I'm sure some sellers of these slabbed are already aware, but for those end-customers who are buying slabbed..? Make sure you keep track of which box/COA belongs to which medal. :lol: I made the mistake of letting them pile up before finally doing something about it. Everybody will have their own "system," but what I just did was put each box/COA in its own ziploc bag -- then labeled the bag. On that label were a few important keywords that matched up the NGC label.. year, 2-3 identifying words of the medal name, and whether silver or brass. Not going to lie: It took me a while.. or at least longer than it should have, had I instead kept up with it as I received each medal. Since not all of these medals have the serial # on the NGC label, it makes it a bit tricky. Luckily, the COA's use "English" numbers.. like 99.9 (%), 80 (grams), 45 (mm), year, mintage, etc. My suggestion is to do it *now* before it gets too overwhelming.. Plus, these days you can still find them on the internet a lot easier for those from the past few years, as you might even find current eBay listings which have all the info -- plus photos of the boxes & COA's. Obviously it would help you as the owner, should you ever decide to sell any someday -- not to mention giving a big helping hand ahead of time to surviving heirs. Yes, I've learned my lesson now. :lol: This brings up another question.. Does *every* high-relief medal with a serialized COA have a serial number etched on the edge of the medal? Obviously I can't tell if it's slabbed & I've never seen (even any photos of) it raw. One would think that if there were an etched serial #, that it would always be printed on the NGC label, no? Perhaps those who send them in for grading would know the answer to this..
Most medals graded do not contain the serial number on the label....very few that I have ever seen actually do. I specifically requested of NGC to include on the label the s/n's of the medals I submitted that have s/n's engraved on their rim. I will just have to wait and see if they do as I have requested. .
Smart! Yeah, I recall only a few of mine do.. Two in particular -- both part of the same series & both Ag. I don't think their brass counter-parts do. Makes one wonder which ones do or don't have it etched. Part of it might even be that they ran out of room on the label.. Only so many lines available, and I believe some veribage might have to have its own line. Would be nice to have the serial # printed, whenever there is a etching. Otherwise, maybe for many of them they simply don't etch, and just throw in whatever COA from the stack. (As an aside, I noticed that I have a COA for one down in the teens! ) I checked slabbed brass GuanYu by shining a flashlight all around its edge.. But the spacer isn't entirely see-through, so makes it difficult. Didn't see any markings on the edge, though. Maybe Andrew can confirm any etched serial #, if he still has a raw 80mm GuanYu lying around..
So, for example, all Xi-Shi Holding A Pearl medals have the serial number etched onto the side, including the brass and copper Xi-Shi's. But most slabbed Xi-Shi's that I've seen don't have the s/n on the label....some do. From now on, whenever I submit a coin, medal, or round into NGC for authenticating / slabbing, I will insist that they put the s/n on the label if the coin, medal, or round I send them has it etched somewhere on it. I would not request that for a coin, medal, or round that had the s/n only on a COA because there would be no good way for NGC to actually determine whether that COA corresponds specifically to that coin, medal, round. Anyone could claim that it does but there'd be no way for them to determine with certainty that it does. .
