vector notwithstanding). Both are a form of damage to the coin, caused by the US Mint. OK, I heard that whispered, "Will this guy shut up already?" -- so, I'll shut up (already). I'll close with a plea for some analysis of my analysis -- something more than "You're wrong." <g> (At the very least, affixing "And here's why..." to it.) So, for what it's worth, this will be my last post in this thread -- but, hopefully not the last post here.
Oh, great, make a liar out of me! <g> The moment I send my post, I see your comment. The marks on the dollar's field are pretty much naked-eye stuff. Look at the photo! And the marks on the dime are visible with an 8x, probably even less. The 30x just makes them easier to see. No pink elephants necessary. Let's just say that the PMD is of a nature that would severely hit the value of either of those coins. A proof coin, direct from the US Mint, should NOT have scratches, fingerprints, or other nontrivial PMD. And now, I really am going to take my bow, and await with bated breath what I sincerely hope to be a consensus of wisdom, which will apply not merely to me, with my piddly two relatively minor PMD coins, but to all those others, some of which have coins that look much worse than a bag-marked, cash-registered, pocket-changed business strike found while coin roll hunting. Seriously! (And if these folks can cash in on their virtual gut-punch, rather than wait for an exchange -- if available -- or a refund, if sold out -- then so much the better, n'est-ce pas?)
Now don't go getting your knickers into a knot. I was merely trying to point out that you don't need that much magnification for spotting anomalys. I don't see what you are seeing on the dime
Actually there is, or at least could seem to be, because the proof sets since 1999 have been designed to be opened and closed with no traces. Yes, you may know that you haven't opened them but there is no way anyone else can know that for a fact. It is still just damage, and with undamaged pieces being so plentiful and cheap the real question you are asking is "Does damage inflicted on the coins while they were still in the Mint's hand devalue them less than damage done to them after the left their hands?" and the answer is no, damage is damage.
I never knew that! I'll have to look at the cases and see how to do it. Probably need to dig out the ol' spudger, I imagine. Any hints on where to poke it? Well, it's all moot, since they're going back, to hopefully be replaced (unless they're out of stock). Helpful Hint to anyone dealing with them for similar matters: Do NOT use the Handy Tear-off Form at the bottom of the invoice! If you do, you'll, 1) have only 7 days from delivery in order to be able to return them, and, 2) have to fork out for return freight. Instead, call the handy 800 number on the invoice -- they'll want the order number, your name, address, phone number, email address, hat size, length of each body part... but there'll be NO question of when you received them (it was eight days, in our case), and, if YOU bring it up, they'll mail -- or email (your choice) a prepaid return label!
Hello everyone, first post here. I wanted to chime in on this thread as I feel that the logic used to evaluate this kind of PMD can bleed into your entire collection and cause mass confusion, IMO. Wanted to try to use this example to help others in the same situation. The coin pictured has what appears to be skuffs of some sort (metal to metal damage). If I was looking to buy this set and the seller pointed out these marks and posted the pics above, I would think that the set would fetch a much lower price than sets with none of this PMD. I would not purchase this set with PMD for my personal collection or to resell. As mentioned above, these sets can, apparently, be opened, coins swapped often with no obvious indications. My biggest concern when purchasing proof sets is this happening. Dealers can purchase 10 sets from the mint and find the best specimens, placing them into one or more lens', sell the sub par coins in what appears to be an unopened set and either sending off the best specimens for grading or other means of fetching a higher price for the set (the prices of these coins in the PF70DCAM holder are really high currently, surely as more sets are graded, the price will go down). I am sure that this is a widespread activity judging by all the partial sets being sold. This release in particular as I believe it may end up being the best silver investment at the mint for 2018. You can buy this set on Ebay right now for $10+ more than the mint, guess the assumption is that maybe a buyer will think it's sold out at the mint. Whether these marks make the coin more or less valuable is 100% subjective. You will need to find a buyer that believes this and is willing to pay a premium. Collectors like myself are always on the lookout of any sign that sets were picked through and/or altered after purchase (coin orientation, tightness of the fit, lens damage, etc...), seeing this for sale I would not pay as much for this set just for this reason and I suspect it will be hard to find anyone who would. If a lot of these sets are coming out with this type of mark, then that makes the gem proof sets more valuable as it makes perfect sets more rare. This is not a mint error, its PMD, 2 different