1958 DOUBLE DIE LINCOLN CENT IS A MAJOR VARIETY
STEWARTBLAYNUMIS
Posts: 2,697 ✭✭✭✭
THERE IS SOME GOSSIP ON THE BOARDS WHETHER OR NOT THE 1958 DOUBLE DIE OBVERSE LINCOLN CENT IS A MAJOR VARIETY
THERE SHOULD BE NO QUESTION IN ANYONES MIND. THE 58 DOUBLE DIE OBVERSE IS INDEED MAJOR AND ONLY SECOND TO THE 55/55 DOUBLE DIE
IF YOU PUT A 1958 DDO NEXT TO A 1969 S DDO ONE GOES CLOCKWISE AND THE OTHER GOES COUNTER CLOCKWISE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND A MAJOR VARIETY
STEWART BLAY
I AGREE THE 1941 DDO IS ALSO A MAJOR VARIETY AND SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED AND REINSTATED IN THE SET REGISTRY. AFTER ALL IT HAS MORE PRONOUNCED DOUBLING THAN A 1917 DDO
0
Comments
The point is, including it in the Major Varieties Set means that only a couple of folks could ever complete the set! That just doesn't seem to be fair. After all, there's no slot for it in the DANSCO or any other collection album because at least DANSCO realizes how silly it is to lump that coin in with the rest of them.
Its just silly!
The name is LEE!
Marketing koolaid overly consumed?
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>THERE IS SOME GOSSIP ON THE BOARDS WHETHER OR NOT THE 1958 DOUBLE DIE OBVERSE LINCOLN CENT IS A MAJOR VARIETY
THERE SHOULD BE NO QUESTION IN ANYONES MIND. THE 58 DOUBLE DIE OBVERSE IS INDEED MAJOR AND ONLY SECOND TO THE 55/55 DOUBLE DIE
IF YOU PUT A 1958 DDO NEXT TO A 1969 S DDO ONE GOES CLOCKWISE AND THE OTHER GOES COUNTER CLOCKWISE AND YOU WILL UNDERSTAND A MAJOR VARIETY
STEWART BLAY
>>
Stewart,
The issue is NOT whether the 1958DD is a MAJOR variety or how close the doubling is to the 1955DD or the 1969S DD. The issue is that there are only 2 or 3 of these coins in existence and people who enjoy trying to COMPLETE a Set Registry KNOW they cannot get to 100% completion. PCGS should set the rules so that in these particular situations the ultra rare coin is NOT counted toward 100% completion and is only shown for display if the owner wishes to show it. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
By your logic then, there should be a minimum pop set in stone before a coin can be included in a set.
What should it be? Who decides? How much will that be subject to change &/or whim (& if the former, by what procedure?)?
IMHO, this should not be a majority rules situation as the majority will surely "vote out" the coins they perceive as "too tough".
<< <i>Steve,
By your logic then, there should be a minimum pop set in stone before a coin can be included in a set.
What should it be? Who decides? How much will that be subject to change &/or whim (& if the former, by what procedure?)?
IMHO, this should not be a majority rules situation as the majority will surely "vote out" the coins they perceive as "too tough". >>
Well, given the fact that populations by PCGS may or may not have a factor I would think that the URS would be a better definition for what should or should not be in a registry set. Coins of which only two or three are "known" two exist are completely different than coins that have a "population" of only two or three.
The URS takes into account how many are "known" vs how many have been "graded" and would be a much better scale to go by.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Steve,
By your logic then, there should be a minimum pop set in stone before a coin can be included in a set.
What should it be? Who decides? How much will that be subject to change &/or whim (& if the former, by what procedure?)?
IMHO, this should not be a majority rules situation as the majority will surely "vote out" the coins they perceive as "too tough". >>
Roger,
First of all, I'm talking about VARIETIES, not the basic sets which include all dates and mintmarks. Once a given coin is graded by PCGS it needs to be monitored. Realistically, we are talking about very few coins like the 1958DD. It certainly would not be a new variety. It would be a coin that achieved major variety status over time AND very, very few of them got certified by PCGS. The rationale would be that even if someone had $100,000 they could not get this coin in a PCGS holder IN ANY GRADE because so few existed. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
WS
I haven't heard a single person yet agree that the 1941 DDO should be removed from the set.
