Why the PCGS pop report is wrong for 1939 R38 & R40 FS Jefferson nickels?

rayovac

The PCGS POP report for 1939 FS Jefferson nickels is inaccurate. If you go back to the PCGS POP report of July, 2002 and you lookup the pops on the 1938-1939 Jefferson nickels you will see the following information:

PCGS POP report 07/2002
Date_____63__64__65__66__67
1938P FS__0___2___7___4___0
1938D FS__0___0___0___0___0
1938S FS__0___0___0___0___0
1939P FS__1__ 11__51__94__16
1939D FS__0___3___7___8___3
1939S FS__2___9__19___5___0

It is important to note:

1) PCGS was not attributing 1939 R38/R40 at this time
2) No 1938DS FS coins had been made to this point. How many years had PCGS been grading 1938DS nickels?

While it may not be obvious just by looking at the POP report it is fairly clear to those folks who were submitting 1938 and 1939 R38 coins to PCGS at this time that PCGS was using the same criteria for FS for both R38 and R40. I can remember thinking and discussing this with other FS Jefferson collectors. We concluded that unless PCGS changed its FS criteria for the R38 coins that there may never be any FS 1938DS coins. We also concluded that there were probably no FS 1939 R38 coins as the R40 coins were available in FS.

By April, 2003 PCGS had started attributing R38 and R40 coins. Hand in hand with this decision it appeared to those of us submitting 1938 and 1939 R38 coins that PCGS was now using different criteria for FS for these coins. My personal experience showed that coins that previously did not receive FS would now get FS. This included 38PDS and some of the 1939 R38 coins. Here is a copy of the pop report in April, 2003:


PCGS POP report 04/2003
Date________63___64___65___66___67
1938P FS_____1___16___24___18____1
1938D FS_____0____2___13___47___10
1938S FS_____0____1____6____8____2
1939P R38 FS__1__13____51_103____16
1939P R40 FS__2___4____28__32_____4
1939D R38 FS__0___3_____8__12_____3
1939D R40 FS__0___0_____2___5_____1
1939S R38 FS__2__15____22___7_____0
1939S R40 FS__1___6_____4___2_____0

You should note two things:

01) There were now 72 FS 1938D and 19 FS 1938S coins (8 months before there were zero!).
02) PCGS assumed that all FS 1939 coins were R38 coins. I believe that PCGS also assumed that all nonFS coins were R38.

While not irrefutable as evidence that PCGS changed it’s criteria for awarding FS for R38 coins it is, I think, fairly persuasive. I don’t remember if PCGS has publicly acknowledged that it changed the FS criteria for R38 coins although I may be wrong.

I believe that the decision to “assume” that all unattributed 1939 FS coins were R38 coins was clearly a bad decision (in as much as it invalidated the pop report numbers). It is highly likely that most if not all unattributed 1939 FS coins were R40 and not R38. However, the PCGS pop report shows them as R38 coins. Hence, it can be concluded that the pops for the R38/R40 1939 coins are clearly inaccurate.

To try and obtain a more accurate pop report for the 1939 FS coins you can use the July 2002 pop report to adjust the current PCGS pop report numbers. Note the following assumptions:

1) Subtract the July 2002 1939 FS pops from the current pop report R38 FS totals.
2) Add the July 2002 1939 FS pops to the current pop report R40 FS totals.
3) It is possible that not all July 2002 pop report 1939 FS coins were R38 but it is very unlikely and if any were R38 it would only an extremely small percentage.
4) It is likely that there are later PCGS pop reports that still don’t attribute 1939 R38 coins and the pop numbers may be higher or lower (probably higher).

Here is the current (10/02/05) PCGS Online POP report:

Date_________63___64___65___66___67
1939P R38 FS___1___16___55__103___15
1939P R40 FS___7___19___65___74___11
1939D R38 FS___0____3____8___26____4
1939D R40 FS___0____4____6___14____1
1939S R38 FS___3___22___27____8____0
1939S R40 FS___5___29___16____9____0

And here is the adjusted POP report using the July 2002 pop numbers to adjust:

Date________63__64__65__66__67
1939P R38 FS__0___5___4___9___1
1939P R40 FS__8__30_116_168__27
1939D R38 FS__0___0___1__18___1
1939D R40 FS__0___7__13__22___4
1939S R38 FS__1__11___8___3___0
1939S R40 FS__7__38__35__14___0

My confidence is high that this adjusted POP report is much more accurate than the PCGS pop report.