I'm guessing that NGC's own internal policies dictate that if it's not somewhere on the medal, then it's not going on the label. Anyway, I was wrong: The brass counter-parts *do* have the serial #'s on the labels. All part of the same series. And they're the only ones of mine that have it. They're also all from the same seller, too.. But I have a 5th one (different series) from them that doesn't have it. I have to wonder how much influence, if any, the submitter has over what goes on the label, when filling in the form. Also, if different NGC branches (China vs US) have different policies. For Ag, I'd like to see the weight (in grams or ounces) stated on the label. And for brass/copper, the diameter (in mm). Skipping the weight for Ag, and instead putting the diameter, makes no sense to me.. They'll put the weight for full ounces -- but put the diameter for those measured in grams?? Though it appears this might be an NGC China vs NGC US thing, from what I've seen. Hard to say, since I've received slabbed medals from 2 different sellers in China, but only 1 in the US. Maybe others who have submitted to a non-China NGC office can chime in. Whatever.. I'm just being really particular on what goes on that label! :lol:
@ Gatito, More than likely it is an unofficial individual NGC office difference. That said though, if true, doesn't mean that we shouldn't request all the time that the etched or stamped s/n be added to the label whenever we submit such medals/coins. Perhaps if enough people who submit serial numbered medals, coins, or rounds request it (that s/n be added to label), it may become officially incorporated into the labeling policy. To me, it makes little to no sense that they wouldn't add the s/n on the label for coins, medals, and rounds that have s/n's etched or stamped into them. After all, they often note other distinguishing identifiers and characteristics such as type of metal, type of finish, mint mark, small or large date, etc, etc, etc. Why shouldn't they add what is arguably the most distinguishing of all possible identifiers?? .
Yeah, I really don't know, as it seems like it makes no rhyme or reason. Take this one, for example.. http://www.ebay.com/itm/UNITED-STAT...-4-2-OZ-OF-999-SILVER-NGC-MS-65-/111727872052 Stranger things have happened, but I'd have a hard time believing that this was slabbed anywhere else other than in the US. :lol: From what I recall, this style has the serial # (along with other identifiers) stamped on the edge. And.. it's 999 Ag -- so they list the diameter, but not the weight? To make matters even more confusing, I've seen slabbed Ag medals list both the diameter *and* the weight! Anyway, not sure where this one was slabbed.. http://chinesemedals.com/products/201-china-wutai-medal-silver But that's the series I was talking about earlier.. Both my Ag & brass of the 2 issues have the serial # on the label. Sounds like maybe another call to Becky is in order. Though not sure how much info she'd have..
Gatito, are you suggesting that only Ag coins and medals should have the weight printed on the label or all coins and medals no matter the metal? If just Ag....why??? Some of the larger Chinese medals can vary quite a bit in weight in spite of the fact that they are the same medal and same metal. So adding the weight on the label would require precision weighing of each medal and coin submitted. I doubt NGC is eager to put their graders to task on that added chore. And not that I think it's a bad idea to have the weight noted on the label just that I think it's a bigger deal than you may perceive. .
Only Ag, gold & platinum (and the like) -- due to their relatively higher financial value. I don't see copper medals (or brass or bronze, since a good chunk of their composition is copper) really being valued much, if at all, for their metal content. I don't foresee copper ever becoming valuable enough, as a base metal. I'd have to double-check another time, but I don't recall any of the COA's for my brass having the weight listed. At least one can make the case for Ag.. 80g, 300g, or more.. and you're starting to talk a few bucks. Especially as time goes on. 300g at spot is about $150 USD right now -- surely nothing to sneeze at. That could easily be $300+ -- which it was not too long ago. And yes, if not all are weighed these days (I'm sure some are for various reasons), then maybe they should be in the future.. Including all those 1-oz coins. Question: For those medals whose weight is listed on the label, are they weighed by NGC, today? Why or why not?
