Does Anyone Have PCGS Pop Reports Between February '94 And October '97? Need 1939-D Merc Pops.

TomB

This seems like it would be so straightforward to find this information, but I haven't been able to find it.

I have various paper PCGS population reports going back to the early 1990s, but I don't have all of them and notably there is a gap from February, 1994 until October, 1997 where I can't find any. If anyone has these issues within this time period would it be possible to post the PCGS populations (along with the date of the population report) of the following 1939-D Mercury dimes?

MS67FB
MS68FB
MS69FB

If you'd like to take a cell phone image of the page and post it to the thread that would be great. If you'd rather simply post those three populations with the publication date that would be wonderful, too. If you have one of these missing population reports and would like to possibly sell it to me for the information then shoot me a PM if that is what is needed.

I can't find these on the NNP and can't find them for sale at any numismatic bookseller or ebay. I also can't find archived copies of them and Heritage appears to have an informal online cutoff where they have reduced auction information prior to 2000. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you.

lilolme

only have April 1997.

coin # 5019 1939 D MSFB 67 = 93 / 68 = 60 / 69 = 8

TomB

Thank you. I am attempting to pinpoint when the populations exploded in the super-gem range for this date. My February, 1994 report shows 57 in MS67FB and zero for both MS68FB and MS69FB. However, by my October, 1997 report the populations are pretty much what you have for April, 1997.

If someone has an earlier report it might show when these were submitted.

TomB

Just trying to give this a bump to see if anyone else can help with the information. Thank you in advance.

jom

Man....I think I used a have a few of those. I probably tossed them out finally...I had them for years. I still have some Rosen Advisories and some old CDNs...but not the Pop Reports.

I was collecting Mercs at the time many of those 39-D's start hitting the market. I think it was Pinnicle (sp?) had the one in MS69FB...Todd Imhof (sp?) was working for them at the time. Asking about $6K for it if memory serves.

jom

TomB

Yes, Todd would have been at Pinnacle Rarities at the time and the $6k number for an MS69FB seems in-line with what I would have expected.

Regarding perhaps tossing the pop reports away; isn't it odd how we keep stuff for years and years and years and then toss it only to find out later that there might have been something useful it?

coinkat

this is what I have and found:

July 1994-- 67FB: 104 68FB: 63 69FB: 6

July 1995 67FB:79 68FB: 54 69FB: 8

Looks as if there is an issue here- not sure how the number in 67FB could decrease from 104 in July '94 to 79 in July '95. Also duly noted is the decline in 68FB from 63 to 54. I checked this several times before posting

coinkat

and for October 1997, I see 67FB @100 68FB @61 and 69FB @8

jom

Regarding perhaps tossing the pop reports away; isn't it odd how we keep stuff for years and years and years and then toss it only to find out later that there might have been something useful it?

I was just going to say that. Just after I toss something out I've had for years....a week later I need it. argh!

jom

lilolme

@coinkat said:
this is what I have and found:

July 1994-- 67FB: 104 68FB: 63 69FB: 6

July 1995 67FB:79 68FB: 54 69FB: 8

Looks as if there is an issue here- not sure how the number in 67FB could decrease from 104 in July '94 to 79 in July '95. Also duly noted is the decline in 68FB from 63 to 54. I checked this several times before posting

The Pop decreases are probably from crack outs and then some of the tags/labels being submitted / turned in and the populations adjusted. I have known tied for top pop to get cracked out to go for top pop. Kind of depends on the price increase from grade to grade.

TomB

Thank you all for the additional help.

I agree that the drop in pop numbers is in part almost certainly because of crack-outs with the certs returned or simply from regrades with the coin sent back to PCGS in its original holder. However, if the drop were from either or both of those reasons, then where did the coins go? That is, if someone sent in an MS67FB tag because they cracked it out and it graded MS68FB then the MS67FB number would go down by one while the MS68FB number would go up by one. The same holds for an MS68FB going to MS69FB. But, the numbers don't reflect this. This is something I have to think about.

The latest numbers from @coinkat really make it appear that the super-high grade gems from this date came into PCGS somewhere between my February, 1994 report and @coinkat's July, 1994 report. That helps a lot.

