Why would PCGS put the DATE within Parentheses on the label? - Answer received but more questions

retirednow

I had a PCGS older Blue slab piece remounted into their newer edge view Shield holder but for some reason the Date on the label is now within parentheses. The piece is not dateless. I did not see any guide on the PCGS site so would any of you know the reason ?

GRANDAM

Photo please,,,,

retirednow

@GRANDAM said:
Photo please,,,,

I will take one and post but not sure i understand why one would need a photo of the label.

GRANDAM

It could because the coin wasn’t actually struck on the year in parentheses but a restrike at a later date. You don’t say what the coin is or the date so an explanation can’t be given without more info.

retirednow

@GRANDAM said:
It could because the coin wasn’t actually struck on the year in parentheses but a restrike at a later date. You don’t say what the coin is or the date so an explanation can’t be given without more info.

GrandAm
You may have just answered my question. It is a 50C copper pattern ... J-77 1838 Restrike Cert # 02575285.

I did not check before, but I just checked the PCGS coin facts page and they do label J-77 Restrike as (1838). However, other recent piece ( Bob Simpson) was not in parenthesis. On the site I noted some other restrike pieces that also show a date within parenthesis - but then again there are others that do not.

PCGS may have some unique fuzzy logic on the subject when they show the date within parenthesis or not on restikes - so I just pop a formal question into customer service to see if they might offer detail explanation.

Thanks

retirednow

i did receive a reply from PCGS custom service and they confirmed since the piece was struck in later years and not 1838 -they enclose the date within parentheses .

MrEureka

@retirednow said:
i did receive a reply from PCGS custom service and they confirmed since the piece was struck in later years and not 1838 -they enclose the date within parentheses .

That is a novel way to do things! Are they going to start doing the same with other coins? For example, restrike proof half cents and other early proofs, 1804 Dollars, , crushed lettered edge Bust Halves, LOTS of other ante-dated patterns that were never struck in the purported year of issue, etc, etc??? Sure, there's some logic to it, but it's like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. There must be tens of thousands of these types of coins already slabbed without parentheses. Then again, I would sort of like parentheses on some of the more ridiculous things, like the (1787) New Haven "Restrike" Fugio. Some more thought needs to be given to where to draw the line.

MrEureka

Gave it a little more thought. I think that if a coin is struck by the mint that struck the original coins, or that produced the original dies, the date should not be presented in parentheses. Instead, I would simply label them as "restrikes", even if not from the original dies or die pair. Coins made by private individuals from discarded original dies would be called "private restrikes". And coins made by private individuals from privately produced dies would either be called "counterfeit" or, if not deceptive and of some numismatic merit, "fantasies", with the coin's date and (in parentheses) the actual or estimated date of manufacture.

JonJet

Anyone given consideration to the 2020 George HW Bush Reverse Proof Presidential Dollar - struck in late 2021 according to usmint.gov's 2021 production schedule

With PR70 graded coins numbering under 100 thus far it may be the single most scarce coin in modern coinage

retirednow

@MrEureka said:
Gave it a little more thought. I think that if a coin is struck by the mint that struck the original coins, or that produced the original dies, the date should not be presented in parentheses. Instead, I would simply label them as "restrikes", even if not from the original dies or die pair. Coins made by private individuals from discarded original dies would be called "private restrikes". And coins made by private individuals from privately produced dies would either be called "counterfeit" or, if not deceptive and of some numismatic merit, "fantasies", with the coin's date and (in parentheses) the actual or estimated date of manufacture.

Since I have a specific email from Customer service I might take your thoughts and toss it back to them with a question.

I trust that our host will track some of these discussions and either offer comments or think about what is written ... but then again maybe not.

Andy ... this piece was already labeled as "RESTRIKE" so I am confused as well about this specific change. I am not sure when a coin is reholder who in the process reviews it to made a change?

MrEureka

@retirednow said:

Andy ... this piece was already labeled as "RESTRIKE" so I am confused as well about this specific change. I am not sure when a coin is reholder who in the process reviews it to made a change?

I would think that it could happen in two different ways. First, somebody in the grading room decides that there's a problem with the way something is described, and he argues for a change. Or second, the description had previously been modified in the numbering system - perhaps as a policy decision, and perhaps along with many or all other restrikes - and the new description was automatically used when generating your new label, without a second thought.

retirednow

While I did not get a full disclosure of the practice ... my PCGS Customer Rep did respond and advised me that all of pieces in their Coin Fact labeled as Restrikes will eventually have their dates displayed within parenthesis as they come into PCGS to be graded, regraded, or reholdered. (My sample that sent her is below). She was going to pass on my suggestion that PCGS publish some sort position statement on this policy about this change in practice. - I guess we wait and see ?

braddick

Why doesn't PCGS put the date on this (1999) Deleware error quarter in the same vein?

messydesk

@braddick said:
Why doesn't PCGS put the date on this (1999) Deleware error quarter in the same vein?

Probably the same reason they didn't put it on this coin of the same slab generation (cert # 5670933). There's no mint mark visible. Mine also has E14545 as the spec number, but comes up as E11111 "Various various" in my showcase.