So the problem with just noting the weight of silver, gold, and platinum (and the like???) is that when this is suggested, then we are attaching a subjective perceived valuation to some metals we just happen to be familiar with today or that coins are commonly made from and not other metals that are either far more rare or far more expensive by the ounce than the metals you mentioned. The line of what metal is valuable enough to be included is more or less arbitrary by the measure you suggest. There are minted rounds made from metals like osmium and calcium. Should coins, medals, or rounds made from these metals be considered valuable enough to have their weight noted on the label if they are graded? Why should silver be considered valuable in comparison to many of the REM's (Rare Earth Metals)? Silver is actually very, very, very less valuable compared to some REM's. Take a look at these REM rounds: http://www.elementsales.com/ecoins.htm. Which REM's would qualify for having their weight noted on a label? And what about coins that have rare or precious metals encapsulated inside a chamber in the coin. How would those metals inside the chamber be accurately weighed? What about coins with valuable gems (like faceted diamonds, sapphires, and rubies) inside a chamber or attached to the coin ( https://www.pandaamerica.com/NEWS_aussie_crownJewels_01_30_2002.ASP ) ....should the gems be weighed and the total carat weight be noted on the label? Decent examples of faceted diamonds, rubies, and certain sapphires are far more valuable than silver in the same weight. I don't see how it's in the interest of authentication and grading services or collectors to have such perceived 'valuable enough' materials' weights be noted on the label. If the weight of a coin or medal is to be noted, it should be only and entirely for the purpose of identifying a difference between the same type of coins / medals / rounds. So, I'm not opposed to having the weight noted on the label, but the type of metal based on current perceived subjective value can and should not be the qualifier / disqualifier in my view because then we will just be going down the slipperiest slope we can possibly create. .
It's my understanding that the major TPG's won't touch certain things -- one of them being rounds, regardless of their composition. Also, for example, NGC has this: http://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/coins-graded-policies/coins-we-grade.aspx IMPORTANT NOTES: Certain coins are not eligible for NGC grading and encapsulation: Coins that have altered dates, mintmarks, and coins that are not genuine or of questionable authenticity are not certified by NGC. Most coins that have adhered enamel, plastics, or jewels are not eligible for NGC certification. Coins with stones glued to the surface or inset. And coins with active surface residues such as PVC cannot be certified by NGC; such coins must be conserved to have harmful residue removed prior to certification. For information about professional conservation, visit Numismatic Conservation Services. Also: http://www.ngccoin.com/services/tokensmedals.aspx I believe PCGS is even more strict in what they'll accept. Heck, I don't think they even do coins beyond the year 1600, for example. That's their right to do whatever they want. Perhaps a minor TPG would grade & holder them, who knows. And who knows what NGC might accept in the future. Anyway, as we were discussing earlier, it doesn't appear their labeling descriptions are very clear or consistent regarding this. But maybe there is a method to their madness? And yes, it's my opinion that the common precious metals (gold, silver, platinum, others?) that the TPG's accept as part of their business should be handled in a certain manner. Of course, I don't make the internal decisions for the company.. But as you mentioned, perhaps their customers can help to influence their policies.
@ Gatito, My point with the REM rounds was not to suggest that those particular rounds would be graded but if coins or medals were to be made from any of those REM's (which of course, some coins are), then the dilemmas that I eluded to / noted would likely present themselves very quickly (if the TPG were to go the route of adding the weight to the label of coins / medals in which the metal or gems or whatever was subjectively said to be valuable enough to warrant the weight being denoted. Way too much of a slippery slope in my opinion. As a customer, I would strongly encourage NGC or any TPG to not include the weight of the coin/medal on the label just because it is made from some percentage of some rare or precious metal. Only if, by adding the weight, it helped to distinguish that coin/medal from one just like it, would I encourage that distinction to be noted on the label. If someone is interested in the weight of the precious metal in a coin for the purpose of ascertaining some monetary value, then that person has their investor hat on, not their coin collector hat on. That person would be much better off buying bullion which already has the specific weight stamped onto it. .
The specific example of the xi shi medal deserves additional comments. Specifically it seems that the weight of each medal is a little different from the other and may vary by more than just a few grams. What I am thinking of doing is to weigh each of mine before sending for slabbing and request that the serial number of each medal be noted on the label as well as the weight. Obviously, the grading company needs to re-weigh the coin/medal using their precision equipment. I am hoping that NGC and PCGS are responsive to these requests as part of the evolution of MCC documentation. Coin etched serial numbers definitely need to noted on the label; I believe this was done for the Shanghai Memory coin slabs.