My experience with PCGS grading over the years is that certain coins have a glass ceiling of max grade and that when that ceiling is cracked or shattered that there are myriad regrades of coins in the hope of getting that new max grade. I've seen this with WQs in the early 2000s as well as with this 1939-D Merc issue around that time. Perhaps there were two levels of glass ceiling for these coins to smash through.

lilolme

For a coin that is sent in for a regrade or in its holder, then the pop would only change if the coin upgraded. As TomB noted above from 67FB to 68FB the 67FB would go down by one and 68FB up by one.

For a coin that is cracked out, then the population will increase for what ever grade the 'new' raw crackout coin grades. Example, if a 67FB is cracked out and then sent in and grades 67FB again, then the 67FB pop goes up by one. This could repeat several times (and/or for several different crackouts) until the submitter quits or perhaps it upgrades. If it upgrades then the pop for 68FB or 69FB will go up by one, whichever grade the 'new' raw crackout grades. The population figures are not adjusted down unless or until the tag/label(s) are sent in. Sometimes the labels are not sent in and thus resulting in incorrect population numbers.

WinLoseWin

@TomB said:
... then where did the coins go? That is, if someone sent in an MS67FB tag because they cracked it out and it graded MS68FB then the MS67FB number would go down by one while the MS68FB number would go up by one. The same holds for an MS68FB going to MS69FB. But, the numbers don't reflect this. This is something I have to think about.

Wonder if some might have gone to NGC.

TomB

Having given this some thought, I guess the most logical conclusion I can come to at this time would be that one or more dealers likely submitted a group of these coins multiple times in the hope that some of them would pop through the then-current glass ceiling and provide a financial windfall.

I have seen this for other issues and have, in fact, worked closely with someone where we engaged in this process with the result being that a single scarce coin represents perhaps more than 50% of the PCGS population data because we submitted it one or two dozen times over the course of a year. That PCGS population data will stay wildly skewed unless and until the old certs are submitted to PCGS and in the case of one particular issue I am thinking of this means that they will never be corrected since the coin was cracked out for each submission and the certs thrown away. By the way, I did not own the coin at the time so I did not own the certs that were thrown away, either.

Here are some data points from various PCGS population reports that are either in my possession or were supplied by @lilolme and @coinkat in this thread-

November 1993-
67FB=55 68FB=0 69FB=0

February 1994-
67FB=57 68FB=0 69FB=0

July 1994-
67FB=104 68FB=63 69FB=6

July 1995-
67FB=79 68FB=54 69FB=8

April 1997-
67FB=93 68FB=60 69FB=8

October 1997-
67FB=100 68FB=61 69FB=8

January 1999-
67FB=192 68FB=64 69FB=8

I hope the above is easy to read. The MS69FB numbers work perfectly in that once a coin reached MS69FB then it wasn't going to be cracked out, so the cert data would remain tight and accurate. The data for MS67FB and MS68FB might reflect a few coins cracked out of MS67FB holders that were resubmitted multiple times over a short window while the intermittent drops in these numbers could be from returned certs when PCGS offered a financial reward to anyone who returned a cert.

coinkat

I thought about the labels being returned after crackouts but I am not sure if that was done 30 years ago. There is a one year gap which provides time and opportunity to crack out and re-submit. Now I am somewhat curious if some of these ‘39-D Mercs were cracked and sent to NGC. 1994-95 seems well before the age of Registry Sets.

Just for kicks and giggles… July 1995 NGC pop report provided the following for the ‘39-D:

67FB: 237 68FB: 26 None at 69FB

Interesting that there were 310 at 66FB

So there you go… seems plausible that there were crack outs and resubmissions between the services which should not come as a surprise to anyone.

And I did find an NGC pop report from October 1991- for the ‘39-D, we had 254 @ MS66FB and 166 at 67FB and 1 at 68FB

TomB

I agree that there was likely some ping-ponging of coins between NGC and PCGS. As for the PCGS registry, it started in 2001 so that was not an issue in this time frame.

airplanenut

Tom, have you checked to see if the ANA library has any of these?

jom

I had always wondered where these came from. I was under the impression they were from the same source such as a couple of rolls. Many had very similar toning...in fact when a toned example without seeing the date I'd immediately think "39D"...I'd often be correct. Any thoughts on this?

jom

TomB

I think I'll write a thread in the next few days with what I recall of their history and give my opinions on them. I've been aware of the coins since the 1990s and spoke with folks at that time who handled a great many of them. I remember quite well what we talked about.

