Should PCGS list coins in registries by chronological order?

WingedLiberty1957

Last week PCGS made a change to the Lincoln Cent registries that I am having a hard time understanding.

Previously (and for the past 10 years), the 1909 VDB was listed first ... then the 1909 plain was listed second. This made total sense to me since the VDB was the early year coin -- and then it was replaced by the 1909 plain.

Last week they switched the order so now the 1909 plain is listed first, and the 1909 VDB is listed second. Now it just looks funny to me! I guess I am so already jazzed up by the rest of the ordering which is always by date (time) .... 1910 ... then 1911 ... then 1912 ... etc.

I wonder why PCGS decided to switch the order?



I did a little more investigating and found that PCGS did get it right on the 1936 Satin Proof Lincoln, which was minted first ... and then followed that with the 1936 Brilliant Proof which was minted later in the year. So that is still right in the Registries. PCGS lists 1936 Satin Proof first, then 1936 Brilliant Proof second (so it's not an alphabetical thing). They got that right at least ... YAY!




However they also got the ordering wrong on the 1960 Small Date vs 1960 Large Date. In reality the Small Date was minted early in the year, followed by the Large Date which replaced it later in the year. It just looks funny to me (ok well to me it just looks wrong) when PCGS Lists 1960 Large Date first ... then after that 1960 Small Date.



Should PCGS try to make and effort to maintain some semblance of proper chronology when that is well known? I realize that for some varieties they might not know the correct order. But these Lincoln varieties are well known!


It just looks odd to me to pull up a Lincoln Matte Proof Registry set and see the 1909 plain listed first and the 1909 VDB listed second. It would also bother me if they listed the 1910 first and then the 1909! I guess I like seeing things listed in the Registries in the order they were minted (as much as possible, when that info is well known at least).

I do realize this is minutia ... but these little details would be nice to get right ... esp since PCGS is the premier coin grading service in the world. Why not make an effort to get the little details right.

Why it was switched (changed) last week ... I dont know.

Just curious what you all think. (I KNOW ... small potatoes ... LOL)

Maybe things like this only bother us Obsessive Compulsives!

oih82w8

Alpha - numerically the 1909 would come before the 1909 VDB. Historically, the VDB came first. Something to do with the program?

WingedLiberty1957

if it was alpha numeric ... I would think that 1936 BRILLIANT (B) .... would get listed before 1936 SATIN (S)

But somehow they overrode that to make the order correct for that year.

Not sure what happened with the other 2 dates 1909 and 1960.

MonsterCoinz

They have been making lots of changes recently. I would say upgrades but that implies improvement.



Their Cert Verification is in constant flux, the forum is not without issues every update and now some (unnecessary) re-ordering of Registry items. Maybe, just maybe, these new changes indicate the possibility they will introduce BN proof Lincolns into CoinFacts. Miracles do happen..

lasvegasteddy

strange stuff going on anymore

at least they didn't change the coin #'s on us to correlate to registry jockey of positions there

DIMEMAN

OMG! I thought I had OCD bad. Guess not....this wouldn't bother me at all. Probably wouldn't have even noticed the difference.

lkeigwin

Why not write to BJ Searls or to setregistry@pcgs.com and ask?



Every time I've written to Ron Guth about Coinfacts issues he's corrected them and replied with thanks.

Lance.

robec

They should be listed in the correct order of being minted. They do it correctly with the two type buffalo nickels, the V no cent, V with cent nickels, and the 1917 Standing Lib quarters.



Otherwise they may as well list a 1911 before 1910.



BTW, the 1964 Accented Hair Kennedy must have been minted after the non AC version. At least according to the coin number and the way it is listed.

keyman64

I also second the notification of contacting BJ. Whenever I have reached out to Ron, I never got a response so try BJ first and let us know the response.

TopographicOceans

They are sorted by the PCGS Number.

WingedLiberty1957

Originally posted by: TopographicOceans
They are sorted by the PCGS Number.

If your statement (quoted above) was actually true ...
then the 1909 VDB (which has a PCGS Number of 3300 to 3302) would be listed first ...
and the 1909 plain (which has a PCGS Number of 3303 to 3305) would be listed second.

However just the opposite is true.

Steve

Paul, as a long time watcher of the PCGS population and price guides for Lincoln cents, I can tell you for a fact that the 1909 Lincoln replaced the 1909VDB Lincoln in the lead position two or three YEARS ago. Why this happened I have no idea. Of course it is wrong. The listing should be based on the order the coin was made. My guess is that the computer folks at PCGS drive the decisions. The original Lincoln cent PROOF numbers started with "3300", then 3301, then 3302, then 3303, etc. It was intended to allow three numbers for BN, RB, RD and then repeat so that 3302 was the 1909VDB red proof and 3303 was the 1909 plain brown proof. That sequence was even used for newly minted Lincolns by adding an "83" to the lead for cameo proofs and "93" for DCAMS after 1971. All was very logical until 2006 when a whole change was made for new PCGS numbers. Of course, MY biggest complaint was the decision to put the Lincoln cent reverse (shield) on the front of the PCGS slab starting in 2010 and continuing to this day. ANY Lincoln cent collector would want his collection to show the obverse (with the date) on the FRONT of the PCGS slab. I was never able to convince management about that. Steve

ricko

I find it amazing that such a minor point can become an issue...guess I am not afflicted with OCD...Cheers, RickO

keyman64

Any response from BJ?