People say that coins wear down much faster when they constantly jingle against other change. What if you took the coin you wanted to lowball, put it in a salad spinner with a roll of other coins, and spun it for a long time? Would the coin wear down?
Search the forum for "rock tumber".... the reading will not only be enlightening, but entertaining as well (roll eyes here). Seriously though, and aside from the fact that you're asking the forum how to do what essentially amounts to doctoring, what's the point? In a past thread about "making" lowballs you spoke of how much a certain LS half would be worth in poor and CACed, so is this just a natural progression of that scheme? You're very young, Omega, I realize that, but let me give you two bits of advice: asking a forum, populated mostly by buying collectors, how to scam the system (of which they are a part) isn't likely to make you any friends. Secondly, the chances of you coming up with something that hasn't been tried many, many, many times before is slim to none. This hobby and business is already full of shysters; you're late to the game.
I wouldn't, for the same reason I wouldn't raise an "S" mint mark on a Philadelphia 1909 VDB Cent. That said, it kind of points out the ridiculousness of "Lowballing" as a pursuit.
No, it wouldn't work - the coins would be pushed to the outside by centrifugal force and held there. You would need to pulse the salad spinner, let it slow down to tumble the coins, and repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat ... You would need something like a rock tumbler at VERY VERY low speed (rock tumblers work because at low speed the centrifugal force isn't enough to hold the items against the wall at the top of the arc, causing a tumbling action somewhat like the pants pocket jingle). And as long as we're in hypothetical experiments, toss in a couple of socks so there is some fabric to rub against. (And no, I don't own a rock tumbler - since I was 9 or 10 - and no, I haven't tried it, it's just a thought experiment). But I'm with Dave, I don't get it either... PS: http://www.livescience.com/52488-centrifugal-centripetal-forces.html
The idea of building a lowball set has been around for longer than I can remember. Folks had fun with it but didn't need the plastic around it. I can see in the future where collectors are asking why anyone would spend the money to have something like this graded. Not my idea of having fun but who am I to tell others how to spend their money.
Too me it seems like tumbling coins would cause more hits than wear. I would not try it, but you could always get a rolls of 2016 coins and see what happens to them. I would not recommend it.
I don't understand why one would even bother. Just BIN the set at face value if you want to lowball selling it. You would have put much less effort / time / money into it that way than putting additional work into it. Unless you just want to remove coinage from the marketplace.
The "End of the Trail" set (look for it @ pcgs) represented a *numismatic* accomplishment: Some of the pieces were so worn that it took major research to prove (VAMs and other die markers) which date they represented. But basically, yeah, it's nutso. There have been a couple of crazy auctions over PO1 pieces (I remember one where Ag3 sold for $35 and PO1 for 525).
"Lowball", in this case isn't price, but grade. Regretably, the OP's desire to lower the grade has only to do with his belief that it will also increase the price. What he doesn't seem to realize is that getting such coins into the necessary holders isn't going to be a cake walk, and if he was to move ahead with this little venture, he'd almost certainly end up in the hole.
but why lower the grade. racing to the bottom to compete against heavily circulated coinage increases supply. Real money is on the upper end with lower supply then one can possibly control price more, or eek out a few more tens of dollars. on the lower end you're trying to eek out a few more cents based on it's lowered value not what you paid for it (in a general open market) .. after having to pay MORE for the coins in order to sell them for less PLUS the cost of time/materials/ money to lower it's grade. Sounds crazy to me. But each their own I guess.
Apparently, you're still failing to understand the concept. If, as you claim above (bold) was a blanket fact, there would he no reason for someone to artificially do such a thing, but this simply isn't the case even if it makes no sense to you. Please do familiarize yourself with exactly what "lowball" means (again, in this case) and all will become clear.
The completion of that set (around 2012) was just about the last time you could trust that a given lowball actually earned its' wear in circulation. Then it became so popular that people started blatantly "manufacturing" them.
