Home PCGS Set Registry Forum
Options

Cherrypickers Guide

Hi all,

Beginning in April of 2020, after multiple orders being placed and subsequently canceled, today I received 6th Edition Vol 2...

I dont see that Vol 1 is really available yet, but did see an offering for it at $400.... go figure!

In any case, now that I have the 6th Edition, is there any reason why I would need the 4th addition of which I own both Vol 1 and 2?

Thanx!
Jeff

I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378

Comments

  • Options
    winestevenwinesteven Posts: 4,057 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited August 11, 2023 8:05PM

    @PwrHsePro said:
    Hi all,

    Beginning in April of 2020, after multiple orders being placed and subsequently canceled, today I received 6th Edition Vol 2...

    I dont see that Vol 1 is really available yet, but did see an offering for it at $400.... go figure!

    In any case, now that I have the 6th Edition, is there any reason why I would need the 4th addition of which I own both Vol 1 and 2?

    Thanx!
    Jeff

    While I don’t have expertise, purely from a cherry-picking perspective, I would think that the coins covered in Edition 6 Vol I and II covers those coins in the older editions. HOWEVER, you still need to keep your Volume II of the older edition since starting with Edition 6, the larger coins starting with Half Dollars through Gold coins will only be covered in an upcoming Volume III of Volume 6, as they are NOT included in Volume I or Volume II of Edition 6.

    Separately, there are some newer collectors that may want each Volume of the older editions, so you may want to keep your older ones as collectibles, to be sold sometime down the road.

    Steve

    A day without fine wine and working on your coin collection is like a day without sunshine!!!

    My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
    https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
  • Options

    I would like to make a few comments about release of the 6th edition of volume II of CPG.
    First been waiting a long time in anticipation of delivery of the book. I am happy it has finally arrived.
    I noted the book was a wee bit thinner and realized that coins after the Washington quarters were missing including half dollars, dollars and gold dollars. I don’t collect these, but it would have been nice to have been told there is a volume III forthcoming which includes these variety coins. Poor communication is the root of many problems.
    Positive aspects about the latest edition include the nice dedication to the late JT Stanton. He was a real gentleman and just a nice man. I bought several variety quarters from him and sent him several coins for variety attribution. When he learned I was using an old Harris 16X loop, he generously mailed me a Vigor 18mm 10X loop with a nice leather case which I still use to this day and treasure. Just a class individual. I still miss our chats.
    The appendices of coins removed is at least nice. I understand that Whitman has business decisions about when to keep a coin listed as a variety or remove it due to “low interest". The rationale for those decisions escapes me and who decides there is low interest?
    The end of the book lists an Image Credits section which is a very nice inclusion.
    As a Washington quarter variety collector, I have a few criticisms which are meant to be constructive.
    First who decided which quarter varieties to include? There are so many striking examples and this is what we are given!
    Whitman also decided to keep the 1935 DDO FS-101 and the same poor quality image that is shown at various websites as an example that no one has seen. Please remove this coin if it doesn’t exist.
    The selection of variety quarters added is curious. First, some of the quarter varieties added are not really varieties.
    I am attaching an example of a variety 1943-S which I refer to as the spiked neck variety. I have found multiple examples of this coin. The photograph was taken by JT and it took him forever to return the coin. He wanted to have a ransom for me to return the coin. LOL. I sent the images to Mr. Bill Fivaz and he stated the coin is a variety because of its’ uniqueness. The same variation has also been reported for 1936 Washington quarters. This coin would be a more apropos addition to CPG than some of the oddities in the latest edition.
    Please accept that I am happy with the new edition, but there are so many variety Washington quarter which would have added more to the series IMO.
    My apologies for not commenting about other great variety coins of which I am ignorant.

    Respectfully

    John Phillips

  • Options
    davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I also am having a question about the Type B subvariety a. Has it been found in 56's or 63's? What exactly is it ... a different reverse than B? a double die made with Type A and Type B?

    Shouldn't it also be found on some proof quarters?
    Anyone have any more Information than what is in the CPG?