At first I thought maybe PCGS was intending the Major Variety Set to be the Red Book varieties, since that is how many people collect coins. But, I pulled a copy last night at Barnes & Noble, and they are clearly not following it. True, it does not contain the 1941 DDO and it does contain the 1958 DDO, so that is consistent. But, the Red Book lists the 1922 "Weak D" in addition to the "No D" and further does not include the 1909 VDB DDO, which is included in the Major Variety set.
Alternatively, I do like the 09-64 Classic set for nostalgic reasons, since it is what I was accustomed to looking at when I was a child and was my "list" just like everyone else.
The Complete Variety Set is whatever is in the CPG, rightly or wrongly, and is a lot of fun for me. I collect other varieties that are not in the CPG too. So, I'm not going to loose any sleep over what PCGS arbitrarily decides to put in the Major Variety Set, but I do strongly disagree with dropping the 1941 DDO. It is a well established variety, and has been collected for a long time.
<< <i>There seems to be no rhyme or reason, and that is what is most troubling to everyone on these threads.
I haven't heard a single person yet agree that the 1941 DDO should be removed from the set.
At first I thought maybe PCGS was intending the Major Variety Set to be the Red Book varieties, since that is how many people collect coins. But, I pulled a copy last night at Barnes & Noble, and they are clearly not following it. True, it does not contain the 1941 DDO and it does contain the 1958 DDO, so that is consistent. But, the Red Book lists the 1922 "Weak D" in addition to the "No D" and further does not include the 1909 VDB DDO, which is included in the Major Variety set.
Alternatively, I do like the 09-64 Classic set for nostalgic reasons, since it is what I was accustomed to looking at when I was a child and was my "list" just like everyone else.
The Complete Variety Set is whatever is in the CPG, rightly or wrongly, and is a lot of fun for me. I collect other varieties that are not in the CPG too. So, I'm not going to loose any sleep over what PCGS arbitrarily decides to put in the Major Variety Set, but I do strongly disagree with dropping the 1941 DDO. It is a well established variety, and has been collected for a long time. >>
I agree that removal of the 1941 DDO has been collected for years and has been in the major variety set for years. It shouldn't have been removed. Seems like a capricious decision. But adding the 1958 DDO of which only 3 are known simply removes the possibility of almost no one EVER completing the set due to availability, regardless of who has the $$ to buy one. It belongs in the complete variety set. Now if 10 or 15 in all grades come to light, then perhaps it should be added into the major variety set. The demoralizing affect of its addition NOW plus the arbitrary removal of the 1941 DDO has many collectors of the major variety set feeling betrayed and several of the major players have written or called me to state that they are now considering dropping out entirely. Is this what PCGS intended?
Ira
CAN SOMEONE E MAIL THIS THREAD TO DH@COLLECTORS.COM
STEWART
I also asked the question on the other thread as to why the big deal about getting to 100%. I thought you only needed 85% to be eligible for the prizes and only 90% to get your free gradings?? Unless they send you a big prize or something at 100%, I just don't get it as the collector knows their set really isn't 100% complete, it just filled all of the holes PCGS provided. In the couple of Registry sets I'm working on I don't agree with the composition of some of them and especially don't agree with the weighting of them. That said, I'm still collecting the coins I think are really part of the set. So even though my PCGS set will someday say 100% complete, I know that it may not be.
Finally, please remember I just started at this last year so I really don't know what I'm talking about
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>
I also asked the question on the other thread as to why the big deal about getting to 100%. I thought you only needed 85% to be eligible for the prizes and only 90% to get your free gradings?? Unless they send you a big prize or something at 100%, I just don't get it as the collector knows their set really isn't 100% complete, it just filled all of the holes PCGS provided. In the couple of Registry sets I'm working on I don't agree with the composition of some of them and especially don't agree with the weighting of them. That said, I'm still collecting the coins I think are really part of the set. So even though my PCGS set will someday say 100% complete, I know that it may not be.
