Home U.S. Coin Forum

REVISITED: Jefferson Nickel 1941-S Inverted S

BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
Ok Jefferson Crew or anyone else that wants to contribute an opinion!

I am finding that PCGS is attributing the 1941-S Inverted S where the "S" is located differently in relation to the building. The four pictures (Best I could do) are of coins with the Inverted S attribution. All of which are currently in Registry Sets. The first one is mine (MS66) and exactly matches the pictures in the Cherry Pickers Guide. The second picture is an MS66FS (Yeah right!), the third and MS65 and the fourth is an MS65, correctly attributed I might add. Notice the rim die mark on the first and fourth coin, interesting eh! I have a hard time agreeing that the middle two coins are the correctly attributed!

This is where I would like your opinions. The correct variety or not?

imageimageimageimage

I wrote this in an email to PCGS. I'll tell you how they responded later.

The position of the "Inverted S" should be easy to spot on the true variety. It is tucked very close to the building and does not hang over the porch step into the field. If you look at a couple of the coins in the Registry, you will find examples where the "S" is in a very different position to the building. I'm seeing a few others selling in Auctions. While this may indeed be an "Inverted S", it is not the one shown in the Cerry Pickers Guide. I equate this to attributing the 1945-P DDR FS-803 or FS804 as the Major DDR FS-801. While they are DDRs, they are not the same. The 1941-S Inverted S should not be attributed any differently. This attribution error is distorting the true populations for this variety, ultimately hurting the collector market.

Comments

  • mingotmingot Posts: 1,805 ✭✭✭
    Don't the quarter type B/C reverse listing in the CPG cover multiple dies that exhibit the same characteristic?

    Perhaps the inverted S listing is like that. Or at least being considered in the same way.
  • GrumpyEdGrumpyEd Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭
    Also looks like another marker (at least in that die state) is another raised mark between the As right leg base to the rim.

    Probably works best for comparing positions if you can make the photos the same size and area and include the markers.
    Ed
  • leothelyonleothelyon Posts: 8,349 ✭✭✭✭✭
    This attribution error is distorting the true populations for this variety, ultimately hurting the collector market.

    It may distort the number graded for the variety but it shouldn't affect the market given the collector knows what to look for. Those who have sunk hundreds into a misattributed variety or a overgraded low pop coin are difficult to convince of their errors in judgement.

    The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

    My Jefferson Nickel Collection

  • BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
    GrumpyEd,

    The fourth coin exibits both die scratches as the first. The fourth coin is in the Corso Collection, if you desire to view the whole coin.

    Thanks
  • AMRCAMRC Posts: 4,266 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Really too hard to tell without consistent photography.
    MLAeBayNumismatics: "The greatest hobby in the world!"
  • BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
    Leon,

    You are as wise as you are young! Regardless of your age, it's hard to disagree with your observation!
  • BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
    I'm revisiting an old thread on the Variety. With the Pop Report for this variety growing, I wish I knew how many are technically incorrectly attributed? There are 30 of these attributed now; 7 in MS66 (one FS) and 9 in MS65.

    I have seen a few more coins incorrectly attributed as the "Inverted S" where the "S" is NOT tucked down on the porch like this one. You see that the "S" does not stick over the porch. Apparently if the "S" is inverted (in their opinion), it does not matter where the "S" resides. I know the one in the Strom Collection is this correct Cherry Pickers one. I'm not sure I agree with the "Other Inverted S" attribution. I equate this to calling all the 11 or 12?) different 1955-D/S the one in Cherry Pickers. PCGS only attributes the "one" (OMM1), so why would they treat this "Inverted S" different? The 1945-P varieties all have their own designation. What do you think?

    Leo said it right, "It may distort the number graded for the variety but it shouldn't affect the market given the collector knows what to look for."
  • BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
    I have a couple updates on the 1941-S Inverted S for those that are interested. Cherry Pickers Guide picture added below in the middle. After taking photo of the CPG picture, I just noticed a new marker for this variety! Notice the indent in the building next to the mintmark! So now folks, you are looking for the mintmark location and positioning, the die scratches and now the building indentation. Happy hunting!

    1) It's been a while, but looking at a ton of 1941-S's, I finally picked another "real" Inverted S's! I hope that anyone in the market for this variety, understands what the "real" one looks like and stays clear of the "other" one. Don't buy the plastic, no matter what the grading service(s) say. This hold true for any coin purchase, not just varieties!

    2) You all will love this one! I rely on Mr. Wiles for a bunch of my variety attributions and respect his opinion immensely, but realize we can have a difference of opinion on occasion. I sent Mr. Wiles one of the "other" Inverted S's for his opinion. I thought I would share his reply:

    "There is no such thing as a 41S inverted mintmark. CPG is incorrect. The coin they pictured is one in which the mintmark was tilted to the north, making the bottom loop appear thinner and thus giving the illusion that it is inverted. The mintmark style is symmetrical. There is no way to tell if it is inverted or not." So, if not really an inverted S (shown below), at least this one matches the one in CPG!

    imageimageimage

  • tincuptincup Posts: 4,744 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Interesting! Thanks for the update BigDowgie, appreciate the pics and info.
    ----- kj
  • BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
    New observation about this variety. Picture added above.
  • davewesendavewesen Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I look at the serifs on the S and feel they are not the same. When you connect a line from the tip of the serif to the base of the S on that side, the angles are not even close. The only argument you could use is that the reason the angles are different is because one side has a weaker impression so does not go down far enough to be closer to parallel to the bottom of that side of the serif. (I would disagree with that argument).

    image
  • BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
    davewesen, were you disagreeing with Mr. Wiles' contention the mintmark is symmetrical? I want to want to make sure I understand what you mean by "I would disagree with that argument"?
  • BigDowgieBigDowgie Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭✭
    Anymore feedback/observations on this one?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file