Should these Doubled Die Buffalos be listed in CPG?

OnWithTheHunt · February 9, 2013 7:06AM

Of course, I think they should, because they're mine. But seriously, only the first one is included in the Cherrypickers Guide, so I've included it for comparison. The others are recognized by other reference books and many specialists in the series. I'm wondering what people here think.

This one is listed in CPG as DDO-1, PCGS-65, (Unattributed on holder)

DDO-2, Old ANACS 64, (Unlisted)

DDO-4 PCGS-65, (Unlisted)

DDO-6 PCGS-65, (Unlisted)

]

DDO-6, PCGS-66 (Unlisted)

DDO-7, PCGS-65, (Unlisted)

crypto79 · February 9, 2013 7:18AM

Don't look very meaningful to my eyes but don't let a book decide what has a place in your collection. I see a lot of people think that if only variety X was listed it would take off but that is rarely the case, a coin get added to the books because it is dramatic and popular and not the other way around. Coins that aren't dramatic and popular very rarely become so because more people become more aware of how undramatic they are.

keyman64 · February 9, 2013 7:23AM

I'm gonna say no and this is coming from a Mercury Dime Variety collector where some things are really ridiculous.

Manorcourtman · February 9, 2013 8:28AM

What you we supposed to see here? Doubled eye lid?

OnWithTheHunt · February 9, 2013 9:03AM

<< <i>What you we supposed to see here? Doubled eye lid? >>

Doubled eyelids on all of them. Doubling inside the nostril on DDO-2, and along the bottom of the longest feather on #4, 6 and 7. Also there is doubling in the forehead/ brow of #6.

LanceNewmanOCC · February 9, 2013 9:22AM

.
how about a feisty post?

i say yes, lets list every possible and rumored variety from 1492-current into some books/volumes sold all together for $2,000.00

only one person i've heard of that thought they could tackle such a herculean task, not that they came within 50% of such a task but certainly closer than anyone else

then maybe have annual supplements
.

howards · February 9, 2013 9:29AM

No, CPG is the wrong publication for listing every variety in a series. It's a publication that gets you interested in consulting other publications dedicated to a single series if you want that sort of detailed information.

For example, if CPG were to start listing all of the shield nickel varieties I've documented, it would quickly turn into a shield nickel book.

cmerlo1 · February 9, 2013 10:01AM

No.

mkman123 · February 9, 2013 12:25PM

I say if we can't see doubling with the naked eye, its not a big deal. Having to use a microscope to see something is ridiculous.

Unknown · February 9, 2013 12:37PM

This content has been removed.

kookoox10 · February 9, 2013 2:18PM

I can appreciate your excitement and drive to get coins such as these added to CPG. However, just like in the most current edition, if a variety is deemed insignificant or has a low interest factor, those become removed out of the next revision of the CPG anyways. I see these as being the case, I just don't see the allure with these particular DDOs.

koynekwest · February 9, 2013 3:00PM

Die #6-#4 above-can easily be seen with the naked eye-it's stronger than Die #1 and, IMO, it merits a listing in the CPG.

19Lyds · February 9, 2013 10:08PM

All I can answer the original question with is: WHY?

oldsubguru · February 10, 2013 1:19AM

The one thing that should be listed in the CPG are some coins with the anomaly called trails. While it is a recognized die variety, there is not one listing in any of the CPG's pages. Presently, there are over 1500 listings, from 1869 to the present on every modern denomination (earliest U S A coins are two 1921-S Morgans).

SullivanNumismatics · February 10, 2013 2:39AM

I don't think they should. They're are too many of them and (more importantly) they're too minor. Actually, I think that probably 20% of the varieties in the CPG are too minor, at least compared to the many MUCH nicer doubled dies, RPMs, etc which are not in the guide.

tahoe98 · February 11, 2013 2:51AM

I say if we can't see doubling with the naked eye, its not a big deal. Having to use a microscope to see something is ridiculous.

...ummm, yeah but what about those of us that are "sight" challenged and need such a tool just to see the date much less doubling! shouldn't we be exempt from your assessment?

19Lyds · February 11, 2013 3:12AM

Far too much emphasis is placed on a coin variety appearing in the CPG.

For verifiable varieties, it should not matter whether it is in the CPG or NOT primarily because there are literally jillion upon jillions of varieties for each and every coin series. Those folks that seek these varieties out do not need the CPG to guide their search efforts.

The only "plus" for having a variety listed in the CPG, is the hopes that PCGS or NGC will correctly attribute the variety and then "hopefully" include it as a required coin in a Complete Variety Set. The "hope" here is that somehow this will create a demand for the specific variety and as such increase resale prices and possibly interest in the series.

The reality is that not all varieties are good candidates for the CPG which is intended as a guide for newbies to give them something to look for.

Dedicated Variety Collectors already have a guide to follow on the CONECA Pages. Whether or not the CPG includes the coin should not matter since those folks that know about the variety have already established their prices on the coins worth.

Personally, I'd much rather pay CONECA to attribute the Variety for $5 - $7 instead of PCGS attributing it for $40. I mean, I know what the coin is and I pretty much know who might be interested in the coin. The CONECA attribution letter should be good enough for any variety collector to want to buy and add the coin to their personal "Complete Variety Sets".

IMO, the OP's coins are fairly minor not to mention the fact that this particular "type" of doubling is already listed in the CPG.

coolkarma · February 12, 2013 12:24PM

Those are some lovely buffaloes! And nice images!

I agree that naked eye visible should be an important factor both in which varieties one chooses to collect and which are included in the CPG. For that reason I do collect these varieties (I have all except ddo-4) and I believe at least ddo-6 should be included in the CPG. When you know which features to look for, all these are naked eye visible and most are at least as visible as ddo-1 which is included in the CPG. They also are much more visible than several of the other varieties included in the CPG (e.g., 1915-s rpm-1 and rpm-2, 1929 ddo for buffaloes).

Of course, which varieties are included in the CPG ultimately is up to Fivaz and Stanton.

Enjoy!

MsMorrisine · February 12, 2013 1:45PM

<< <i>The only "plus" for having a variety listed in the CPG, is the hopes that PCGS or NGC will correctly attribute the variety and then "hopefully" include it as a required coin in a Complete Variety Set. The "hope" here is that somehow this will create a demand for the specific variety and as such increase resale prices and possibly interest in the series.
>>

can of worms opened.

as pointed out some of the doubling on the "others" listed is more profound than the one in the CPG.

Throw in that label/variety recognition for a TPG and for Reg. Sets is a plus, and you have the set-up for questioning what goes into the CPG and what should or shouldn't be changed.

This type of questioning has been going on for a while now.

joeykoins · February 13, 2013 1:18AM

I agree with past posts,If not worthy of the CPG, it certainly ignites the interest of us that follow the buffs. What you have there can be a great find in the future but for now ,Congrats.on the find in the present.Pretty cool,I think,thanks for showing.Now,I'm gonna go through my buffs,all because of you!

-joey

koynekwest · February 13, 2013 3:10PM

The only advantage Die #1 has is that it shows hub doubling on the date. Also, early die states will show doubling on "LIBERTY" as well. Several of the other dies show stronger doubling on the eye that does Die #1. I believe there are 13 total DDOs for the date. The CPG currently lists three DDRs for the date. There are at least that many worthy DDOs in my opinion that should also be listed.

Should these Doubled Die Buffalos be listed in CPG?

Comments

Leave a Comment