PCGS: PLEASE READ THIS AND HELP!! :)
wondercoin
Posts: 16,980 ✭✭✭✭✭
PCGS: Let's work together to clean up the Pop Report best we can. Also, let's make the Registry collections more accurate. There are many glaring errors in the pop report that can be easily cleaned up as follows:
The "no brainer" mechanical errors" should be striken from the Pop Report at once. This cleans up the Pop Report and, in the RARE instance a coin that was "cleaned up" is believed to be proper as originally listed in the pop report, the owner can simply send it into PCGS for inspection and final determination. This procedure worked beautifully while Rick M. was overseeing it and I helped him clean up a great many coins in the POP REPORT this way.
Forum members who are aware of "no brainer" glaring problems can post to this thread and PCGS can make a final determination of each and every requested deletion . Sound like a "plan"?
I'll start out with an obvious Pop Report problem:
THE 1994(P) JEFFERSON NICKEL IN PCGS-MS69.
I believe PCGS lists (6) REGULAR ISSUE COINS in the pop report. GET RID OF THEM NOW AND CHANGE THEM INTO THE SMS COINS THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE!! OF COURSE, THE ODDS OF ANY OF THESE COINS BEING ANYTHING OTHER THAN SMS COINS IS WILDLY INSANE! WHY ALLOW THEM TO TRADE ON THE OPEN MARKET AT PRICES WAY OVER SMS COMMON GRADE PRICE? I DOUBT ANY NICKEL COLLECTOR HERE WOULD CHALLENGE MY BELIEF THAT THESE COINS ARE ALL SMS - SO DAVID - MAKE THAT POP -0- TOMORROW (AND CONSIDER DELETING THE MS68FS POP 1 AS WELL, AS THAT IS ALSO LIKELY A MECHANICAL ERROR THAT MIGHT HARM AN INNOCENT COLLECTOR OUT THERE) !!
OK - Who else has NO BRAINER coins to clean up in the POP REPORT? Wondercoin
The "no brainer" mechanical errors" should be striken from the Pop Report at once. This cleans up the Pop Report and, in the RARE instance a coin that was "cleaned up" is believed to be proper as originally listed in the pop report, the owner can simply send it into PCGS for inspection and final determination. This procedure worked beautifully while Rick M. was overseeing it and I helped him clean up a great many coins in the POP REPORT this way.
Forum members who are aware of "no brainer" glaring problems can post to this thread and PCGS can make a final determination of each and every requested deletion . Sound like a "plan"?
I'll start out with an obvious Pop Report problem:
THE 1994(P) JEFFERSON NICKEL IN PCGS-MS69.
I believe PCGS lists (6) REGULAR ISSUE COINS in the pop report. GET RID OF THEM NOW AND CHANGE THEM INTO THE SMS COINS THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE!! OF COURSE, THE ODDS OF ANY OF THESE COINS BEING ANYTHING OTHER THAN SMS COINS IS WILDLY INSANE! WHY ALLOW THEM TO TRADE ON THE OPEN MARKET AT PRICES WAY OVER SMS COMMON GRADE PRICE? I DOUBT ANY NICKEL COLLECTOR HERE WOULD CHALLENGE MY BELIEF THAT THESE COINS ARE ALL SMS - SO DAVID - MAKE THAT POP -0- TOMORROW (AND CONSIDER DELETING THE MS68FS POP 1 AS WELL, AS THAT IS ALSO LIKELY A MECHANICAL ERROR THAT MIGHT HARM AN INNOCENT COLLECTOR OUT THERE) !!
OK - Who else has NO BRAINER coins to clean up in the POP REPORT?
Wondercoin Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
0
Comments
<< <i>Sound like a "plan"? >>
Sounds like a plan to me. If it will be done.
The "for shame" is, the pop reports have long since been tainted with errors to the extent there may be no correction possible, for some coins. But you have to start somewhere!
I believe I own two Lincolns that fit into this category. Rick M. offered to look at one but he left before I could get it back to him. I offered them up again and PCGS said after speaking with the Operations Manager that as far as my coins were concerned "everything is correct". I have several other professional opinions that say otherwise.
Had I been able to see these coins first, or been able to take advantage of a return policy, I would never have bought them. That's one of the problems buying coins from overseas. At the same time, PCGS has to own up to the error, mechanical or not, and make restitution. I'm not concerned with making money based on market value of what they would be worth but simply the money I have invested in them. What I understood from Rick M. is that mechanical errors don't qualify for the PCGS warranty so there would be no restitution. I feel otherwise and leave them in my set just to highlight this opinion. I'm so sure the coins are bogus that I kept the ones they replaced.
Anybody else feel PCGS should cover mechanical errors under some kind of warranty? Regards, Dave
And, let me mention another - the 1959(p) Roosie in PCGS-MS68. This coin first appeared on the pop report at a time when PCGS was seldom even grading MS67 Roosies and MS66 examples were trading close to $200/coin!! I think it is highly unlikely this coin even exists. My guess is that coin is also a proof example that got registered as an MS. Indeed, a second 1959(p) appeared years later in MS68 and was later removed by PCGS (also a likely PROOF mechanical error). I think all Roosie collectors out there would agree to delete the 1959(p) in PCGS-MS68, with the understanding that if the coin exists and can be proven to PCGS then it gets back on the report
::::Whoa:::: Does this mean PCGS would have to get rid of this Registry?!
http://www.pcgs.com/new_set_registry/display_coins.chtml?regsetid=10612&alltime=no
Russ, NCNE
In fact, I don't even think PCGS will give the "PL" even to a worthy coin, if it's a modern. But, that I'm not 100%.
Either way, the insert number indeed shows this one to be a MS65 DCAM.
Good enough for me and good enough for a Registry!
To the contrary, I believe my examples fit perfectly under your topic. The two coins I refer to are the single 1966 MS68RD Lincoln (listed as BS instead of SMS) and the 1970-S LD MS67CAM Jeffrey Dallen Lincoln Set. Are these not POP Top coins that skew the POPs and in this case, harmed a collector? To top it all off, one of them I purchased from the man himself - DHRC!
I'm not sure if Pat made his or bought it that way but I still believe the warranty should cover these coins as well. You folks stateside can normally work a return on your items that don't "make the grade". Overseas, I can count on only receiving my purchases a week or two after the return period ends!
Regards, Dave
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
<< <i>::::Whoa:::: Does this mean PCGS would have to get rid of this Registry?! >>
Obviously! This set falls into the "1 coin set" catagory, and doesn't deserve to be listed. Time to clean up the Registry!
Where's BJ?
Where's Carol?
Call David!
Call out the National Guard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Allan
Allan"
DAVID: ARE YOU READING THIS? PAYING $800 FOR A $200 COIN BECAUSE THE INSERT SAYS "MS" INSTEAD OF "SMS" ON A NO BRAINER MECHANICAL ERROR!!!
DAVID: SHOULDN'T YOU ZERO OUT THE (6) MS69 MISTAKES IN THE POP REPORT TODAY (AND THE MS68 MISTAKE)!! At least tomorrow, when the next guy considers paying $800 for a $200 coin, he does it armed with full knowledge that the pop on the coin is ZERO, which is a red flag!!
Now, to your question Allan - IMHO, I am personally bothered by anyone buying an obvious MECHANICAL ERROR. But, my concerns became even larger if it is being bought for REGISTRY POINTS!! An honest mistake is one thing (as I am sure many are), but an intentional purchase to rack up points is quite another. Also, a good faith purchase to take a coin off the market is quite another thing (Rick M. asked me to win an SMS coin for him off auction once after I alerted him to the coin). So, it depends on the circumstances. BUT, ONE THING IS FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE - I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND A CUSTOMER OF MINE TO PUT SUCH A COIN IN HIS/HER REGISTRY SET. MISTAKE COINS, SUCH AS THE NICKEL IN QUESTION MERELY POISON AN OTHERWISE NICE SET. ALL EYES FOCUS ON THE OBVIOUS MISTAKE COIN IN THE SET AND ONE STARTS TO WONDER ABOUT THE OTHER COINS IN THE SET.
SO, TO ANSWER YOU QUESTION, IMHO - THERE ARE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE PCGS SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT PAY THE $800.
WONDERCOIN
Since a lot of my coins came from you and Mark, folks don't have to wonder about the rest now
The two "No Brainers" in my set are there more for PCGS than anything. Like I said, I have the coins they replaced to put back in there once PCGS wants to correct the situation.
On the one from DHRC, I called prime time from here in Brazil to inquire about the coin. Like you, I was certain it was an SMS. I had the clerk retrieve the coin to ensure it wasn't a listing error. They did and assured me it was the finest BS 1966 Lincoln ever made. So if it is in a PCGS slab and a real PCGS person tells me that it really is what they say it is, what more can a person do? I didn't pay "stupid" money for either of these coins but I did pay more than what they are worth. All I want is PCGS to either certify they are what they say they are or cover my expenses of purchasing their errors. Regards, Dave
When you purchase coins you should explain to the seller that you are overseas in the military and request an extended return privilege. Return privileges are calculated to give time for the coin to arrive plus a reasonable review period. Given your situation, that may take longer than a dealer's established time period. Most dealers want you to have this time to make sure you feel good about the purchase. Those that feel that way will be happy to extend the return privilege for you given your circumstances. Those that don't, should be approached differently and the price you're willing to pay should reflect the fact that you are essentially buying the coin sight unseen without a return privilege.
WH
For us illiterate IHC folks, what's SMS vs MS??
Wayne, Appreciate your comments and advice. It does work with some folks but certainly not all. Some folks won't deal with me at all because I have an APO address. You are among the exceptional ones that has worked with me on purchases and returns. Which reminds me, I think I have an order for you this weekend!
