PCGS CoinFacts Population Report Errors/Discrepancies - how to alert?

waisaacs

I looked up a cert verification on a coin advertised to be "the only mint state example of its kind known" and am seeing a mismatch on the PCGS CoinFacts population report.

The cert is https://www.pcgs.com/cert/05841387 which shows MS64 BN and matches the holder view from the seller, but the variety page https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1870-1c-rpd-fs-301-008-81-bn/37489 shows a population of 1 in MS63 BN and no other MS.

Trying to think of explanations beyond a straight database/indexing error in generating the population report. Could be that the MS64 example is recently graded and somehow hasn't made it into the pop info (but then the advertised "only example" doesn't make sense). Maybe it was regraded and again the pop info is out of date?

If it is a straight database mistake, what is the method to report such to PCGS? How often do people run across such discrepancies?

waisaacs

I tried searching the forum for population report errors but everything that came up related to error coins, not report errors. Sorry if I'm rehashing a well-discussed issue, but I did try looking first.

LanceNewmanOCC

@waisaacs said:

.
do you have a link to the item advertised? i'd like to see the holder. t.i.a.

edited to add: Mint Error FS-008.81 Repunched Date

not submitted under the variety attribution program perhaps. this is why seeing the holder comes in handy or at least the insert anyway, as you can see the coin number, which tells you where it is or not, in the pops.

lilolme

Hello, this is not my thing so I might be messed up.
However, your link for the cert number is identifying the pcgs # as E2097
The link for the coinfacts RPD is identifying the pcgs # as 37489
So is that one certified as an Error?

waisaacs

Listing here https://escottcoins.com/listing.aspx?lid=5704

With a screengrab of the holder to save you the click:

@lilolme said:
Hello, this is not my thing so I might be messed up.
However, your link for the cert number is identifying the pcgs # as E2097
The link for the coinfacts RPD is identifying the pcgs # as 37489
So is that one certified as an Error?

Yes then it looks like there's a multiple category issue here: error coin but also a variety? Still a little confused, but thanks for pointing that out.

lilolme

Since that is an older holder (Series holder) there might not have been a variety option for grading at that time.
Perhaps the variety category was added later or after that coin was certified.

LanceNewmanOCC

i think that is the first pcgs holder i've seen with the older FS attribution! that in and of itself is probably a good rarity.

AND it is listed in the error category with the FS designation. what an odd duck.

waisaacs

@LanceNewmanOCC said:

...what an odd duck.

So my confusion wasn't completely unwarranted. Just so I'm (more) clear, the "Mint Error" is actually just the repunched date, which is what the variety designation is specifying.

As far as the claim of being the only MS example (I see now the advert is qualified "As of December 30 2021"), it seems there has been an additional MS63 example certified, though this one for sale is still top pop for the variety.

As to part of my original question, is this the kind of thing PCGS would be interested in correcting in the population reports? I don't see a more direct way than just the info@pcgs.com email address, though if there's a page for reporting incorrect information somewhere, will appreciate being pointed to it. I have to think this kind of effort would be way down the list on anyone's ToDo, but I'm happy to send an email if they'd appreciate it.

Thanks again all.

LanceNewmanOCC

@waisaacs said:

@LanceNewmanOCC said:

...what an odd duck.

So my confusion wasn't completely unwarranted. Just so I'm (more) clear, the "Mint Error" is actually just the repunched date, which is what the variety designation is specifying.

As far as the claim of being the only MS example (I see now the advert is qualified "As of December 30 2021"), it seems there has been an additional MS63 example certified, though this one for sale is still top pop for the variety.

As to part of my original question, is this the kind of thing PCGS would be interested in correcting in the population reports? I don't see a more direct way than just the info@pcgs.com email address, though if there's a page for reporting incorrect information somewhere, will appreciate being pointed to it. I have to think this kind of effort would be way down the list on anyone's ToDo, but I'm happy to send an email if they'd appreciate it.

