Since I consider this my first Numismatic home for information, I thought I might post some threads from some other boards about the infamous "First Strike" issue that all the TPG's are getting into. I hope I'm not violating any rules by referencing other locations.... http://boards.collectors-society.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=1060096&an=0&page=0#Post1060096 http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=465702 My whole beef is the integrity part, not the marketing part. I'm on a mission with this and I don't want to let go. :loud:
I had not heard much about First Strikes before and what qualifies them. I don't own any First Strike designated coins either. Given what was presented in the threads you mentioned, I would have to agree with you that the First Strike designation is merely a marketing ploy. It doesn't mean that I wouldn't necessarily buy a First Strike coin, but I wouldn't pay any more for it than a non-First Strike coin. It sounds from your example given of coins being opened in January 2006 with a 2005 production tag on them that more than half of all coins produced would qualify for First Strike designation. That's not right. If there was some way to prove that certain coins came from a new set of dies, that sounds like the only legitimate application of "First Strike". But there's not, so the TPG's should get rid of that designation. Something else mentioned in some of the threads you posted...I can understand paying more for some of these autographed coin slabs (though I haven't done it). That seems like a legitimate added value and if people deem that having someone's autograph is worth something, so be it. The autograph market is huge and people pay for just the pen on paper signatures, so there's no reason that they shouldn't pay for an autograph on a slab as long as they want to and they know what they're getting.
Yup, we all know WHY they do this but I want them to realize that there are SOME members of the numismatic community that will not lie over and play dead to this designation. If they expect the public to accept them as a legitimate authority for certification and validation then they better have the goods on all of the information on that label. Not the 'ole "accept this part of the label but please overlook this other part 'cuz we all know it doesn't mean much." Nope... not me. It's either all valid or none of it is. They've let the marketing groups in their companies talk them into a joke. Somebody over there better wake up.
I am in agreement that this whole first strike designation is just plain nonsense. Let's put it this way. They market coins that are minted during the very first days of mintage, hence the term "first strike". But what would you rather have: The 10,000th coin minted from a given die during this initial period of time...or...the first coin minted from a brand new set of dies later in the year? Call me crazy, I would rather have a coin minted at the beginning of a die's life than one minted during the first month near the END of a die's "life". So all of this first striked stuff is just "fluff"...nothing more and in my opinion, a way for TPG's to try to generate additional income on modern's which really are the future of their business. After all, how many times can you grade a coin 100 years old? Put "crack-out and resubmissions" aside for minute...the TPG's all realize that coins that have been submitted from the past have pretty well already been submitted, graded, and encapsulated. The future of TPG's business again, is with moderns! Mint Sets, Satin-Finish (another bogus item to generate more cash), Proofs, Commem's, etc. If the TPG's can figure out how to generate MORE with this 1st Strike nonsense, they will!
I preorder "first strike" ASEs for a slightly different reason. I figure I'll get a coin that has a high probability of being "as good as it gets." But it might also increase the odds of obtaining some sort of error coin someday that is released before the Treasury discovers the error. It hasn't happened yet, but it only has to happen once.
The "as good as it gets" is part of the exploitation the the TPG's are betting on. Salesmen are definitely using this as leverage and the TPG's are encouraging this behaviour. To me, it's pitiful. It only lessens my opinion of them. They push and push to promote their services and then use some senseless labeling scheme. Integrity....it's all about integrity - either you have it or you don't.
I agree with you opinion and I have little respect for the TPGs that market the coins as somehow different or better to make a few extra bucks. I don't/won't buy first strike ASEs in slabs. In fact, I don't buy any ASEs in TPG slabs.