MFeld

@TomB , I realize that this might not be of any (but in case it’s of some) help….

I looked up PCGS MS68FB and MS69FB examples auctioned by Heritage in order of oldest sales, first.
Below are some of each, where the lot descriptions included the PCGS populations at the time of cataloging. This group should give a partial glimpse into the increase of populations over the time span of the sales.

I have included the descriptions and beneath each one, links to the listings.

PCGS MS68 FB examples

January 7, 1999 sale:
1939-D MS 68 Full Bands PCGS. Ex: Wm. Dominick. Simply incredible luster and color characterize this superb dime. Population: 8 in 68, none are finer (10/98).
https://coins.ha.com/itm/mercury-dimes/1939-d-ms-68-full-bands-pcgs-ex-wm-dominick-simply-incredible-luster-and-color-characterize-this-superb-dime-population-8-in-68-none-are/a/195-6553.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

March 28, 2000 sale:
1939-D 10C MS 68 Full Bands PCGS. Dan Miller. While a common date and apparently hoarded at the time of issue, this is certainly an uncommon example. Each side displays a cool, ice-blue and lavender center with deeper russet-scarlet iridescence around the right margins. Thick mint frost covers each side also and is uninhibited by the attractive tonal qualities. Population: 59 in 68, 8 finer.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/mercury-dimes/1939-d-10c-ms-68-full-bands-pcgs-dan-miller-while-a-common-date-and-apparently-hoarded-at-the-time-of-issue-this-is-certainl/a/20034-4267.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

July 26, 2003 sale:

Nearly Perfect MS68 1939-D Dime

1939-D 10C MS68 Full Bands PCGS. Essentially a flawless coin, the surfaces are bright and satiny with no trace of toning on either side. An excellent type coin. Population: 64 in 68, 11 finer (4/03).

https://coins.ha.com/itm/mercury-dimes/1939-d-10c-ms68-full-bands-pcgs-essentially-a-flawless-coin-the-surfaces-are-bright-and-satiny-with-no-trace-of-toning-on-either-side-an/a/328-6807.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

MS69FB examples:

January 4, 1999 sales:

PCGS 1939-D MS 69 Full Bands. Not only does this amazing Mercury dime border on perfection, but it also boasts an incredibly colorful array of rainbow iridescence on either side. Population: 8 in 69 (8 for the type as well), none higher.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/mercury-dimes/pcgs-1939-d-ms-69-full-bands-not-only-does-this-amazing-mercury-dime-border-on-perfection-but-it-also-boasts-an-incredibly/a/128-208.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

September 14, 2006 sale:
Superlative Gem 1939-D Dime, MS69 Full Bands

1939-D 10C MS69 Full Bands PCGS. Perhaps there is something special about this date, for a similar (but not the same) 1939-D Mercury dime was chosen by David W. Lange for the cover of the second edition of The Complete Guide to Mercury Dimes, published last year. The author noted: "This issue is the quintessential type coin, being perhaps the most consistently attractive Mercury dime in the entire series. 1939-D has graced many a high-grade type set, including the famous Knoxville Collection." It was the Knoxville Collection specimen that he chose to illustrate the cover of his book.
This example has less toning than the Knoxville coin, with vibrant color over about 50% of its surface. Both sides have frosty silver luster with splashes of intermingled sea-green, gold, and russet toning. Population: 14 in 69, 0 finer (8/06).(Registry values: N1793)

https://coins.ha.com/itm/mercury-dimes/1939-d-10c-ms69-full-bands-pcgs-perhaps-there-is-something-special-about-this-date-for-a-similar-but-not-the-same-1939-d-mercury-dime/a/416-1430.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

TomB

Thank you @MFeld for the contribution.

Prior to writing this thread I already researched all of the public auctions for 1939-D Merc dimes with a minimum grade of MS68FB and also looked at quite a few MS67FB pieces, as well. I know you will then like the next things I since it is so science-geeky, but I built an Excel spreadsheet and recorded the date of sale, cert number of the coin, CAC status at time of sale, final sales price including BP, generation of PCGS holder and auction house and then saved any available images and checked to see if the cert number was still active in the PCGS database. As if that wasn't enough, I then went through all the images and correlated which coins were eventually regraded and their new cert numbers and any TrueView images attached to those coins.