Thanks again all.

there is nothing to correct. since it is in the error category (pcgs #), it will appear nowhere in the viewable pcgs pops, variety or otherwise.

if there is an internal tracking system for errors, it is really not public knowledge.

it is speculation on my part but i highly doubt those are the only 2 MS examples. one would need to access population reports of several TPGs as well as do some auction sales digging as there are probably coins in holders w/o the official attribution.

some people do wonder why paying for attribution is such a big deal. sometimes is, sometimes not but it does help keep track of CC (condition census) coins, amongst other reasons.

i've found, on ebay, claims to CC coins to virtually NEVER be accurate, even with some that profess to be experts. doing CC work is one the most challenging and difficult to track/verify. doable, just VERY difficult, even more so with random RPD/RPM and stuff like that.

lilolme

@waisaacs said:

@LanceNewmanOCC said:

...what an odd duck.

So my confusion wasn't completely unwarranted. Just so I'm (more) clear, the "Mint Error" is actually just the repunched date, which is what the variety designation is specifying.

Yes, that is what I was thinking. That the variety category did not exist at the time this coin was slabbed. So someone sent it in through the error method and got the variety designation on it through the error process. So the error is the variety. Then sometime later pcgs added this variety to their list of varieties they would attribute.

This is just a guess by me.

LanceNewmanOCC

@lilolme said:

@waisaacs said:

@LanceNewmanOCC said:

...what an odd duck.

So my confusion wasn't completely unwarranted. Just so I'm (more) clear, the "Mint Error" is actually just the repunched date, which is what the variety designation is specifying.

Yes, that is what I was thinking. That the variety category did not exist at the time this coin was slabbed. So someone sent it in through the error method and got the variety designation on it through the error process. So the error is the variety. Then sometime later pcgs added this variety to their list of varieties they would attribute.

This is just a guess by me.

that would mean, at least to some extent, that pcgs did NOT accept all the FS varieties up to a certain point. that would be quite odd considering they put it on the label. there are variables i'm sure we'll never know and we're just kinda spit-ballin' for the sake of conversation but considering how often we DO NOT see an item like this, a bit of conversation is a good thing.

provided pcgs doesn't reuse cert #s, the next coin after this one is a 94/94 with no error designation OR variety attribution, so at that time (provided no cert reusing), they did have generic free attributions available.

we're you the one to post the images of the early pop reports recently? i don't recall what you said if anything about them being yours or if you just reposted that image (i thought i had seen long ago)?

LanceNewmanOCC

ok, if my antiquated CPG is correct:

008.81 =
rpd 2
snow 4
FS-301

LanceNewmanOCC

courtesy of HA, circa 2010 listing, though the holder is probably older and there are others:

LINK

lilolme

Yes I have the old pop report books in the garage in a box. They go from about 1997 to 2008.
I can go look but if the one you are showing is about 2010 that would be after my last one. So there should not be any in the pop report books. I guess I could just check the last one about 2008 and see if they are in there.
Also I don't know if the pop report books had the variety pops in them or not. Since I don't do the varieties I have never looked for them. Will check later and report back. Trying to think of a variety that is really old. Maybe a tailbar?

LanceNewmanOCC

@lilolme said:
Yes I have the old pop report books in the garage in a box. They go from about 1997 to 2008.
I can go look but if the one you are showing is about 2010 that would be after my last one. So there should not be any in the pop report books. I guess I could just check the last one about 2008 and see if they are in there.
Also I don't know if the pop report books had the variety pops in them or not. Since I don't do the varieties I have never looked for them. Will check later and report back. Trying to think of a variety that is really old. Maybe a tailbar?

.
do one of the more common older ones.

