Unique Bullion Coin in 25th Anniversary Set?

Thus, one reason I don’t send coins to TPG’ers. Interesting choice of words. NGC doesn’t say there is not a new variety, they say, they won’t be "recognizing” one. They go on to say, the 25th set pedigree is enough of a distinction, as if there is something different. Then they conclude with, there is "no perceivable difference". Maybe more of a case of they already had a label (based on Mint statements) before even looking at one coin and have sent out coins with no recognition of a variety.

Clearly the collector community “perceives” a difference, possibly in the finish, strike quality, and tail feather marker, yet NGC addresses none of these factors. I’d say the jury is still out until the real experts who spend more than 10 seconds looking at a coin weigh in.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here – if the TPG’s recognize the 25[SUP]th[/SUP] Anniversary so-called “Bullion” coin as being unique, then they would have to do a little extra work when non-mint-sealed 25th Anniversary sets or individual so-called “Bullion” coins from the set were sent in for grading…authenticating the coin as not being a mass-produced (true bullion) coin from a monster box or elsewhere.

 

Or, if a variety is one day recognized, you have to send the coin back to have it re-holdered. Mo money........

 

+1

Yep, the 25th Set & true bullions are quick, huge profits for them if they mass produce them. Of course, if there is eventually a distinction, they could increase their profits by certifying it, if one is sent in opened. It would be enough to certify it as they do now (from a 25th Set), but then, as green18 noted, they'd want to charge more for a meaningless variety designation.

 

I see today’s Coin World has an article that clarifies all bullions in the set are from SF and quotes the Mint’s statement that there is no difference between the set bullion and others. Maybe CW will look into it further if the collector community rejects this.

Bottom line is, if the finish, strike quality, and tail feather marker make the 25th Set bullion distinguishable from ordinary bullion, collectors will distinguish them.

 

I take it you folks haven't been following this thread - http://www.cointalk.com/t195120/ seems there's more than just a "look" and it may be an actual variety!

 

Here is the question (from another forum) that prompted the NGC response:

"Hope this is a proper request...would it be possible for NGC to confirm the following, and tell us...what if any action will be taken on graded coins from this set, to acknowledge the variety?

There are several treads on other forums discussing the apparent variety contained in the 2011 (S) 25th Anniversary ASE set, specifically, the so-called "Bullion" no mint mark (burnished) coin. the 25th Anniversary "Bullion" coin appears to be different from common 2011 (S) coins from mint issued monster boxes, in two ways...1st, the finish. This photo shows a 25th Anniversary 2011 (S) in the center (burnished), surrounded by six coins (not burnished) taken directly from a 2011 (S) monster box:



The second difference is a marker found on the reverse, bottom of the middle tail feather. There is a small horizontal dent in the 25th Anniversary version. This dent is not found on the common bullion coins - see photos below:





If this is a true variety, it would mean that there are actually three different coins in the 25th Anniversary set that have mintages limited to 100,000..."

NGC's response:

"Thank you for the question. We will not be recognizing a new variety for the bullion coin in the 25th Anniversary Set. These coins will receive the 25th Anniversary Set pedigree if received in the sealed boxes, and that is enough distinction. There is otherwise no perceivable difference between the bullion coins from the set and from monster boxes."

 

Saw one listed on ebay for $40 BIN and I went for it, but missed it by less than a minute. It sold in less than an hour. Perhaps this will end up being a hidden gem in this set.

 

Yes, we have and we've been discussing it here. Thanks for pointing out the tail feather, a significant find indeed.

 

The mint has once again confirmed not only that the bullion coin in the set was minted in San Francisco but that it is identical to the SF bullion coins being sold to APs. They did not say specifically that the coins were pulled from the AP production line (as in taken from monster boxes), only that they are identical to those coins. This can be taken to mean that even if the presses were run specifically to produce the bullion coins for the sets that they were minted on normal bullion planchets using normal bullion die in production presses and that production bullion strike forces were used. This does not mean that there aren't any die markers on some of the set bullion coins. Since it is almost certain that some die sets were used exclusively in the production of set coins (some die sets may have produced coins for both APs and sets), it is entirely possible that some die markers will only exist on set bullion coins. It is very unlikely that any particular die marker will exist on all set bullion coins unless that marker also shows up on at least some AP coins as well because such a marker would have to exist on a large number of die sets and there is no reason to believe that die were specially produced for set coin production. This announcement does mean that any bullion coin surface distinctions being made are within the normal variation for normal bullion production at the SF mint, that there is nothing out of the ordinary as far as coin surface treatment is concerned. It also means that PCGS totally jumped like a scared rabbit when they read the COA and completely overreacted to what they saw there. If they had carefully and professionally asked the mint for clarification we would be getting coins labeled as 2011-(S) for the bullion coins submitted to PCGS in mint sealed shipping packaging.