Yes, Xi-Shi's can have differing weights...I know this for a fact. The other medal type that I know for a fact can have differing weights is the 2012 Snake Dance medals. Even 1 oz coins have different weights from each other but since the large medals are so much bigger, the weight difference can end up being a bit significant....weight tolerances on 1 oz coins are in the hundreth's or thousanth's of an ounce I believe.....very small differences. If we suggest to NGC that silver medals have their weigh and s/n noted on the label, we should also suggest copper and brass medals also have their weight and s/n noted on the label. That's the only way it makes sense to me. .
I definitely agree with that. I forgot to include that with my comments. Documenting the exact weight not just potentially affects the value of the coin/medal it also helps establish the provenance of the coin especially if they develop wings and fly away! Can be used to trace the coin/medal in case of theft and "misplacement".
mmissing, Why is NGC currently putting "5oz" on a Chinese Panda label, for example? Or "Kilo" on Libertad label? Heck, it's already even clearly visible on the coin, itself! And unfortunately, we don't always get that luxury with slabbed edge-stamped medals. If they're going to put "45mm" on an 80g Mt Wutai, why not instead put "110mm" on that Libertad? The label is for identification purposes. Eventually, somewhere down the road, odds are some boxes & COA's will become permanently separated from the slabbed medal. Whether lost, thrown out, damaged, etc. It's bound to happen. Don't these future collectors have a right to know exactly what they're buying? Or what the heirs have inherited? And even if the COA's remain intact -- do they know how to read Chinese? I don't know about you, but I have no idea how much "45mm" of Ag is. Is the diameter that much more of an important measure of precious metals than its weight is? Just curious: When you buy from Apmex, do you order by the centimeter, or by the inch? Besides, if I really wanted to know its diameter, couldn't I just break out a ruler? Sure, one could weigh the slabbed medal -- but how much does an empty slab weigh, anyway, in order to subtract from the total number? See what I'm getting at? TPG's have the responsibility to identify & authenticate a piece, as part of their services. That's what people are paying them for. And people are also more prone to pay up for a slabbed piece, for those reasons (and then some). Something tells me the TPG's aren't always completely fulfilling their obligations, unfortunately. Finally, someday Ag will be priced at $75 or $100 an ounce. Ha ha, funny, I know. Probably not in our lifetimes, but in somebody's lifetime in the future. And some of these beautiful Chinese medals we hold in our hands today will most certainly last.. 50 years, 100 years, 200 years+. A little creepy, eh? Given that, wouldn't it be nice to know that in addition to buying an awesome historical piece, that you're also getting $200-$250 worth of Ag in an 80g-medal, as a bare-bones minimum floor price? I honestly don't think copper will be catching up to that anytime soon, whether that medal be copper, brass or bronze. Anyway, I could ramble on & on while making some perfectly reasonable points, but I honestly don't think I'll be changing your mind anytime soon.. And nor will you, mine..
200 years old? Happy birthday to me! And I still don't look a day over 4.. I chalk it up to those awesome Asian genetics. Now, servants.. bring me my sippy cup full of newborn-calf blood. And throw in some of that placenta, too.. Chop, chop! \
@ Gatito, my guess is that TPG put "5 oz" or "Kilo" on a label not to highlight the value of the coin / medal in terms of metal content, but rather 1) to identify it in a similar way as the mint identifies it and even perhaps in some instances 2) to identify the product and distinguish it from other similar looking products. For example, some 10 oz coins may be very similar in diameter to 1/2 kilo or even kilo coins and so noting the weight would help distinguish. And even when TPG's put a weight on the label such as "5 oz" or "kilo", that's not an accurate account of the weight of that specific coin...that's simply the weight designation the manufacturer (mint) uses and we all know that the weights of coins vary. So in terms of trying to ascertain a melt value of a rare collectible coin by denoting the weight of it's silver content, it's a total failure anyway because the TPG doesn't put the exact accurate weight of the coin on the label. It would be a big waste of time unless the weight distinguishes it from a similar coin and then that reasoning would mean that you can not exclude noting the weight of a coin just because it doesn't contain some unspecified amount (percentage) of subjectively valuable enough metal. Weight denotation on a label should be for identification purposes and not