16/16 5c, 55 1c ddo, etc. tailbar was discovered in 1951, so should be there.

i wonder if we can just digitize the pops and put em up on nnp?

i'm a dummy self admitted. i'd love to see all human information available, gratis. of course some minor fees to cover the costs/hosting etc.

lilolme

Okay got one picture of the 1870 1c. There are no varieties listed for this April 2008 book.

The 1873 in the picture has an open, closed 3 and double liberty listed but the coin numbers are not a five digit variety (2106 through 2117).

The 1886 has a variety 1 and 2 and the coin numbers there do have the variety for variety 2 (92154, 55, 56) where the variety 1 is (2154, 2155, 2156). Also an 1867/67 with (92088, 92089, 92090). Also just visible in the picture is 1865 and the plain 5 is a variety (92082, 83, 84).

So yes there are varieties listed. But it would appear at this time (April 2008) the ones for the 1870 were not part of the normal variety list or attribution.

LanceNewmanOCC

@lilolme said:
Okay got one picture of the 1870 1c. There are no varieties listed for this April 2008 book.

The 1873 in the picture has an open, closed 3 and double liberty listed but the coin numbers are not a five digit variety (2106 through 2117).

The 1886 has a variety 1 and 2 and the coin numbers there do have the variety for variety 2 (92154, 55, 56) where the variety 1 is (2154, 2155, 2156). Also an 1867/67 with (92088, 92089, 92090). Also just visible in the picture is 1865 and the plain 5 is a variety (92082, 83, 84).

So yes there are varieties listed. But it would appear at this time (April 2008) the ones for the 1870 were not part of the normal variety list or attribution.

great info and thanks for sharing.

a couple observations:

1. no 1869/9? W H O A
2. i thought Rick Snow a few years ago lobbied to get the 1886 v1 v2 listed so i'm a bit baffled to see you mention the differentiation of the 2 in the '80s pops.

do you see anywhere, that they list the actual print designation for any FS varieites? how about marriages, ie: LM, O, etc?

if you don't want to open the can of worms here, no probs, i just had to ask.

thanks for sharing what you did.

LanceNewmanOCC

a linky i came across trying to verify the date FS switched the numbering system. i know it is probably posted in the archives a dozen times or more but to find one of the threads....

https://www.shieldnickels.net/cpg/cpg.htm

2004

so until proven otherwise, i'm going with the date on the page above, though it doesn't explicitly state that is the date change.

edited to add, not REALLY related but in my search, i came across a page by J. T. Stanton, ca: 2000! about varieties, rarities etc and respect to numismedia to keeping it up this long. yowza LINK

logger7

From what I have seen both PCGS and NGC have a lot of brain capital on staff that can correct this and most any other issue they have oversight of for the good of all concerned.

davewesen

Does anyone know when PCGS started certifying varieties that are not separate lines in the redbook?

It is not in the population report because it is certified as a 'mint error'.

I do not know if this is a mechanical error or if this is what was needed at time of submission to get on label.

waisaacs

@lilolme said:
Okay got one picture of the 1870 1c. There are no varieties listed for this April 2008 book.

That's slightly curious, as the coin

@LanceNewmanOCC said:
courtesy of HA, circa 2010 listing, though the holder is probably older and there are others:

cert page https://www.pcgs.com/cert/08312415 shows previous HA auction report from Jan 2007. Though maybe not surprising since they didn't categorize it as the variety (E2908...)

@logger7 said:
From what I have seen both PCGS and NGC have a lot of brain capital on staff that can correct this and most any other issue they have oversight of for the good of all concerned.

From my understanding of comments above especially Lance's, because this got an Error designation against the regular coin issue number, we shouldn't expect it to show in the variety population. If there is any "mistake" to correct, it would involve PCGS going back through similar error labels, seeing if they mentioned a variety, and recategorizing the population. Which then wouldn't match the labels in the field, so they don't have a lot of incentive to do it. Owner could resubmit for a variety designation.

Thanks again to everyone, this was more interesting than I thought it would turn out (I expected that it was all a misunderstanding on my part).