Regards, Dave
My Jefferson Full Step Variety Set (1938 - Current)
My Jefferson Proof Variety Set (1938 - Current)
Frank: Read what you wrote - SMS coins were released. SMS COINS. Don't tell me you want these graded anything other than SMS, which they are.
By the way, I do not believe ANY of these (6) MS69 coins were anything other than SMS coins and you really don't either
And speaking of SMS coins in circulation. I once got back 5 or 6 PCGS-MS65 SMS 1964 Wash Quarters in a bulk deal I submitted to PCGS. Yes, I could have used the "BS" that I the mint might have mistakenly placed them in circulation (for those who do not know, PCGS has graded a couple dozen SMS Wash quarters from 1964 and they are quite rare). Instead, I did the RIGHT THING and asked Rick M. to change them all to the regular MS coins -changing back $5,000-$10,000/coin back down to $25/coin.
There is a right and a wrong way to capture "pop top" coins
While I also believe that many if not all of the 1994 MS69FS Jeffersons are SMS, I do believe there is a possibility that some of these coins are true circulation strikes. I believe the mint announced that some of these SMS coins were released into general circulation. It is also possible that the dies or specially prepared planchets were used for some of the general strikes. Maybe these coins are real, maybe not.
Mitch
I pretty much agree with what Frank has said. There was spectulation from what had been read but I can't remember seeing it in the nimismatic perodicals or if the information was included with the US mint brocheres.
I watch that auction and had considered bidding but I couldn't imagine a coin ( but 6 coins?) surviving that great of condition, from a bag, roll or a mint set. It would be interesting to hear the accounts from those who made them, where they came from. If they are believable.
Another possible explaination lies with unknowledgeable graders concerning this date and the information entered by the submitters. Even the fine line that is drawn concerning how they were released is irrevelant but then again the population for that SMS would be wrong, just how many others were released, another 10,000?
I would like to hear what PCGS has to say before they bar them.
But if you were to pull a markfree one from a bag or see one in a mint set then what is the answer?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Wondercoin
I also wrote:
"It is also possible that the dies or specially prepared planchets were used for some of the general strikes."
I would classify these coins as circulation strikes.
My Jefferson Full Step Variety Set (1938 - Current)
My Jefferson Proof Variety Set (1938 - Current)
Second, you need to deal with the affadavits of collectors who swear they came from original rolls. Well - guess what. For about 10+ years there, the 1965-1967 SMS sets were worth so little (around $2/set) that I was happy just to buy up as many as I could in order to pull out the Kennedy half and use the plastic holder (1966-67) to house my 1950-1964 proof sets. I calculated that I could spend $.41 from the set (penny, nickel, dime and quarter) and be into the Kennedy at around $1.50/coin! I carefully placed many an SMS coin (other than the Kennedy) in a wrapper to dispose of by the roll. Once one begins to understand the history of 1965-1967 SMS coins, it becomes easily to deal with the statements that the coins in question can from a roll in circulation. The easy answer is "SO WHAT" - especially if the coin is anything other than a half dollar (which still was broken up for rolls, but not to simply spend).
Wondercoin
It would be interesting to be able to compare the two. Ray can do this but he seldom posts.
If they were only struck once and have the matte finish but thinner letters and date, then we have an entirely different coin.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
If they were only struck once and have the matte finish but thinner letters and date, then we have an entirely different coin.
Leo"
Leo: I gave up believing in the tooth fairy many years ago
Someone claims that there could be no 1959-P dime in MS68.
Maybe when I bought and sold the coin I was in some sort of lala land. And by the way, maybe the invoice and purchase order that I have on the coin were dreams as well.
They are still in my files, and the coin is and was mint state. I know proofs, and there is no way this coin was proof.
Unless you own the coin that is misattributed, then it's hard to say that it doesn't exist.
I will grant that there are many mechanical errors. I have one right now. A 1976-P Type II Ike in a Type I slab. Difference in price $200 to $3250. I also have a 1976-D type I (MS67) in the correct holder. There is a type II in a type I holder. This date is pop 2. If the situation were cleared up, I have a pop 1 coin.
I would love to say take them out, but until the coin is seen you just can't do that.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Let's not mix "apples and oranges". Clear mechanical errors should be removed first (such as the improperly entered SMS coins). The more tricky issues are coins such as the 59(p) dime and the 64(p) Kennedy mentioned here. Here, the "expert opinions" come into play. These coins can go either way. BUT, I AGREE WITH GREG THAT IT IS UNFAIR FOR RICHARD GREEN TO BE CHASING SHADOWS FOR A PERFECT SET.
