Did PCGS Miss Attribution on this 1952 Jefferson Nickel Proof?
ProofCollection
Posts: 6,405 ✭✭✭✭✭
I requested and paid for variety attribution on this Jefferson Nickel Proof. I think it is FS-404. It came back without a designation. The problem with the PCGS designation service is that you just get the coin back and you have no idea if they skipped or missed designating it or if they determined it wasn't a recognized variety. I'm starting to think they should include a note or label with your sub when this happens rather than just silently taking your $20. What do you guys think, is this FS-404? Unfortunately the TV lighting is not the best.
From Variety Vista: http://varietyvista.com/04a JN DD Vol 1/REDs 1952.htm
1
Comments
It doesn't look the same to me. In the VV images you can see re-engraving marks, on your coin it looks like it is an over-polished die with remnant of the design remaining but no re-engraving.
Collector, occasional seller
Don't know anything about this coin or the variety.
But, here's PCGS PR68 TrueView image of the 1952 FS-404.
PCGS Link
Your coin does not have the re-engraving go all the way to the hair, or the reengraving on the hair. The example above is one they made a mistake on, and it would be a mistake to compare to it.
The CPG picture and example
I have handled all of the 1952 5c proof varieties, and there are many. I have handles about 50 examples in all. Some are very straightforward to verify, and others, not so much, even in their earlier die state. As the recut die wears, it gets even more complicated for some of these varieties. NGC used to designate the various versions, but now just designate various ones as "Recut Ribbon."
I have seen various FS-#s in incorrectly designated. Without actually seeing your coin in person it can be difficult to verify. I have seen several examples in hand of some recut ribbons where at one angle the particular recut characteristics do not show, or due to die wear are vary faint; and at another angle it is easier to see the characteristics present.
Thanks guys, I think you're right, it's not 404. Here's another photo with different lighting.
http://ProofCollection.Net