things. I think that there should be a distinction made in general here between error coins and PMD because here, the PMD definitely will affect the price, Error coins are mechanical flaws and there is an attempt made to find and pull error coins off the line and dispose of prior to packaging (Thus making error coins rare, not flawed). Error coins are rather rare and we seem to have anecdotal evidence that this kind of PMD is more common than usual, at least in this case. This PMD is clearly not from the dye, its from mishandling in the mint (looks like they produced too many too fast and they got backed up on the line during packaging, similar to bag marks, but potentially worse due to the force in the line as opposed to that in a bag and if there are enough, will only make the gem sets worth more. IMO of course, totally. You would think that with the time it takes to polish the dyes and material used (silver), these coins would be handled better. These sets are an extra $5, meaning there is more work required to produce this set. This thread made me pull out the 2 sets I have and check, thankfully no PMD. Also, it was mentioned that there is no limit to the number of 2018 RP sets produced. The Mint's site says there is a limit of 200,000... To think that they are still available to date says a lot about the number of active collectors out there for sure... Seems that the entire market for collectibles of any kind have been depressed for the past 10+ years, antiques as well, however, I am getting hints of vintage items making a comeback. There is definitely a cyclical nature to collecting anything. Finally, I get the impression here of a general consensus that the modern minting process has a lot to be desired, but IMO, I feel as though they are producing some of the best specimens of any other time period across all coins and mints. I have not seen many modern coins available below PF69 or MS69, it's just not worth having them slabbed. Is there a year or period where the mint was producing the same or better specimens consistently that compares to modern minting? While I don't have proof, it seems that when the mint started the 50 state quarters program, they were using new equipment that is still in use today that enabled them to produce so many types of quarters at the same time as the presidential series. I don't know of any other proof sets prior to 1999 where there were more than 5-6 coins circulating per year with few exceptions Sorry to post such a long reply, I just wanted to articulate this notion as it could be a real head scratcher should this type of PMD be considered MORE collectible than the perfect sets. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a coin grader at PCGS when faced with dilemma's such as this; what grade would this coin get? (the scratches will put the grade lower as compared to the average coin/set) and would the label get any special notes?, in this case, no, it's not an error. Imagine if the worker on the line was expected to catch these coins, lol. QC would double to price of the set, surely. That's another way to evaluate if a mark such as this would make the coin more or less desirable. Be interesting to hear if this argument stands on it's own or if there is some flaw in my logic that I am missing / uneducated in.
Don't workers at say,... PCGS know if a lens was opened? Or are they not concerned about the specific set when it comes to general proof sets? You would think that there would be some glue that would show signs of breaking if it was ever opened. Which means that the lens is 2 pcs of plastic with snap on type lens'? I also wonder about the mint and their desire to produce a set that is tamper proof (preserve provenance, make the COA real?), but from what I hear, these all can just be pried open, coins swapped out? I'd be afraid to do that, unless I wanted at the coins themselves, but that's definitely a topic for another thread. Guess that's why there are a bunch of sets floating around with what looks like 1 coin out of place... I thought it was just the aging, but most likely I assume the coin was swapped? Was curious if anyone might know something about this, I know it's off topic, but read it mentioned here a few times...
Nope, since 1999 the proof set cases are just "snap together", Prior to that they did some sonic welding of the seams of the cases and they did show evidence if they were opened and reclosed. Since 1999 they can be opened an closed with no trace. made for some great scams the first two years.
I didn't know that. You'd think from the mint and the premium you pay, they'd insure authenticity a little better than 'snap together'.
I dunno........I like the idea that I can open the case as opposed to pulling out the band saw.........
I once found a mint set with the "dime" struck on a piece of scrap metal. I took it to a dealer who specialized in proof sets and mint sets and he paid me $2000 for it. That was a major error and the high light of his collection. You have two of these "damaged" sets. I recommend that you put one of them on ebay with a reserve price of $1000 and a starting price of cost and learn the exact value to the 160 million verified buyers who shop on ebay. A three day auction would answer your question quickly but a seven day auction would answer you accurately.