Wondercoin.
lol
Mitch
Before we go down that long lomesome road and lynch up a coin before it gets a fair trial. Let's try to get
some valuable input from those who can make a comparison, those who made them and from PCGS. After all, PCGS has graded 6-7 of these MS coins. It would be interesting to hear the rest of the story.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The alternative is simple - PCGS can leave the obvious mistakes in the pop report and then when someone pays $5,000 or $10,000 for a $200 (mislabeled) coin, because they relied on the mechanical error insert on the coin, PCGS can battle it out with them. At least, by removing the clear mechanical errors from the pop report, PCGS has a fighting chance to show it did everything it could to fix the problem. For example, if a dealer bought the coin for $10,000 and failed to check the pop report to see the pop was -0-, PCGS might have something to say about that. Fixing the pops benefits collectors as well as PCGS the way I see it.
Wondercoin
DAN
My first tassa slap 3/3/04
My shiny cents
My Dimes
<< If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time! >>
Your point is well taken and I do agree a buyer should not be mislead.
But if the coin is found to be a legit MS and the pops stand or are reinstated, I think PCGS will need to add the words "Business strike" to the inserts and a footnote with the pops to eliminate any futher doubt from future buyers IF the coin proves to be a valid business strike.
Changing the pop number 6 to 0 does nothing until PCGS stops grading or mislabeling them. When the next one shows up on the market, buyers will still be inclined to think it's a new top pop coin and go nuts over it.
I have sent Ray an email and Frank will be adding his comparison notes soon. And I have ask both to contact their sellers. And we're waiting for PCGS to make a comment.
No-one should pay 10X the value for this SMS if it is indeed an SMS. The 1994-P SMS is only a $75 coin
while the 1997-P is about a $125 coin, at least I wouldn't pay much higher. I have two of each and have no need for more.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
Leo: Whatever you and others are doing to deal with obviously mislabeled coins I can not comment on. I didn't even know Frank owned an MS69 regular issue nickel. This thread is about cleaning up the pop reports and we have spent way too much time already on 1994 and 1997 nickels.
postage/insurance for the coin using a personal check. Sometime after the check cleared my bank I updated
my registry sets. I had a number of upgrades to add. It is not unusual for me to add coins to my sets after the
check has cleared but I have not yet received the coins. I believe that was one of the goals of starting PCGS in
the first place (i.e. - sight unseen selling/buying). In the case of the 94P MS69FS coin I have not received it as
of 02/08/03 so it is still “sight unseen”.
I was willing to pay $800.00 for a PCGS MS69FS business strike Jefferson nickel. I know how rare that
particular coin would be. The coin being in a PCGS holder made the price “palatable”. PCGS coins are
guaranteed to be correctly attributed and accurately graded. I would not pay that kind of money for a
MS69FS coin in any other kind of holder.
I have appended some email correspondence that I had with Mitch (wondercoin) and Frank Corso about
problems PCGS has had/is having with SMS/BS attribution with Jefferson nickels. Based on these emails, it
should be clear to anyone that it is my opinion that all 1994P MS68/69FS coins are SMS coins and not business
strikes. But without actually seeing the coin I cannot say for sure that this coin is not a business strike. I
decided to purchase the coin and see for myself. Contrary to what Mitch (wondercoin) says, I do not know of
any coin expert that could tell if this particular coin is really a business strike coin or SMS WITHOUT SEEING
THE COIN FIRST.
As far as adding the 94P MS69FS coin into my set I treated this coin no differently than I did the 1973P
MS67FS, 1973D MS67FS, 1978D MS67FS, 1989P MS68FS, 1990P MS67FS, 1994D MS67FS, 1995P MS67FS,
1996P MS67FS, 1997P MS67FS, and 2002D MS67FS coins. I upgraded my registry sets after the check cleared.
When I received the coins I examined them to see if I was going to keep them. If I was not happy with the
coins and returned them I would have updated my sets back to the original coins. MITCH IF YOU HAVE A
PROBLEM WITH THIS IT IS YOUR PROBLEM AND NOT MINE. THERE IS NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY UNETHICAL
ABOUT WHAT I AM DOING.
Mitch (wondercoin) wrote the following:
"Now, to your question Allan - IMHO, I am personally bothered by anyone buying an obvious MECHANICAL
ERROR."
As I have not yet seen the coin I do not know for sure that the coin is really a business strike coin regardless
of what my personal feelings are. I have to wait to see the coin. AS WOULD ANY COMPETENT COIN EXPERT.
After all, the coin is in a PCGS holder.
Mitch (wondercoin) wrote the following:
"But, my concerns became even larger if it is being bought for REGISTRY POINTS!! An honest mistake is one
thing (as I am sure many are), but an intentional purchase to rack up points is quite another."
All of the FS Jefferson’s I buy are to upgrade my registry sets. When did that become a problem? I think you
need to keep in mind that I did not grade the coins as BS, PCGS did. And I am not selling these coins either.
