Complaining is really easy to do and I know that this blog is filled with it. But that was because I needed an outlet for my frustrations with coinage issues. :-) HOWEVER, it is nice to talk about something where you’re not complaining. My attempt to do so lies with eBay’s recent change in their rules. They have stated that if you’re selling a coin that has not been encapsulated by the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS), Independent Coin Grading (ICG), National Guaranty Corporation (NGC) or the American Numismatic Association Certification Service (ANACS, the acronym being especially important since it hasn’t belonged to the ANA in a long time) then you can’t mention a numerical grade in the title of the listing, you may not reference a grading company or price guide at all (title or description) and you can’t state a dollar value. These policies may be found on eBay.
To be honest, I am not sure how I feel about these new regulations. In Coin World’s Letters to the Editor, it seems as though there are many people on both sides of the isle and I plan on presenting arguments for and against.
Those who are for it like the fact that eBay is aggressively going after fraudulent listings to protect buyers from dishonest sellers. This is done by making it more difficult to pass off a cheaper coin by putting it in an official looking holder and calling it “certified.” I’ve never had problems with this but that is because I’ve purchased three coins off eBay and all of them were still in their original government packaging. But I could see being upset at buying what I thought was an MS-61 Eagle only to find that it was XF-45 at best and had been cleaned.
On the other hand, those upset with the new policy argue that eBay has chatted with the the Professional Numismatists Guild and the Industry Council for Tangible Assets and determined that only four certification/grading services are “worthy” of being truly considered certification/grading services. I’ve read that the owner of Soverign Entities Grading Services was exceedingly irritated because a customer retracted a large submission (multiple coins) because the coins could not be sold on eBay as a certified coin.
I can see both sides here but I think that what eBay should do is work with the American Numismatic Association to come up with a list of criteria that a grading service must meet in order to be “genuine” in the eyes of eBay and the rest of the numismatic community. Just a thought.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Coin relief too low
I know that it has been awhile since I have updated my blog. Two reasons can equally share the blame on this one: 1) Been very busy both at work and at home. 2) There haven’t been a lot of new issues to address. But to assure everyone (and by everyone, I mean the small number of people who read this blog) that I am ok, I’ll dig up an “old” issue and give my two cents (pun intended, though now that I have used it in a coin blog, I can never use it again on this page).
This issue deals with the relief on the coins that are manufactured for circulation. Its not hard to see the difference in quality as many older coins bear the higher relief that added depth and character to our coins. I am not sure exactly when this new relief standard came into effect but from crude observations it seems like the early to mid 1990’s. I can understand lowering the relief to make a coin easier to strike and perhaps increase the life of a die (this is not proven though, just a conjecture). However, it cheapens the appearance of our coins. So many of the designs are old and in desperate need of updating (look here) that seeing them in lower relief conjures images of game tokens used in arcades. More than one person I’ve talked to about the new Presidential Dollars have independently made the assessment that they look like tokens (partly due to the lack of mottos on the obverse/reverse) but it is exacerbated by the low relief. When one sees a Lincoln cent, Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt dime or Washington quarter in the relief that they were intended to be struck in, they are surprisingly appealing.
With the US’s international image not what it used to be, and the dollar not what it used to be, it would be nice if our coins looked like something. When the Mint flattens the coins, they look cheaper and thus are not an inspiring element in our economy.
This issue deals with the relief on the coins that are manufactured for circulation. Its not hard to see the difference in quality as many older coins bear the higher relief that added depth and character to our coins. I am not sure exactly when this new relief standard came into effect but from crude observations it seems like the early to mid 1990’s. I can understand lowering the relief to make a coin easier to strike and perhaps increase the life of a die (this is not proven though, just a conjecture). However, it cheapens the appearance of our coins. So many of the designs are old and in desperate need of updating (look here) that seeing them in lower relief conjures images of game tokens used in arcades. More than one person I’ve talked to about the new Presidential Dollars have independently made the assessment that they look like tokens (partly due to the lack of mottos on the obverse/reverse) but it is exacerbated by the low relief. When one sees a Lincoln cent, Jefferson nickel, Roosevelt dime or Washington quarter in the relief that they were intended to be struck in, they are surprisingly appealing.
With the US’s international image not what it used to be, and the dollar not what it used to be, it would be nice if our coins looked like something. When the Mint flattens the coins, they look cheaper and thus are not an inspiring element in our economy.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The New $5 FRN
Last week the new design for the $5 FRN was revealed. This is part of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's efforts to thwart counterfeiters. Originally the $5 bill was not going to be redesigned but it was discovered that they were being bleached and fake $100 bills were being printed on the currency paper. This would not be that much of an issue if people were to bother checking the security features of bills when they were received. Even if the printing job on the fake $100 was top notch, it would be difficult to pass it if someone looked at the security strip since it would read "USA 5" or would have a Lincoln watermark. Instead, many companies rely on those markers that are supposed to turn black if the ink is not put on real currency paper. There have been times throughout the past many years that I have seen a clerk reach for the pen, I stop them and tell them the security features. The usual reply was that it is company policy to use the pen so it doesn't matter about the other features. This business with the $5 FRN is a key reason why relying on a pen doesn't help you. I wonder if businesses didn't trust their employees enough to actually remember the security features well enough to check them. I further wonder if in light of this new type of counterfeiting, businesses will be more likely to train their employees in detecting fake money.
With all of that said, lets turn our attention to the new design. I personally enjoy it. I'll sound like a broken record but I am disappointed that the BEP doesn't use these redesigns as an opportunity to do a true redesign of our currency. Past designs have been true works of engraved art. Browsing this link will show you why. In fact, many old printing plates from the American Bank Note Company sell for large quantities of money because of their designs. However, since we know that no one has the balls to do a drastic redesign, within the confines of the current themes, the $5 FRN looks good. We can hope that this will prevent counterfeiters from being able to successfully bleach them to make fake $100s. This will be further thwarted when the new $100 is released sometime in 2009. I am excited about the micro-lens security thread feature and am eager to see it.
With all of that said, lets turn our attention to the new design. I personally enjoy it. I'll sound like a broken record but I am disappointed that the BEP doesn't use these redesigns as an opportunity to do a true redesign of our currency. Past designs have been true works of engraved art. Browsing this link will show you why. In fact, many old printing plates from the American Bank Note Company sell for large quantities of money because of their designs. However, since we know that no one has the balls to do a drastic redesign, within the confines of the current themes, the $5 FRN looks good. We can hope that this will prevent counterfeiters from being able to successfully bleach them to make fake $100s. This will be further thwarted when the new $100 is released sometime in 2009. I am excited about the micro-lens security thread feature and am eager to see it.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Speaking of proactivity
I couldn't resist mentioning this but in the October 8 Coin World there is a front page article about Mint Director Edmund Moy's speech to FIDEM (Internation Medal Federation). In it, he mentioned a "neo-renaissance" of US coinage similar to the one started a century ago by Teddy Roosevelt and Augustus St. Gaudens. He was very vague on the details but stated that his full proposal will be announced in early October.
My hope is that Moy is genuinely interested in coinage redesign and a return to the dignified coins we once had. For the time being, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I eagerly await his plan.
My hope is that Moy is genuinely interested in coinage redesign and a return to the dignified coins we once had. For the time being, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I eagerly await his plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