Based on this “new” information this raises a number of interesting assumptions/questions:

1) It should be clear now that the R38 FS coins are much more rare than “current” popular opinion.
2) The R38 FS coins in general are more rare than there R40 counter parts.
3) The 39P R38 FS coin is many times rarer than the R40 FS coin. I believe that this coin is the rarest “P” mint FS coin with the exception of the 65-67 business strike coins (some folks don’t consider anything past 1964 and discount these dates).
4) The PCGS registry currently allows unattributed 1939 FS coins to be placed into FS Jefferson nickel registry sets as R38 coins even if the coin is really a R40. Will PCGS ever address this?
5) The 39D R38 PCGS MS67FS coin is probably a pop 1 coin. Who really has it?
6) Will PCGS ever fix the pop report for the 1939 R38/R40 numbers?

It should be clear that if PCGS had assumed that all unattributed 1939 FS coins were R40 coins they would have had a much more accurate pop report for the R38/R40 1939 FS Jefferson nickels. It would have also addressed the problem with unattributed R40 1939 Jefferson nickels being allowed to be specified when a R38 coin was required.

Steve

Ray, I read your comments and I can fully understand your frustrations. The PCGS population report, as we all know, has not nor will it ever be completely accurate. I collect Lincoln Matte Proof cents. They too are rare. Looking at the 1909VDB population figures I know that some have been submitted and counted more than once. Is there anything we or PCGS can NOW do about it? Realistically, no. Changes in their grading standards can only be accounted for AFTER they make the changes. Anything else would be assumption. You might try bouncing your points off David Hall but I can't see him changing this anymore than I can see him suddenly saying that there really were less actually different Matte proof Lincoln cents slabbed than what has been reported. Good luck. Steve

Ronyahski

Excellent analysis. I don't think anynoe would debate you that PCGS made a bad assumption to put all of the graded coins into REV38 when it recognized the two reveres. Why don't you make the pitch to PCGS and see what they do. Seems like an easy fix that would make the pop reports more meaningful

leothelyon

Does anyone actually have a full step 1939 Rev. of 1938? I already know that this won't mean diddly squat to many here but there was a time when I knew who had all the ANACs certified 39P's except for the lone MS67 example. And the pops were like 2- 65's, 1-66 and 1-67, a total of 5 for all grades back in the April 1999 ANACS report. I was able to certify the 2nd MS66 coin after that time and the March of 2002 ANACS report showed that a couple of MS64's were added to the pops. 4/3/1. But according to the PCGS pops, we have 173 1939 r38 coins graded with full steps! Even after Ray does his probability math, we still have a whopping 19 coins certified with full steps. And here's some info that blows the ANACs pops apart when a few of these ANACS 1939PDS coin appeared in Teletrade 3-4 years back, the 39-D I bought was not FS in the true tune of 5 complete steps. And I've seen a couple of those other 39P's, a few 38-D's and 38-S's in the PCGS holders and they weren't FS either.
So here's a stretch for everyone and this includes many of those certified 1938PDS FS coins, it's very likely that only 20 to 30 % of all certify coins with rev of 38 steps are actually 5 complete step nickels. The MS66 coin I have barely makes it but there is separation between the 4th and 5th step under the 3rd pillar and the 1st quarter step can be seen under the 1st pillar.
So there's no way in Heaven any of the pops are accurate for these coins. Most PCGS Jeff collectors will never see one!

Leo

wondercoin

"I believe that the decision to “assume” that all unattributed 1939 FS coins were R38 coins was clearly a bad decision"

Ray: Hindsight is always 20-20, but, I can tell you the history behind the decision to default the original existing Jeffs into Ty 1. In fact, the decision was made outside the dealer lobby at PCGS when I met with Rick Montgomery shortly before he departed for NGC. I discussed with Rick the collector consensus that a Ty 1 and Ty 2 nickel was desired as opposed to complete non-differentiation. THE GENESIS FOR THE DISCUSSION WAS THE REALITY THAT WITHOUT THE SPLIT INTO TY 1 AND TY 2, VERY FEW 1938 NICKELS IN PARTICULAR WOULD EVER GRADE FS AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE COULD EVER COMPLETE A FS COLLECTION. I had originally graded the first batch of 1938(p) Jeffs that received a FS designation at PCGS (I believe it was (4) MS65FS and (2) MS66FS). And, frankly, I even had graded a couple more than that from that incredible batch I submitted, but, Steve Pierce (the King of Jeffs at the time and well deserving of that title) asked PCGS to carefully review my batch of FS graded 1938(p) nickels to see if they were truly "FS". He essentially told PCGS that 1938(p) nickels simply did not come "FS" as that "FS" definition was defined back then. PCGS did review my batch of coins and contacted me to discuss removing a few coins from the FS designation in my batch, which I, naturally, agreed to do. But, of course, what I had really submitted to PCGS at the time were a group of simply incredible Ty 1 Jeffs - the nicest PCGS, myself or Steve Pierce had ever seen. THE BOTTOM LINE IS PCGS HAD TO ADOPT A TY 1 AND TY 2 DESIGNATION TO COMFORTABLY ALLOW COLLECTORS (WHO STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE DIFFERENTIATION) TO OBTAIN FS EXAMPLES OF THE 1938 ISSUES.

Now, here is the key in my opinion - Rick Montgomery thought that with the new Ty 1 standard, there would be myriad 1938 (and 1939) Jeffs grading FS. The reasoning was that there were many, many coins in non-step holders from 1938 and 1939 that would then become Ty 1 FS. Hence, the Ty 1 FS nickels would then potenitally become common IN WHICH CASE DEFAULTING ALL THE PRIOR GRADED COINS TO TY 2 WOULD HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD MOVE!! And, bear in mind that even some of the brightest minds in the coin biz believed Rick's concern might materialize. For example, a prominent dealer in this field predicted to me that there would be "100" 1938(d) MS67FS Jeffs in PCGS holders within the first year of the change. While it was expected that far fewer 1939 nickels would make Ty 1 FS, no one simply knew just how many of the Ty 1 coins would squeek into FS holders once PCGS greatly relaxed the original FS standard with that of the Ty 1 standard. HAD PCGS GREATLY RELAXED THE TY 1 STANDARD, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE THAT MANY MORE JEFFS WOULD BE TY 1 FS NICKELS TODAY. But, remember that Rick Montgomery then left PCGS and the standard PCGS chose to adopt after the change has resulted in VERY FEW Ty 1 FS Jeffs (nothing that RM would have known at the time he defaulted coins into Ty 1 to try to protect the collecting public at that time).

Bottom line - I do not fault RM for his decision to default all of the Jeffs into Ty 1. At the time, there was information to suggest that decision would be the best decision to protect the collecting public at the time (a concern Rick M. always put ahead of other interests from my experience). We have since discovered that Ty 1 Jeffs in "FS" as PCGS has since defined it, are very, very scarce in high grade. In fact, many collectors have chosen to NOT switch their old coins over to Ty 2 coins (which they really are) because to do so would result in a hole in the regular issue (basic) or variety series. Perhaps the answer to this problem now is to simply ensure that collectors are free to enter Ty 1 or Ty 2 Jeffs in the basic set (and possibly some break to allow collectors time to replace their Ty 1 slot in the variety set which is filled with a mislabeled Ty 2 nickel) so that collectors can now freely switch over their original Ty 2 nickels from the presently defaulted Ty 1 slots. In this manner, we can all then see just how scarce Ty 1 Jeffs truly are in gem FS.

Wondercoin.

coinshunter

Ray I would agree with you and have always have said the rev of 38 is the rare one. Having tried numerous times in the years prior to 2003 to slab rev 38 full steps and never making any only to have them designate both reverses and then get some of the very same rev 38 coins that failed before into full step holders.
I also would like to know if there is a way to straighten out the pops, such as; PCGS take all 1939 nickels slabed before designation of the two reverses and place them in the rev of 39 category and offer free reholder for any of those coins that would be indeed be a 39 rev of 38. "Just a thought"
Allan

keets

i think the fuzzy math on both sides of this debate, that by PCGS and that by Ray, leave us with nothing but numbers that we can argue depending on which side of the fence we each find ourselves on. PCGS puts them all in one category, Ray puts them all in another category. i would submit that both are wrong and that absent each of the unattributed coins going back for designation review the whole guessing game is..........................a guessing game. the wise collector can look at coins and make a personal judgement for themself about which reverse for which issue is the more scarce without needing PCGS to place any coins anywhere. why not just look at the report and subtract the coins that were there prior to the "assessment of the step detail" change.

i would also argue that since there were 1938 coins certified as FS before the change, there are 1938-D and S coins which would have eventually been certified under that standard. i've made one of each and when i screen for submission i don't use a different criteria; maybe i should change and make it easier to fill out the holes in my 1939 issues.

MJPHELAN

Here is a 1939 rev 38 MS-64FS on E-bay now. The 5th step is weak under the 3rd pillar but it appears to be there.

PCGS 1939 Rev 38 MS-64FS

emzee

ANACS has always distinguished FS on Jefferson 5c and also 1939 R38 and R40 coins. I looked at July 2001 ANACS pop report (most recent I have) and found following populations (figures include all DD and other minor varieties recognized by ANACS, if coin is FS) for 1939PDS FS coins in MS64/65/66/67:

1939 R38 0/4/3/1
1939 R40 26/76/33/4
1939D R38 1/3/4/1
1939D R40 7/16/9/2
1939S R38 6/7/2/2
1939S R40 16/33/7/0

1939P: 8/147 FS coins are R38 (5.4%)
1939D: 9/43 FS coins are R38 (23.7%)
1939S: 17/73 FS coins are R38 (23.3%)

If Ray's proposed adjustments to PCGS pop report were made (see his adjusted pop report at bottom of his post),

1939P: 19/360 FS coins (MS64 - MS67) are R38 (5.3%)
1939D: 20/66 FS coins are R38 (30.3%)
1939S: 22/109 FS coins are R38 (18.3%)

Ray's analysis is absolutely correct. PCGS should have listed all FS 1939PDS coins in pop reports as "R40"when "R38" designation was made available ( I was one of several knowledgeable collectors who pointed this out at the time ). It is not too late to correct the inaccuracy. 1939P R38 is and always was hardest of 1939 varieties to find with FS.

Michael

rayovac

I think that Rick Montgomery had the collectors best interests at hart when he made the decision to assume that the unattributed 1939 FS coins would be R38. I am not trying to "bash" Mr Montgomery but rather "inform" folks with "accurate" information. Accurate information will allow all of us to "better" enjor our hobby.

I would like to see the pop report adjusted somewhat as I described OR for PCGS to put in a note in the POP report before the 1939 R38/R40 coins indicating what happened and how the pop numbers are not accurate. I know that pop numbers are sometimes suspect because of "cracking" coins out and not sending the inserts back to PCGS (although PCGS offers a .50 bounty for them) but the R38/R40 FS numbers are messed up much more than "normal" and deserve a special note.

I think the fair thing to do for the PCGS registry sets is to allow either R38, R40, or unattributed 1939 coins into the 1939 R38 slots of the PCGS Jefferson CS sets. This should not adversely affect those folks that currently have 1939 unattributed FS R40 coins that are accepted (assumed) to be R38.

leothelyon

<< <i>Here is a 1939 rev 38 MS-64FS on E-bay now. The 5th step is weak under the 3rd pillar but it appears to be there.

PCGS 1939 Rev 38 MS-64FS >>



Hi Mark
That coin only has 4.50 steps if you're counting the riser with the tread of the step. This is the way the steps are counted. Two full quarter steps can easily be seen under the 1st and 4th pillars and that's about it for the 5th step. This reasoning in counting the steps is why most of the certified Rev. of 38 steps have been misattributed. The way these coins have been certified for full steps, in a sense, are gimmies for what has become acceptable with most collectors. Which is Ok for the time being. But I believe it is possible for a 39P R38 to have 5 complete steps simular to the 39S R38.
But it's not uncommon for collectors and the TGS's to bend the rules on the strike, quality and steps of the Jefferson nickels to suit themselves!

Leo

leothelyon

For those who don't want to hear the truth about their fantasy collections of understruck, overgraded, die eroded Jefferson nickels, here's a pic that clearly shows why most of those certified REV of 38 FS nickels are not really FS! In the pic it can be clearly seen how the metal has been pushed up or lacks the detail for the riser of the 5th step under the 2nd and 3rd pillar. These are the steps of my 1939P where the separation can be seen under the 3rd pillar but is it really a FS coin with most of the riser missing?


Regards, Leo

MJPHELAN

Hi Leo,

Maybe we should have two categories of full steps: The "slider full step" and the "full full step"

leothelyon

<< <i>Hi Leo,

Maybe we should have two categories of full steps: The "slider full step" and the "full full step" >>



Exactly! Because that's what the old timers would do! If the coin did not have 5 or 6 uninterupted complete steps, they would call it a 4.9 or 5.9 or as Bern Nagengast has explained to me, he would use the minus sign to indicate that a coin had less than 5 or 6 steps, ie; 5- or 6- . Who wouldn't be thrilled with having a quality, well struck 1969-D with 4.9 steps? But there's no recognition for such coins unless PCGS calls them FS!

Leo

keets

there's recognition for them in my collection and that's all that matters. i don't seek glory, just nice coins. my bottom line: i don't buy the insert mistakes made by some anonymous grader.

leothelyon

<< <i>there's recognition for them in my collection and that's all that matters. i don't seek glory, just nice coins. my bottom line: i don't buy the insert mistakes made by some anonymous grader. >>



Right on! The last time Ray and I ran into each other he said that when PCGS started grading the FS Jeffs, the graders were probably thinking, "what the heck is this", "what are we suppose to do with these nickels?" After all, they were use to grading the Morgans and Seated coins but then along came the Jeff nickels! lol We all know PCGS has a ways to go with grading these coins, it's just a matter of lots of time.

Leo

keets

i'll be at shows all weekend with the local dealer who absolutely hates the series but sells the coins in 2X2 flips anyway. he's a fairly good grader of most U.S. coinage but i've gotten quite a few nice Jeffersons from him for dirt cheap, less than a dollar. as DHeath would say, low hanging fruit!! i think all Nickel Coinage is tough to grade which accounts for some of the disdain for Modern issues which are in reality just very big Nickels. with the additional FS criteria, many collectors/dealers just don't want to bother with the Jefferson series, much to our enjoyment.

MJPHELAN

Wow, the ms-64FS example on E-bay went for $450!

clackamas

<< <i>Wow, the ms-64FS example on E-bay went for $450! >>



I wonder what a 66FS would go for?

leothelyon

<< <i>Wow, the ms-64FS example on E-bay went for $450! >>



Interestingly enough, 5 yeras ago, that's what I was suppose to pay for my raw 39P T1 but Bob Neigo and I were thinking it would 6 but ANACS told me over the phone that it graded 65. So we reworked another price but when the coin arrived in the mail, it was in a 66 holder! What a surprise that was! So now I had to tell Bob and pay the higher price! With that stroke of honesty, Bob took $25 off the original price of $450 and that made me a very happy guy.

By the way, I thought the steps for that 39P auction looked pretty good but I couldn't see enough of the coin to grade it.

Leo

MJPHELAN

I bought my 66FS for $300 in a SEGS holder. It crossed to PCGS as a 66FS! It was the only SEGS coins I have been able to cross at the same grade.

Cocoinut

I bought my MS67FS 1939-P Jefferson in November 2000 in an investor lot on Teletrade. It was somewhat vaguely described as:

"(2) 1939 PCGS 67; both are white with a touch of gold, well struck, one is full strike, one is close, both have nice luster."

While I couldn't tell from that whether the "full strike" was Teletrade's opinion, or the actual designation by PCGS, I took a chance, and won the lot of 2 coins for $100. Sure enough, one was a MS67FS, while the other was merely a MS67. PCGS had not yet split the Types of '38 and '40, and the 67FS population in the November 2000 Population Report was ONE coin! I don't know if mine was the first one graded, as the pop went up to 6 by January of 2001, but I was pleased with my purchase. I still have it, even though I'm not really a Jefferson collector.

In support of Ray's theory, mine is a reverse of 1940.

Jim

MJPHELAN

Here is another example for sale on Ebay.

1939 Rev 38 MS-64FS