Reply from Mike Faraone concerning varieties removed from CPG....

DIMEMAN

This is the reply I got from Mike on the fear we or at least I had about varieties remove from CPG because of "low interest".

If a coin is in a set and removed from subsequent CPGs because of low interest we would not remove it from a set. If a coin is not a variety we currently have in a set, and the CPG states it will be removed from the next edition we will not start doing that variety….Mike

DennisH

Sounds logical to me.

EagleEye

Some very minor MPD varieties were added in the past in the Indian Cent series. When there were so many better varieties not listed, I made the case as an editor for that section that some should be removed from the CPG. This is just an example for for Indian cents. I'm sure other series have their rouge entries which no one cares too much about. The CPG is meant for the better varieties and that is why PCGS uses the book as the determining factor on what get labeled. If too much low-end stuff gets in, it goes against its stated mission.

DIMEMAN

My position is that once a variety is put in the PCGS sets they should NEVER be taken out. The reason is that once you start looking and spending money to purchase and grading and attribution the variety should not be pulled out.


JMHO

Bossman88

A variety is a variety and as such once attributed and listed should never be delisted.

Regards, Larry

lasvegasteddy

<< <i>My position is that once a variety is put in the PCGS sets they should NEVER be taken out. The reason is that once you start looking and spending money to purchase and grading and attribution the variety should not be pulled out.


JMHO >>



didn't pcgs take a step back on the 1914/3 buffalo nickel?

illini420

If they start attributing the coins, they should keep doing so until the coins are delisted... not just removed from the featured spot in the CPG. These coins that are being "removed" due to lack of interest are not really being removed from the CPG... they will still be listed in the cross-reference section in the back and will still have their FS numbers. Accordingly, they will still be in the guide and should still be attributed by PCGS, even if they don't have half a page dedicated to them.

DIMEMAN

I don't collect nickels so I don't know what happened there.

I thought the 1914/3 was and still is a variety.

Is there more to the story?

EagleEye

If you have a low-interest coin that gets holdered and then delisted, you will have a really low-pop coin which they are not grading any more of! How cool is that!

DIMEMAN

Not cool at all Rick!

EagleEye

Can you give us a specific on Mike's email? Was it a previously attributed coin with a listed population?

DIMEMAN

I wasn't asking Mike about a specific coin. I just wanted assurance about all varieties being kept once put into sets.

Dentuck

<< <i> These coins that are being "removed" due to lack of interest are not really being removed from the CPG... they will still be listed in the cross-reference section in the back and will still have their FS numbers. >>




That's correct.

lasvegasteddy

this is a thread on the 1914/3 buffalo...claims ngc won't sttribute them no more...but i could of sworn reading somewhere pcgs had joined too in such stance
this kinda ties in with thread topic as an example i think
1914/3

keyman64

This is good news from Mike at PCGS. Thanks for reaching out to him Jon!

Caleb

First, there are several coins listed in the current editions of the Cherrypickers’ Guide that should be removed.

What is the Cherrypickers’ Guide? Just from the title, it should be a list or guide to rare DIE VARIETIES of UNITED STATES COINS. So if the coins were not produced by one of the United States’ Government branch Mints then the coin should be excluded from the guide. And if the unique characteristics of the coin was not created from the images on the dies and is there forth not a die variety but an error then it should also be excluded from the Guide.

Is a “die clash” caused by what is on the die or from how the two dies are brought together? Is it an error or a variety?

EXAMPLES: Should a Guide purporting to be about coins struck by the US list coins that have a variety that “has been found to be made from counterfeit dies”?
1. 1896-O FS-004 (Micro O Mintmark).
2. 1900-O FS-005 (Micro O Mintmark).
3. 1902-O FS-003 (Micro O Mintmark).
4. Or, should die clashes be listed as “die varieties” or “striking errors”?

lasvegasteddy

"4. Or, should die clashes be listed as “die varieties” or “striking errors”?"
i think die varieties as it is something specific to the die
the clash has produced a changed die

19Lyds

<< <i>Can you give us a specific on Mike's email? Was it a previously attributed coin with a listed population? >>

Here's your specifics.

LanceNewmanOCC

<< <i>A variety is a variety and as such once attributed and listed should never be delisted.
Regards, Larry >>



omg that was my thought verbatim!

so long as it isn't dis-proven of course
.

TwoSides2aCoin

Varieties cause drama. This is good for numismatics. The more dramatic, the better.

roadrunner

<< <i>My position is that once a variety is put in the PCGS sets they should NEVER be taken out. The reason is that once you start looking and spending money to purchase and grading and attribution the variety should not be pulled out. JMHO >>



That may ultimately just be speculation on someone's part. And any price volatility from that isn't really any different than the hoopla assigned to a new US mint issue. You buy
your tickets and take your chances. If a researcher does the adequate leg work (like EagleEye has done for Indian cents), they will know which varieties, regardless if listed or unlisted,
are the worthy ones.

The 1914/3 nickel is a good example. I had a gorgeous PCGS MS63 of this offered to me several years ago for around $6,500. Based on the price guides, pop reports, and CPG
it seemed like a very interesting purchase. But in asking some questions of some leading buffalo variety collectors most said they didn't think too much of it. How good a variety
can it be if you have to squint with a 10X glass to see the "variety" and then imagine it was an overdate? I decided to pass on it. A month or so later the same coin ended up in a major
national retailer's inventory as the next best thing to sliced bread along with another 10-15% markup.

seanq

<< <i>Some very minor MPD varieties were added in the past in the Indian Cent series. When there were so many better varieties not listed, I made the case as an editor for that section that some should be removed from the CPG. This is just an example for for Indian cents. I'm sure other series have their rouge entries which no one cares too much about. The CPG is meant for the better varieties and that is why PCGS uses the book as the determining factor on what get labeled. If too much low-end stuff gets in, it goes against its stated mission. >>




I would argue that the CPG itself hasn't adhered to that "stated mission" since the Third Edition.


Sean Reynolds