>>
Michael,
I'm a collector where 100% complete DOES mean something to me. I am not really competing to be number 1 because I know I won't spend the kind of money it takes. But I DO like completeness, and I have chosen the Lincoln cent PROOF Set Registry (1909 thru current) with Major Varieties as my main effort to do this. I also have just about all the business strike Lincolns but I will not slab the less valuable ones. So my 100% complete set is now 97% complete because I will need to now get the 1998 & 1999 close AM versions. I personally think PCGS is wrong to require these before January, 2010. It is bad customer service. I think other collectors who value 100% completion feel the same way. Just wanted to comment. It is not always an effort to be #1 in the registry, but to COMPLETE the registry. JMHO. Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
<< <i>CAN SOMEONE E MAIL THIS THREAD TO DH@COLLECTORS.COM
STEWART >>
Done.
You own me Stewart!
The name is LEE!
PCGS usually adds varieities to get more submissions ($$$), when was the last one of these graded?
<< <i>I have heard they are counterfeit and have no value at all
PCGS usually adds varieities to get more submissions ($$$), when was the last one of these graded? >>
I dont think I've ever heard that these were FAKE. The general consensus is that they were smuggled out of the mint by an employee. Perhaps, he "made" them. But, it would still be a genuine coin, as it came from the US Mint, just under nefarious circumstances.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
That would account for there being only a very very few.
<< <i>hmmm .... seems like ESM has now bought the 58 DDO that Lukes had for sale. >>
Oh crap...I missed it!
<< <i>
<< <i>I have heard they are counterfeit and have no value at all
PCGS usually adds varieities to get more submissions ($$$), when was the last one of these graded? >>
I dont think I've ever heard that these were FAKE. The general consensus is that they were smuggled out of the mint by an employee. Perhaps, he "made" them. But, it would still be a genuine coin, as it came from the US Mint, just under nefarious circumstances. >>
I know they are not counterfeit. When you examine one you understand.
I remember examining one in 1995 when I was researching for the ARLC. I met the gentlemen at my mother-in-laws as that was
half way in the middle. He brought some real cool error coins that were extremely impressive such as a 1976 quarter double
struck with a double drum on the reverse. I probably could have had the coin for $10K at the time. Everyone had speculated
that they were counterfeit because none were found except by one person.
Most of our great coins came out of the Mint under nefarious circumstances (people in the mint creating or allowing out of the Mint
coins which might not have gotten out of the Mint, look at the 1913 V nickel, the 1804 Type 3s produced in the 1850s, 64D peace dollar,
I still remember reading about the Mint in the 1940s and 50s stating they did not produce a 1943 copper and their Chief Engraver
having a 43 copper and 44 steel.
Many of these great rarities are accepted by the numismatic community, irrelevant to their origins.
I still remember holding the 1974 Alum cent at the Smithsonian, my hands were shaking I was in such awe.
The 1958 holds the same type of power, it is an incredible variety, kind of coin that is burned into your memory.
I can see both sides of this argument.
On the one hand, as there are only 3, and as in my opinion there will be no more found, it should not be in the registry.
On the other side of the coin, as it is accepted in the numismatic community and by Linc collectors as genuine and a true
rarity and one of the top Lincoln cent coins it should be in the registry. In addition, as it came from the U.S. Mint, it is genuine and
therefore should be accepted as a part of the series.
Just my humble opinion.
Kevin
Who in numismatics that has seen one of these coins, has said they were fakes? Ive never heard anything like that at all by anyone in this hobby. Ive seen one in hand and got to stare at it for several minutes.
Theyre not fake.
<<PCGS usually adds varieities to get more submissions ($$$), when was the last one of these graded? >>
Theres 2, maybe 3 known. How often do you think they are being graded?
"Because I can"
myurl The Franklin All Old Green Holder Set
I linked to the pic on the thread, if this is a no no , let me know and I will remove it.
<< <i>Not participating in the Lincoln sets right now, but if the '58 DDO is a major variety as an error coin w/ only 2-3 of them that exist, why not the '43 copper cents or the '44 steel cents, both of which are errors that are much more plentiful than the '58 DDO. >>
IMHO, that is a great argument, Mike. On top of the '58 DDO rarity, why not lobby for the inclusion of ALL the super rarities in the Lincoln series, and not just any selective rarity? One could make the same argument about the '43 copper, '44 steel, and why not that a 1917 matte proof Lincoln Cent should be included to complete a series of proof Lincolns. As Kevin Flynn noted in his opinion, if a coin "came from the U.S. Mint, it is genuine and therefore should be accepted as a part of the series." So if we accept the '58 DDO, why not be consistent and accept the numerous other ultra-rarities as well?
On the other hand, does one need a proof 1913 Liberty Head Nickel to complete a full set of that series? With 5 known, some may answer "yes" but the fact is if we take that position very few people would ever have a complete set. So fairness may dictate the other way. Ditto a few other series.....
So the ultimate question is do we make these decisions based on the collector community as a entirety or to serve a select few?
JMHO.
I agree with what you said EXCEPT the point about the 1917 MPL. Until PCGS, NGC or "maybe" even ANACS actually certifies such a coin as "at least" GENUINE, I do NOT believe a 1917 MPL exists. Of course, others may disagree.
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Yeah; being a MatteHead, I may have gotten carried away with the 1917
But I stand by the rest of the point.
Thanks,
Duane
Ahhhh..I think is to serve a select few?
You see, despite Stewarts generous offer to get PCGS management to do something, I did in fact contact them and got a very nice email from Hernandez basically saying, though luck - decision has been made. By who Jamie – by F%^&* WHO????. I have nothing against a 1958 DDO, other than I will never own one. But Duane makes an EXCELLENT case as to why adding an obscure coin like the 1958 DDO when so many other MAJOR errors exist is done only because someone has one and is close enough to PCGS management to get his/her way and to Heck with the rest of us.
It’s not about jealousy or rich vs. poor, or any other issues other than the...
1) Lack of how a coin gets added or deleted from a series.
2) Lack of WHO is making the decision.
3) Lack of any feedback to the collecting community.
I have stated before PCGS needs to understand it’s a” public" company and that some decisions need to be made transparent to garner support. They could take Stewart, and Irwin and say they are the Lincoln committee and that is the way it will work, and AT LEAST WE WOULD KNOW WHT THE HECK they are doing. They could add being on the committee of any series a bonus of having a top 10 set. I do not care, I just want some Darn idea that a process is in place to make these decisions other than a cigar filled back room.
A super set, of every error, variety known to exist, - Awesome. A set of the top ten error freaks - again, awesome. Adding a 1958 DDO to a variety set - absolutely the 2nd dumbest decisions ever made by PCGS (remember the Satin fiasco). And in Perfect PCGS lack of Public Relations they give the collecting community their usual response- The silent treatment. It’s getting old PCGS, very, very old.
WS
Why so much apparent concern for completing an artificially (& some would say arbitrarily) created set by a company that had absolutely nothing to do with the coins production in the first place?
Who cares what PCGS thinks, it's a great and incredibly rare variety on the most common US coin.
I've seen some posts classifying it as an "error".
Aren't errors one of a kind, and varieties derived from the die?
We've seen 2 images of 2 different 1958 DDO Lincolns on this thread.
They are almost identical, the only obvious difference the O of ONE on the reverse.
It's a variety, one of the coolest and definitely the rarest. Who cares if PCGS recognizes it?
If the people at the Mint, Treasury, Secret Service, etc. read this thread, they may just put their heads together and decide that these coins are "government property" and subject to confiscation and seizure because they were never "monetized" and were taken from the mint in an unauthorized manner.
If so, anyone who owns any of the three coins should call Mr. Berke for help.
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
The other 64RD is sleepless (as in doesn't sleep there anymore) in Seattle.
Do you mean that $ASS$$$hole still has one?
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
If you were just quoting Stewart, shouldn't you have put "$ASS$$$hole" in quotes?
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
Steve
My Complete PROOF Lincoln Cent with Major Varieties(1909-2015)Set Registry
A letter concerning this thread and two others regarding recent PCGS decisions that have annoyed many of us has been sent to Don Willis. So if this thread goes Poof, you now know why.
WS