| Author |
 Replies: 1,517 / Views: 102,313 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1388 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
493 Posts |
That's pretty interesting, every single one of the 14 coins from the 7 sets I examined today from a freshly opened box were covered with dust and lint. The RP were a little cleaner than the proofs, but the proofs were a guaranteed lint and dust trap, every single one of them, either inside or outside the flips. Like they sat in an open production area for hours or days before being put into flips, then even after being put into flips. I remember reading an article in Numismatic News about the quality and control and all this BS from a manager they interviewed.. Edited by everything
10/27/2012 9:33 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Personally I think that the QC usually is what they say in those interviews, but for whatever reason it wasnt for this set. Part of the problem could have just been how they were minted just mass producing them in a short time instead of making them for a while before they go on sale, but for whatever reason it certainly wasnt present for this set
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1027 Posts |
My last two sets (total of seven) arrived today and the coins are fantastic. The proofs might drop to high end 69s because (only under magnification) you can see some late die state effects, mainly shiny points in the frost. The RPs are perfect even when viewed through the loupe. I still have two unopened sets from the early batch (shipped July 30). Bottom line: I am very happy, a good mix of 69s & 70s, way more 70s than any of us would have expected a few years ago but possibly slightly less than we came to expect after seeing the 2011 sets results (which I personally think were lazily judged). I only have one early set open and it is perfect so I have some more incentive to open the other two sets to get a better personal view of early vs. late coins. I will probably never sell the coins to anyone who would care about PCGS FS eligibility, one more reason to take the plunge and look at them ... maybe tonight. None of the coins I have show any signs of post strike damage, even in the slightest. No nicks, scratches, prints, spots, or anything else of any kind. The only things that any of my coins exhibit that would take them off of 70 are normal die use issues, the worst of which are from die that might be closing in on end of life. None of the issues with any of my coins can be seen with the unaided (except for corrective lenses) eye so as collector pieces they are all great.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1027 Posts |
Edited by clairhardesty
10/31/2012 1:19 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
2224 Posts |
Those are great Clair! Nice comparisons of finish, detail and clarity amongst the ASEs.   Nice photography work also. Thanks for sharing. |
|
New Member
United States
12 Posts |
On a set of PCGS 70's how much of a difference will them not having First Strike label make in 5 years? I am not big into numismatics and was just wondering if it will make a really big difference value wise in the long term.
I was also wondering if their is a premium if they are signed by Mercanti.
Edited by royintx
10/30/2012 8:43 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2764 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2764 Posts |
I didn't post this information because I wasn't sure if it would work. Now I've got the result, I would like to share with those of you did or intending to return your coins to the US Mint: The Mint will refund your shipping cost (of returning the coins) if the coins you are receiving are defective/damaged/unacceptable quality. Note, the key word are defective/damaged/unacceptable quality.
When I called into Customer Service to confirm that I can get an exchange on my order, the CS told me that "may refund shipping cost" if the coins are defective/damaged/unacceptable quality. She told me to get a record/receipt of the return shipping cost + Order number + Write a request for refund, then all of these in a SEPARATE envelope (not the package with your returning coin) to the SAME mailing address.
So here's what I did: Made a copy of my "Return Form" and include with the package of the shipping cost receipt + I wrote on one of the piece of paper that I want my return shipping cost refund, because of the reason on my Return Form.
I sent the envelope about a day after sending back the coins (the shipping cost was $12.95). I received my exchange sets yesterday and today (two separate package). About 30 mins ago, I just received an email from the Mint showing a Return Accepted:
" Amount Credited : 12.95-
Items included in this return:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEM RSD (RSD) Qty : 1"
The CS didn't mention about time span allowed to claim the return shipping cost but suggested me to do so ASAP.
To some of you $13 is not much but it matter to me that the Mint is doing the RIGHT THING. I thought I share my experience - The Mint is trying....
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
13014 Posts |
Quote:
On a set of PCGS 70's how much of a difference will them not having First Strike label make in 5 years? No one knows for sure. For other sets it usually makes a marginal difference at best. The 75th anniversary designation will be the important part like the 25th was on the 2011 sets |
|
Valued Member
United States
102 Posts |
Quote:
lens turned around backwards Just curious. What are you using to reverse the lens? And are you able to control the diaphragm? |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4901 Posts |
Great pic's Clair... |
|
Valued Member
United States
81 Posts |
Picked up my last 2 sets yesterday, one looks flawless, the other had the usual issues. The RP had so many spots I'm going to start referring to them as Leopard Eagles from now on.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1027 Posts |
LXShutter: I bought an inexpensive (currently $6.95 from Amazon) reversing ring. It is a device that mounts to the camera and in my case has 58mm threads. I then use sets of step up and step down rings (currently $13.95 each from Amazon) to form an extension tube, ending up at the correct size to match the filter threads on the lens. In the case of this lens, the aperture is stuck wide open but for some lenses (like my 35 year old Canon FD 35-105 F3.5 monster) the aperture is still adjustable (because it has a fully manual capability). When you turn a lens around, you get maximum magnification at the minimum focal length of the lens. If you use the right extension tubes and leave the lens facing forward, you get pretty good increases in maximum magnification (and maintain all of the features like autofocus, etc.) but nothing near what you get by turning the lens around. The original images for the ones I uploaded are 5184 x 3456 pixels (18MP) so I am getting roughly 0.6 micron per pixel or a 35mm equivalent of 12X magnification! (image is 3mm wide and 35mm film frame was 36mm wide, 36/3=12) Reversing Ring: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._o02_s01_i02Step Up Rings: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._o02_s01_i01Step Down Rings: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._o02_s01_i00Edited by clairhardesty
10/31/2012 1:55 pm
|
|
Moderator
 United States
188766 Posts |
Quote:
A very close up comparison of uncirculated, proof, and reverse proof surfaces as expressed by the Eagle. Excellent photos! |
| |
Replies: 1,517 / Views: 102,313 |
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 10/27/2012 9:18 pm