 

Don't think I agree with this, at least not yet...the Coin World article on page 47 of the 5 December issue was written by Paul A. Gilkes. At the very end of the article, Gilkes states the following:

"The bullion coin in the 25th Anniversary set is identical to the bullion coins sold to authorized purchasers".

It is not possible to determine from this article whether this statement is Gilkes opinion, or attributed to a Mint employee.

 

From the CW article, I don’t see were the Mint reconfirmed since we received the sets. The article did state the SF Coins for the set were struck in September & October, indicating they may have been struck specifically for the set. Question is, from which dies and were they destroyed afterward? It would be nice to see the mint address what collectors are noticing since receiving the sets. Still waiting for someone to report a certified monster box coin with the tail feather marker.

 

Jurkowsky confirmed on the 11th and reconfirmed on the 13th of November, both days after sets were in buyers hands, the second time after consulting with mint manufacturing officials, that the bullion coins in the sets came exclusively from the San Francisco mint. It is entirely possible that the tail feather marker is exclusive to set coins but if it is it is most probably not inclusive of all set coins. It is not made clear which of September and October saw the striking of bullion and/or uncirculated coins, only that all of the coins minted at SF were struck in those two months. This fact makes it entirely possible that the bullion coins all came from a special production run and if that is indeed the case then the die used were probably not used to make any coins sent to APs. Those die, however would have most likely come from normal die production as that has continued as needed to supply bullion production at West Point and there is no reason to believe that any special die were used in the striking of the set bullion coins. The die used to strike the set bullion coins may well have already been in stock at the SF mint or they may have been delivered from their point of production as needed. The only die which could possibly have been used to strike any other than set coins would be the first few pair and the last few pair. Die used in between would have been used exclusively for set coins as the mint no longer reworks die for reuse once they have been removed from service, after striking their fill of coins. Since it does appear quite likely that bullion production for the set was a distinct event, separate from production to fill AP orders, it is equally likely that all of the die pairs used for set coins were retired during or at the completion of the set coin production. There is still no evidence that indicates that the tail feather marker is exclusive to or inclusive of the bullion coins in the anniversary sets.

 

Well, the confirmation dates above confirm the bullion was produced at SF, it does not refer to the last statement in the article, stating the bullions are identical, although the Mint did state this. Anyway, they sure don't look identical. So, imagine the dies were pulled from AP dies and because they were for the set, they were "cleaned up a little".

As for the tail feather marker, the only evidence so far is all coins reported from the set have the marker and no markers have been found on coins not from the set. I'd say as more report, time will determine if this trend holds.

 

I am sure that they were referring to the method of manufacturing and not the finished look of the coins when they said that the set coins were identical to other bullion coins. Although it is possible, I doubt that the die pairs used for the bullion coins in the sets were modified before use. They may have been inspected again and anything less than the highest quality ones rejected for use in minting coins for the sets, but to do any reworking of the die at the branch mint would be highly unorthodox. This is something that an FOIA request for information from the DIS could easily determine one way or the other.

 

Ha ha ha!!! Looks like they've already begun cashing in on this "variety"! LOL!!!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/25th-Annive...653?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ab10e271d

 

The seller is claiming that the marker exists on both the bullion and uncirculated S mint coins. If true, this points either to a change in the die production process before mint marks are added, I am not sure if this even happens anywhere but on a computer or in the very first physical step(s), or to a common evolution that happens as SAE die are produced such that it affects virtually all types of die (bullion, uncirculated, proof, and perhaps even reverse proof) at some point in time. It is also possible that the "notch" is similar but different on the two coins. Clearly, since these die are absolutely different, one with a mint mark and one without, they were not produced by the same hub. It is awfully early to be calling this marker a rare occurrence, if it is present on a majority of set coins then it is the opposite of rare as far as anniversary set coins go. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as we get more data points.

 

My bullion and my S Unc have the notch, which appears identical on both coins, although slightly more pronounced on the bullion. It appears to be part of the design, rather than a flaw.

 

Surprising little detail in the latest Coin World article addressing this issue – almost a full page of repeated facts, we already knew, about the 25th Ann Set. The only new questioned answered was that burnished planchets were not used for the bullion pieces. Yet the Mint states any differences in appearance can be attributed to die finish and life. Well, YEAH, where’s the follow up questions? What die finish? Were dies prepared specifically for the 25th set bullions? Were special presses or extra force used to strike them? What about the tail feather marker? Coin World, please go back and ask these follow up questions!

 

The article does at least put to rest the speculation that any special planchet use occurred. I still think that many people don't understand that the coin finish would not be any different even if burnished planchets were used for bullion coins or if unprepared planchets were used to strike uncirculated coins. Burnishing only improves consistency and reduces surface flaws, it does not contribute to the finish on the coin. They do make it clear that the mint does all burnishing and polishing, receiving all blanks in one single form from suppliers. The mint did not address the possible die marker at all, apparently because Coin World did not ask about it.