(3) New Nickels To Be Added To The Pop Report!

wondercoin

I wanted to write concerning the issue of Ty 1 and Ty 2 1939 Mint State Jefferson Nickels. As most of you know, PCGS recently changed the standard on grading Ty 1 Jeffersons, which affects 1938 and 1939 dated coins.

With respect to 1938 dated coins, before this standard change PCGS had graded -0- 1938(d) coins, only -1- 1938(s) coin (which might or might not have just squeeked in their as the first 38(s) graded FS following the standard change) and a dozen or so 1938(p) coins. Hence, the only date really effected by the standard change was 1938(p) - in fact, this coin had been trading in the $2,500-$3,000 range for "pop top" MS66FS examples and, following PCGS' standard change, the first 1938(p) auctioned off (my coin on ebay) realized less than $300 (which I fully expected). The coin "corrected" downward nearly 90% in value following the PCGS change, although it is possible the "original" FS coins (pre-change) may command much more money if and when any of those are auctioned off in the future.

With respect to 1939 dated coins, however, PCGS has graded large quantities of 1939(p,d,s) and, I suspect in virtually all cases, these coins were the "Ty 2" pieces. For example, PCGS has graded (3) "pop top" 1939(d) Jefferson Nickels in PCGS-MS67FS and they command a great deal of money. Same with the 1939(s) nickels in PCGS-MS66FS and, to a lesser dollar extent, the 1939(p) nickels in PCGS-MS67FS. There are also "tons" of undergrade coins in these dates.

Now, PCGS will recognize Ty 1 1939 nickels as well as FS examples - I assume using the same standard as 1938 nickels. Hence, there needs to be a designation on these 1939 nickels as Ty 1 and Ty 2. They are different coins. The scarce Ty 2 FS pieces of 1939 need to be recognized as such. Whether 1939 p,d,s in Ty 1 also turn out to be scarce in high grade remains to be seen, but the Ty 2 pieces of 1939 need to be set out as such in the pop report. I believe previous informal discussions on this issue reveal to me near unanamous support for this concept among the Jefferson nickel enthusiasts.

I would hope PCGS considers this issue as soon as possible. In my opinion, iIt is important that PCGS start to designate these 1939 coins quickly as Ty 1 and Ty 2 to maintain the integrity of the Pop report. My opinion is also that it might preserve value for the collectors who purchased these "original" "pop top" FS 1939 dated examples (of which I personally own none, so there is no financial benefit to me - it is just the correct thing to do in my opinion).

Wondercoin

tompkins

This is pretty clearly a case of people "buying the slab" not the coin---and the standard change significantly reduced the value of the slab. And the second issue you raise is the recognition of clearly identifiable types (in the 39). I guess I don't know what goes into PCGS deciding when the attribute a variety: but it seems clear, especially when so many people (and I'm guilty at times) buy the slab, that PCGS should do the best job they can fully identifying and attributing the coin. This certainly would apply to the 39 nickels.

On a slightly different but closely related subject: what about standards changes in general. Clearly PCGS has a great deal of influence over the market for coins in their slabs. It has been widely discussed that the standards for modern PR70DCAM were looser some years back. The tightening of this standard is, in some large part, responsible for the huge jump in PR70DCAM prices over the last several years. What controls are there over these standards? If a new set of graders come in who start giving out 70's, I think it is obvious what happens to the value of some of the top registry sets that have a lot of 70's. Similarly, if they quit giving MS70's altogether on modern commem's, those prices will go even higher. The fact of the matter is that I can tell no difference at all between the 70's I own and one or two of my high-end 69's (I admit it, I a paid a premium for the slab). Maybe I should send those high end 69's for regrade, but I think we all know what the results would be in today's PCGS climate.

So back to your 1939 nickel question: given the huge market influence the slab has on the coin, I think it is incumbent on PCGS to do everything they can to help people: and this would include guaranteeing the standards are constant, as well as attributing types wherever possible.

Pete

solid

Mitch,

You are absolutely correct in regards to the 1939 nickels - The Type 1 and Type 2 reverses make them
different coins (which they have already recognized in the proof series with the "39 rev of 40" and
"40 rev of 38".

