NGC first strikes

Do you think that since NGC no longer does first strikes labels, that the value of one with first strike will make it a little bit higher in value??

MIKE

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

collect the coin not the slab.

 

I second Nathans remark!! They changed the slab due to the pending law suit! I for one hope that everyone that owns a "First Strike" slab can send it back to be re-slabbed at no cost to the collector!!
Would serve them right...Shame on PCGS and NGC for being $$$$ Pigs!!

RickieB

 

I think that one thing about those labels is you know when the coin was slabbed. In a few years they will be worth more as you won't have to guess if the coin you bought was resubmitted many times to get the grade you purchased. So I would hold on to the ones that say First Strike even if the meaning of the term is useless.

 

I third the motion!

 

I think CentDime has a good point. Maybe First Strike actually does mean something.

 

I think you should hold onto these bogus designated slabs if only to have a great conversation piece about how valid is any TPG in their quest to be the standard that coin collectors follow or respect as #1.

 

I think they have said that they will not be re-slabbing any of the first strike coins for the new label "early release".

I hope this whole deal destroys the TPG's and everyones love affair with them and their scams to steal collectors money. I remember when coin collectors used to collect coins. Now it seems collectors are more interested in what's on a paper label and a fancy plastic holder than the coin itself. I have noticed that a great many collectors seem to be currently obsessed with getting their coins slabbed almost to the extent that they consider "raw" to be undesirable. The ASE anniv. sets are a perfect example. They have now found a way to get people to send in their coins/sets unopened and uninspected! Thousands of coins are being slabbed that otherwise would have never been sent in at all, the TPG's must really be getting a belly laugh over this one all the way to the bank.

IMHO, It is now clear that the slabs were nothing more than a marketing scam. Collectors, hopefully have received an education and the scam will fade away as just another lesson learned. If not, and they continue to pay premiums for these, then they deserve to be ripped off as originally intended.

 

They'll fold, just sit back and watch... I remember when plastic was popular on furniture and car-seats too, LOL

Ben

 

Amen to all that. I also think slabbed/graded coins are sucking the life out of numsimatic education. New collectors, like myself, are being brainwashed into thinking that if a coin isn't "blessed"/slabbed by a TPG (one of the top three) its value is not nearly as much as it really is. Sad, sad, sad!!!

 

I could never quite figure it out. Put a plastic box around a coin and it's instantly worth more!!?? I always thought the value was in the coin, not what the coin is in! It's easy to see why so many private slabbers like SGS, etc. are popping up to take advantage of the opportunity and get rich over this increasing obsession with slabbed coins.

 

Very true and very sad Doug. When I started collecting, the learning process was half the fun. I never considered sending a coin to a TPG for grading. I always thought that was a waste of money when you could grade them yourself. If I needed to authenticate a coin, especially an investment piece then I would usually trust them rather than use my own judgement. The key word I guess is "trust". After the first strike scams can collectors truly trust the TPG's anymore as in the past?

 

Not sure how many there are but someday they should stand as a collectible on their own considering the story that accompanies them.

Speaking of 1st Strikes! A year or so ago I bought a couple of rolls of 2005 ASE's on eBay with the following story.
The seller said the very first 2005's were wider and hence heavier than the subsequent ones made after the error was discovered. He included a mint receipt that said these were made in October 2004. He said the roll actually weighed close to 21 ounces. He also mentioned how tight they were inside of the roll due to their width so I have not attempted to remove them. Since I do not know the tare on a mint roll encasement I have not even weighed them. Now that I look in retrospect I guess it would not make any difference how wide the die is as the weight comes from the planchet. Now that I think about it even more 20 ounces of silver should weigh more on a scale due to it being a precious metal. Any feedback on this? I think silver was around $10. then so I do not feel bad as I paid no premium over what an ASE would cost.

 

So I guess to maintain the weight they should be slightly thinner. Thanks Doug. Happy New Year To All!

 

Originally Posted by airedale
Not sure how many there are but someday they should stand as a collectible on their own considering the story that accompanies them.

Speaking of 1st Strikes! A year or so ago I bought a couple of rolls of 2005 ASE's on eBay with the following story.
The seller said the very first 2005's were wider and hence heavier than the subsequent ones made after the error was discovered. He included a mint receipt that said these were made in October 2004. He said the roll actually weighed close to 21 ounces. He also mentioned how tight they were inside of the roll due to their width so I have not attempted to remove them. Since I do not know the tare on a mint roll encasement I have not even weighed them. Now that I look in retrospect I guess it would not make any difference how wide the die is as the weight comes from the planchet. Now that I think about it even more 20 ounces of silver should weigh more on a scale due to it being a precious metal. Any feedback on this? I think silver was around $10. then so I do not feel bad as I paid no premium over what an ASE would cost.


This was discussed widely in the numismatic press. The mint even provided the explanation - the coins were struck slightly over-sized planchets. But they were not over-sized in weight, the weight was within normal mint tolerances.

This seller you mention was telling a story to increase sales - that's all.
__________________
knowledge ..... share it

So if I put a micrometer on them should they be thinner? What did the Mint say if I may ask? Here is the description if I understand it right. Each Silver Eagle has a face value of $1 and contains exactly one ounce of pure silver in an alloy of 99.93% silver and .07% copper. What was the difference between 2004, 2005 and 2006 if any, or is there none?
knowledge ..... share it
Again Happy New Year.

 

I couldn't agree with you more!

NGC has finally bowed to pressure (and a class action lawsuit) to drop the misleading and phony designation "First Strikes" but has replaced it with the equally meaningless designation "Early Releases". The purpose of a special designation is to identify a coin that is different in some way. It should be clear to everyone that the "Early Releases" designation is meaningless from a numismatic perspective. It might be less untruthful than "First Strikes" but there is nothing about coins so designated that makes them more valuable or even more interesting than later releases.

However, now that I understand the philosophy behind the "Early Releases" label, I propose two additional designations that can help NGC continue to make something from nothing. First is the "Shipped on Tuesday" designation for which only about 20% of coins will qualify. The other is "Packed by Steve". These two designations should be worth at least a 50% premium due to their relative scarcity. If Steve leaves the US Mint, the value of these coins will skyrocket!

 

Dreamer:
That was great, and a true comment about those bogus labels.
:thumb: