2010 Lincoln Cent
I just looked at the line drawing that Michael shows of the 2010 cent. The reverse looks like it is the result of a fourth grade competition. I assume the obverse is the disaster that Michael showed previously. Is this Mint trying to show that they are the most incompetent in the history of the country?
Views: 2
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on -
I would also like to see some better designs on some coins but really the criticism here should be directed at Congress and the Secretary of the Treasury. The Mint does not have the authority to select, approve, or reject designs. That authority is delegated by the authorizing legislation (Public L:aw 109-145) to the Treasury Secretary and the same is true of nearly everything else discretionary related to the actual production of coinage. Mr Moy or whoever happens to be the Mint Director is mainly just a bureaucrat. One of the dictionary definitions for this title sums it up pretty well: " He must exercise his judgment and his skills, but his duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority. Ultimately he is responsible only for the impartial execution of assigned tasks and must sacrifice his personal judgment if it runs counter to his official duties."
Personally, I would not doubt at all that Mr Moy has been as frustrated as the rest of us with some of the designs that have been issued during his tenure. I sincerely hope that after he leaves the Mint he will publish his thoughts and opinions on these issues.
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
For some reason the link above to the Public Law is not working so anyone interested can go to this page and type 109-145 in the search box at the upper right of the page. It will pull up a list and the Law should be the first item shown.
Link
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Grant on -
You guys are right, because this is surely the most incompetent Congress we have ever had.
-
Permalink Reply by Indentured Servant on -
Buffalo said:" He must exercise his judgment and his skills, but his duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority. Ultimately he is responsible only for the impartial execution of assigned tasks and must sacrifice his personal judgment if it runs counter to his official duties."
Personally, I would not doubt at all that Mr Moy has been as frustrated as the rest of us with some of the designs that have been issued during his tenure. I sincerely hope that after he leaves the Mint he will publish his thoughts and opinions on these issues.
Do the Mint Directors responsibilities include quality control, cleanliness, shipping and customer service?
Bill
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
I would think so Bill. I believe those are legitimate criticisms of Mr Moy and the Mint and I have made them before on several occasions due to experiences I personally have had. My previous comments were just to point out that he sometimes does get blamed for things he really can't control, not to excuse problems I believe he could and should correct.
Indentured Servant said:Buffalo said:" He must exercise his judgment and his skills, but his duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority. Ultimately he is responsible only for the impartial execution of assigned tasks and must sacrifice his personal judgment if it runs counter to his official duties."
Personally, I would not doubt at all that Mr Moy has been as frustrated as the rest of us with some of the designs that have been issued during his tenure. I sincerely hope that after he leaves the Mint he will publish his thoughts and opinions on these issues.
Do the Mint Directors responsibilities include quality control, cleanliness, shipping and customer service?
Bill
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Grant on
-
As always poor leadership leads to poor workmanship and poor management decisions. The ridiculous quality control coming out of this mint is not Congress though I would love to blame it on them. The exceptional lack of quality such as the products put out by the Mint in 2009 have nothing to do with design but instead what would appear to be a "I don't care attitude" developed among the employees of the Mint. That is Mint leadership's responsibility. It reminds me of the workers at GM especially in the 70's and 80's. They thought it was amusing to put loose screws under the dash and in the doors to infuriate owners. Has the Mint gone this far? To me coin collecting of proofs demands perfection. Anything less is unacceptable. When I received my Lincoln silver proof dollar with a huge gouge out of Lincoln's chin or when I received my proof Mint Set with black spots covering George Washington is when I swore I would never buy anything else from this Mint until the current leadership was gone and it was demonstrated that quality control had returned to the Mint. But I certainly wonder how PCGS and NGC continued to crank out their MS70's with this junk. Or was it that I was just running a terribly unlucky streak with this Mint?
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
Lee, there have been quality control problems for sure but maybe on the Lincoln dollar Commemoratives at least you did have some bad luck. I bought a quantity of those and at least 85-90% had no defects that could be seen without magnification.Overall they were a pleasant surprise and looked better in hand than I expected. I also bought a quantity of the 2009 proof sets. The dollar coins had a lot of problems. I was very much disappointed in those, and would think the Mint could do much better. I will still buy issues I want but I have also reached the point I won't hesitate to return unacceptable coins. Basically some coins I have received have been fine and others had problems. I keep the good ones and send back the really bad ones that shouldn't have left the Mint to start with.
Lee Grant said:As always poor leadership leads to poor workmanship and poor management decisions. The ridiculous quality control coming out of this mint is not Congress though I would love to blame it on them. The exceptional lack of quality such as the products put out by the Mint in 2009 have nothing to do with design but instead what would appear to be a "I don't care attitude" developed among the employees of the Mint. That is Mint leadership's responsibility. It reminds me of the workers at GM especially in the 70's and 80's. They thought it was amusing to put loose screws under the dash and in the doors to infuriate owners. Has the Mint gone this far? To me coin collecting of proofs demands perfection. Anything less is unacceptable. When I received my Lincoln silver proof dollar with a huge gouge out of Lincoln's chin or when I received my proof Mint Set with black spots covering George Washington is when I swore I would never buy anything else from this Mint until the current leadership was gone and it was demonstrated that quality control had returned to the Mint. But I certainly wonder how PCGS and NGC continued to crank out their MS70's with this junk. Or was it that I was just running a terribly unlucky streak with this Mint?
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on -
Unfortunately, it appears to me that the major grading services have lowered their quality standards to compensate for the mint's missteps of late. PCGS has certified some 4573 out of 7720 UHRs (a recent snapshot) as MS70. That's almost 60% MS70, a ratio that I find hard to believe is real, even considering the notion that people are only sending the best coins in for certification. That is about 10% of the total production certified at PCGS alone. I can't help but think pressure from dealers has resulted in an inordinate amount of "perfect" results for the purpose of increasing profits. The coin itself is a beauty, but the production most certainly did not reach such unusually high standards.
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on
-
I just ran across this in a current auction. This coin is graded PF70 by NGC. The marks on the image are clearly reeding marks from another coin. This is a rather obvious misgrade that illustrates my point about relaxed grading standards. If that coin is a PF70 then my UHR, complete with its tiny nick on the torch just below Liberty's hand ought to rate MS70 for sure. I don't plan on having it graded, but to me, my coin is an MS69 because of that nick (OK, really to me, it is a PF69 because I consider the UHR to be a proof coin). Perfection should mean perfect, not one notch shy of perfect. I am not sure that I would even give the buffalo a 69, PF68 might be the more deserved grade considering the size and location of the marks. I also notice that the 2009 buffalo proofs have the new, granular finish on the devices (the more I see it, the more I don't care for it).
- Attachments:
-
-
NGC PF70.jpg, 420 KB -
MS70 candidate.jpg, 519 KB
-
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on -
WOW! Thanks for clearly illustrating again how NGC is defaming itself with such acts! This, folks, is how you lose respect! This 2009 gold buffalo deserves absolutely no higher than PF63! This is clearly why coins graded such high grades by NGC earn absolutely no numismatic premiums for their grade assigned to them. NGC has simply become a slabbing company!
-True Money!
Clair Alan Hardesty said:I just ran across this in a current auction. This coin is graded PF70 by NGC. The marks on the image are clearly reeding marks from another coin. This is a rather obvious misgrade that illustrates my point about relaxed grading standards. If that coin is a PF70 then my UHR, complete with its tiny nick on the torch just below Liberty's hand ought to rate MS70 for sure. I don't plan on having it graded, but to me, my coin is an MS69 because of that nick (OK, really to me, it is a PF69 because I consider the UHR to be a proof coin). Perfection should mean perfect, not one notch shy of perfect. I am not sure that I would even give the buffalo a 69, PF68 might be the more deserved grade considering the size and location of the marks. I also notice that the 2009 buffalo proofs have the new, granular finish on the devices (the more I see it, the more I don't care for it).
-
Permalink Reply by Lureuin on -
Since this post has gone way off track, I'll play too.
Here is a coin graded PR70 by PCGS.
Just showing anyone can post a pic and make a claim, not to say that's what you did Clair.
Money-I'll buy into your attempts to downgrade NGC when the ANA, PNG and the Smithsonian stop endorsing them. You still haven't told us what coin related, respected organization endorses PCGS!!!! Please do that in your next mention of PCGS, which will probably be in your next post.
-
Permalink Reply by Lee Grant on
-
C.A.H: I am glad there is somebody else in the world who found the 2009 Buffalo proof absolutely ridiculous. The idea that the image on a proof coin should look like somebody had taken coarse sandpaper to it couldn't have been dictated by Congress. I put that at the feet of Moy and all the bums at the Mint that he has corrupted. I tried real hard to like my coin. But the initial shock never went away. I paid a heavy price for something that only has the value of its bullion content. It is one coin I have never shown to anybody. It is an embarrassment to me.
© 2012 Created by coinnetwork.
