Should PCGS automatically attribute varieties when not requested or specified?

ProofCollection

Question for the forum...
I submitted a PL Morgan raw for grading as coin number 7100, 1880-CC $1 Morgan. I wanted it to be slabbed as 1880-CC. Instead PCGS noted it was the 8/High 7 Variety and slabbed it as coin number 7103 (80-CC 8/H7) without asking. I did not pay for any extra variety attribution.

Were they correct or within stated policies to do this or should they have slabbed it as specified (although with PL, coin number 7101)? Was this policy or an over zealous employee?

I ask because the price guide for coin #7101 is quite a bit higher.

OwenSeymour

Varieties listed on the date pages of coin facts (in this case dollars>morgan dollars) are holdered as such for free. Varieties not listed on the main page (FS, Sheldon, Overton, etc.) require variety attribution. 80-CC 8/High 7 is listed on the date page on coin facts

ProofCollection

@OwenSeymour said:
Varieties listed on the date pages of coin facts (in this case dollars>morgan dollars) are holdered as such for free. Varieties not listed on the main page (FS, Sheldon, Overton, etc.) require variety attribution. 80-CC 8/High 7 is listed on the date page on coin facts

Yes, I know that. My questions still stand.

Crypto

No, the shock wave sent though the production line with the extra time spent on inspections would result in higher fees and longer wait times. The current system works for those who care about interesting die pairs

Copperindian

No. There are a multitude of varieties across all coin types, too many for graders to have complete knowledge of. They miss some now, even when the variety is requested to be added to the tag.

ShaunBC5

I think the graders were right to attribute it correctly. If it’s a front page variety like ‘55DDO Lincoln or 42/1 Merc, they’re checking every coin of those years for certain markers and the expectation is that they’re noted.
The random VAMs and Overton numbers and stuff, you should have to ask/pay for that to be checked for and listed.

Edit for grammar/clarity

davewesen

They must have felt the mirrors were not deep enough to get the PL designation.

I had heard that if the 'variety' is listed in Whitman's Redbook, then they designate it.

If you want the grading company to put on the label what you want, you have to go to a lower tier company.

TwoSides2aCoin

I would want and expect proper grading, attribution, and designation. It appears you got all 3 for one fee.

oih82w8

If the variety is identified without being requested it was probably obvious and attributed. If you did not request the attribution, nor paid extra for it, the fee should not be tacked on as an addition expense. I would be happy with it myself, but would not expect it in the future.

ProofCollection

OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

johnny9434

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

ive had them call on a coin or three, thats the way it goes sometimes

ProofCollection

@johnny9434 said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

ive had them call on a coin or three, thats the way it goes sometimes

Well IMO they should follow the written orders and it should be my prerogative if I want to slab a 1955 DDO cent in a non-DDO holder. They are free to call and give me the option if they want, but they shouldn't do this on their own initiative. I don't think.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.

MsMorrisine

time is money

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.

But what about this case where the submitter is upset that the did do it and caused them to lose money? I'm not sure why they should have a "get consent or slab it as they ordered" policy.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.

But what about this case where the submitter is upset that the did do it and caused them to lose money? I'm not sure why they should have a "get consent or slab it as they ordered" policy.

Some submitters will get upset, regardless of what the stated policy is. I'd rather go with the course of action that will upset the fewest and has the added advantage of making sense.

What would be a reason to want a 1955 DDO not to be attributed as such? And why would a submitter lose money because a variety was recognized, rather than ignored?

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.

But what about this case where the submitter is upset that the did do it and caused them to lose money? I'm not sure why they should have a "get consent or slab it as they ordered" policy.

Some submitters will get upset, regardless of what the stated policy is. I'd rather go with the course of action that will upset the fewest and has the added advantage of making sense.

I would opt to do what the submitter ordered. In this case I filled out my forms to get what I wanted and they gave me something else. I think a business should give the customer what they want and not assume they want something else.

What would be a reason to want a 1955 DDO not to be attributed as such? And why would a submitter lose money because a variety was recognized, rather than ignored?

The DDO is an extreme example, but someone might want that. Why would PCGS deny that if that's what they want?

You must have missed the OP. The variety they designated on my coin makes it worth a few hundred less (per the price guide) than the undesignated coin number. I am not going to speculate what, that is what the price guides say.

Clackamas1

I think it would be nice if they catch it but I don't think they should go out of their way since so many of them are obscure. In fact I have had them do that on a Bust half and I appreciated it.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.

But what about this case where the submitter is upset that the did do it and caused them to lose money? I'm not sure why they should have a "get consent or slab it as they ordered" policy.

Some submitters will get upset, regardless of what the stated policy is. I'd rather go with the course of action that will upset the fewest and has the added advantage of making sense.

I would opt to do what the submitter ordered. In this case I filled out my forms to get what I wanted and they gave me something else. I think a business should give the customer what they want and not assume they want something else.

What would be a reason to want a 1955 DDO not to be attributed as such? And why would a submitter lose money because a variety was recognized, rather than ignored?

The DDO is an extreme example, but someone might want that. Why would PCGS deny that if that's what they want?

You must have missed the OP. The variety they designated on my coin makes it worth a few hundred less (per the price guide) than the undesignated coin number. I am not going to speculate what, that is what the price guides say.

My guess is that the coin isn't worth less (or would bring less,) despite what the price guide says. But if I'm mistaken, I see your point. That said, you started the thread by asking for opinions and some have been provided. I believe that you discourage participation when you ask for opinions, then proceed to continue to debate those who have different ones from yours.

rays

@ProofCollection said:

@johnny9434 said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

ive had them call on a coin or three, thats the way it goes sometimes

Well IMO they should follow the written orders and it should be my prerogative if I want to slab a 1955 DDO cent in a non-DDO holder. They are free to call and give me the option if they want, but they shouldn't do this on their own initiative. I don't think.

IMO your position is nonsensical.

Pnies20

I wish they do it when I ASK them to.

I have 3 currently there because they didn’t add the redbook variety

I also have one on the way back where I asked them to and they didn’t 🤦‍♂️ do I waste the money to send it in again?

It’s to the point where I’m not going to bother anymore.

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

In the above example, I believe that they should designate the coin as a DDO without calling the submitter. For every submitter who wouldn't like that, there are probably a lot more who'd prefer it. And I suspect that they'd be upset if the coin weren't so-designated.

But what about this case where the submitter is upset that the did do it and caused them to lose money? I'm not sure why they should have a "get consent or slab it as they ordered" policy.

Some submitters will get upset, regardless of what the stated policy is. I'd rather go with the course of action that will upset the fewest and has the added advantage of making sense.

I would opt to do what the submitter ordered. In this case I filled out my forms to get what I wanted and they gave me something else. I think a business should give the customer what they want and not assume they want something else.

What would be a reason to want a 1955 DDO not to be attributed as such? And why would a submitter lose money because a variety was recognized, rather than ignored?

The DDO is an extreme example, but someone might want that. Why would PCGS deny that if that's what they want?

You must have missed the OP. The variety they designated on my coin makes it worth a few hundred less (per the price guide) than the undesignated coin number. I am not going to speculate what, that is what the price guides say.

My guess is that the coin isn't worth less (or would bring less,) despite what the price guide says. But if I'm mistaken, I see your point. That said, you started the thread by asking for opinions and some have been provided. I believe that you discourage participation when you ask for opinions, then proceed to continue to debate those who have different ones from yours.

I speculate that the reason why it's worth less is because the variety is easier to find than the non-variety.

And your observation is fair, I try to further the discussion by presenting additional information or expanding my viewpoint but I can see how it might not be seen that way. Thank you.

Shurke

@ProofCollection said:

@johnny9434 said:

@ProofCollection said:
OK, but my argument is that if for whatever reason I have a 1955 DDO cent and I submit it as a non-DDO cent, they should either slab it as a 1955 non-DDO or call the submitter and ask what they want.

ive had them call on a coin or three, thats the way it goes sometimes

Well IMO they should follow the written orders and it should be my prerogative if I want to slab a 1955 DDO cent in a non-DDO holder. They are free to call and give me the option if they want, but they shouldn't do this on their own initiative. I don't think.

I’m going to disagree here. A standard 55 cent and 55 DDO are two very different things, and both should be identified and labeled accurately by TGPs.

knovak1976

Buy some slabs on eBay and then you can do whatever you like with them! 😬

lermish

@Pnies20 said:
I wish they do it when I ASK them to.

I have 3 currently there because they didn’t add the redbook variety

I also have one on the way back where I asked them to and they didn’t 🤦‍♂️ do I waste the money to send it in again?

It’s to the point where I’m not going to bother anymore.

That second 2 month wait is brutal. I don't expect a generalist grader to know the intricacies of a series as well as a specialized collector but when the variety is identified for them in advance and they just need to confirm....

Really frustrating sometimes. I've had an Express order in Encapsulation for 9 business days and counting...hopefully because they are making sure to get it right.

Maywood

Since we're considering hypotheticals, if you send in that 1955 DDO and have it listed with the coin number for a standard 1955 Cent maybe they should return the coin to you because it's the wrong coin. As @MFeld posted, some submitters will complain no matter what PCGS does, it seems to be their nature to do so.

M4Madness

Am I understanding correctly that they did NOT believe it to be PL, so your two choices are plain 1880-CC or 1880-CC 8 over High 7? If so, I'd take the variety over non-variety. I own a regular old 1880-CC Morgan and bought an 8 over 7 with 1878 reverse just this week. The Hit List 40 and Top 100 VAMs for 1880-CC are worth more than regular ones.

Now, granted, the PL designation would have increased the value, but it sounds like it didn't make that cut.

Victa

I also have a much better Red Book variety that wasn't identified as such, before I purchased it. It's an 1830 Large Letters Capped Bust Half Dollar, Interestingly, it was correctly labeled as the Small 0 variety (which is true for all 1830 Large Letter half dollars), but the Large Letters on Reverse was not recognized. So I guess the obverse really does carry more weight!

Kidding aside, if I were to send it in should I expect to be charged for (a) reholder fee only, (b) reholder plus attribution fee, (c) reholder plus attribution, plus grading fee (assuming I don't want it regraded), or (d) no charge at all?

ProofCollection

@M4Madness said:
Am I understanding correctly that they did NOT believe it to be PL, so your two choices are plain 1880-CC or 1880-CC 8 over High 7? If so, I'd take the variety over non-variety. I own a regular old 1880-CC Morgan and bought an 8 over 7 with 1878 reverse just this week. The Hit List 40 and Top 100 VAMs for 1880-CC are worth more than regular ones.

Now, granted, the PL designation would have increased the value, but it sounds like it didn't make that cut.

The coin got the PL designation, that's not the issue at all. I shouldn't have mentioned it but what I was trying to hint at was there are explicit instructions on the form that when you submit a coin they want you to use the base coin number, not the PL or FB or FS or FBL or DCAM etc coin number because they determine those.

One thing I didn't say was that the coin was previously in a PCGS holder the base 1880-CC coin number but PCGS wouldn't have known that since I cracked it out.

The 80-CC High and Low 7 varieties, just like the 55 DDO cent, are considered by PCGS to be major varieties.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's odd for a customer to have to put down a coin number on the form and then provide special instructions to use the coin number specified and not the major variety number. Seems like going to McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac and having to specify that you want a Big Mac with 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun. Just saying you want a Big Mac should be all that's needed. The analogy to this scenario is that you order a Big Mac and they put tomatoes on it too and they expect you to be happy because it's a free extra topping but that doesn't mean every customer will be happy with a free unrequested tomato on their Big Mac. Some customers will be delighted, some will thing it's ruined, and most will probably deal with it. But if you give everyone a Big Mac as they ordered, no one will complain.

Mr_Spud

I tried to Jazz up my circulated type Registry sets here and across the street by adding some error coins early on when I first Registered them and I found that I wasn’t allowed to include errors. That might be a legit reason to not want a special designation, so that I can Jazz up my Registry Sets with obvious errors. I also had to specially request the following coin to be added to my Everyman set because it’s a variety, at first the Registry wouldn’t accept it. At first I think they they told something like they can’t add it because they can’t give it extra points, but I said I just wanted the regular points like it wasn’t a variety, but that I wanted in my set because of its eye appeal and they added it.

lermish

Also, from time to time, PCGS will just add a new PCGS number for an existing variety and decide to start using the new one for whatever reason.

For example, I explicitly requested (in bold and highlighted type)that they use this PCGS number on a coin:

But they chose to use the new series because they wanted to:

jmlanzaf

@ProofCollection said:

@OwenSeymour said:
Varieties listed on the date pages of coin facts (in this case dollars>morgan dollars) are holdered as such for free. Varieties not listed on the main page (FS, Sheldon, Overton, etc.) require variety attribution. 80-CC 8/High 7 is listed on the date page on coin facts

Yes, I know that. My questions still stand.

They should because that's their written policy.

And if your coin is a 7103 it would be malpractice to call it a 7101 especially if there is a price difference.

jmlanzaf

@ProofCollection said:

@M4Madness said:
Am I understanding correctly that they did NOT believe it to be PL, so your two choices are plain 1880-CC or 1880-CC 8 over High 7? If so, I'd take the variety over non-variety. I own a regular old 1880-CC Morgan and bought an 8 over 7 with 1878 reverse just this week. The Hit List 40 and Top 100 VAMs for 1880-CC are worth more than regular ones.

Now, granted, the PL designation would have increased the value, but it sounds like it didn't make that cut.

The coin got the PL designation, that's not the issue at all. I shouldn't have mentioned it but what I was trying to hint at was there are explicit instructions on the form that when you submit a coin they want you to use the base coin number, not the PL or FB or FS or FBL or DCAM etc coin number because they determine those.

One thing I didn't say was that the coin was previously in a PCGS holder the base 1880-CC coin number but PCGS wouldn't have known that since I cracked it out.

The 80-CC High and Low 7 varieties, just like the 55 DDO cent, are considered by PCGS to be major varieties.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's odd for a customer to have to put down a coin number on the form and then provide special instructions to use the coin number specified and not the major variety number. Seems like going to McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac and having to specify that you want a Big Mac with 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun. Just saying you want a Big Mac should be all that's needed. The analogy to this scenario is that you order a Big Mac and they put tomatoes on it too and they expect you to be happy because it's a free extra topping but that doesn't mean every customer will be happy with a free unrequested tomato on their Big Mac. Some customers will be delighted, some will thing it's ruined, and most will probably deal with it. But if you give everyone a Big Mac as they ordered, no one will complain.

The better analogy is that you ordered a quarter pounder to be put in a Big Mac box and they put it in a Quarter Pounder box. You're essentially unhappy because they CORRECTLY attributed the coin.

TrickleCharge

What about errors? Say I have a key date, but with a minor lamination. Being a key date, the lamination hurts the value of the coin. If the coin receives a numerical grade, should they also slab it as a mint error noting the lamination on the slab when it was not paid for or asked for by the submitter?

jesbroken

I have sent in nearly 50 raw coins to GC and chose ANACS as they attribute the coins at no charge. It would have cost me $500 extra to have pcgs do it. Now will I make $500 less due to holder, I know for the first 30, I did very well. Will see for the next. Attribution of early coins has meant a lot to our hobby and I feel has become more important to many collectors. JMO
Jim

jmlanzaf

@TrickleCharge said:
What about errors? Say I have a key date, but with a minor lamination. Being a key date, the lamination hurts the value of the coin. If the coin receives a numerical grade, should they also slab it as a mint error noting the lamination on the slab when it was not paid for or asked for by the submitter?

No. That is a separate service. It also doesn't change the coin variety. A 55 DDO comes off a different die than a regular 55, so it is called out. A 55 DDO with a lamination came off the same dies as a 55DDO without a lamination

ProofCollection

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@M4Madness said:
Am I understanding correctly that they did NOT believe it to be PL, so your two choices are plain 1880-CC or 1880-CC 8 over High 7? If so, I'd take the variety over non-variety. I own a regular old 1880-CC Morgan and bought an 8 over 7 with 1878 reverse just this week. The Hit List 40 and Top 100 VAMs for 1880-CC are worth more than regular ones.

Now, granted, the PL designation would have increased the value, but it sounds like it didn't make that cut.

The coin got the PL designation, that's not the issue at all. I shouldn't have mentioned it but what I was trying to hint at was there are explicit instructions on the form that when you submit a coin they want you to use the base coin number, not the PL or FB or FS or FBL or DCAM etc coin number because they determine those.

One thing I didn't say was that the coin was previously in a PCGS holder the base 1880-CC coin number but PCGS wouldn't have known that since I cracked it out.

The 80-CC High and Low 7 varieties, just like the 55 DDO cent, are considered by PCGS to be major varieties.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's odd for a customer to have to put down a coin number on the form and then provide special instructions to use the coin number specified and not the major variety number. Seems like going to McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac and having to specify that you want a Big Mac with 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun. Just saying you want a Big Mac should be all that's needed. The analogy to this scenario is that you order a Big Mac and they put tomatoes on it too and they expect you to be happy because it's a free extra topping but that doesn't mean every customer will be happy with a free unrequested tomato on their Big Mac. Some customers will be delighted, some will thing it's ruined, and most will probably deal with it. But if you give everyone a Big Mac as they ordered, no one will complain.

The better analogy is that you ordered a quarter pounder to be put in a Big Mac box and they put it in a Quarter Pounder box. You're essentially unhappy because they CORRECTLY attributed the coin.

Your analogy doesn't work. A Big Mac is not a Quarter Pounder and vice versa. It's still correct to not attribute a coin. An 1880-CC 8/H7 is still an 1880-CC Morgan just like the 1955 DDO cent is still a 1955 cent. Why are they required or obligated to acknowledge the major variety? As I mentioned, they didn't the first time this coin was submitted (before I acquired it).

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@M4Madness said:
Am I understanding correctly that they did NOT believe it to be PL, so your two choices are plain 1880-CC or 1880-CC 8 over High 7? If so, I'd take the variety over non-variety. I own a regular old 1880-CC Morgan and bought an 8 over 7 with 1878 reverse just this week. The Hit List 40 and Top 100 VAMs for 1880-CC are worth more than regular ones.

Now, granted, the PL designation would have increased the value, but it sounds like it didn't make that cut.

The coin got the PL designation, that's not the issue at all. I shouldn't have mentioned it but what I was trying to hint at was there are explicit instructions on the form that when you submit a coin they want you to use the base coin number, not the PL or FB or FS or FBL or DCAM etc coin number because they determine those.

One thing I didn't say was that the coin was previously in a PCGS holder the base 1880-CC coin number but PCGS wouldn't have known that since I cracked it out.

The 80-CC High and Low 7 varieties, just like the 55 DDO cent, are considered by PCGS to be major varieties.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's odd for a customer to have to put down a coin number on the form and then provide special instructions to use the coin number specified and not the major variety number. Seems like going to McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac and having to specify that you want a Big Mac with 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun. Just saying you want a Big Mac should be all that's needed. The analogy to this scenario is that you order a Big Mac and they put tomatoes on it too and they expect you to be happy because it's a free extra topping but that doesn't mean every customer will be happy with a free unrequested tomato on their Big Mac. Some customers will be delighted, some will thing it's ruined, and most will probably deal with it. But if you give everyone a Big Mac as they ordered, no one will complain.

The better analogy is that you ordered a quarter pounder to be put in a Big Mac box and they put it in a Quarter Pounder box. You're essentially unhappy because they CORRECTLY attributed the coin.

Your analogy doesn't work. A Big Mac is not a Quarter Pounder and vice versa. It's still correct to not attribute a coin. An 1880-CC 8/H7 is still an 1880-CC Morgan just like the 1955 DDO cent is still a 1955 cent. Why are they required or obligated to acknowledge the major variety? As I mentioned, they didn't the first time this coin was submitted (before I acquired it).

They’re not required or obligated to - they choose to (sometimes).

Why aren’t you taking this up with PCGS instead of forum members who have different opinions from yours? It doesn’t/shouldn’t matter what we think.

messydesk

They're erring on the side of caution. The chances are higher that a submitter puts wrong or incomplete information on a form than not. The submitter has nothing to lose by getting it wrong. PCGS has reputation and reholdering expense on the line if they do. For any coin submitted with a top-level spec number, meaning you don't have to click on the + in the pops or price guide to see it, they're going to do their best to ensure the description on their product is accurate.

jmlanzaf

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@M4Madness said:
Am I understanding correctly that they did NOT believe it to be PL, so your two choices are plain 1880-CC or 1880-CC 8 over High 7? If so, I'd take the variety over non-variety. I own a regular old 1880-CC Morgan and bought an 8 over 7 with 1878 reverse just this week. The Hit List 40 and Top 100 VAMs for 1880-CC are worth more than regular ones.

Now, granted, the PL designation would have increased the value, but it sounds like it didn't make that cut.

The coin got the PL designation, that's not the issue at all. I shouldn't have mentioned it but what I was trying to hint at was there are explicit instructions on the form that when you submit a coin they want you to use the base coin number, not the PL or FB or FS or FBL or DCAM etc coin number because they determine those.

One thing I didn't say was that the coin was previously in a PCGS holder the base 1880-CC coin number but PCGS wouldn't have known that since I cracked it out.

The 80-CC High and Low 7 varieties, just like the 55 DDO cent, are considered by PCGS to be major varieties.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's odd for a customer to have to put down a coin number on the form and then provide special instructions to use the coin number specified and not the major variety number. Seems like going to McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac and having to specify that you want a Big Mac with 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun. Just saying you want a Big Mac should be all that's needed. The analogy to this scenario is that you order a Big Mac and they put tomatoes on it too and they expect you to be happy because it's a free extra topping but that doesn't mean every customer will be happy with a free unrequested tomato on their Big Mac. Some customers will be delighted, some will thing it's ruined, and most will probably deal with it. But if you give everyone a Big Mac as they ordered, no one will complain.

The better analogy is that you ordered a quarter pounder to be put in a Big Mac box and they put it in a Quarter Pounder box. You're essentially unhappy because they CORRECTLY attributed the coin.

Your analogy doesn't work. A Big Mac is not a Quarter Pounder and vice versa. It's still correct to not attribute a coin. An 1880-CC 8/H7 is still an 1880-CC Morgan just like the 1955 DDO cent is still a 1955 cent. Why are they required or obligated to acknowledge the major variety? As I mentioned, they didn't the first time this coin was submitted (before I acquired it).

It works better than yours. They didn't add a tomato to the coin. 😉

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@jmlanzaf said:

@ProofCollection said:

@M4Madness said:
Am I understanding correctly that they did NOT believe it to be PL, so your two choices are plain 1880-CC or 1880-CC 8 over High 7? If so, I'd take the variety over non-variety. I own a regular old 1880-CC Morgan and bought an 8 over 7 with 1878 reverse just this week. The Hit List 40 and Top 100 VAMs for 1880-CC are worth more than regular ones.

Now, granted, the PL designation would have increased the value, but it sounds like it didn't make that cut.

The coin got the PL designation, that's not the issue at all. I shouldn't have mentioned it but what I was trying to hint at was there are explicit instructions on the form that when you submit a coin they want you to use the base coin number, not the PL or FB or FS or FBL or DCAM etc coin number because they determine those.

One thing I didn't say was that the coin was previously in a PCGS holder the base 1880-CC coin number but PCGS wouldn't have known that since I cracked it out.

The 80-CC High and Low 7 varieties, just like the 55 DDO cent, are considered by PCGS to be major varieties.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think it's odd for a customer to have to put down a coin number on the form and then provide special instructions to use the coin number specified and not the major variety number. Seems like going to McDonald's and ordering a Big Mac and having to specify that you want a Big Mac with 2 all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, and onions on a sesame seed bun. Just saying you want a Big Mac should be all that's needed. The analogy to this scenario is that you order a Big Mac and they put tomatoes on it too and they expect you to be happy because it's a free extra topping but that doesn't mean every customer will be happy with a free unrequested tomato on their Big Mac. Some customers will be delighted, some will thing it's ruined, and most will probably deal with it. But if you give everyone a Big Mac as they ordered, no one will complain.

The better analogy is that you ordered a quarter pounder to be put in a Big Mac box and they put it in a Quarter Pounder box. You're essentially unhappy because they CORRECTLY attributed the coin.

Your analogy doesn't work. A Big Mac is not a Quarter Pounder and vice versa. It's still correct to not attribute a coin. An 1880-CC 8/H7 is still an 1880-CC Morgan just like the 1955 DDO cent is still a 1955 cent. Why are they required or obligated to acknowledge the major variety? As I mentioned, they didn't the first time this coin was submitted (before I acquired it).

They’re not required or obligated to - they choose to (sometimes).

Why aren’t you taking this up with PCGS instead of forum members who have different opinions from yours? It doesn’t/shouldn’t matter what we think.

You're right, but I thought there might be a policy or something that I missed or don't know about. It appears there isn't.

@messydesk said:
They're erring on the side of caution. The chances are higher that a submitter puts wrong or incomplete information on a form than not. The submitter has nothing to lose by getting it wrong. PCGS has reputation and reholdering expense on the line if they do. For any coin submitted with a top-level spec number, meaning you don't have to click on the + in the pops or price guide to see it, they're going to do their best to ensure the description on their product is accurate.

Labelling the coin a base 1880-CC is just as accurate as labelling it with its variety. Maybe not as precise, but it's still accurate.

Pizzaman

@ProofCollection said:
You must have missed the OP. The variety they designated on my coin makes it worth a few hundred less (per the price guide) than the undesignated coin number. I am not going to speculate what, that is what the price guides say.

So let me understand this. You're pissed because they accurately attributed it when had they not you could pass it off for more based on their price guide? That's what you've a problem with?

ProofCollection

@Pizzaman said:

@ProofCollection said:
You must have missed the OP. The variety they designated on my coin makes it worth a few hundred less (per the price guide) than the undesignated coin number. I am not going to speculate what, that is what the price guides say.

So let me understand this. You're pissed because they accurately attributed it when had they not you could pass it off for more based on their price guide? That's what you've a problem with?

The problem is more that they didn't do what I asked which is why I specified the coin as coin number 7100, not 7102. But yes, the problem is made worse by the fact that stand to lose money due to not designating it per my submission form.

MFeld

@ProofCollection said:

@Pizzaman said:

@ProofCollection said:
You must have missed the OP. The variety they designated on my coin makes it worth a few hundred less (per the price guide) than the undesignated coin number. I am not going to speculate what, that is what the price guides say.

So let me understand this. You're pissed because they accurately attributed it when had they not you could pass it off for more based on their price guide? That's what you've a problem with?

The problem is more that they didn't do what I asked which is why I specified the coin as coin number 7100, not 7102. But yes, the problem is made worse by the fact that stand to lose money due to not designating it per my submission form.

What if, as part of a submission, you specify a PCGS number that corresponds with a Proof, when in the opinion of PCGS, the coin is a much more common/less valuable circulation strike? Should they go ahead and assign the PCGS number you requested, anyway?

What if you specify a PCGS number that corresponds with a Proof, when in the opinion of PCGS, the coin is a much rarer/more valuable circulation strike? Should they go ahead and assign the PCGS number you requested, anyway?

ProofCollection

@MFeld said:

@ProofCollection said:

@Pizzaman said:

@ProofCollection said:
You must have missed the OP. The variety they designated on my coin makes it worth a few hundred less (per the price guide) than the undesignated coin number. I am not going to speculate what, that is what the price guides say.

So let me understand this. You're pissed because they accurately attributed it when had they not you could pass it off for more based on their price guide? That's what you've a problem with?

The problem is more that they didn't do what I asked which is why I specified the coin as coin number 7100, not 7102. But yes, the problem is made worse by the fact that stand to lose money due to not designating it per my submission form.

What if, as part of a submission, you specify a PCGS number that corresponds with a Proof, when in the opinion of PCGS, the coin is a much more common/less valuable circulation strike? Should they go ahead and assign the PCGS number you requested, anyway?

What if you specify a PCGS number that corresponds with a Proof, when in the opinion of PCGS, the coin is a much rarer/more valuable circulation strike? Should they go ahead and assign the PCGS number you requested, anyway?

PCGS has contacted me on several occasions when I have erroneously identified coins on my forms vs what I sent in and we got it corrected so I would expect PCGS to rectify this when logging the submissions.

I think you're referring to a situation where it is not obvious to anyone but the experts in which case I would also suggest that a customer call/contact is called for rather than making an assumption. You submitted this coin as x, but we think it's y, do you want us to slab it or return it raw? Particularly in many cases this could result in extra grading charges. "Hello sir, you submitted a 1955 cent in the economy tier but this is a DDO worth much more. Do you want this slabbed as a DDO? The higher tier will cost more." Or the contrary: "Hello sir, you submitted a 1955 DDO cent in the rarities tier but this is not a DDO
and is worth much less. Do you still want this slabbed? Just because in my case the value difference was not enough to cross grading tiers doesn't really mean they shouldn't ask customer what they want.

I have contacted PCGS CS to see what they are willing to do.

M4Madness

My apologies for the crude scribbling. Lol!

May I ask what grade is assigned to your Morgan?

EDIT: Also, the initial post says that you wanted #7100 and got #7103. Did you intend to say that you wanted #7101 and not #7100?

messydesk

@ProofCollection said:

@messydesk said:
They're erring on the side of caution. The chances are higher that a submitter puts wrong or incomplete information on a form than not. The submitter has nothing to lose by getting it wrong. PCGS has reputation and reholdering expense on the line if they do. For any coin submitted with a top-level spec number, meaning you don't have to click on the + in the pops or price guide to see it, they're going to do their best to ensure the description on their product is accurate.

Labelling the coin a base 1880-CC is just as accurate as labelling it with its variety. Maybe not as precise, but it's still accurate.

With respect to the top-level spec numbers they have, it is not accurate. "Base" 1880-CC is at the same level as 80-CC 8/7.

ProofCollection

@M4Madness said:

My apologies for the crude scribbling. Lol!

May I ask what grade is assigned to your Morgan?

EDIT: Also, the initial post says that you wanted #7100 and got #7103. Did you intend to say that you wanted #7101 and not #7100?

It's better than my writing.
It's an MS63 and I am looking to sell it so I'm also annoyed at this delay that I may have to send it back.
It's confusing to talk about coin numbers and I apologize for not being clearer or consistent. In this case, on a submission form you are supposed to put down either 7100 or 7102. They don't want submitters assuming their coin is PL or DMPL and in fact the online forms don't allow you to choose them (as I recall). So in this case I did the proper thing and asked for coin number 7100 on my submission form. The coin is currently a 7103 but I expected and wanted it to be 7101.

@messydesk said:

@ProofCollection said:

@messydesk said:
They're erring on the side of caution. The chances are higher that a submitter puts wrong or incomplete information on a form than not. The submitter has nothing to lose by getting it wrong. PCGS has reputation and reholdering expense on the line if they do. For any coin submitted with a top-level spec number, meaning you don't have to click on the + in the pops or price guide to see it, they're going to do their best to ensure the description on their product is accurate.

Labelling the coin a base 1880-CC is just as accurate as labelling it with its variety. Maybe not as precise, but it's still accurate.

With respect to the top-level spec numbers they have, it is not accurate. "Base" 1880-CC is at the same level as 80-CC 8/7.

I'm not sure what you mean. In coin facts it shows this below. Usually the base is the first entry.

Copperindian

Something seems amiss with the PG & pops:
7101 - $1250/295
7103 - $975/57
Collector demand is certainly a factor, but the values I would think should be closer together.

M4Madness

@ProofCollection said:
It's better than my writing.
It's an MS63 and I am looking to sell it so I'm also annoyed at this delay that I may have to send it back.
It's confusing to talk about coin numbers and I apologize for not being clearer or consistent. In this case, on a submission form you are supposed to put down either 7100 or 7102. They don't want submitters assuming their coin is PL or DMPL and in fact the online forms don't allow you to choose them (as I recall). So in this case I did the proper thing and asked for coin number 7100 on my submission form. The coin is currently a 7103 but I expected and wanted it to be 7101.

That clears things up. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the situation.

By the way, I recently purchased a 1880-CC $1 8/7 Reverse of 1978 to replace my regular 1880-CC. It hasn't arrived yet.

david3142

Ignore the price guide. It’s not going to sell for less with the 8/7 attribution than it would without. We had a similar thread on this recently:

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13770724#Comment_13770724

I believe as their primary objective, PCGS should correctly identify the coin. It might be nice if they contacted the submitter first if there is a discrepancy in what was requested, but in this case, it’s very minor and I think they are justified in just going ahead and assuming the submitter either didn’t notice or didn’t care about the exact variety. As you can see, there are quite a few of them for this date. The major difference for this date, and where clarification should be necessary, is the reverse of 78 or reverse of 79.