  • Options

    Dave:
    So first, Whitman removed 23 coins from the 5th edition of volume II and moved them to the appendix. Most were removed because of low collector interest. Three of the coins removed were the 1934 medium motto and 1934 heavy motto with no explanation given and the 1996-P which was not a die variety. They expanded a review of the reverse die varieties. I suggest going to Jose Gallego’s excellent article on RDVs at heartlandcoinclub for nice review with pictures.
    As to your question about what was added, 1937-D RPM FS-501, 1940-D RPM FS-502, 1941-S DDR FS-801, 1942-S RPM FS-501, 1945-S RRPM FS-501, 1947, 1948-S and 1983 spitting eagles, 1951-S RPM FS-501, 1959 proof DDO FS-102, 1961-D RPM FS-503, 1964-D RPM FS-503, 1968-S Proof type E and F reverse, 1970-S Proof DDR FS-801, 1989 and 1994 no P.
    Hope this helps.
    John

  • Options

    Responding to Jeff as to why you should keep Vol IV. As of a few years ago, this was PCGS’ cutoff volume on whether they would attribute a coin, i.e., if it wasn’t in Vol IV (because it was later removed in Vol V) then tough luck, no variety attribution even if you had the actual variety. I learned this when I submitted a beautiful 1971 DDR Quarter and after multiple attempts for an explanation of why I didn’t get the variety, I learned of this cutoff. Now that Vol VI has been published, if you have any unattributed varieties that were removed from Vol VI, I would submit them to PCGS before they move the goalpost…again. On a side note about the 1971 DDR, I previously owned the sole top pop coin in my (now retired) Registry Collection. I bought it because I knew there would never be a coin that matched or surpassed the grade, based on my knowledge of PCGS’ cutoff rule.

  • Options
    PwrHseProPwrHsePro Posts: 200 ✭✭✭✭

    Wow... great info!

    I guess I'll keep the two 4th Editions...

    I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378

  • Options
    NorCalJackNorCalJack Posts: 516 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @davewesen said:
    I also am having a question about the Type B subvariety a. Has it been found in 56's or 63's? What exactly is it ... a different reverse than B? a double die made with Type A and Type B?

    Shouldn't it also be found on some proof quarters?
    Anyone have any more Information than what is in the CPG?

    Well I just happened to find a 1963 Type B FS-901A and it came in the mail today. So this photo is a regular 1963 Type B. You can see the top arrow goes all the way into the leaf.

    The next photo is of the coin I received today. You can see the top arrow ends short of the left leaf.

    I also looked at some proofs to see if this FS-901A reverse was used on a proof, but I could not find any.

  • Options
    davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I got a NGC type B, but looks like a type A to me .... ES not separated and leaf does not touch A of DOLLAR

    https://ngccoin.com/certlookup/6540294-134/65/

    I also have a 1938 proof PCI in the mail, that also looks like a type A (from crappy eBay pics)

  • Options
    BUFFNIXXBUFFNIXX Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭✭✭

    yawn!

    Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage
    a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
  • Options
    NorCalJackNorCalJack Posts: 516 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @davewesen said:
    I got a NGC type B, but looks like a type A to me .... ES not separated and leaf does not touch A of DOLLAR

    https://ngccoin.com/certlookup/6540294-134/65/

    I also have a 1938 proof PCI in the mail, that also looks like a type A (from crappy eBay pics)

    Well to me it does not look like a Type B. Maybe a mechanical error on the label. I would need to see better photos to say otherwise.

  • Options

    Dave:

    First thanks for posting such excellent images. It’s a shame that CPG couldn’t provide similar quality photos.

    CPG should have provided side by side comparison of the differences in the two type B reverse coins. Is that too much to ask?

    Finally agree with BUFFNIXX satirical comment. Is this the best new variety that CPG could come up with for Washington quarters? What a joke!

    John

  • Options
    Namvet69Namvet69 Posts: 8,671 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Good advice to keep the older edition.

    BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall

  • Options
    davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭✭✭

    the FS-901a is going to be a problem, is this one on a 1957?

Sign In or Register to comment.