WARNING: Someone's Gonna Get SERIOUSLY Burned On This Heritage Lot!!! - UPDATED: Not Now - They Pull

RBinTex

LINK Let's see who figures it out 1st.

seanq

I'm pretty sure that's FS-030.3, or Die #3, and not the Die #1 FS-030. It can't be FS-030.5 because the mintmark isn't repunched.


Sean Reynolds

guitarwes

this is probably not it, but what is that above the "RIB" in PLURIBUS on the rim??

Bubblehead

Isn't coin #4173, a 45-P?

RBinTex

Sean,

You're dead on (at least as best I can tell by the lousy Heritage pix).

My guess, probably a $500 (or so) coin.

stephunter

I sent them a note.

RichieURich

The slab just says Doubled Die Reverse, not which of them it is. Personally I think FS-030.5 is by far the rarest of the three of them.

seanq

<< <i>The slab just says Doubled Die Reverse, not which of them it is. Personally I think FS-030.5 is by far the rarest of the three of them. >>



Again, it can't be FS-030.5 as the mintmark is not repunched. At one time I had UNC examples of all three major 1945-P DDRs, I still have the 030.3 and 030.5 but I sold the FS-030 recently. If there's still any question I can take a quick QX3 pic of the mintmark of my FS-030.5 to illustrate the RPM.

Although the slab insert just says "Doubled Die Reverse," my understanding is that the PCGS coin number used is only supposed to apply to FS-030, Die #1, and the other two must be submitted under Mint Error (or now, Cherrypickers' Guide attribution) service.

As you and rbintx said, it is still a desirable variety coin, just not quite as desirable as the Heritage bidders think it is.


Sean Reynolds

RBinTex

"The slab just says Doubled Die Reverse, not which of them it is."

PCGS is ONLY suppised to use PCGS No. 4173 For DIE#1/FS-030 PLUS Heritage can't even tell it's not (Die#1) in their description and they OBVIOUSLY call it FS-030 when it IS NOT!

"Although the slab insert just says "Doubled Die Reverse," my understanding is that the PCGS coin number used is only supposed to apply to FS-030, Die #1, and the other two must be submitted under Mint Error (or now, Cherrypickers' Guide attribution) service."

Not to make this a Sean love-fest (not that there's anything wrong w/that ), but once again, Sean, you're DEAD ON!

"I sent them a note."

Good job stephunter

stephunter

Just got a note back from Heritage;

"I apologize for the delay in responding to your query. The reason it took so long was that the coins were en route to Long Beach, and could not be examined by a numismatist. The lot was finally examined today. It is not an FS-030, and was described incorrectly. It will be removed from the auction, and no bids will be accepted for it."

Brian Koller
Heritage Cataloger

DennisH

"PCGS is ONLY supposed to use PCGS No. 4173 For DIE#1/FS-030"

I'm extremely curious about this statement, because I have long had the impression that PCGS itself often -- now there's an understatement -- doesn't know what it wants for a coin to be attributed as a specific variety. Does anyone know if this information for this Jeff variety is stated anywhere in print or on the PCGS website?

Russ

<< <i>This lot has been withdrawn from this auction. Bids are no longer accepted and previous bids are cancelled. >>



I'm impressed.

Russ, NCNE

TwoSides2aCoin

vigilance is the keynote speaker.

seanq

<< <i>Just got a note back from Heritage;

"I apologize for the delay in responding to your query. The reason it took so long was that the coins were en route to Long Beach, and could not be examined by a numismatist. The lot was finally examined today. It is not an FS-030, and was described incorrectly. It will be removed from the auction, and no bids will be accepted for it."

Brian Koller
Heritage Cataloger >>





Good for Heritage for acting quickly and decisively on that one.

...and not to make this an rbintx love fest but nice catch noticing the incorrect attribution.


Sean Reynolds

dbldie55

This thread had me worried. Went and checked my MS64 example, and it is the correct one.

RBinTex

(for Heritage making the "correction").