Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Howard Black, post: 3154306, member: 97119"]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.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches