If the varieties are going to be listed in the new Cherry Pickers Guide, there is a very good chance PCGS will start to recognize them through our variety attribution program. Until it is recognized by the publication though, PCGS will not attribute the variety. If you have any further questions, please let me know or you can call customer service at 1-800-447-8848.
Thank you,
Noah Varness Customer Service "
No offense intended but it is very naive to take the word of any PCGS Customer Service Rep as gospel.
They do the best they can, but they are often a veritable fount of misinformation.
What Noah Varness said is simply what Noah Varness said. It is by no means "official" PCGS policy!
<< <i>It's not raining on a parade as much as it is not being invited to the parade until the CPG comes out which has been a well known issue for years.
I'm sure the Formative cent chasers would have loved to just have PCGS attribute their varieties in advance without having to wait 6 years+ for a new book to come out. There are plenty other examples as well, the 1919DDO for example went off to anacs as it was believed that they were the only ones that would label it. >>
I shouldn't even have to ask this question, because of how much gripin' is goin on about it.. But was it "believed" that PCGS wouldn't attribute the DDO merc? Or did someone actually make sure that they either would or wouldn't before making it an issue that they "wouldn't"?
I understand full well what you guys are saying here, but it seems to me that rather than having asked anyone to be sure, there were and are a bunch of assumptions being made about what would've, could've, or should've happened... >>
Given he fact that the Merc was a really cool doubled die, PCGS would not have had a problem attributing it simply with
1919 - Doubled Die Obverse
Like they have since the beginning of their operation. Specifically
PCGS would have certified the Merc AND Labeled it as a Doubled Die Obverse had you spoken with someone in charge. This merc is a really neat discovery and it doesn't take a 30x Scope to see the doubling.
Having the word "Discovery" on the Slab Label is not really as important as some might think.
Simply having it attributed as a DDO would have been good enough for the folks that actually KNOW a thing or two about Mercury Dimes.
This relentless reliance upon the Biblical Blessings of the CPG is just cattle following cattle. The CPG is NOT the Numismatic Bible regardless of the importance that PCGS puts on it. 10% of the time some of the attributions are incorrect anyway simple because this so-called Bible simply does not have enough information, photographically, to make an accurate attribution.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i> The CPG is NOT the Numismatic Bible regardless of the importance that PCGS puts on it. 10% of the time some of the attributions are incorrect anyway simple because this so-called Bible simply does not have enough information, photographically, to make an accurate attribution. >>
Absolutely correct. But it does not change the fact that any given variety becomes instantly much more valuable when it is included in one of PCGS's Registry Sets.
And usually the inclusion of a new variety into the sets is preceeded by inclusion in the CPG.
I think someone above mentioned, the tale wagging the dog instead of the dog wagging the tale, or cattle following cattle or whatever..
For all the people who are crying about the way all this works, or that they don't like how some varieties have to wait, and others get the golden treatment and swim right through... Have you ever thought about what PCGS is and was created to do??? Now, not to say that they don't have an important role in the attribution of varieties, but they never started out with the intent to attribute varieties. Maybe the reason they have waited until the CPG published a new volume to attribute certain varieties was because THEY DIDNT KNOW WHAT THE OFFICIAL FS# WAS UNTIL IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE BOOK... In other words, how is PCGS going to attribute something as anything more specific than DDO, DDR, etc.. when nobody knows what the FS# would be? Now, for the whiners talking about why the lists aren't released, or why the CPG does this, doesn't do that, etc.. Why don't you go write your own book, and do it the way you prefer or think it should be done??? Nobody is stopping anyone from going and doing something in the exact "perfect" way they see fit!!! Oh, what? What is that you say? You would rather continue living life being reactive & lazy, complaining and whining about how this or that "should" be done versus becoming proactive and actually doing something about it? Here is what I think.... I think that the whole concept of the CPG was something that has contributed endlessly to this hobby. I cant even imagine all the work that many numismatists have spent a professional lifetime dedicated to building, creating, maintaining, and improving... and yet, you got folks out there crying about how "it aint fair" it all just makes me scratch my head. Write your own damn book, start your own grading company... Do something about it and make it the way you think it should be.
Also I could totally be wrong here, but the fact that my bugs bunny got attributed before the next edition of the CPG is released makes me think it has changed for the better. Seems to me like there has been some collaboration that has taken place, and major improvements made. Before PCGS wasn't concerned with making sure specific varieties were noted/attributed outside of general DDO/DDR's/ETC but as the market has grown, and the demand become more clear, they have taken steps to be proactive there, where they now work (to some degree anyways) with the people who assign the numbers that collectors get so hung up and googoo on.... Before it was simply a DDO until something like the CPG came out and assigned numbers to organize and categorize, giving them something more to call it (COULD THIS BE WHY THEY HAVE WAITED UNTIL AFTER CPG WAS PUBLISHED? WOW? SOUNDS CONFUSING). Whereas now, it is more of a, "oh look, a DDO, lets touch base with the variety guys and confirm identifying numbers and such. Seems to me like we are moving in the direction that those of you are crying about and yet..... you are still crying? How does that make any sense?
Or, maybe I am totally wrong, possibly crazy. Maybe I am a naïve, overthinking, overly positive, hopeless optimist.... Time will tell.
<< <i>Maybe the reason they have waited until the CPG published a new volume to attribute certain varieties was because THEY DIDNT KNOW WHAT THE OFFICIAL FS# WAS UNTIL IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE BOOK... In other words, how is PCGS going to attribute something as anything more specific than DDO, DDR, etc.. when nobody knows what the FS# would be? . >>
Whelp, they did yours just fine, (except for the #).
You just made our Point! Thanks!
I was ‘COINB0Y' with 4812 posts and ‘Expert Collector’ ranking (Joined in 2006).
<< <i> The CPG is NOT the Numismatic Bible regardless of the importance that PCGS puts on it. 10% of the time some of the attributions are incorrect anyway simple because this so-called Bible simply does not have enough information, photographically, to make an accurate attribution. >>
Absolutely correct. But it does not change the fact that any given variety becomes instantly much more valuable when it is included in one of PCGS's Registry Sets.
And usually the inclusion of a new variety into the sets is preceeded by inclusion in the CPG. >>
Exactlty. And then it becomes worthless when its "dropped" from the CPG and ultimately from the registry because its no longer in the CPG.
And really, who's to say that the 1919 DDO Merc doesn't have value? If I had to guess, I guess that the 1919 DDO already has more value than the 1952 Bugs Bunny Proof. CPG or no CPG. Redbook or no Redbook.
Primarily because the folks that specialize in Mercury Dimes already "know" its importance and are probably already looking for their own.
I know that I'll be looking more closely at every Franklin Proof I encounter from now on..................
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i>He got a PCGS attribution *before* the actual Publication of new CPG Vol. 6.! That's the opposite of how it is suppose to be done according to the rules set by our host. >>
Can you show me where this rule exists? I've seen you state several times there's some sort of rule but unless it's written down and you can produce it then there's no basis for this statement. Regardless, if PCGS made the decision to change their mind on how they did business on this one coin then it must be because they believe it's a significant find. Be happy for a fella!! >>
Specifically: Fivaz-Stanton Varieties from the Cherrypickers Guide, Fourth Edition Vol. II and Fifth Edition Vol. I (see list for exclusions)
Not sure the FS-503 is in the current versions (Certainly will be in the 6th edition), but just as with my 1919 DDO FS-101 Mercury Dime, I was told by the experts, as well as a few dozen PMs from folks who have also had discoveries in the past that...
A) PCGS won't annotate Discovery, or First Reported, or any such label PCGS won't annotate New Discovery CPG numbers UNTIL it is in a recognized published reference (In the link above)
So, just as my DDO and this specific Year/Proof (FS-503) Bugs, since neither are in a published reference approved by PCGS, I would have thought neither would get certified as such.
It's just strange - even if PCGS would have done the FS-101 for my dime, I still wanted a Discovery (Or what ANACS called "First Reported) on the slab. A VF-20 in PCGS or ANACS probably won't have much of a price difference, but that little extra of being the first was more important for me, so I probably would have still went with ANACS.
A little consistency, or an official statement of what new discoveries (even with/without the "Discovery" text) that they will certify, and if they will do so, what letters/documentation they need - be it letters from Mr. Fivaz, or Mr. Wiles/CONECA, etc would be nice so we all knew, instead of relying on PMs and forum members past experiences.
It's all good though, still a great discovery, no matter how it got slabbed. >>
It's a "sticky" situation that is fraught with inconsistencies.
Back in 2009, I found a 1977-D Kennedy Half DDO. The coin was listed in the "Appendix" of the 4th Edition CPG Vol II yet PCGS would not attribute it as an FS-101. The FS-101 attribution only came after the release of the 5th Edition CPG Vol II.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
I think I understand what Coinboy is saying and I too have been under the impression that PCGS would not attribute varieties and add to the Registry sets until the variety was indeed in the CPG.
It looks like this is not a hard fast rule that is written anywhere.......just assumed. There are different practices for different series. For instance when I asked BJ about additions to the Canadian Dime
variety set I was told that if it was in the Charlton Book on Canadian Coins ...... just send the coin in at get it attributed and they would give it a number and forward instructions to the Registry staff
and it would be added. I haven't done this yet, but plan to and see what happens.
On the Bugs Bunny Proof....CONGRATS! Very neat coin.
And in response to someone saying it's too late to add to the 6th Edition CPG for halves...........they are probably just now starting to work on Volume II.
<< <i>And in response to someone saying it's too late to add to the 6th Edition CPG for halves...........they are probably just now starting to work on Volume II. >>
Not true, work is about to start on Vol II but has not yet begun...in the next month+ is when the heavy work will start. Series experts are certainly getting some ducks in a row right now though...
"If it's not fun, it's not worth it." - KeyMan64 Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
probably but based on this being unique and proof clashing of a widely sought-after "variety" and based on known sales results, in a pcgs aoh holder, this should easily be $10k+.
doubt these will come out of the woodwork like the b.s. counterpart, 2 feathers, tybe-b, superbird/re-engraved, etc.
now if it were to be a scenario where they would be expected to be found in cam and dcam, i could see the price holding low on pr66 and lower but i highly doubt that is going to be the case. good thing is, time will tell. .
Congratulations, Chris, on an exciting discovery -- and welcome to the PCGS Forum! I predict that this event will cement your status as a life-long coin hobbyist.
I'll skip all the other stuff in this thread and echo what GeorgeKellogg said. Congratulations! Welcome! Very cool!
Comments
Sometimes its best to just look for the History:
Link was Sent to me from anothe Board Member
Hello,
If the varieties are going to be listed in the new Cherry Pickers Guide, there is a very good chance PCGS will start to recognize them through our variety attribution program. Until it is recognized by the publication though, PCGS will not attribute the variety. If you have any further questions, please let me know or you can call customer service at 1-800-447-8848.
Thank you,
Noah Varness
Customer Service "
No offense intended but it is very naive to take the word of any PCGS Customer Service Rep as gospel.
They do the best they can, but they are often a veritable fount of misinformation.
What Noah Varness said is simply what Noah Varness said. It is by no means "official" PCGS policy!
<< <i>
<< <i>It's not raining on a parade as much as it is not being invited to the parade until the CPG comes out which has been a well known issue for years.
I'm sure the Formative cent chasers would have loved to just have PCGS attribute their varieties in advance without having to wait 6 years+ for a new book to come out. There are plenty other examples as well, the 1919DDO for example went off to anacs as it was believed that they were the only ones that would label it. >>
I shouldn't even have to ask this question, because of how much gripin' is goin on about it.. But was it "believed" that PCGS wouldn't attribute the DDO merc? Or did someone actually make sure that they either would or wouldn't before making it an issue that they "wouldn't"?
I understand full well what you guys are saying here, but it seems to me that rather than having asked anyone to be sure, there were and are a bunch of assumptions being made about what would've, could've, or should've happened... >>
Given he fact that the Merc was a really cool doubled die, PCGS would not have had a problem attributing it simply with
1919 - Doubled Die Obverse
Like they have since the beginning of their operation. Specifically
PCGS would have certified the Merc AND Labeled it as a Doubled Die Obverse had you spoken with someone in charge. This merc is a really neat discovery and it doesn't take a 30x Scope to see the doubling.
Having the word "Discovery" on the Slab Label is not really as important as some might think.
Simply having it attributed as a DDO would have been good enough for the folks that actually KNOW a thing or two about Mercury Dimes.
This relentless reliance upon the Biblical Blessings of the CPG is just cattle following cattle. The CPG is NOT the Numismatic Bible regardless of the importance that PCGS puts on it. 10% of the time some of the attributions are incorrect anyway simple because this so-called Bible simply does not have enough information, photographically, to make an accurate attribution.
The name is LEE!
<< <i> The CPG is NOT the Numismatic Bible regardless of the importance that PCGS puts on it. 10% of the time some of the attributions are incorrect anyway simple because this so-called Bible simply does not have enough information, photographically, to make an accurate attribution. >>
Absolutely correct. But it does not change the fact that any given variety becomes instantly much more valuable when it is included in one of PCGS's Registry Sets.
And usually the inclusion of a new variety into the sets is preceeded by inclusion in the CPG.
For all the people who are crying about the way all this works, or that they don't like how some varieties have to wait, and others get the golden treatment and swim right through... Have you ever thought about what PCGS is and was created to do??? Now, not to say that they don't have an important role in the attribution of varieties, but they never started out with the intent to attribute varieties. Maybe the reason they have waited until the CPG published a new volume to attribute certain varieties was because THEY DIDNT KNOW WHAT THE OFFICIAL FS# WAS UNTIL IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE BOOK... In other words, how is PCGS going to attribute something as anything more specific than DDO, DDR, etc.. when nobody knows what the FS# would be? Now, for the whiners talking about why the lists aren't released, or why the CPG does this, doesn't do that, etc.. Why don't you go write your own book, and do it the way you prefer or think it should be done??? Nobody is stopping anyone from going and doing something in the exact "perfect" way they see fit!!! Oh, what? What is that you say? You would rather continue living life being reactive & lazy, complaining and whining about how this or that "should" be done versus becoming proactive and actually doing something about it? Here is what I think.... I think that the whole concept of the CPG was something that has contributed endlessly to this hobby. I cant even imagine all the work that many numismatists have spent a professional lifetime dedicated to building, creating, maintaining, and improving... and yet, you got folks out there crying about how "it aint fair" it all just makes me scratch my head. Write your own damn book, start your own grading company... Do something about it and make it the way you think it should be.
Also I could totally be wrong here, but the fact that my bugs bunny got attributed before the next edition of the CPG is released makes me think it has changed for the better. Seems to me like there has been some collaboration that has taken place, and major improvements made. Before PCGS wasn't concerned with making sure specific varieties were noted/attributed outside of general DDO/DDR's/ETC but as the market has grown, and the demand become more clear, they have taken steps to be proactive there, where they now work (to some degree anyways) with the people who assign the numbers that collectors get so hung up and googoo on.... Before it was simply a DDO until something like the CPG came out and assigned numbers to organize and categorize, giving them something more to call it (COULD THIS BE WHY THEY HAVE WAITED UNTIL AFTER CPG WAS PUBLISHED? WOW? SOUNDS CONFUSING). Whereas now, it is more of a, "oh look, a DDO, lets touch base with the variety guys and confirm identifying numbers and such. Seems to me like we are moving in the direction that those of you are crying about and yet..... you are still crying? How does that make any sense?
Or, maybe I am totally wrong, possibly crazy. Maybe I am a naïve, overthinking, overly positive, hopeless optimist.... Time will tell.
<< <i>Maybe the reason they have waited until the CPG published a new volume to attribute certain varieties was because THEY DIDNT KNOW WHAT THE OFFICIAL FS# WAS UNTIL IT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE BOOK... In other words, how is PCGS going to attribute something as anything more specific than DDO, DDR, etc.. when nobody knows what the FS# would be? . >>
Whelp, they did yours just fine, (except for the #).
You just made our Point! Thanks!
<< <i>
<< <i> The CPG is NOT the Numismatic Bible regardless of the importance that PCGS puts on it. 10% of the time some of the attributions are incorrect anyway simple because this so-called Bible simply does not have enough information, photographically, to make an accurate attribution. >>
Absolutely correct. But it does not change the fact that any given variety becomes instantly much more valuable when it is included in one of PCGS's Registry Sets.
And usually the inclusion of a new variety into the sets is preceeded by inclusion in the CPG. >>
Exactlty. And then it becomes worthless when its "dropped" from the CPG and ultimately from the registry because its no longer in the CPG.
And really, who's to say that the 1919 DDO Merc doesn't have value? If I had to guess, I guess that the 1919 DDO already has more value than the 1952 Bugs Bunny Proof. CPG or no CPG. Redbook or no Redbook.
Primarily because the folks that specialize in Mercury Dimes already "know" its importance and are probably already looking for their own.
I know that I'll be looking more closely at every Franklin Proof I encounter from now on..................
The name is LEE!
Hey guys, My name is Chris. I am the one who found and discovered the coin!