PCGS should designate these 1939 coins as Type 1 or Type 2 as quickly as possible, in order to
preserve the accuracy of the pop reports. As you stated, the 1939 rev of '38 (with full steps) may or
may not be a rare coin, but the 39-D and 39-S rev of '40 (Type 2) coins certainly are.

I don't know what this involves on the part of PCGS, but I believe that you will find nearly universal
agreement here!

C'mon PCGS, let's get this right!

leothelyon

Hi everyone.
In my opinion PCGS is fully aware of the two type of steps we have with the 1939PDS as they already have designated the two type of proofs for 1939 and 1940 as Rev. of 1938 and Rev of 1940. It's just a matter of time PCGS will designate the Rev. of 1938 business strikes. I prefer to use the term "type one" for the wavy, ill defined, reverse of 1938 steps. But we all know how PCGS finds a way to be a little different from the rest of the crowd. But it will and should be a very long time coming before a 1939 Rev. of 38 and a 1939-D Rev. of 38 is certified or crossed. And I believe the pops will be extremely low unless PCGS continues to let them slid through with questionable steps.
The 1939-S Rev. of 38 should certify before it's sisters. ANACS catered to the satisfaction of it's custumers way back when allowing and contributing partial step counts for the 39PDS wavy steps. Rightly so then as it was a different era and when no one could locate a 5 complete step coin for those dates and a number of others. So their pops are not in the best interest of what the collector wants today.
Even though, I'm only a 11-12 year collector of full step Jefferson's, I have seen and discussed this
matter with veteran collectors with 15 to 30 years collections and they didn't have the 39-D, very few, maybe 2 or 3 collectors had the 39 and 39-S but not the 39-D. Can I say the 39-D exists in five complete steps? Maybe there are a couple waiting in the wings for the right designation. The times say, it is. The 1960-d and 1961-d were crossovers. It will be interesting to watch and see what PCGS will do with the 1939PDS type one nickels.

Leo

NIckelCollector

Mitch:

I agree with your comments. PCGS needs to separately identify 1939 type 1 and type 2 varieties.

By the way, I don't think PCGS will ever certify another 1938S FS.

wondercoin

Frank: The 38(s) may be a super tough coin to obtain in high grade FS even with the new standard.

Wondercoin

GQ

Hello everyone.....great thread and I agree. The two reverses are two different coins.....if you collect varieties. Many of us want varieties.....we have our own Registry Page now. Give us varieties. I already call out my '39 rev. of '40 on the "coin description".

Enjoy your coins....



NICKEL TRIUMPH VARIETIES.....NUMBER 4 ATF????....WHERE IS EVERYBODY

wondercoin

Great news! I met with Rick M. today and after a discussion of the various issues, Rick agreed to the following:

1. The 1939 Mint State Jeffersons will be separated into "REV OF 38" and "REV OF 40".

2. The old PCGS number for this date will refer to the Ty 1 coins. The new numbers will refer to the Ty 2 coins. Hence, anyone with a reverse of 1940 (nearly everyone at the moment) will need to submit the coin for redesignation. The coin WILL NOT be reviewed for steps (i.e. if it is labeled FS it will remain FS), but the REV OF 40 coins will need to get the new coin number PCGS will assign to them.

Great job Rick! You have just made the Mint State Jefferson series even more challenging and exciting Wondercoin

keithdagen

Mitch,

Considering that the Type 1 in FS is rarer, wouldn't it make more sense for PCGS to assume everything is a Type 2 until proven otherwise?

wondercoin

"Mitch,

Considering that the Type 1 in FS is rarer, wouldn't it make more sense for PCGS to assume everything is a Type 2 until proven otherwise?"

Keith: Why do you think a 1939(d) or (s) nickel with rev of 38FS is rarer than a rev of 40FS? Remember that with PCGS modifying the standard for Ty 1 FS 1938-1939 coins, it is possible than many coins will grade out Ty 1 FS (look what has happened already in the case of 1938(d) after the standard was changed).

