1983FM Pattern Panama 1/4 Balboa Proof with "Ley 0.500"

The quickest way when doing discovery stuff would be to find a noted expert in that area or someone that has the clout to contact some of the higher ups where its worth them to look at it and convince them to help with the submission including their findings. Obviously that can get much more complicated with world coins and potential language barriers. One thing to remember is that they get tons of submissions of people claiming things are something they arent and really arent charging enough to spend a weeks researching discoveries randomly every time its claimed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

☝ This is what I got out of your response. Again, unless you are part of a clique which is well known to the those in charge, you don't get far in U.S. numismatics.

I know they're busy. I know all kinds of dingdongs are bothering them with baloney claims.

However, I just wonder: Am I crazy, or can they (or some carbon-based lifeform with two brain cells to rub together that they trust) just LOOK at the coins that I OWN (I don't have JUST pics, I OWN THEM) and SEE if what I am saying is right?
Evidently this was just a bridge too far for them. Well, in October 2021, anyway.

They saw my images here, and they said, “Currently NGC is not interested in recognizing minor date spacing and placement. Because of this we will not be able to offer you the variety check you requested.” -DIRECT QUOTE.

Well, that position was SOOO 15 minutes ago after someone in Korea submitted these varieties at about the same time and got this result:


Help me understand...

Some of this stuff just requires EYES. Not EXPERTS. Or being friends with some bigwig.

 

The thing is, they don't always respect the experts that are recognized as such having a valid opinion either. I have found this with later British pre-decimal milled copper and silver, especially with patterns and off-year matte proofs, etc.
In fact, I had to supply corroborating evidence which they even then denied on a couple of instances (I don't count myself as an expert even though I "did" the Krause listings for Great Britain 19th and 20th centuries for nearly 15 years).

 

nvm

 

Mine WAS a discovery variety! I listed it as so on my submission form.

Which makes me wonder: If they won't do it for me, then why would they "spend a ton of time looking at a minor variety" because someone in Korea said it was?

And THEN they holdered his coins with attributions you see above on the labels.

 

You still have to have connections IMHO. Was the Korean submitter a large dealer by any chance?

 

No he wasn't. I'm guessing it was maybe the "multiple appeals" that finally got their attention?

 

Since you caught the quote before the edit, did you actually read what was said. A discovery variety from a random person is the biggest waste of time to every company in every way. The burden of proof is on the person to prove it is not someone else to prove its not

 

Okay. Thank you.
Well, I thought I had met the "burden of proof" and "proved that it is" with a submission and pics.
I still wonder what was different from my submission and the Korean submission.

Here are this Korean gentleman's two coins (in pics in post #22 above) in the NGC census:

 

In my case, I don't really care that much whether the slab says "discovery" or not - they simply won't attribute something new until the "right" person submits it. @mlov43 has a valid point - you can present plain-as-day evidence, and it gets a shrug.

I realize this is a distraction from the OP's coin, but the process I went through is perhaps relevant. In late 2018 I discovered that there was a third Barber dime reverse design type, introduced in 1900, and shortly thereafter in 1901 modified to become a previously recognized "reverse II" type (really "reverse III" now). I asked ANACS in early 2019 what the process was. They were kind enough to respond, saying that I should contact Wiles (CONECA) or Wexler, as an "outside party" who would publish it, and then ANACS would recognize it as a "discovery."

Not only did subtle details of the 1900 dime reverse change, but there were 1899 P-mint coins with the 1900 type that were released early, and 1900 S-mint still produced a relatively scarce number with the 1899 design. I thought both of these discoveries were rather interesting, on top of a completely unrecognized design change.

Wexler never responded. James Wiles was gracious enough to reply, and said that CONECA long ago had relegated 19th century varieties to the "specialty clubs." Fine. I subscribed to the Barber Coin Collectors Society, and published an article in their journal. Pretty astounding that a design change had gone unnoticed for 120 years, right?

Naive me, I expected someone from another publication might contact me to do their own article. I got crickets. I decided to be more aggressive, and contacted both Coin World and Numismatist. Neither publication responded.

Meanwhile, Wiles had cc'd Bill Fivaz with Cherrypickers' Guide, and Bill seemed interested. Many emails were exchanged. They would include this in their next edition! Man, I was stoked! For the next two and a half months, I emailed back and forth, and spent many hours working up a complete, factual, new narrative about the Barber dime reverse types and the relative scarcity of design transition varieties 1899-1905. Then I got this:

"Due to space limitations, I'm afraid we won't be able to work this in."

Fast forward over two years later, to April 2022. The publisher contacts me, they still haven't published the latest edition, and they're interested in my discoveries again. Would I mind, you know, repeating all the work I did two years ago? I asked - what is the deadline? Response - we want to wrap this up in the next week.

I dumped it in my archive and didn't reply. I wasted all my time over two years ago and you want me to drop everything and waste my time again? No thanks. This is apparently how it goes in US numismatics. The thing is, the original design types and transition varieties of Barber dimes have been known for over 40 years. Same with the quarters. They are marginally mentioned on the TPG websites but not attributed, and even then most of it is wrong.

It's funny to me how they all attribute 1939 Jefferson nickels with "Rev of 38" and "Rev of 40" - how the heck did that get in there? They enhanced the steps of the building on the reverse, and somehow that's worthy of a designation? That's how it goes.

Circling back to the OP - there's no money in it for a TPG to designate a coin that might be the only one that exists. It's not about knowledge, it's about how many people are going to want to submit and ask for the designation. I'd still try ANACS though.

 

GET RID OF THE STAPLED FLIPS!!! One mistake and your coin(s) could end up as junk silver!
Phil

 

Hm, makes sense - I guess they probably don't have a resident expert in Franklin Mint struck Panamanian coins, but Krause would be the last place I'd look for that kind of information anyway.

 

LOL, well I put it back to NGC. What I don't like is that it is not searchable. HOWEVER, the other "Ley" varieties or errors are listed. I don't like the inconsistency.