But Cloud, you say you order first strike ASEs - what makes you think the coins you are getting are first strikes ? There is absolutely no reason to expect that you will get a better coin by ordering it in January than you will by ordering one in October. The way these coins are manufactured - the dies are changed several times every single day of manufacture. So there are first strikes being made every single day - right along with old stirkes every single day. So to get a first strike - it's purely the luck of the draw. You have just as much chance of getting one at the end of the year as you do in the first of the year. Now let me say that I define a first strike as a coin that is among the very first of those struck by a given pair of dies. For the sake of argument - we'll say it's the first 50 coins.
Right on GD... So what if you get coins minted before January 31st! I would rather have one those first 50 strikes at anytime of the year than to get a coin struck from a die on its 10,000th strike in Januray. Makes sense to me...
GD, I preordered coins advertised as "first strike" back in November [should be delivered soon] not because I believe they will necessarily be better in any way. I can't even prove they are first strike if I resell them so it isn't really a factor in buying when I do. But I don't think they will necessarily be inferior in any way either, and I just want in early in case there is some sort of mint error or other unexpected event that makes the early coins more valuable in some way. Like I said, this never happened. It may never happen. Or maybe 2006 will be the lowest mintage ASE in the series for reasons yet unknown. Who knows? In the meantime, silver is going up in price and I don't really see any benefit to waiting anyway. I actually get a small discount for preordering, so I like to order early.
Cloud I have no problem with anyone ordering early, used to do it myself when I collected them. And if you are looking for errors, your logic may pan out, best of luck on that regard But I wanted to make sure that, not only you, but everyone else understood what a first strike actually is and when they occur.
Exactly right...first strikes are the primary amount (whatever the value of that variable is determined to be) of coins struck with a pair of dies. That is also the Mint's definition. There is even an article in the latest issue of Coin World on page 32 explaining this definition and what the Mint defines it to be. However, the TPG's created their own definition for their own convenience to try to somehow justify what they're calling these coins. Since they can't really verify whether a certain set of coins were struck first or last, they just use the date stamp on a check-tab. Ridiculous. They knew they couldn't really validate whether the coin was a "First Strike" so they decided to "redefine" this title. So, my issue is really two-fold: 1. I'd like an explanation from the TPG's as to why they decided to use a completely different definition for this infamous two-word phrase and what basis they feel justifies designating a coin "First Strike" using the REAL definition, not their own. 2. My more pressing concern is the fact that they put this title on the label of their holder with no real way to substantiate the designation. So, this brings in integrity issues. If some parts of the label have unverifiable/uncertifiable designation, then what on that label is valid. Either all data is valid and authentic or none of it is. There's no "trust this part but not this part." I refuse to overlook the "First Strike" designation as just marketing and still hold the other designations on that label as authentic. There better be valid justification for all of it.
Okay, there's the new nickel that's just been sent to the federal reserve banks. Most likely, the FIRST first strike will either go to the artist or the Smithsonian. I just think that the first one I get my hands on is a first strike.
My latest response to the TPG's: http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=465702&STARTPAGE=1
wait, how would grading companies make (extra) money for grading or labeling coins (such as "first strike" labels)? don't they only charge for their grading and slabbing services the same no matter what the coin or grade of it is? if so then they would happily grade as many coins as possible ms 70, right? sorry i'm new (obviously), can someone explain? :-|
They make extra money because there is a large segment of the collecting hobby that have no idea what they are doing when it comes to collecting coins. These people mistakenly believe that the coins they are buying in these slabs with the first strike label to be first strike coins as defined by the traditional definition. These people think these coins in these slabs are something special - when in reality they are not. But because there are so many people willing to buy into this false idea, dealers are able to submit huge numbers of these coins, 500 or more at a time, and have them slabbed and labeled as first strikes. The dealers then sell these to the unsuspecting public. This whole thing allows the TPGs to grade & slab twice as many, perhaps more, of these coins as they normally would. Thus they make more money.
Increase the bottom line Its not that they charge extra, its the fact that there will be many more submissions by people or companies to get the designation. Thats my 2 cents worth.
Exactly right, or in other words...exploitation based on a meaningless and unverifiable/uncertifiable designation.
