Home› World & Ancient Coins Forum

PCGS seemingly not interested in keeping an updated database of Australian coin varieties?

Lindi55Lindi55 Posts: 4 ✭
in World & Ancient Coins Forum

Hi there,
Newbie to the site. Australian. Thanks for having me. Reposted from the US site as suggested with a couple of edits.
Just a query re PCGS.

Recently at an Australian online auction I purchased a a raw 1951 Australian, Half Penny. Nice coin in hand. Uncirculated.
Described as a Plain variety Reverse with a Obverse type 4 which has a mintage of less than 27,000 coins. Quite valuable.

After purchase, I went to the PCGS site to check on the Australian Population only to find that PCGS do not recognise the different varieties of the Obverses for the 1951 Half Penny,......just the three different Reverses. The difference in value of the 1951 Half Penny with a Obverse 4 can be anywhere of up to $4,000 AUD.

I wrote to PCGS last week and provided a lot of evidence of the acknowledged existence of this variety, both in Rennicks guide and an article by the Benchmark Catalogue and PCGS got back to me just saying it will stay as is on their population grading. A stack of evidence but I don't think they even looked at it.

My question is,.......is this a common response from PCGS to barely follow anything up? Can I take it higher? Obviously I have my own interests in mind here primarily because if PCGS document on the slab the two die varieties, then it is a more valuable coin.

Unlike the USA,....Australia has a young history of coins and compared to the many varieties that can be listed for coins from the States, we do not have a overly onerous range of pre-decimal coins. Why can't PCGS update their records,.....surely this is of benefit?
I am very angry that PCGS couldn't take the time to consider the option of adequately expanding the population of a coin that they obviously didn't know existed.

Are NGC as bad?

TIA and kind regards

Comments

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 24,371 ✭✭✭✭✭

    PCGS is not a university research library. For PCGS to invest time and money in something like Australian coin varieties there has to be a demand that will lead to profitable business for them. Is the market for Australian coin varieties large enough to warrant such an effort?

    All glory is fleeting.
  • BoosibriBoosibri Posts: 12,143 ✭✭✭✭✭

    PCGS can’t even keep the dates in order for the census.

    Latin American Collection

  • ExbritExbrit Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭✭

    @Lindi55 said:
    Hi there,
    Newbie to the site. Australian. Thanks for having me. Reposted from the US site as suggested with a couple of edits.
    Just a query re PCGS.

    Recently at an Australian online auction I purchased a a raw 1951 Australian, Half Penny. Nice coin in hand. Uncirculated.
    Described as a Plain variety Reverse with a Obverse type 4 which has a mintage of less than 27,000 coins. Quite valuable.

    After purchase, I went to the PCGS site to check on the Australian Population only to find that PCGS do not recognise the different varieties of the Obverses for the 1951 Half Penny,......just the three different Reverses. The difference in value of the 1951 Half Penny with a Obverse 4 can be anywhere of up to $4,000 AUD.

    I wrote to PCGS last week and provided a lot of evidence of the acknowledged existence of this variety, both in Rennicks guide and an article by the Benchmark Catalogue and PCGS got back to me just saying it will stay as is on their population grading. A stack of evidence but I don't think they even looked at it.

    My question is,.......is this a common response from PCGS to barely follow anything up? Can I take it higher? Obviously I have my own interests in mind here primarily because if PCGS document on the slab the two die varieties, then it is a more valuable coin.

    Unlike the USA,....Australia has a young history of coins and compared to the many varieties that can be listed for coins from the States, we do not have a overly onerous range of pre-decimal coins. Why can't PCGS update their records,.....surely this is of benefit?
    I am very angry that PCGS couldn't take the time to consider the option of adequately expanding the population of a coin that they obviously didn't know existed.

    Are NGC as bad?

    >

  • ELuisELuis Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭✭✭

    ^Nice spelling they have there.

  • ExbritExbrit Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭✭

    @ELuis said:
    ^Nice spelling they have there.

    Not sure what you mean???

  • ELuisELuis Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @Exbrit said:

    @ELuis said:
    ^Nice spelling they have there.

    Not sure what you mean???

    I see, i was thinking of the word observe my bad.

    That OBVERSE: the side of a coin or medal bearing the head or principal design.

    Sorry.

Sign In or Register to comment.