1856 Flying Eagle, All proof now? Still in circ registry?

sonofagunk

Is it true that PCGS is only designating 1856 FE's as proof? if so, why are they still in the circulated set?

-sog

redcents

I really don't know the answer Paul, but there are 273 MS & 489 PR in the pop reports. Are you saying that all FUTURE submissions will have a PR designation? Even if so, I don't think they'll remove MS's from registry set - just MHO

MFH

I recently purchased an 1856 Flying Eagle Cent in PCGS AU 58. I waited a long time before I found one that was not a spent proof coin. I tried to put it into my PCGS Registry set and it wouldn't take . I e-mailed Gayle Kean asking for her help ; will wait to hear from her. ( The interesting thing is that I sucessfully entered it two weeks ago, then deleted it from my set because I did not have physical possession of it at the time). The mint state coins ( non proofs ) were the ones that were given to members of Congress in the spring of 1857; these are very tough to find as there were about 634 minted in uncirculated format, whereas there are at least 1500 proofs out there in various states of preservation. I'll be none too pleased if they (PCGS powers-that-be) disallow the MS versions from being incorporated in their appropiate category.

haletj

Hi.

MFH- Do you know the Snow die variety of your coin? If there's a small dot under the top serif of N in cent then it is probably a Snow-9 proof restrike, if there is no dot it is proibably a snow-3 MS coin, which were the ones given to Congress. PCGS and ANACS for many years did not have this knowledge and labeled ms or pf based on the coins appearance only. The recent huge price increases are for the Snow 3's only in MS grades (The snow 9's have gone up too but not as much). I hope I'm wasting your time with knowledge you already knew, but if not, check your coin and I apologize if it is not snow-3 (unless you have a nice well struck s-9, which I think is much better than an ugly poorly struck s-3). Many people are trying to sell 1856 FE's on ebay in pcgs ms holders for large prices, when it is likely the coin is a S-9. I'm getting sick of that scam and I hope nobody is getting hurt by it.

Anyway, now that how to tell ms from pf can be done correctly, I don't know why pcgs doesn't just do it correctly from now on? Maybe if they started doing that it would make them liable for mislabeled ms coins (they mislabel proofs too a lot)?

Personally I have a nice au55 S-9, which I think is totally fine for a complete set of FE Cents. I'm getting my other dates in ms63, but I do like matched sets, so if I got higher grade more lusterous coins, I might want a lusterous ms looking s-3 1856. Of course I'd need to have a lot more money to do that! I think the registry should allow circs or proofs for the date 1856. (Maybe ask David Hall??)

Anyway, best wishes!

Jaime

ms700

haletj: In circulated grades VG to AU, does it matter if the 1856 is a restrike proof or an S-3 as far as affecting value?

haletj

I'm not quite sure. People who have a snow-3 to sell sometimes really hype that fact to try to get more for it. Eagle Eye Rare coins (www.indiancent.com)used to have a price guide on their website, and they had s-3's listed for about $250-$500 more than s-9's in vg-au I think. I really hope there is never a big price difference like there is for ms/pf 63-65 for then I may regret having a snow-9, but like I said, most snow-9's are extremely well struck and cared for since collectors bought them, and s-3's are typically weak and not as nice looking, at least for au coins (lower than xf probably they all look the same). For example Ira Stein has a typical struck s-3 au58 on ebay right now. Anyway, I guess there are certain collectors who only would want an original coin made in 1856, and not a restrike of 1858. Anyway, ask board members Oreville or Lakesamman if you want to know a lot more! They know far more than me!

Lakesammman

Unfortunately, there are MS and Proof versions of the S3 die pair. The top picture is MS with the typical weak feathers and MS devices, the bottom with strong feathers, proof devices and proof fields. The method of production is still the key. Of interest is that the proof version is a LATER die state of the S3 die pair. I suspect there were a few speciman coins made at the end of the MS run OR it's a restrike.

I think PCGS is playing games based on minimizing liability. When there was a small price differential, it was no big deal. Now that there is a big price difference, they can't afford the liability of misattributing the coin. Either that or they realized they just aren't able to do it right. They should contract with an expert like Rick Snow to do it for them. It provides an opportunity for astute collectors to get the MS coin at a reasonable price.

haletj

Interesting thing about the ms and pf S3's!

Do you think pcgs is worried about the liability of coins labeled incorrectly in the past, or for future gradings? Is it that difficult to tell which Snow number a coin is? Snow's book has pretty decent explanantions, right? (I read it and thought I could figure things out.). Since most 1856 FEs are s3 or s9, couldn't pcgs do something simple with those, ms for s3's, pf for s9's?

Is there at all any controversy of whether everything snow states is correct? For example he lists mintages which he says are "close maximums" and they are 500 for s3's and 1000 for s9's, but lots of people still use lots of different numbers like 1000 business strikes and 1500 or even 2000 proofs. Why don't they use Snow's estimates (which make them seem even rarer too!), or is the mintage still a huge debate?

Lakesammman

I think they are worried about both. It's going to be a problem for misattributed patterns too, now that the SEM-EDX testing is available. If you sold a P65 1856 for 25K and the new owner told you it crossed it to MS65 and sold it for 60K, you'd be trying to convince PCGS you deserved compensation for the initial misattribution. I have no personal knowledge as to whether this has occured or not but I've heard some interesting anecdotes third hand in this regard.

I don't think the absolute number minted is important. It's clear that the MS S3 is much scarcer AND more desirable than the proof S9.

goose3

I've looked and looked at this one............S3 or S9 ??????? Label says MS62

Lakesammman

Goose:

The date/denticle relationship, repunched 6 and strong breast feathers indicate a S9 proof. I think there is a centering dot on the reverse. It's another example of the difficulty PCGS has getting these right and the need to hire an expert like Snow to do the attribution for them.

goose3

I too was leaning towards proof.

Sounds like you could also do the job for PCGS!

IrishMike

I'd bet on a proof. This seller purchased one on Ebay from Superior auction. Look at his purchase history. That one was in an NGC PF61 holder. I am wondering if he had it cracked and crossed?

Lakesammman

Mike:

Unlikely since they've been calling them all proof for 9 months now. If anyone knows of a recent reversal in policy, let us know!

EagleEye

The 1856 MS62 is a Snow-9 (by the date position) it also looks like a proof (no surprize).
I am issuing attribution cards stating the correct format regardless of NGC and PCGS's label. It probably wont help get coins listed in the registry though.

Rick Snow

goose3

Maybe I'm nuts but if so-called "amateurs" such as some of us can tell the difference...........shouldn't "professionals" be able to do the same???

Lakesammman

I'm going to get thrown off the site for saying so but one of the MAJOR PCGS/CU players didn't even know Snow had written a book on the subject (at the Jan. FUN show). That's how current they are on the attribution of these coins.

goose3

Come on Rick, send them a freebie!

I use mine all the time to attempt to cherrypick stuff but still have a tough time distinguishing die pairs from pics/scans.

MFH

.......I'm so new to these Boards, that I lost the Thread...Anyway........
I heard from Gayle Kean of PCGS and there is a Mechanical Error on my certification number of my new 1856 Flying Eagle ( currently in an older green insert holder, graded "AU 58" ) She wants me to send it in to be reholdered. I advised her that I was not interested in a PR 58 coin and had passed on many a proof coin in the past. I only want a circulation strike coin. She said that PCGS is still certifying circulation strikes.
........Thank you fellow collectors for informing me about the die maker dot under the N; thereby meaning its a S-9, and not an S-3. Lo and behold under 20X I was able to see the faintest die marker dot ...almost as if there was a slight scrool to the N. I am SO bummed out.
........I only purchased the coin ( albeit on approval) to complete my circulation strike set. When and if I ever start a Proof set of Flying Eagles, I will do so with a concentration of PR 63 to 65, not PR 58's.
I have always felt that circulation strikes should be circulated ( my raw and partially certified set averages AU 55 +) . My Pattern Set averages ( all certified either PCGS or NGC PR 64 ).
.......I should have studied my Snow book more throughly ... which also makes me wonder... someone posted a comment that really threw me: PCGS did not even hear of Snow's book until a year or two ago.
I bought mine a year or two BEFORE I bought a single coin.
.......Also, why arn't Varieties of Indian Head Cents listed in the Regisrty ? I have three 1873 cents with a closed three. The normal strike (raw AU 58), the S-1 Full Double Die (PCGS 55) and an S-2 (raw AU 58+).
I listed the double die S-2 in the set, with the notation on the notes section that it was the S-1.
I don't have the 88/7 overdate S-1(very rare) or S-2 (heard they are not all that they were once cracked up to be ) , but have a few other double dies from various dates. Maybe my collection as well as other fellow collectors IHC sets are too specialized. -------Sorry, I am off on another tangent.....

Again thanks everyone. I guess another 56 Flyer flys back to the roost. @amn!

MFH

>>>>>>>> correction, I listed the 1873 - S-1 in the IHC set, not the S-2 ( its still raw)<<<<<<<<<

Lakesammman

Mike:

Sounds like an interesting collection.

The variety set registry includes the 1873 closed three and the S1. Once a critical mass of varietes are recognized by PCGS, they are added to the registry. The next will probably be the 1897 MPD (1 in neck).

The 1888/7 S2 is controversial. Some experts think it is a RPD. I'm not an expert and am skeptical.

Compare your coin to the attribution guides pictures - there are several varieties with the centering dot on the reverse so you could have a rare variety. Let us know what you find. Any chance of posting a picture??

IrishMike

Mike, if I read your post correctly, PCGS stated that they are still labeling MS coins?

Lakesammman

She said that PCGS is still certifying circulation strikes.

Yep - calling them proof rather than MS!

goose3

it is my and Many others' understanding they are not differentiating between MS and PF at all. If you send a '56 flyer in, it will come back as a PF....no matter what die pair!

MFH

.....Hold on.... I did not say that PCGS is no longer certifying proofs, .... I said they were STILL certifying circulation strikes, ...as well as proof strikings ( a forgone conclusion ).
.....As this coin I just received is indeed an S-9 ( proof restrike ) it'll go back to the dealer I received it from. He is very aware of the situation as I sent him a Link to this Thread.
.....What really eats at me is that after many years, I locate a very choice "AU 58" and it turns out to really be a PR-58. It is such a nice coin, I almost hate to return it. @#%##&amp;&*%$

So, any and all of you, my fellow collectors, if you do have a 1856 Flying Eagle, and you feel its a circulation strike, look for the die markers, you may have the more plentiful S-9.

Please feel confident that PCGS will attribute the coin correctly, if its a circulation strike, it'll come back as such; if its a proof strike, then it'll be so noted on the holder.

haletj

As Lakesamman said check to see if you have an even rarer snow die pairing. You said you needed a 20x loupe?? I think on snow-9's you can see the dot with the naked eye once you know where it is. Just be careful.

oreville

haletj:

I am linking to an old PCGS thread in which David Hall promised to update us on this exact controversy. That was just shy of a year ago. He also said "just be careful!!!!" just like you just said.

Unfortunately, nearly a year has passed and a definitive response should be forthcoming from PCGS as to the S-3/S-9 MS/PR attribution. That would be the responsible thing to do.

1856 FE Eagle cent controversy

goose3

<< <i>Please feel confident that PCGS will attribute the coin correctly, if its a circulation strike, it'll come back as such; if its a proof strike, then it'll be so noted on the holder. >>




I know for a fact that IRA Stein just sent a SNOW3 in to pcgs and it came back labelled as PF58!!!!! NOT au58!
the coin was looked at by non other than Rick Snow as well as Ira, who is no slouch.

IrishMike

Simple solution, send the coins to ANACS to get the proper identification on the slab. What did everyone do with these prior to 1986?

MFH

....Hi Guys,
Well, the 56 went back to my dealer this afternoon. I was sick about sending it back. He said he understood perfectly as to why I was sending it back. As I mentioned before, I linked him onto this Thread, which he thought was very interesting.
I was glad that the old Thread was linked to this one. I read it intently. From what I can determine, the original 634 coins were all first strikes ( in a manner of speaking) and therefore would all have qualities superior than, say, the average 1857 would have had. That's the reason for the pristine surfaces someone eluded to (eg: MS coins). Also remember that the planchlet was copper-nickel and we all know why this combination of metals was done away with in late 1864 ( die breakage ), at least in One Cent coins. {The following year were die trials on the new Five Cent coin, but the actual mix was changed, which seemed to create additional problems with the production in 1866.}
I feel, as many of you do, that PCGS wants to re-examine all the 1856 FE coins that they have already certified, so that the actual tally, of what S-3 and S-9 coins are, can be determined more acurately.
When I leaped at the chance to secure this coin, I did not realize I was also leaping into a major controversy.
Maybe PCGS should emulate what NGC does and show circulation strikes mixed in with proof strikings, then it wouldn't matter to me what the coin was, as long as I had a complete set of coins. Then again, I should have sent the coin to Rick Snow for his opinion and if he agreed with the tag as AU 58 , he could have also labeled it with his "Eagle-Eye" logo. Whatever.........

Well, guys ( and gals ) , its late. Be well and I'll check in once in awhile to see what developments are being made in this debacle.

Mike