Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="statequarterguy, post: 782213, member: 21782"]Not sure what your saying by, "A coin could be from any part of a run first or last but the first shipped has more of a chance being struck in the first run".  What relevance does the run the coin is in have to the quality of the coin?  First run coins would be produced with worn dies just as likely as a last run, since the first run of, say coins made for circulation, would comprise millions of coins taken from bins, produced from dies that saw their full life.  I believe there was a write up in Coin World years ago explaining this process, which concluded that is why, even though uncirculated mint sets, made before satin finish coins in 2005, contained a fair share of poorly struck banged up coins, even though they were packaged from a sample of first run coins.  So, what I'm seeing is coin promoters claiming "first run" or "first release" to somehow imply it's a better coin, yet in fact, per The Mint, this is not the case.  I don't know, has The Mint's production procedures change for the better?  Are they stopping the presses before a die has seen its full life and sending those coins out in the first release? I don't think so.  Have the TPG'ers bought into this promotion?   Is that why there was a lawsuit, because what really matters is, is a coin a first strike from a new die, not whether it’s from a “first run” or “first release”?  Well, the fact is, one still has to look at the coin to determine if it’s a well made coin, not the date on the box.  Speaking of satin finish coins produced in mint sets since 2005, now those are some well made coins - if they were made any better, they'd have to be called matte proofs.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches