23P Buffalo 2Feathers (non) attribution
MichalSPL
Posts: 73 ✭✭
Dear members,
Just want to share another horrible mistake made by PCGS in the field of variety attributions. I submitted 1923 5c buffalo that clearly is a FS-401 variety- 2 Feathers. Coin strucked by the same die as my coin is a top pop for the variety that has ultra low population of few pieces only. I was yet shocked to see that my coin didn’t get attribution. Not sure what made them to make this decision, I don’t to even want to say what comes to my mind but just expressing my worries that we as a PCGS clients can’t count on fair services. This is awful and this is harming the hobby.
I am attaching Trueviews of both my coin with cert 51185312 and top pop pictures cert 42531545. Curious if you agree that PCGS is actually not quite fair on this submission.
Comments
Submit for review and proper designation.
I realize you’re frustrated, but your thread title is ridiculous. Have you raised your concern with PCGS?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
It was not ridiculous yet I changed it so you are happy. Yes I have raised my concerns yet why should I have to do it in the first place while I paid 127$ for express service that is supposed to be provided by profesional? Coin is a variety and there is no reason to be standing on their side when they make mistakes or call it by name - disservice.
It was ridiculous. What does "rule us" mean? They make mistakes. They are human.
You would also get better results by contacting customer service rather than complaining to us. All that does is risk a banning.
A better start 😉, keep us posted to
I have contacted them and and I don’t see why they could ban me here. Sharing opinions on PCGS quality of service isn’t prohibited here. I marked variety attribution on forms and paid for it, coin has a variety specifics, than simple thing is that they should attribute it. If they failed to do so it’s bad, if they will stick with this decision it will be even worse yet also if several people I know who received disservice from them won’t say anything it will make them free to rule the hobby. And this is why I titled my thread the way I did in the first place.
First of all, it's there site. They can ban you for anything.
They do, generously, allow us to make reasonable complaints. However, if you read the rules, rule #2 precludes "accusatory, attacking" posts about any corporate entity.
I would also add that we had a member banned very recently for (in part) suggesting that previously banned members be allowed back in. It was his second consecutive thread being critical of our hosts.
Would you allow someone who came into your house and insulted your wife to stay for dinner?
You are using very strong words that don’t reflect my post. I didn’t insult anyone. I have shared my opinion that PCGS failed to provide the service in the right way. And I wouldn’t do it if not the fact that they have don’t it to me for the second time in two months time.
Secondly my guests are always welcomed to share their opinions, not to insult but to share opinion which is what I did. This platform is provided by them yet remember that they don’t don’t do it with own money. They do it with clients money. By ordering the services we finance this forum also. Each business has one person who is more important than CEO - it’s a Client. Firms that forget about it don’t last on the market long.
I can feel your frustration on something like this. Been there in other ways and totally understand.
Don't be a Karen.
Maybe they got the first attribution wrong.
Send it in after talking to CS
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I'm referring to the original post title. We're sinply trying to save you some grief. But, feel free to forge ahead.
Maybe the coin has too much of the third feather showing? Both coins shown in the OP have a remnant of the third feather, but the remnant appears larger on the OP’s coin.
First glance, I'm not calling it a 2 feather coin, since there's part of the third feather showing. Next, I pulled up Ron Pope's book for further guidance. It mentions two die pairs, one showing no trace of the feather (Die #1), and the other (Die #2) showing part of the third feather. This would be Die #2. It goes on to mention only Die #1 being a "true 2F" coin. The heading on the page of the book has a coin number that only refers to Die #1. The CPG also uses the term "true Two Feathers" to refer to coins having no trace of the third feather, but then indicates others show a small portion of the feather still remaining. They also state the true 2Fs are the most sought-after. There's no differentiation between the two dies for 1923, but also only one row of pricing. If Die #1 is more sought after than Die #2 because of the trace of the feather on Die #2, the pricing must only apply to Die #1, therefore the variety FS-401 must have no trace of the third feather and neither of the coins pictured in the OP are FS-401. So it would seem that PCGS got your coin right and the other one wrong.
If I were to receive these in an attribution submission, I would label it something like "Pope 2F-2", indicating Die #2 based on the numbering scheme (or at least a more concise version of it) in the book, but I would not call it FS-401.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
I fully agree with you on most of what you said. Also know well late Ron’s book and I am using it on a regular basis. I agree that top pop coin attributed by PCGS isn’t die 1, yet there are some factors to consider. Possible population of both dies is below 20, if so. Both dies do have a definite look of a 2Fs coins, thinking of the rarity both dies should have been treated as truth 2Fs also I don’t have full confidence as to the fact that die2 isn’t just and EDS of die1 as, as far as I know and researched there isn’t a known example of EDS of die1. This is a great example of coin where the debate can go on and on and final conclusions will always leave someone unhappy.
For me, this is second best 23P 2Fs coin despite PCGS decision.
Thank you for Your voice here, I can tell you know well what you are talking about👍
>
That’s not always true.
Although the third feather is 95% gone, I still see remnants. They might have given 2-feather status to similar in the past, but they did not do it to yours this time.
Sometimes they see the posts here. But this board is not monitored. At the very least, you'd have to tag them here.
And I am finding this as disservice from them. If they certified coin strucked by the same die as 2Fs they should be consistent. Now we have two coins, pretty much identical, one is regular the other is a variety. Do you believe this is right? I think that it is even disservice to the owner of the Top Pop coin, it’s really as if PCGS unattributed his coin. There is now higher grade EDS example of die1 to even be sure to say that this coins are die2. All wrong sir.
Another issue is that neither PCGS nor CPG call the shots as far as what specialist collector groups want. They only react to it. When they react incorrectly, the hobby provides feedback, sometimes more vocal than others. The next chance they have to adapt to this feedback is the next time they see one of the coins in question, but they can't unscramble the egg of having published imperfect or wrong information either on a slab or in a book, thus creating a mess like this one, leaving us wondering if they changed the rules or simply screwed up.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Based on my experiences they changed the rules 2-3 years back. There are numerous attributed 2 Feather varieties in PCGS plastic with way more of the third feather remaining than the OP’s coin. I wish they would simply tell us that and save us money and their time rejecting them. I don’t understand why they changed their policies when clearly many examples show remnants. All you need to do is check CoinFacts.
Therein lies the problem. What would fix it, at least going forward, is an online blog of attribution decisions that change which coins may be attributed and how, published as they are made. It might be a tall order, especially if the changes are frequent. I look at how I handle this in the VAM space, and there it's done by updating the VAMWorld wiki, which has a change history built in. For other types I don't control, I don't see enough coins often enough to do anything but take the most rigorous, specialized, and recent attribution guides at their word, occasionally reach out to the authority that could enlighten me, and add comments to a submission invoice if I had to make a non-obvious call on something.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Now this is a bomb to this topic. I asked Bill Fivaz if this coin, same as PCGS top pop coin could be just an EDS of die1, and Bill’s answer is attached in this comment. If I was right with thesis that coin showing remnant is a EDS of die1 than no doubt this coin should be very value FS-401.
@Manorcourtman
@messydesk
@jmlanzaf
Please check my comment above showing answer received from Bill Fivaz when I asked him if my coin could be EDS of die1.
Aren't 2 feathers just coins minted from dies that have been polished to the point of removing the 3rd feather? If that is the case, what makes an early die state?
Overall quality of all design elements. Die was polished to remove die clashes most likely. Other design elements could remain nice. Later the same die was, same as any other die, wearing down and coins showing no remnant could have been strucked by the same die as my and top pop coin but in MDS or LDS.
I looked at a few other dates, and there seems to be broad interpretation of the polishing and 2F.
Your coin looks connected to the hairline.
Others look more extreme.
But I see polishing.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Even if you could prove Die 1 and Die 2 are different states for the same die,
it is irrelevant, because the 2 Feather is all about the die state (not the die).
Similarly, the Morgan $1 1888-O "Scarface" has early die states where the die crack does not reach the face.
They don't have much value, compared to those where the crack is in the face.
I agree with @messydesk that the best overall solution would involve a way to reclassify PCGS CoinFacts photos (and ideally populations) when PCGS has followed the series experts and changed the way some dies or die states have been attributed.
I think a good way to implement this would be:
1. For an old PCGS CoinNum which has changed attribution rules, create 2 new CoinNums
2. When identifying photos are available, reclassify existing coins with the old CoinNum into the new CoinNums
3. Mark the old CoinNum as "discontinued", i.e. to be deleted in the future and no longer used for new slabs
4. Only display the new CoinNums by default on CoinFacts