Are you taking into account the potential easier standard for Ty 1 steps ("easier" meaning being judged by the dies used - hence, coins with "breaks" will qualify as Ty 1 FS). Again, by "breaks" I am referring to the natural state of the dies.

Wondercoin

keithdagen

Mitch, simple logic -- you yourself said that a majority of the current FS coins are the Reverse of 1940. Makes sense to designate all current coins as such.

wondercoin

"Mitch, simple logic -- you yourself said that a majority of the current FS coins are the Reverse of 1940. Makes sense to designate all current coins as such."

Keith: The quantity of current FS examples (mostly all Ty 2) may well be a tiny % of overall FS slabs in a couple years. That is the theory. Time will tell of course. Wondercoin.

riverman

Some more changes in the way these 1939 nickels are reported? This is creating alot
of uncertainty. I think PCGS could have thought this out better from the beginning. If
someone currently owned a 1939(d) PCGS MS67FS nickel and they put this coin up on
Ebay tomorrow, some people would assume this is a type 1 nickel (and it's really a
type 2 nickel.) Some collectors might
expect the pops on the type one nickels to dramatically increase over the next few years.
The owner of this 1939(d) PCGS MS67FS nickel would "have to" send this nickel back in
to PCGS to get the type 2 designation. The 1939 (d) type 2 FS nickels would presumably be
worth alot more than a 1939 (d) type 1 FS nickels in the years to come.

NIckelCollector

I think it would be better to assume the current 1939 coin numbers are type 2.

Here is the logic. Total FS pops are 185, 27 & 39 for 1939 PDS respectively. Probably all type 2.

Total non FS pops are 192, 647 & 39 for 1939PDS respsectively. According to Breen total mintage of type 2 coins is 80% of 39P, 40% 39D and 33% of 39s. If you do the math 53% of all 1939 coins are probably type 2.

One can argue it is probalby a toss up at this point but the deciding factor should be 251 coins are certified full steps today that all probably type 2. Why should we have to submit these coins?

solid

I'm pleased that PCGS has decided to make the distinction, but it's hard to
argue with Frank's logic here. Since the Type 1 coins are the newly recognized
variety, and because virtually all of the 1939 FS coins to date are probably the
Type 2, The Type 1 coins should get the new coin number.

Maybe an even better idea would be to give both the Type 1 & Type 2 coins a
new number! That way there will be no uncertainty in the pop reports as to
what is out there.

Regardless, I already have my 39-D Type 1 nickel that I will try to submit. It is
currently in an ANACS MS67 holder and may or may not get the FS designation,
but it is certainly the most beautiful Jefferson I have ever seen.

I also will resubmit my MS66 38-S...it could arguably have received the FS
designation under the old standards and I feel it should be a lock under the
revised standards for Type 1 coins!



Ken

wondercoin

Ken: Great nickel - just the way I like them!

I debated with Rick M. the issue of which Type 1939 should get the new PCGS number. I actually felt the REV of 38 should get the new PCGS number, so that no one would have to submit their coins for re-designation. It is my impression that Rick M. believes the REV 40 coins will be the more difficult specimens in high grade and he wanted the new PCGS number to cover that Type. One other thing - REV 40 comes after REV 38. So, if the new number is a higher number than the current number, it would be consistent with the chronology.

In any event, this discussion involves a PCGS assigned number to a coin only. Most collectors will want to get their coin reholdered REV 40 regardless of what serial number is placed on the coin. So, I really didn't see this as a point to argue with Rick about. Maybe it was all my years spent before Judges - I learned to pick my arguments and not sweat the small stuff. Substance over form. Wondercoin.

solid

Ok,

I can't argue with Frank's logic, nor can I argue with Mitch's...maybe I'm just an agreeable
guy and don't like to argue...hey, what the heck am I doing on the boards anyway?!?!

Ken

P.S. Good job Mitch in helping to get this thing done!

leothelyon

hey, what the heck am I doing on the boards anyway?!?!

I'll answer that or maybe you already have.

Very, very nice Ken. Doesn't matter what that beauty grades unless the steps pan out. Gorgeous 39DT1.
I paid dearly for a monster toned 39DT1 but it doesn't come close to yours.

Leo