Mitch (wondercoin) wrote the following:
"BUT, ONE THING IS FOR ABSOLUTELY SURE - I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND A
CUSTOMER OF MINE TO PUT SUCH A COIN IN HIS/HER REGISTRY SET. MISTAKE
COINS, SUCH AS THE NICKEL IN QUESTION MERELY POISON AN OTHERWISE NICE
SET. ALL EYES FOCUS ON THE OBVIOUS MISTAKE COIN IN THE SET AND ONE
STARTS TO WONDER ABOUT THE OTHER COINS IN THE SET."
Mitch, since you have not seen the coin I can only ask if you are clairvoyant? Regardless of whether you
are correct or not I will say again that any COMPENTENT COIN EXPERT would have to look at the coin first.
Mitch (wondercoin) wrote the following:
"SO, TO ANSWER YOU QUESTION, IMHO - THERE ARE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE
PCGS SHOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT PAY THE $800."
I do not know exactly what guarantee PCGS has on its slabs. I will have to look into that. However, I think I
can make a case that if PCGS were to change the label on one of my PCGS slabs and the value of the coin
were to decrease, then PCGS should be liable for the difference. If this is not the case then I would not give
PCGS the opportunity to modify the label. Either PCGS stands behind the coins it grades or they don't. I am
not interested in getting into a nomenclature discussion (i.e. - the definition of mechanical error). The bottom
line is I bought the coin based on the label PCGS put on the coin. EITHER YOU CAN TRUST PCGS TO STAND
BEHIND WHAT IT PUTS ON ITS LABELS OR YOU CAN'T.
So, lets say I get the coin and I decide that it is a SMS coin. According to Mitch (wondercoin), I should send
the coin to PCGS for re-grading. If PCGS changes the label I am stuck with a $200.00 coin for which I paid
$800.00. If PCGS does not change the label I am stuck with a SMS coin in a BS holder that I cannot sell. Either
way I’m out $600.00. I AM NOT WILLING TO FINANCE PCGS's INTEGRITY. If PCGS won't stand behind their slabs
(read “labels”) then I will not either.
In this particular case (i.e I look at the coin and I think it is an SMS coin) I will return the coin to the seller. It
is not worth $600.00 to me to fix PCGS’s problems. And according to Mitch (wondercoin) PCGS has no
culpability in this at all (other than changing the pop reports). Isn’t that a hoot?
This last item is a copy of an email I sent to PCGS on 01/29/2003. I have yet to receive a response.
I do have concerns about the improperly attributed SMS Jefferson nickels. It would be nice if PCGS was
able to “cleanup” this problem. However, the expense of doing so should be (and rightly so) PCGS's.
*=====================================================================*
Subject: Diagnostics used to tell the difference between SMS and
Business strike Jefferson Nickels
From: Ray Overby <ROverby@attglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 10:52:26 -0600
To: info@pcgs.com
To whom it may concern:
I would like to know what PCGS is doing about SMS Jefferson nickels
being graded as misattributed business strikes for dates 1965-1967,
1994, and 1997. The problems PCGS has had in this area include but is
not limited to:
- A 1965 MS65FS coin that was originally attributed as a business strike
and then changed to SMS.
- A number of MS68/MS69FS 1997P coins originally graded as business
strikes and then changed to SMS.
According to the latest PCGS pop report there are a number of
MS68(1)/MS69FS(6) 1994P graded business strike coins. Business strike
Jefferson nickels simply do not exist in quantity at the MS68/MS69
level. Given the mistakes PCGS has made with the 1997P and 1965 SMS
coins it is not unreasonable to think that the same mistake may have
been made with the 1994P coins.
I currently own the number one CS Jefferson Nickel 1965-present set and
this issue is affecting me directly. I would like to check my coins to
see if I have any of these "mistakes". At this time I do not want to
send the coins to PCGS for review. I would like to know the diagnostic
information PCGS use's to tell the difference between SMS and business
strikes. I would like to check my 1965 MS65FS, 1967 MS67, 1994P MS67FS,
1994P MS69FS, and a 1997P MS67FS. I stand to loose a lot of money if
these coins are later determined to be SMS coins and not business
strikes. I was depending upon PCGS to accurately grade/attribute these
coins.
Ray Overby
*=====================================================================*
*=====================================================================*
rayovac
Date Posted: Jan/25/2003 5:50 PM
Mitch,
Whatever happended to the 2nd MS65FS 1965 Business strike Jefferson
nickel? Just wondering.
Ray Overby
*=====================================================================*
*=====================================================================*
wondercoin
Date Posted: Jan/25/2003 8:19 PM
Ray: Hi. As far as I know, coin was SMS and PCGS changed it. Do you know
for a fact your coin is not SMS too? PCGS is in process of paying off
the coin they just changed. Regards. Mitch
*=====================================================================*
*=====================================================================*
rayovac
Date Posted: Jan/26/2003 6:15 PM
Mitch,
It is a no question nonsms business strike coin.
Ray
*=====================================================================*
*=====================================================================*
rayovac
Date Posted: Jan/29/2003 8:21 AM
Mitch,
You told me about the 65MSFS business strike coin that PCGS
misattributed as a business strike and have now agreed to change to SMS.
Do you know anything about the 1997P coins that were originally graded
MS68/MS69FS as business strikes? The pop report had been updated to
indicate 5-6 coins higher than MS67. As I have the only MS67FS coin
(which is an obvious business strike) I was thinking that the coins had
to be misattributed SMS coins. Now the pop report shows my MS67FS coin
as a pop 1 again with the MS68/69 coins gone from the pop report. Any
information would be appreciated.
All this has come up because I just purchased a MS69FS 1994P Jefferson
nickel. In my opinoin I beleive the coin to really be a misattributed
SMS coin. I have not seen the coin yet and perhaps I am wrong but I
don't think so. PCGS has done it for 1965 and 1997. They probably have
done it with the 1994 coins also.
Ray
*=====================================================================*
*=====================================================================*
wondercoin
Date Posted: Jan/29/2003 9:46 AM
Ray: Efforts have been made to clean up these series. I worked with PCGS
to get many SMS coins off the pop report as regular issues.
After you examine the MS69 1994, if you believe it is a mistake, write
dh@collectors.com about it, including the serial number of the coin. Let
him know we have been discussing this.
Regards. Mitch
*=====================================================================*
*=====================================================================*
Subject: Re: 1997 Jefferson MS69FS
From: Ray Overby <ROverby@attglobal.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 08:05:24 -0600
To: Frank Corso <fjcorso@attbi.com>
Frank,
I also beleive that the MS69's are misattributed SMS coins. The same
thing happened with the 1997P coins. The pop report had 5-6 MS69FS coins
for a "while" and then they went away. Now the highest graded 97P is a
MS67FS coin that I have. It is a no question business strike coin. I
have not asked anyone about that. Perhaps Mitch knows and would be
willing to share the information.
Having looked at alot of 1994 mint sets they don't often come nice. I
don't have the coin yet but will let you know what I think. In this case
I purchased the holder, not the coin. I will keep you in mind about the
MS67FS coin. I obtained this coin from Stockford in a trade. For now I
will probably keep the MS67FS as backup in case I am forced to have my
MS69 re-attributed as SMS (assuming it is SMS). I also have quite a bit
tied up in the coin (certainly more that what I paid for the MS69FS) and
would probably loose quite a bit in the sale (my problem, not yours). I
think that over time the MS68/MS69 FS coins of 1994 will be re-graded as
SMS coins. In that case, I would need the coin for my set.
As a side note I was looking at the pop report and noticed the there is
now only one 1965 MS65FS coin. I asked Mitch what happened with the 2nd
coin and he said: " Ray: Hi. As far as I know, coin was SMS and PCGS
changed it. Do you know for a fact your coin is not SMS too? PCGS is in
process of paying off the coin they just changed. Regards. Mitch ". So,
if PCGS has done this for 1965 and 1997 one could certainly argue that
they also did it for 1994 SMS coins. The coin I have (1965 MS65FS) is an
obvious business strike.
Ray
*=====================================================================*
RayOverby
I do not question your fine ethics involved in your personal ebay dealings or decisions on posting coins in your sets, etc. Separate and apart from all that is the fact that the pop report should rid itself of erroneous entries or entries that are virtually impossible to be anything other than erroneous.
As you point out, I have assisted PCGS in removing clearly erroneous coins before. Indeed, I worked closely with Rick Montgomery over the years on these type of issues. I personally cared about the pop figures on "modern" coins long before the Registry fever swept in. FYI, there were several times where Rick M. removed the problem coins WITHOUT SEEING THEM after we discussed them. As I recall, throughout the years, there was even one instance where a single removed coin was put back into the pop report after the owner proved it to be the real thing. That worked out well for all involved - the re-added coin (a Roosie dime) became a very valuable coin to that owner
IMHO, the (6) 1994(p) nickels in MS69FS are a perfect example of the type of entries that need cleaning up. I know you support these efforts and would welcome a pop report on Jefferson nickels that was "clean as a whistle"
Good luck with your particular coin - I hope it turns out to be a regular issue example, but, as I believe you pointed out, you are fully expecting it to be SMS. After you see it, perhaps you can come back to the boards and show you support for cancelling all (6) coins from the pop report. I think most all would agree, it is the proper thing to do.
Wondercoin
the person I purchased it from that I will be returning the coin. I also sent the web address of this thread so
he could see what the issues are relating to this particular coin.
I would like to go on record saying I would like to see the “pop” reports cleaned up. These coins should be
located and re-attributed correctly as SMS coins. I would like to think that PCGS would have some interest in
doing this. As I do not own this coin I am unable to help with this. I have suggested to the owner that he
send it back to PCGS to be re-attributed. The PCGS number of this coin is 90034433.
I have sent additional emails to PCGS concerning this issue and have not yet received any substantive
response. I have included the last email I sent.
Ray Overby
Subject: [Fwd: RE: MS69FS Jefferson Nickels business strikes]
From: Ray Overby <ROverby@attglobal.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:54:25 -0600
To: almeidaa@collectors.com, map@collectors.com
To whom it may concern:
BJ Searls pointed me to you. Please read the following email and the associated message thread on the PCGS Registry Message Board. If you are not the right person could you tell me who to address this to or pass it along to that person? Either way, I would appreciate a reply. The message thread is: "PCGS: PLEASE READ THIS AND HELP!!
My questions include, but are not limited to:
What happens if I send my PCGS slabs back to PCGS to be re-evaluated and the labels are changed? For instance let’s say my 1994P MS69FS Jefferson nickel business strike coin was changed to a SMS coin? Would PCGS reimburse me for my loss? In this case I paid $800.00 for a business strike 1994P MS69FS Jefferson nickel which when the label was changed it became a $200.00 coin. It should be pointed out that if you do not read the message thread then my question will not make a lot of sense. I also have a number of other coins (4) that would fall into this category.
Also, why have I not received a reply to an email I sent to PCGS on 01/29/03 relating to the previous question? The complete text of the email is included in the message thread. You can read it there.
Ray Overby
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: MS69FS Jefferson Nickels business strikes
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:29:33 -0800
From: "Searls, BJ" <bj@collectors.com>
To: "Ray Overby" <ROverby@attglobal.net>
Ray,
Population report issues should be addressed one of two people at PCGS. First, Anibal Almeida who is the
operations manager. His email is almeidaa@collectors.com. The other is Peter Ma who is the new customer service manager. His email is map@collectors.com .
Since Peter is just getting his feet wet, I would try Anibal first.
BJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Overby [mailto:ROverby@attglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 10:22 AM
To: Searls, BJ
Subject: MS69FS Jefferson Nickels business strikes
BJ Searls
Set Registry Support Manager
Collectors Universe
I am directing this email to you to see if PCGS has any response. I am not sure who to address this to. If you are not the right person could you tell me who to address this to or pass it along to that person? Either way, I would appreciate a reply.
There is a message thread on the PCGS registry message board titled "PCGS: PLEASE READ THIS AND HELP!!
Ray Overby
RayOverby
the person I purchased it from that I will be returning the coin. I also sent the web address of this thread so
he could see what the issues are relating to this particular coin.
I would like to go on record saying I would like to see the “pop” reports cleaned up. These coins should be
located and re-attributed correctly as SMS coins. I would like to think that PCGS would have some interest in
doing this. As I do not own this coin I am unable to help with this. I have suggested to the owner that he
send it back to PCGS to be re-attributed. The PCGS number of this coin is 90034433."
Ray: Thanks for the support! The longest journey begins with step #1
I know PCGS is busy, but, I was hoping I would have been contacted already to assist them in deleting this and other bogus coins from the pop report BEFORE THEY COST PCGS MEGA-THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. Wondercoin
As you know there were many FS gem coins already graded of 1939(p), as well as many (s) and some (d) when Rick agreed to recognize the 1938 rev varieties as a separate entry. Rick's concern was that if he simply started to recognize REV 38 coins, the pops would show as -0- off the bat and folks who slabbed FS examples would start to offer them as "pop 1" at mega prices. So, to combat that possibility -I believe Rick defaulted the prior slabbed coins as Ty 1, so that situation would not occur. Since so few 1939 coins had achieved the gem FS status in 15 years of slabbing (especially the (d) and (s) coins), Rick was less concerned with the opposite occuring (i.e. of floods of gem FS 1939's rolling in with 1940 rev). and knew collectors intended to switch over their defaulted coins to the corrected status anyway. AS YOU SEE, RICK DID THIS TO PROTECT COLLECTORS AND I SUPPORT HIS DECISION. Rick also felt that the coins that were REV 1938 would require no further action by their owners.
However, I agree that not everyone has switched over all of the coins as of yet and the pops are still skewed. I encourage everyone to fix their early slabs to get them designated REV 1940 where appropriate. This will clean up the situation.
Again, I applaud Rick M's concern to protect collectors against bogus representations of "pop", which led to the situation at hand.
Wondercoin
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
Why dont we just strike all the pops from the Registry and start over with a census. Anyone with a PCGS holdered coin can come forward and alert PCGS to the fact that it exists.
There has to be a better way to clean up the reports. People rely too heavily on them to be ignored. I know I rely on them.
WWQ: Remember WWQ - YOU CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. So, either you accept the opinions of dedicated collectors/dealers who have a track record of trying to help and can offer help, or you don't. Now, consider this - what if I have good evidence that the 1964(p) Kennedy in MS68 DOES NOT EXIST - by good evidence, let's say I know the coin dealer who cracked it from its holder and threw away the insert tag. Now, add to that the fact the coin has never shown up in 16 years at PCGS. So, do you:
1. IGNORE THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE YOU DID NOT WITNESS THE "CRIME" or
2. GO WITH THE STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND CONCLUDE THE 1964(p) PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST?
Now, juries rule on important legal matters every day using #2 as their standard -BUT, you are going to tell me that this is too imporant a situation to do it, because it involves Registry coins.
SO, LET ME TELL YOU THE RESULT -
1. HARD WORKING COLLECTORS LIKE R GREEN WILL NEVER OBTAIN THEIR GOAL OF A "PERFECT" REGISTRY SET SUCH AS IN MS KENNEDYS BECAUSE OF POP REPORT SCREW UPS.
2. DEDICATED COLLECTORS WILL PROBABLY RELY ON MESSED UP POP REPORTS STEMMING FROM PROOFS BEING LABELED MS, SMS COINS BEING LABELED REGULAR ISSUE, ETC., ETC.
3. DEALERS "IN THE KNOW" WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITH THE POWER OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE POPS REALLY ARE ON MANY IMPORANT COINS, ESPECIALLY COINS WHERE THEY TOSSED OUT THE INSERTS.
4. THE WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THAT A CERTAIN COIN PULLED FROM THE POP REPORT HAS TO REAPPEAR BECAUSE SOMEONE PROVED ITS EXISTENCE DOWN THE ROAD. IN ALL THE YEARS OF PCGS PULLING COINS FROM THE POP REPORT THAT APPEARED TO BE CLEAR MISTAKES, I HAVE HEARD OF -1- COIN REAPPEARING AND THE OWNER WAS PLEASED TO GET IT BACK IN THE REPORT AND THE FACT THAT HIS COIN WAS SO SPECIAL.
As they say "ignorance is bliss" (not directed at WWQ) - why not make it more difficult to try to change the pop report than prove that someone committed murder - after all the pop report is so sacred
I understand what you are saying. And agree that something needs to be done. BUT can a collector rely on "circumstantial evidence" put forth by dealers to change the pop reports? I wouldnt want that.
Let's say for example you have a coin that shows as POP 2. But you think that because the other coin of that date hasnt shown up in a very long time or that you do not know where it exists, the POP report gets changed unitl someone comes forward. Should that be enough evidence to say that you own the POP 1 coin? I dont think so!!
Let's also say that a dealer (not directed at Wondercoin) has a POP 2 coin and knows another one exists, but convinces PCGS that it doesnt exist in order to change the POP report and make his POP 2 coin worth even more. You can do this with a coin that is in a high grade unregistered set where you know the collector isnt moving the coin anytime soon. The answer, plain and simple is "NO".
I wouldnt want to know that there could be improprieties that exist in correcting the POP report this way. I would not want the POP report changed because of witness accounts or based upon what people hear.
All I am saying is that there has to be a better way. i like the idea of a CENSUS to take place over several months (or however much time is needed). Where PCGS can have people register their coins and accumulate the data based on what is in collectors hands. But this can only be accomplished with the help of the collecting community, which would indeed be difficult.
It certainly is a dilemma where a practical solution needs to be found.
The pop reports are just that, reports that are fed by a larger database with various fields of information, such as serial numbers, coin numbers and grades etc.. All they need to do is back track from the reports and see what feeds them. If the coin truely exists then you will be able to find it that way. if they cannot find it, delete the record. if they do find it, the coin exists in a holder. Whether it is correctly designated is another separate issue and is purely up to the holder of the coin to offer up a closer look. This takes time and effort and extreme integrity on the part of the coin owner. it is very obvious as Mitch says that there are several cons that stand out. I predict that there is a record for each of these and they are merely wrongly attributed or more likely than that just input wrong by the people doing the lables and thus lost forever. I routinely send stuff back after I get it for reholdering due to this problem. i assume that they burn the old record but it is possible that they don't and there are some of those lost in the pop report as well. We can go on speculating but this one is not too likely to be fixed 100%. We can likely only hope the holders of the coins come forward and that PCGS is doing there job(s) correctly....whew!
at one time the pop report for ms69fs was 10
i sent pcgs 4 of them and they reholder them and shipped them back all free of charge and changed the pop report
down to 6
i sent the coins in originally and did not see the mistake
the 68fs must be as well
but the 67fs pop report of 2 is correct
as ray overby has one and i have the other and they are not sms nickels
lets get this corrected
bob
Hi emzee
Welcome to the boards. Since you have a 39 r38 ANACS 66 FS then I ought to know who you are.
Turn you PM on or send me a PM Charlie, oops.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
I have tried a couple of times to pin down PCGS on how in the world they decide if a 1965-1967 coin is SMS or BS .
But they act as if it's a closely guarded secret ;
wouldn't we ALL like to know ????