Mr. Willis, Please comment on why I was stripped of my bands

Kozman

On how the story goes, I purchased a 1921 merc graded AU58 about a year ago. The seller and I both agreed that it was obvious that it had full bands and that I should resubmit. It was in a blue holder at the time and so I submitted it to secure plus to have it regraded along with a true view. ( You can see the true view of this coin in my sig line of my registry set). The coin came back as an AU58 with no plus. Knowing that this coin had obvious full bands, I sent it back to be regraded with secure plus and it was upgraded to be an AU58FB. This coin was noted as full bands according to the cert number and showed up as full bands in my registry set. When I got the coin back from PCGS it was not labeled as full bands. (I wanted the FB designation on the label so if I would decide to sell it someday the new owner would know that it was FB's.) I sent out numerous emails to customer service to get an answer. Finally they told me to send it back to PCGS as a" mechanical error" on a secure plus form and they would properly label it. Meanwhile, a few weeks later, I was sent an email from customer service and they told me that they could not designate this coin as full bands anymore because it was not an exception (with no AU58 mercs being designated as FB's except the 16-D and the 42/1 overdate as I was told.) Well anyway I have had this coin designated as full bands for a whole three weeks in my registry set and today I see that it is only an AU58 now. Would some one please tell me why this happened and why I never read anywhere of such exceptions? I have spent a lot of time, postage and insurance sending this coin across the country at least three times. The coin was upgraded to full bands by the secure plus graders and apparently they agree it is full bands, so why not leave it as such. Since the coin was graded as full bands and then downgraded to no bands am I to be compensated the difference in price because of this downgrade? I should have left the coin in the original blue holder if I knew that a 1921 AU58 would never be designated full bands. Well anyway, enough of my whining. I would like Mr. Willis to reply to this thread to give me his take on this whole Full Bands situation, or please email me at kozman1@comcast.net If there are any merc experts who wish to chime in please do so. I know it is all about the coin and not the holder,(and I really like the coin and will probably not look for a better one), but sometimes it is just the principle of being thrown a bone and then it being taken away.

tradedollarnut

PM him

fcloud

I think the mercury dimes only get the FB when they are uncirculated (ms60 and above). The mercury dimes I have seen below that have been errors with the coin number.

keyman64

<< <i>I think the mercury dimes only get the FB when they are uncirculated (ms60 and above). The mercury dimes I have seen below that have been errors with the coin number. >>



Koz, that just stinks....I hope you get it worked out.

Tony - Not according to this beauty.....
1916-D AU55 FB - Sold in Bowers & Merena Auction - June 2010 Baltimore

Kozman

Thanks for your input. Tradedollarnut is probably right and I should send Don Willis a personal email to see what he thinks. Does anyone have Mr. Willis's email?

DMWJR

I don't think their policy changed, just the application or misapplication by PCGS which can be frustrating. I think their policy is clear and this coin shouldn't have ever received the FB status on a PCGS holder, whether it is really an FB coin or not. I have some AU58's with full bands and they are not designated as such either. Should I consider myself screwed as well?

Steve

<< <i>I don't think their policy changed, just the application or misapplication by PCGS which can be frustrating. I think their policy is clear and this coin shouldn't have ever received the FB status on a PCGS holder, whether it is really an FB coin or not. I have some AU58's with full bands and they are not designated as such either. Should I consider myself screwed as well? >>



Doug,
Doug, IMHO , each person perceives a given situation in the best light to them. I agree with you that PCGS probably never intended for non mint state dimes to receive full band status. But human graders screw up some times. The full bands status is all about the MONEY. I note that PCGS has now written some very specific "rules" regarding free grading and other benefits of the Set Registry. They should also write and publish similar DETAILED rules and explanations regarding grading their coins and priceing their services. People should not have to try to make their own interpretation of EXACTLY what is meant by PCGS.
Steve

fcloud

<< <i>

<< <i>I think the mercury dimes only get the FB when they are uncirculated (ms60 and above). The mercury dimes I have seen below that have been errors with the coin number. >>



Koz, that just stinks....I hope you get it worked out.

Tony - Not according to this beauty.....
1916-D AU55 FB - Sold in Bowers & Merena Auction - June 2010 Baltimore >>



Take a look at the POP reports and you will find full band coins as low as FR02.
FR02FB POP 2
AG03FB POP 6
G04FB POP 1
G06FB POP 2

I would venture to guess non of these are true full band coins.

BigRick

I had a similar situation with a 42-D/Horiz D Jefferson that was the nicest AU one I had ever seen AND clearly had full steps.

PCGS graded it AU58FS though.