to define which metals are worthy of being considered valuable enough. So whether an 80mm medal is made from brass, copper, or iblibninomizium , if one medals weight is noted, all should have their weight noted. But I doubt that any TPG would be very excited about making it a policy to accurately weigh medals or coins that are sold by mints / distributors by the diameter because it's extra cost for the TGP. It's not important to most collectors how much 45mm of Ag weighs...they are not necessarily investors who care about what precise purity and based on which precise moment in time the market spot price of silver is referenced in order to determine some bullion value of that numismatic / collector medal....I'm fairly sure of this. There may be some who care what the melt value of the collector medal is worth...but most don't care. Those who do buy bullion which already has the purity and weigh noted on the product. As for your argument about breaking out the ruler....1) the same could be said about about breaking out your own scale and not needing the weight noted on the label which is an argument against including the weight on the label (it would be very simple to find out from NGC how much their raw slabs weigh) 2) the size denoted on the label is for ease of identification. If adding the weight to the label doesn't help identify or distinguish the product, why add it? Doesn't make sense to me and it probably doesn't make sense to TPG's to do so unless it's an identifier or distinguishing characteristic already noted by the mint like a "5 oz silver 2008 Lunar Mouse" coin. The mint already identified it...the TPG is simply using that identifier. The TGP is not going to accurately weigh every coin they get just because someone wants to know its melt value in terms of the purity and weight of it's precious metal content. It's a truly slippery slope if TPG's are expected to accurately calculate the weight of the precious metal in a numismatic product. Some coins that contain silver contain 5 9's, 4 9's, 3 9's, 2 9's some 75%, some 90%, some 92.5%, and whatever other percentages there's out there. It definitely should not be the job of the TPG to add the weight unless and only unless its for identification or distinguishing purposes. The melt value (by denoting only the weight of some valuable enough metal content) of a rare medal should not be of concern to the TPG. The fact that my 1987 60mm silver proof Great Wall medal may have 3.3 ounces or 3.4 ounces of .999 silver is of no concern to me. What does matter to be noted on the label is how it can be identified and distinguished from other similar medals. It is important to me that the OPM silver bullion investment bar that I buy is labeled with the the weight and purity...and it is labeled in the form of those figures stamped into the bar. .
mmissing, I have one further piece of info to add, as I only discovered it today.. If you have a World Heritage medal booklet handy, check a few pages in. Even the mint, itself, differentiates between Au, Ag & brass.. Two of them have their weight listed in that table -- while the third does not (as it is denoted with a "/" in that field). I'll give you one guess which medal version does not have its weight listed.. If even the official mint who produced these is identifying & differentiating these pieces in such a manner, then shouldn't NGC? I don't think that's terribly unreasonable..
Good catch....I do not have easy access to my stash but of course I believe you. To me, I don't care if NGC notes the weights of medals or not....my bone of contention is that they should not do it only with medals that have some unspecified purity of some metal that is subjectively claimed to be valuable enough. If they list the weight, it should only be for purposes of identification or differentiating...not for perceived melt value or any other sort of valuation which puts importance on the value of a raw metal that happens to be considered today by some to be precious. Like I stated, what about all the REM's? It's a slippery slope proposition to note the weight for any reason other than identification or differentiating. Copper, brass, aluminum, etc medals should all have their weight noted if silver medals' weight is noted. The fact that NGC may follow the lead of the mint in how it describes a medal...I'm not necessarily opposed to that. So if the mint lists the weight of only the copper and brass but not the silver and the TPG follows that lead, I'm perfectly fine with that because the value of blobs (bullion) should not be confused or conflated to be the same as the value for collector / numismatic medals and coins. I treat my bullion differently than I do my collector and slabbed pieces....I value them differently and I don't think the role of a TPG is to promote the raw metal value of certain metals on the label which is meant to describe the type of item and the condition. .
