| Author |
 Replies: 49 / Views: 9,615 |
|
|
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
228 Posts |
JimmyD, you do bring up a couple of valid points, however, the whole reason I brought this issue up was to question Charlton's claim that this coin exists.
As far as ICCS goes, I'm quoting SPP-Ottawa here:
"ICCS started calling all modern Proof-like (PL) strikes 'Numismatic BU' in March of 2006. There are some modern PL coins out there graded as PL and not Numismatic BU, which were graded before that date. The problem was that sometimes, these coins were graded MS and not PL... In the past few years, they have been consistent."
This likely accounts for ICCS's reports of 36 business strike 2003 Crowned/Old Effigy Loon Dollars.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
That's the most logical explanation. And if so, the lucky owners of those 36 ICCS certified coins, I suppose one could say, hold the monopoly on the variety. Because it is said to exist.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
228 Posts |
I don't know if I'd consider myself lucky to have coins in holders with an obsolete and misleading designation/grade. The coin still is what it is.
In my opinion, it's too bad that ICCS decided to stop designating modern "PL's" as PL (yes, ignoring the issue of whether or not PL is accurate for modern "PL's"). Let's be honest, it was a lot less confusing!
I say this is yet another reason to buy the coin, not the holder!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
Agree with buy the coin not the holder but how closely would something so ordinary such as a 2003 mint loonie graded by a reputable company ever get closely examined? And I'd wonder how 36 original owners could be unaware of the origin of their 2003 crowned loonies, considering I'd assume virtually all recent coins to be submitted for grading are removed either directly from mint rolls or sealed uncirculated sets. But if for some reason the owner/s are unaware what they own was created by human grading error, the fact they believe they own a listed variety which nobody else can find....that was my reference to "lucky". Am I reading this right? This suggests 7 passed by the eye of PCGS as well. http://www.PCGS.com/pop/valueview.aspx?s=171482Jimmy, if you don't mind, I'm curious as to the ratio of the misattributed 2003. How many N-BU 2003 loonies are indicated in the ICCS population report? |
|
Valued Member
Canada
135 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
I think you're right, the rim certainly looks wider - PL.
(I think I'm finally able to detect the difference, it took me awhile!)
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21633 Posts |
wildflowerAB-
Sorry, I just noticed your post this morning.
The answer to your question is 13.
I would think that ICCS would notice a difference
to be able to have them in two different classes.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
320 Posts |
Oh that 2003 link you just posted is my listing! Il go have a better look at it and get back to you
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
No problem Jimmy and thank you very much for looking up the info! This is a real head scratcher for sure  So of the 49 2003 crowned/old effigy loonies graded by ICCS - 36 were business strikes - and 13 NBU (aka PL) But if in fact there were no business strikes ever released into circulation, that's a 74% error rate.  It just doesn't make sense. At present it probably doesn't really make much difference because collectors are mainly focused on older series, but many decades into the future.......I'm reminded of, for example, the elusive 1921 50c piece. Edited by wildflowerAB
01/18/2016 09:46 am
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
320 Posts |
The original card it was in as I bought it said UNC. I removed it and had a better look at it. I'm no pro at seeing the difference between PL and BU... It does have alot of hairlines in it.some marks you wouldn't normally see on a NBU. I took a couple pics in a different light.   |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
XWLCOINS, I'm no expert but yours appears N-BU (PL) to me because of the wider rims. If you have other MS business strike loonies to compare it's easier to spot the difference. Here's what I notice of mine - the N-BU (PL) is on the right. Notice the MS-C (uncrowned) on the left, and how the corner of the rim edging is far narrower?  Edit to add: And just to conduct an unscientific experiment, on ebay it's interesting to type in a year, say 2002 or 2004, and look down the list of photos without reading the description. It becomes quite easy to predict whether the loonie is from a mint roll or sold as being PL because of the differing degree of sharpness of the rim edge. Edited by wildflowerAB
01/18/2016 10:36 am
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
135 Posts |
Thanks Wildflower, definitely a good lesson for me. I was unaware of this difference. Thanks XWLCOINS for the additional details/pics. Hopefully as a side effect, I've brought additional exposure to your ongoing auction :). I guess the mystery of the MS 2003 Old Effigy Loon continues.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
320 Posts |
Wow, I did not know that! Thanks for the lesson. I went through my dollar listings on ebay, wildflower, can you please let me know if this is PL. By going off what you said about the wide rims, it now looks like I made a mistake when posting this 2005 $1. Item# 281909234118To get slightly off topic here, is there differences between NBU and business strike for all denominations? Edited by XWLCoins
01/18/2016 12:05 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
Closely examining my own collection, yes it appears to me the difference holds true right through to 2010, until the content of uncirculated sets were changed to routine circulation coin in 2011. Frankly it took me awhile to become convinced......but I do notice that one difference is far easier to recognize than a strike variance.
There's a reason PL coin sometime ends up in circulation. I've known several parents who over time lament about past situations where a rebelous child has robbed the family coin collection to use as spending money.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
This is what I was looking for and what prompted me to take a second look. https://goccf.com/t/248946&whichpage=1So it would seem that the change from Ottawa to Winnipeg mint in 2011 resulted in coin in uncirculated sets no longer being distinguishable from business strikes because both came from exactly the same bucket. What was specifically was different prior at the Ottawa mint, I still do not totally understand. But I do strongly agree that this is a topic of great confusion especially for younger collectors just starting out, including the inconsistencies of reference terms that mean exactly the same as "PL". |
|
|
Replies: 49 / Views: 9,615 |
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 01/13/2016 8:13 pm
