In looking at pandas graded by NGC, is there a difference in value with blue label, red Great Wall label, and red panda label? Today I visited my local coin shop and purchased a 2012 early release silver 1 oz panda with the Great Wall NGC grade MS70 for $58.00 usd. However, they had the same MS70 NGC 1 oz silver panda with blue label for $98.00 usd, and an MS69 NGC silver 1 oz panda on the panda label for $57.00..... What is the difference, and did I make the right buy?
early release, first release and 1st day release label have meaning and differences than normal label. It not only marketing gimmicks
After inspecting many coins of the same type (e.g 2011 1oz Silver Pandas), it's often difficult to find a flawless coin (MS70), whereas it is comparably easier to find a coin in really good condition, but with a minor flaw (MS69). If you view a large quantity of the same type of coin, you should be able to tell the difference between a MS69 and MS70.
These are just gimmicks in my view because they ensure nothing, especially with high volume coins. In fact, if anything, with coins, the first pulled off the shelves at the mint are virtually always the coins produced last.....NOT first. Logistics dictates this. Only Numbered First Struck editions are guaranteed by NGC to be the first struck coins. https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/designations/ "NGC will designate coins that are verified to be among the first struck by a mint. These coins must be accompanied by official mint documentation that identifies that this group of coins was the first struck. The NGC certification label will indicate that the encapsulated coin is one of the first struck by the mint and state the total size of the "first struck" edition (e.g. One of First 1000 Struck or One of First 50,000 Struck). This designation is available only for select bulk submissions." .
From time to time a specific label with become desirable. In my own efforts, I largely ignore the label and pay attention to the grade. One thing though is that anything can become a collector item and boom in price. While IMHO there is no value in one label over another in current times...that could change at some point in the future. I am just not betting on it or investing in it.
Let takes a high volume bullion coins panda silver bullion 8 mio mintage as example. Three official mints appointed to mints the panda bullion coin in china. They are not appointed to mint fully one shot of the coin. They do mint batch by batch and adjust according to their production schedule and market demand. However, China Gold Corp does not announce the actual mint quantity like other western mints. The die of minting first batch let say 10% of the 8 mio mintage will have a clearer image because the more quantity you mint and strike using the same die it will subject to wear and tear of the die. This is simple logic and mechanical proven. However, this small different will able to identify under xx microscope only. This the reason that many early release and first release gold panda sold out faster than others even with higher price. This is fact and true. Many products have marketing efforts and activities. It is the same for the NGC label. However, pure marketing gimmicks without value will not sustain over time. This special label of 1 day release, first release and early release do carry weight on the price of the coins and medals from decades ago.
Hi Andy, They are all marketing gimmick labels except the Numbered First Struck as I have already explained the reason why. All you need to do to understand why they are all gimmicks (except the one I noted) is to understand logistics. So for a batch of coins that is not going to be sent in for Numbered First Struck designation let's say a mint produces 10,000 coins of the 100,000 that is the max mintage. They set aside 4 large shelves for the 10,000 coins. The coins that are struck first will be at the bottom of the shelves due to logistics. Every time a coin is pulled off the shelf to fill an order, the coins being pulled off must be the coins that are struck last, not first. Logistics ensures this. Even if all 10,000 coins are sold within the first 2 weeks, only a small percentage of them will be the one's struck with a die that has minimal wear. If the coins being sold are high relief of proof coins, the dies will wear down considerably more quickly. If 2,000 of these 10,000 coins are sent in to a TPG like NGC within the first month of the coin release, there's no way that NGC is going to make a determination of which of those 2,000 coins they receive are the coins that are struck first at the mint. So the labels they apply which have "First Strike" of similar wording are not truthful and in my view are gimmicks as they are misleading the consumer simply for profit. Who would care that a coin is first struck either than someone who cherrishes having a coin with the finest possible strike or someone who doesn't care at all about when the coin was actually struck (first or not first) but rather just believes that the coin is more valuable because it comes in a slab with words like "First Strike"? The answer I think is no one. But if you can describe what additional person would care about that designation, I'd be interested in hearing your suggestion. It's no different than labels that have a simulated signature. These are sold as labels with a genuine signature most of the time that I've seen. Therefore another gimmick type of label because it is designed to mislead for profit. The only labels that actually are not misleading in my view are the Numbered First Struck or the one's with an actual genuine hand signed signature on the label. That's it...period. .
How to you ensure the mints letter state no 1,2,3,4 and so on are true sine it always the case that the total mints always get wrong description and narrative in Britannia proof? This has been many cases and discussion here. However it can Ensure it is first Batch. Simple logic of logistic 1 Mio panda can be produce but only 10 k submit to grade as early release and first release within the so call 30 days. Even those 10 k is last coins mint out of 1 Mio which still consider as first batch and the wear and tear level of the die still minimum as comparing those 2 nd or 3 rd or 4 or whatever Batch. This is logistic and logic. Number game lol. So the 990 k which produce in first Batch miss and give up the chance to grade by whatever reasons but grade later as ms70 but not early release will not able to identify as first Batch anymore since no numbering on the coin itself and it is easily mix with whatever batch. So those 10 k coins grade as early realease still the first Batch right ? Can u say it is not ? So can you identify the first batch 990 k coins which ate not grade and mix with other batches as first batch ? Ngc and grading company might able to do so but with great efforts which is not cost effective. So no grading company will do so and set the rules of early release and first release to solve this cost effective issue but maintain and sperate of the differences of special and normal label. Are those collectors and buyers of those special in so many decades dumb ?
I believe if I ask NGC for a copy of the mint's documentation for a Numbered First Struck coin, they would allow me to see a facsimile of it or maybe send me a digital copy of it. But I have to take the word of certain organizations so I won't bother to ask them for the documentation. After all, do you get documentation from the mint for every coin you have ever purchased??? You have to accept certain claims. NGC and the mint would stand to gain nothing and lose everything if they provided documentation which is completely and intentionally false. The Britannia proof is a totally different situation. The RM wasn't lying but they also weren't being 100% transparent about the 2 different editions of the 5 oz proof coin. First batch received by NGC within 30 days isn't the same as the first struck coins. In fact, just the opposite....the last struck due to logistics as I have explained a couple of times already. Only the mint knows when they replaced a die. What I am sure of is: 1) dies wear out 2) dies wear out more quickly when producing proof coins 3) dies wear out more quickly when producing (ultra) high relief coins 4) when dies are worn after repeated striking, the quality of the impression into a coin blank (planchet) tends to worsen. Dies that are not worn or have little wear tend to produce the finest quality impression into a planchet 5) some / many coin collectors seek the best quality coins of a type possible 6) just because a coin was one of the first struck doesn't mean it will always be flawless 7) just because a coin was not one of the first struck doesn't mean it won't grade as 70 flawless 8) odds are though, cumulatively coins struck first will grade slightly higher than coins struck with worn dies If there are 2 of the same type coins in front of me and both are slabbed, one with a gimmick label like "Early Release" and one with a label that just has the grade of the coin, and both are in the same condition.....I would not pay one penny more for the coin with the gimmick label though I would potentially pay more for a slabbed coin designated with the Numbered First Struck" edition label....depending on the coin itself. I mean, if I am paying a premium for a slabbed coin that I want to be in the best possible condition, why wouldn't I pay for that premium to come with a guarantee to be among the first struck? .
For me it makes the most sense to listen to what the market is saying....What I value or don't value in inconsequential.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++I believe if I ask NGC for a copy of the mint's documentation for a Numbered First Struck coin, they would allow me to see a facsimile of it or maybe send me a digital copy of it. But I have to take the word of certain organizations so I won't bother to ask them for the documentation. After all, do you get documentation from the mint for every coin you have ever purchased??? You have to accept certain claims. NGC and the mint would stand to gain nothing and lose everything if they provided documentation which is completely and intentionally false. The Britannia proof is a totally different situation. The RM wasn't lying but they also weren't being 100% transparent about the 2 different editions of the 5 oz proof coin. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 1 out of 1000 label makes the coins premium higher than other by a significant amount. Who make the gain? Must be someone. One times is not transparent is good to forgive, second time not transparent is forgetful and still good to forgive, third time not transparent might be intentional still to forgive if no choice, BUT 4th times is intentionally if the mints is serving the public. This my personnel view only. I believe they receive a lot nice letter from buyers for those incidents. First I do not view RM lying BUT too many this type of incidents have made their reputation famous for those cases. I will never touch it which do not means other don't. As you view this label is worth. There is still many other like you view it positively and many like me view it negatively. It is really a personal choice as my view. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ First batch received by NGC within 30 days isn't the same as the first struck coins. In fact, just the opposite....the last struck due to logistics as I have explained a couple of times already. Only the mint knows when they replaced a die. What I am sure of is: 1) dies wear out 2) dies wear out more quickly when producing proof coins 3) dies wear out more quickly when producing (ultra) high relief coins 4) when dies are worn after repeated striking, the quality of the impression into a coin blank (planchet) tends to worsen. Dies that are not worn or have little wear tend to produce the finest quality impression into a planchet 5) some / many coin collectors seek the best quality coins of a type possible 6) just because a coin was one of the first struck doesn't mean it will always be flawless 7) just because a coin was not one of the first struck doesn't mean it won't grade as 70 flawless 8) odds are though, cumulatively coins struck first will grade slightly higher than coins struck with worn dies If there are 2 of the same type coins in front of me and both are slabbed, one with a gimmick label like "Early Release" and one with a label that just has the grade of the coin, and both are in the same condition.....I would not pay one penny more for the coin with the gimmick label though I would potentially pay more for a slabbed coin designated with the Numbered First Struck" edition label....depending on the coin itself. I mean, if I am paying a premium for a slabbed coin that I want to be in the best possible condition, why wouldn't I pay for that premium to come with a guarantee to be among the first struck? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I also have explained many times of the logic for the logistic BUT might be not clear. I read many times of you theory of logistic too BUT not convincing to me if I take panda as example. BUT it is convincing for maple and other unlimited mintage bullion, low mintage bullion and ultra high relief coins with less than 2,000 mintage. WHY? I do not explained the processes and system of minting bullion panda which lead the confuse of it. Shenyang mint, shanghai mint and Shenzhen mints are the only 3 mints appointed to mint the bullion panda. Generally, 3 - 5 batch minting every years, the quantity vary as per order from their headquarter. However, the first batch always at small quantity due to few reasons :- try to hype the china market locally ( mint less quantity - supply less than demand to hype price. This is one of the reason which silver panda and gold panda in china is much more expensive than overseas even the transportation fee is much cheaper. This also apply to other MCC) and production schedule issue which those mints need to produce few hundred mio of festive circulating coins and proof coins during same time so they cannot mint big batch of silver bullion panda. Thus, the die replacement for the first batch is rarely happening in last few years as informed by friend in Shanghai and Shenyang mints. Thus, the first batch which meet the 30 days window of NGC will be good. However, it cannot ensure it is 1 of 100K coins or so on because those mints do not do so. However, it might be possible if some big dealers request and pay for the extra effort by the mints which is the same case for RM. The collectors must get insider news, visit the mints and fishing reliable information as much as possible if intend to seek the best quality coins. First struck doesn't mean it will always be flawless which is fully true and right which we need those grading company to grade and judge the coins. However, the first stuck coins which die is not worn or has little wear tend to produce the finest quality impression into a planchet. Those first batch of bullion panda will not fully graded and some of them will grade later BUT cannot get the early release and first release labels due to passing the set window by grading company. There is not possible for collectors to identify the normal label MS70 silver panda is first batch or second batch or even third batch. So the simple way is trusting the grading company rules and label at this moment. This is one of the reason that many collectors buy early release and first release label gold and silver panda by paying premium for decades. they are not dumb by paying the premium versus normal label. what you or me value is a personal choice BUT listen to the market if you treat it as investment. I wear too many hats in this collecting, buying, selling and investing in numic so information is king. I really appreciate your views and discussion. This is very interesting and we shall make more interesting discussion topics in future. This will be very benefits.
Hi Andy, Maybe I am misunderstanding some of what you are writing. You write English well but maybe this subject has sch intricacies that it makes it even difficult for people who have English as their first language to perfectly communicate their views. Whether a mint stacks 100,000, 10,000, or 1,000 coins on a shelf, logistics informs me that the coins struck first will be at the bottom and so the coins sold first and sent in first will be the coins not struck first. Even if all the coins on the shelf are purchased in a week and all sent in to be graded, the "Early Release" "First Strike" labels are meaningless and ridiculous because no TPG is going to try to make a determination which of the 1,000 or 10,000 coins are stuck first. As for the proof Britannia issue, I don't see how this is related at all to the labels that NGC uses on their slabs. NGC will not, so they claim, put the "Numbered First Struck" label on a slab unless they get official documentation from the mint. The mint only supplies the documentation. If you have suspicions about the RM not telling the truth about something like this, then you shouldn't trust them for anything. I do trust them because there's no precedent set that I'm aware of which shows a pattern of dishonesty or grave incompetence. .
Ah I get your meaning for the logistic now. I do not ask friends in the mints of the inventory system used by them as first in first out or last in first out inventory system. However attach photos of the circulating coins from Shenyang mints which is not opened. It does stating the staff packing and counting the coins and the other side which I have no photo does stated the batch of the coin from XXX minted. This means they do have inventory system to keep track the batch. This is the same small paper of the gold and silver panda. This is highly possible using first in first out inventory system. If this is the case your assumption of logistic is wrong which not the coin struck first will sell and ship last. However, it cannot guarantee that the first struck coin will grade first. However, as explained general no die break during the first batch minting as inform by friends in 2 official mints for the panda bullion coins for recent years. You might say No formal letter issue by mints so it is still not worth the premium. However, I trust them more than RM. It is proven gold panda and silver panda with first release and early release labels in market is selling higher price than normal label from past decade. on top of it is not easy to come across gold panda set of early release and first release labels sell in ebay and dealers shop after more than 5 years of the particular year panda. Every company has the inventory system especially those medical and perishable goods which always use first in first system which your so call logistic theory is not applicable at all. If use your logistic theory that the coins struck first will be at the bottom and so the coins sold first and sent in first will be the coins not struck first which means RM need to use more labour time to identify and control of the 1st coins 2nd coins and so on till 1000 or even more. Labour is costly in UK. will RM sell the same price to dealers of this special request? My view is not likely so RM did benefit on it. The so call 1 of 1,000 minted coins always got high grade if memory serve me right. You are sure that 2) dies wear out more quickly when producing proof coins , 6) just because a coin was one of the first struck doesn't mean it will always be flawless 7) just because a coin was not one of the first struck doesn't mean it won't grade as 70 flawless. so why the so call 1,000 always get good grade like PF69 and 70 not 68 or lower? This ring the bell to me. RM pay special attention to the first 1000 pc struck coins? if yes, it is labour cost which cost money. even yes the just because a coin was one of the first struck doesn't mean it will always be flawless as you said. why no low grade among them? I hope I remember correctly because I do not see low grade coins of those 1 of 1,000 sell in market. I might be wrong.
Hi Andy, The issue as I see it is not about a die breaking but about a die that is worn and still used. It's an incontrovertible fact that dies wear down. Dies wear down more quickly in the production of proof coins and any coins that undergo multiple striking (like I believe, high relief coins). I've seen coins that come fresh from a mint that have poorer quality strikes than other coins of the same type.....more than likely as a result of die wear. Because no TPG will even attempt to try to determine which coins were struck first (meaning struck when the die has little to no meaningful wear), those labels that claim "First Strike" and similar such claims are not truthful and they are designed to deceive the collector. They are, in my view, sales gimmick labels. This is not a feeling....this is fact. The only label designation that has an official paper trail which the mint assures are coins that are first struck is the Numbered First Struck edition / designation. That's it....no other....period. The signature facsimile labels are just as dishonest a marketing scam as the "First Release" gimmick. Now, if a mintage is tiny enough (lets say 500-1,000 max or something like that) and the coin produced is NOT a coin that requires multiple strikes, then maybe the issue of the "First Release" label is moot. But I think the majority of coins that get sent in for "First Release"-like labels are coins that are minted in the many thousands or even millions. Like I stated, for me, the only designation I will pay a premium for is the Numbered First Struck edition. All other labels I don't care at all what claim is made on the label, there's no documentation to show they are what they claim to be. Now, will I buy a coin just because it has the Numbered First Struck designation? Not necessarily. There's other more important factors that go into my coin buying decision such as design of the coin, whether it is part of a series I'm already collecting and want to complete, the actual quality of the coin, and so forth. All that aside, reputable TPG's (third party graders) do provide an excellent and much needed (in my view) service for many collectors.....this seems fully indisputable. Most collectors are not experts in even the remotest sense of the word. I renew my membership with NGC every years because I find their authenticating / grading service invaluable to me. .
A so call fact is by you and some others who say it is sales gimmick. Others and me also can call the early release and first release is the fact. So all of those collectors view the er and fr are worthy and pay the premium are dumb And victim for decades since Ngc create those labels. Ngc is not guilty and what they created are bullshit ? Why so many er and fr labels coins sold at premium still sellable and fast gone ? Sale gimmick of Ngc and those dealers are so success to get all those people pay it. This so call value creation and consumers take it and like it for reason rather without reason. otherwise it will not survive for decades lol. You value Ngc and renew membership annually. who set the rules of first release and early release ? Why Ngc create those label ? Sales gimmick by them lol. They charge double grading fees of all those special labels. So ...... you shall lobby them not to do it since it is sales gimmick I view no conclusion between us till sky drop so I will not continue since this thread . It is largely on personal view. I rather not call it as fact and affirm everything's are facts.
The facts that I've stated are self evident facts. There's no reason why I should or would think that these facts are just a matter of opinion...they are not. It is a fact that NGC and PCGS can not and will not try to determine which coins are struck first with the FS, FR, or ER dsignation. They don't even claim that they can or do ( http://www.pcgs.com/firststrike/ ) ( https://www.ngccoin.com/coin-grading/designations/ ). No where in these descriptions do they claim that they can or will determine that the coin they are sent is one of the first struck by the mint. Another way we can know what I'm stating is true and factual is because in fact there is a service that NGC provides which they dramatically differentiate from ER and FR designations and assert that through official documentation, the coins they receive are certified by the issuing mint itself to be the coins first struck by that mint.....that service is called "Numbered First Struck". It is very different from the FS, ER, and FR designations because of what might be called the chain of custody and the official documentation. Yes, some collectors are not smart and don't think everything through very well....why would that be a shock to anyone? I'm sure there are collectors who don't actually know what those labels mean and don't mean....I have come across plenty of not smart collectors over the past 3 years. And then of course, there are always the newbies whom I'm not expecting to know everything immediately. It took me months at least to realize what those labels actually meant and didn't mean. I, like many new collectors I believe, had assumed that the labels mean what they were designed to dishonestly intimate or invoke. I mean, why would I assume that "First Strike" doesn't actually have anything to do with a coin being struck first and why would I assume that "Early Release" actually means a coin postmarked within 30 days of going on sale ONLY.....not a coin that was "released" early by the mint. That's a term designed to manipulate people. If the TPG's were honest about those labels' meaning, they'd fit the terms to the meaning not try to manipulate the meaning to fit the term. They could easily state "Received 30 Days From I.D.A." (IDA = Initial Date of Availability). There would be nothing deceptive or gimmicky about that claim because it's an accurate claim which portrays nothing other than that claim. But not all people who buy ER and FS labelled coins care about the coin or the label, but instead only care that they can flip a product for profit. Perhaps most people who buy those gimmicky labels are of this flip for profit mentality. Those people who buy only to flip are not just individuals, but also high volume sellers and dealers. Many of these types of sellers and dealers operate with this one mentality....they don't care one bit about the product, only whether they can sell it for a profit....period. TPG's will likely not end a process that is profitable for them (gimmicky labels) and they carry part of the blame. But if they wouldn't have anyone to buy those gimmicky labels, then those labels would not survive or exists....so yes, most of the blame goes to the consumer. I can't fix the world. My protests to NGC will fall on deaf ears. I don't use NGC to get gimmicky labels. I use them for the service of authentication, grading, and professional slabbing (and once in a blue moon, for restoration of a coin)....that's it. It's not my job to change NGC's policy on the use of labels that I see as sales gimmicks. The services that I use them for I think are valid and important to me as a collector. .
There is a terms called "traceability" in modern manufacturing. Mint must be able to trace to each monster box level at least to identify when / which mould / who has produced this. The inventory system for previous metal manufacturer has to be top of class. Hence, not able to select the first few monster boxes it has ever produced is NOT true. The Mint must be able to trace at least to which dealer it has shipped for each monster box.