I have about 150-auction records!

HA was the largest source of help for me, so I already have these listed.

My goal with going through all this data was to find something out, but I don't know what it is exactly that I was looking for regarding these coins. However, as mentioned earlier in the thread, I will write a long-ish and most definitely boring-ish thread about these coins soon. Fair warning...you may want to skip the well-titled and described thread!

MFeld

@TomB said:
Thank you @MFeld for the contribution.

Prior to writing this thread I already researched all of the public auctions for 1939-D Merc dimes with a minimum grade of MS68FB and also looked at quite a few MS67FB pieces, as well. I know you will then like the next things I since it is so science-geeky, but I built an Excel spreadsheet and recorded the date of sale, cert number of the coin, CAC status at time of sale, final sales price including BP, generation of PCGS holder and auction house and then saved any available images and checked to see if the cert number was still active in the PCGS database. As if that wasn't enough, I then went through all the images and correlated which coins were eventually regraded and their new cert numbers and any TrueView images attached to those coins.

I have about 150-auction records!

HA was the largest source of help for me, so I already have these listed.

My goal with going through all this data was to find something out, but I don't know what it is exactly that I was looking for regarding these coins. However, as mentioned earlier in the thread, I will write a long-ish and most definitely boring-ish thread about these coins soon. Fair warning...you may want to skip the well-titled and described thread!

@TomB, I can’t say I’m shocked by your research.😀
I’ll look forward to your long-ish and most definitely boring-ish thread about these coins.😉

TomB

I forgot to mention that I am only including in the research those coins that appear to have likely come from that hoard that surfaced in the mid-'90s. This is one reason I was interested in the pop reports.

WinLoseWin

@coinkat said:

… July 1995 NGC pop report provided the following for the ‘39-D:

67FB: 237 68FB: 26 None at 69FB

Interesting that there were 310 at 66FB

So there you go… seems plausible that there were crack outs and resubmissions between the services which should not come as a surprise to anyone.

And I did find an NGC pop report from October 1991- for the ‘39-D, we had 254 @ MS66FB and 166 at 67FB and 1 at 68FB

I have an NGC pop report from April 1998. It has 3 rows for the 1939-D MSFB.

The standard row shows: 67FB 312 68FB 27 69FB -0- (421 in 66FB)

However it shows two additional lines. One for the pedigree ELIASBERG (only a 66FB).

Also shows KNOXVILLE with one in 69FB, the only NGC 69FB for the type at that time.

lilolme

The one HA auction information from Jan 7, 1999 is probably a typo error (used 69 for 68). The pcgs population reports (I have July 1998 and July 1999) are showing 8 in 69FB. The HA description has 8 in 68FB with none higher (10/98). The July 1998 and 1999 populations for 68FB are 65 and 63 respectively (it went down). Just an FYI the 67FB jumped from 128 to 182 (boom).

https://coins.ha.com/itm/mercury-dimes/1939-d-ms-68-full-bands-pcgs-ex-wm-dominick-simply-incredible-luster-and-color-characterize-this-superb-dime-population-8-in-68-none-are/a/195-6553.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515

TomB

That information in the 1999 HA auction writeup is definitely an error by the cataloguer in that they read the wrong line in the PCGS pop report.

jom

If anyone cares here is an example of a typical 39D which I owned for a time. I bought it in a ICG 68FB holder and given the price I paid I figured if I could get it to a PCGS MS67FB I'd be even. So I gave it a shot and it came back PCGS 65FB! I got lucky for once. I sold it several years later. BTW, TomB's example is much nicer....

jom

BStrauss3

@coinkat said:
Looks as if there is an issue here- not sure how the number in 67FB could decrease from 104 in July '94 to 79 in July '95. Also duly noted is the decline in 68FB from 63 to 54. I checked this several times before posting

Regrading? Crackout labels sent in?

TomB

I've managed to write another thread with some info that might be useful or interesting for those who have not noticed it-

https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1111787/the-1939-d-mercury-dime-the-epitome-of-monster-toned-dimes-what-is-their-story-long-boring#latest

GoldFinger1969

Do the TPGs or any enterprising collectors have all the Annual Population Reports digitized for easy research ?