Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 3174182, member: 112&quot;]No, it is the definition listed by PCGS themselves on their glossary page. The one where they list the definitions of given words.</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.pcgs.com/Lingo/S" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.pcgs.com/Lingo/S" rel="nofollow">https://www.pcgs.com/Lingo/S</a></p><p><br /></p><p>So, the ANA has their defintion - </p><p><br /></p><p>For many, many decades the term Specimen was only used or applied to coins which were minted <b>before</b> 1817 that had Proof-Like surfaces and many Proof characteristics.But, they were not specifically or intentionally struck as Proofs. It is said that the 1796 silver coins are a good example.</p><p><br /></p><p>PCGS has the same definition - </p><p><br /></p><p>Specimen</p><p>Term used to indicate special coins struck at the Mint from 1792-1816 that display many characteristics of the later Proof coinage. Prior to 1817, the minting equipment and technology was limited, so these coins do not have the “watery” surfaces of later Proofs nor the evenness of strike of the close collar Proofs. PCGS designates these coins SP.</p><p><br /></p><p>And both definitions flat out state that the word is only applied to coins minted before 1817. </p><p><br /></p><p>And yet you, and others, question it. May I ask why ? I mean this is a long established definition, one accepted for all intents and purposes by the entire numismatic community for almost 100 years. </p><p><br /></p><p>Would you also wish to change the definitions of terms like business strike, Proof, trial strike, SMS and others ? They all have their long established definitions too, and they only apply to specific coins. </p><p><br /></p><p>This is the problem I have with the idea. We don&#039;t get to change the definitions for specific numismatic terms just because we want to or think they should apply to other coins. We don&#039;t get to change them for our own purposes. If a new term is needed when a new or different kind of coin comes along then come up with one. That&#039;s how all the other numismatic terminology got created to begin with.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for PCGS using it for this Morgan, they used it for one reason - to get the publicity. It, the story, only exist because it is the one and only Morgan ever given the designation. That&#039;s the only thing that made it news ! That story would never even exist otherwise. They used it, and knowingly used it incorrectly, just to make that coin special so they could their name in a story about it. They did the same thing with the modern coins they call specimens. They know as well as I do they aren&#039;t specimens, and neither is that Morgan. By their own words neither of them are !</p><p><br /></p><p>Those who want to disagree with this - have at it. But I for one am sick and tired of antics like this from the TPGs. And I believe others need to know about it which is why I point them out when they occur.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in