Don't know why there is an apparent need/desire to link the FB (FS, FBL, etc.) status with grades of 60 or higher though. Seems like two unrelated attributes for the most part.
If a coins' WEAR precludes the designation than so be it. If not, why not designate it?

keyman64

<< <i>Thanks for your input. Tradedollarnut is probably right and I should send Don Willis a personal email to see what he thinks. Does anyone have Mr. Willis's email? >>



Just send him a PM. You can do it from his posting here:
http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=755959

DMWJR

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>I think the mercury dimes only get the FB when they are uncirculated (ms60 and above). The mercury dimes I have seen below that have been errors with the coin number. >>



Koz, that just stinks....I hope you get it worked out.

Tony - Not according to this beauty.....
1916-D AU55 FB - Sold in Bowers & Merena Auction - June 2010 Baltimore >>



Take a look at the POP reports and you will find full band coins as low as FR02.
FR02FB POP 2
AG03FB POP 6
G04FB POP 1
G06FB POP 2

I would venture to guess non of these are true full band coins. >>




Yes, I know that, but it is probably just a mechanical error. The grader or whoever input the coin number into the system accidentally entered the coin number for FB. It happens in copper series as well where you will see a coin that is grade VF Red or even lower with a Red designation. I think these are just clerical type mistakes. It just appears a little more problematic when the coin in question is an AU58 coin which may in fact have full bands. I think all would agree that an AG03FB coin is an error like this, and no one really believes that there is such a thing as a real AG03FB.

What possible incentive does PCGS have to jerk someone around over this issue? If there policy is that they will not designate FB on uncirculated coins (except 16-D or the overdates), then clearly someone just input the coin number wrong during the process. It doesn't mean anyone has been ripped off, or that PCGS is applying different standards to different people. Likewise, I don't know why PCGS wouldn't just state what the policy is, and let everyone go with that.

DonWillis

Kozman - I don't know what happened but I will find out and post the answer here. Don

Please PM me with your submission number.

illini420

I also noticed sometimes PCGS uses the wrong coin number on Lincolns. I'm pretty sure there's a PO01RD 1909 VDB Lincoln in the pop reports. Of course the coin isn't a RD example. Presumably it was just entered using the RD coin number and not the BN coin number. From your experience with the Merc Dime, I'm guessing that VDB just says PO01 on the slab and not PO01RD...

PawPaul

man , you just might get the coin back as a MS60 with full bands !!

Kozman

I have emailed Don about the circumstances and the submission number. I will wait and see what happens. Thanks to everyone with your opinions.

DonWillis

What happened is this - the coin was graded AU58 and mistakenly given the FB PCGS number in the verification process. That is a mechanical error, as the staff has indicated. Our software prevented the FB designation from printing on the insert but was manually overridden with the incorrect PCGS number.

Sorry but there is no Full Band designation for your coin.


Here are the rules for Full Band grading. Only the 1916-D and 1942/1 P&D are eligible for FB designation below MS60. These dates can be graded FB in grades AU50 and above. All other dates must grade MS60 or higher to receive the FB designation.

We apologize for the mix up. What made it worse is the link we have between Grading and the Registry which caused you to see the FB immediately.

Kozman

Thank You Don for setting things straight. Maybe someday PCGS can look into designating all AU coins with full bands within the Mercury Dime series. Dennis (KozMc Mercs)

keyman64

<< <i>Here are the rules for Full Band grading. Only the 1916-D and 1942/1 P&D are eligible for FB designation below MS60. These dates can be graded FB in grades AU50 and above. All other dates must grade MS60 or higher to receive the FB designation.
>>



Mr. Willis,

Will you please give us the reasoning behind this? Please help us understand. The most obvious question is why? Either a coin is FB or it isn't. Why are graders "Instructed" to ignore FB on coins other than 1916-D and 1942/1 P&D when the grade will be bellow MS60? It sounds like graders at PCGS are being "Instructed" to grade a coin WRONG. It does not matter if a coin is the common 1944-D.....if it has FB, then it has FB. What's the reasoning behind this rule? Regardless, I think the rule should be changed. Can you get the rule changed? How do we change the rule? Thank you so much for your time and consideration. I really appreciate that you are willing to communicate with the collectors on these boards...even on the weekends. Thank you for all that you do,