Thanks for the kind words everyone.
how unfortunate the holder doesn't have the first reported/discovery designation. ugh
.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>He got a PCGS attribution *before* the actual Publication of new CPG Vol. 6.!
That's the opposite of how it is suppose to be done according to the rules set by our host. >>
Can you show me where this rule exists? I've seen you state several times there's some sort of rule but unless it's written down and you can produce it then there's no basis for this statement. Regardless, if PCGS made the decision to change their mind on how they did business on this one coin then it must be because they believe it's a significant find. Be happy for a fella!! >>
http://www.pcgs.com/varietyfaq.html
Specifically:
Fivaz-Stanton Varieties from the Cherrypickers Guide, Fourth Edition Vol. II and Fifth Edition Vol. I (see list for exclusions)
Not sure the FS-503 is in the current versions (Certainly will be in the 6th edition), but just as with my 1919 DDO FS-101 Mercury Dime, I was told by the experts, as well as a few dozen PMs from folks who have also had discoveries in the past that...
A) PCGS won't annotate Discovery, or First Reported, or any such label
So, just as my DDO and this specific Year/Proof (FS-503) Bugs, since neither are in a published reference approved by PCGS, I would have thought neither would get certified as such.
It's just strange - even if PCGS would have done the FS-101 for my dime, I still wanted a Discovery (Or what ANACS called "First Reported) on the slab. A VF-20 in PCGS or ANACS probably won't have much of a price difference, but that little extra of being the first was more important for me, so I probably would have still went with ANACS.
A little consistency, or an official statement of what new discoveries (even with/without the "Discovery" text) that they will certify, and if they will do so, what letters/documentation they need - be it letters from Mr. Fivaz, or Mr. Wiles/CONECA, etc would be nice so we all knew, instead of relying on PMs and forum members past experiences.
It's all good though, still a great discovery, no matter how it got slabbed. >>
It's a "sticky" situation that is fraught with inconsistencies.
Back in 2009, I found a 1977-D Kennedy Half DDO. The coin was listed in the "Appendix" of the 4th Edition CPG Vol II yet PCGS would not attribute it as an FS-101.
The FS-101 attribution only came after the release of the 5th Edition CPG Vol II.
The name is LEE!
scuttlebutt is that it is going to gc for auction. has this happened/happening?
.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
It looks like this is not a hard fast rule that is written anywhere.......just assumed. There are different practices for different series. For instance when I asked BJ about additions to the Canadian Dime
variety set I was told that if it was in the Charlton Book on Canadian Coins ...... just send the coin in at get it attributed and they would give it a number and forward instructions to the Registry staff
and it would be added. I haven't done this yet, but plan to and see what happens.
On the Bugs Bunny Proof....CONGRATS! Very neat coin.
And in response to someone saying it's too late to add to the 6th Edition CPG for halves...........they are probably just now starting to work on Volume II.
<< <i>And in response to someone saying it's too late to add to the 6th Edition CPG for halves...........they are probably just now starting to work on Volume II. >>
Not true, work is about to start on Vol II but has not yet begun...in the next month+ is when the heavy work will start.
Series experts are certainly getting some ducks in a row right now though...
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
<< <i>I predict it will reach ~ $3000 >>
probably but based on this being unique and proof clashing of a widely sought-after "variety" and based on known sales results, in a pcgs aoh holder, this should easily be $10k+.
doubt these will come out of the woodwork like the b.s. counterpart, 2 feathers, tybe-b, superbird/re-engraved, etc.
now if it were to be a scenario where they would be expected to be found in cam and dcam, i could see the price holding low on pr66 and lower but i highly doubt that is going to be the case. good thing is, time will tell.
.
Presently; $1405
Neat discovery, I agree with Lance (paraphrase) that "Discovery Coin" should have been placed on the Slab Insert.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore, Nickpatton, Namvet69,...
<< <i>Sold for >$5K. >>
38.5xgrey(current)
not bad all-in.
if i come across this in the future, at this price range, if i have the cash, if the pops stay low, i'm burying it never to be found again!
.
RAD#306
BHNC #203
Congratulations, Chris, on an exciting discovery -- and welcome to the PCGS Forum! I predict that this event will cement your status as a life-long coin hobbyist.
I'll skip all the other stuff in this thread and echo what GeorgeKellogg said. Congratulations! Welcome! Very cool!