Greg

DonWillis

Greg, It's not that we don't want to give every coin all the recognition possible. But there is an element of practicality. A 1916-D in AU50 FB is a coin we have in our price guide at $9000. A 1916-P is listed at $33 in MS60. Our policy evolved over time based on the submissions we receive, how our grading process has been setup in repsonse and what kind of feedback we receive from you - the customer. Look at our pop report - we grade very few circulated Mercury dimes other than the dates I mentioned. Most Mercs submitted are mint state. So we have set up a grading process with that in mind. Should we look again at the 1921 & 1921-D? Perhaps we should. Don

keyman64

It really does not stop at the 21 or 21-D, does it? I understand that the 1945 is rather rare in FB as well. There are others. Why is the line drawn in the sand with just a couple? You mention the practicallity. Please explain. I think everyone is practically paying the same FEES for grading. I would prefer to have accurate and complete grading for my fees rather than some very strange and arbitrary....well, we drew the line in the sand here....type of grading. Not everyone can afford the 1916-D in AU50 or AU50FB.... The folks that can't afford those fine toys still pay for grading of other coins and expect accurate and true results. Then, have you not considered the fact that you have FB Registry Sets and NON-FB Registry Sets? I happen to participate in the variety sets. There are sooooo few examples of some of the varieties that if a coin was AU-55 FB but not designated as such....well that hurts the set in the FB category because of the bonus points.

Ok, so this is where we are now....with the ones that should be given the designation of FB AU50 and above:
1916-D
1921
1921-D
1945
1928-S Large S FS-501
1929-S DDO FS-101
1931-D DDO FS-101
1931-S DDO FS-101
1935-S/S RPM FS-501
1936 DDO FS-101
1936-S FS-110
1937-S DDO FS-101
1939 DDO FS-101
1939-D/D RPM FS-501
1940-S/S RPM FS-501
1941 DDO FS-101
1941-D DDO & DDR FS-101
1941-S Large S FS-511
1941-S/S RPM FS-501
1941-S/S RPM FS-502
1942/1 Overdate FS-101
1942-D/D RPD FS-501
1942/1-D Overdate FS-101
1943-S Trumpet Tail Mintmark FS-511
1943-S/S RPM FS-501
1944-D/D RPM FS-501
1945-D RPM FS-501
1945-D RPM FS-506
1945-S RPM FS-503
1945-S Micro S FS-512

I believe there are 26 varieties. Now, let's talk about PCGS's stated goals about releasing VALUE....or something along those lines when the + system was introduced. The same holds true here. A couple hundred dollars can be a lot of money for a little guy like me....so if we look through the price guide for the number of coins that seem to have some level of REAL PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE combined with DOLLAR VALUE and we get a few more coins:

1918-D
1918-S
1919-D
1919-S
1920-D
1920-S
1923-S
1924-D
1924-S
1925-D
1925-S
1926-S
1927-D
1927-S

So now, we are at approximately 44 coins where a FB designation can make a real difference in either Dollar Value or Points Value for Registry Sets. If you look at the Mercury Dime Complete Variety Set, it has 103 coins in it. 44/103 coins is ~42.7% of the set that needs FB Designation. I think it would be more of a pain to keep track of all of the ones that get the designation versus those that do not than it would be to just give each coin it's full credit. People are already paying the fee for the coin to be graded. Why not aim to accurately describe each coin on the label?

Thanks for your help,

Greg

BigRick

Seems just as easy to "instruct" graders to add the FB designation to ANY coin that actually has FB's - regardless of numerical grade (or would that be too radical an idea? ).

Kozman

I believe all Merc registry participants should take a vote as to if all AU mercs with full bands should be designated as such. This would bring more interest to the merc registry sets for those that don't have deep pockets. It would make the competition much more interesting and bring new people into the hobby and more submissions to PCGS. I know there is the "Everyman's Set", but that set is more for the AU58 no band crowd. Afterall full bands are full bands and what else more is there to explain. This is just my opinion and maybe many others. Dennis (KozMc Mercs)

Steve

Dennis,
I'm a Lincoln cent collector and not a Mercury Dime collector, but I agree that if a Mercury Dime IS full bands, then it should be indicated as full bands regardless of grade. Obviously a lower grade circulated coin would not quality for full bands anyway.

But after looking at your wonderful complete collection in the set registry I wonder why you emphasize the fact that a number of the coins had been REGRADED and either achieved a higher grade or did not. We all know grading is somewhat subjective and at any given time the particular grader might see the coin differently depending on his particular feelings. What is most important is how YOU feel about the COIN. Not how you feel about the LABEL grade that is assigned to the coin. JMHO.
Steve

Fairlaneman

It is not rational to not to give a AU58 coin that is FB just the straight AU58 grade especially from 1916 thru 1931. Many early date uncirculated coins were handled with little care or put in those pesky albums with slides. Poor handling and or slide marks could easily put a dime in the AU58 catagory.

JMHO after looking at these things for sometime and watching how they have been graded by PCGS thru the years.

Ken

Barndog

FB designations for all Mercury dime dates in grades below 60 seems like a win-win proposal to me. Collectors would love to have the recognition on the label and in their registry sets and PCGS would get a bunch of submissions for FB consideration (more revenue). Good luck all you merc fans!