Which of These Is Really 1964-D FS-108 DDO?

BustHalfBrian · October 25, 2014 11:37AM

If you go to 1964-D FS-108 in PCGS CoinFacts, blow up some of the plate coin images, and compare them with one another, you'll notice that PCGS has certified two obviously different DDO's as the FS-108.

Here's the first example. This coin shows very subtle doubling only on WE TRUST. This piece is certified by PCGS as MS65 and attributed as FS-108.

Here's a second example from PCGS CoinFacts, certified as MS62 labeled FS-108. This coin shows much stronger doubling on WE TRUST, as well as IN GOD, the date, and portions of Kennedy's hair. For me, the thing that stands out the most is the splitting at the top of 6 vs the coin above.

These two coins below are mine...

This one is certified PCGS and labeled as FS-108. It appears to be the same variety as the first CoinFacts coin above. Note the absence of doubling in GOD.

I found this coin today. It is consistent with the second CoinFacts FS-108 I posted above. The serif at left-base of D in GOD is split on this one. Also notice the separation in each horizontal bar on E in WE compared to the above coin.

So, we clearly have two different DDO's here. The CPG says that FS-108 has doubling at IN GOD and the hair, which is only present on the second coin. So my question is, which of these is really FS-108? I would assume that the second, more dramatic DDO is FS-108 while the first one is a "Minor Variety" that PCGS took a submitter's word on that it was FS-108, however this wouldn't explain the multiple examples in CoinFacts misattributed by PCGS unless even PCGS doesn't know how to tell the two apart.

I'm hoping somebody here can clear this up.

lasvegasteddy · October 25, 2014 11:56AM

the bottom of that "T & R" in trust seems to be a strong pick up point

i get lost as didn't they have ddo-tdo and qdo...probably a 5th to be discovered

the 1st image is probablyy a tdo where as the 2nd is a ddo...wrong designation...probably a good catch too

i can't clear this issue up...someone will chime in.....as they just never caught my attention enough

TwoSides2aCoin · October 25, 2014 2:06PM

My theories have been shot down. The more I try to clear up things , the more mucked up they get.

mcgrover · October 25, 2014 3:41PM

These ddo and tdo for '64D have always confused me. In the old Cherrypicker's (disregarding the proof), they listed one ddo and 2 tdo with a "slight difference" between the 2 tdo, with the PUP being the top of the U. It has become clear that there are more varieties then just 3. I have more myself, and I never knew how to attribute them. I always thought that if I submitted them for slabbing that PCGS would accurately and reliably give them the correct FS #. It sounds like #108 is a Catch-all for the various varieties, but is this how it works? The early CPicker had the ddo as FS013.4 and the 2 tdo as 012 and 013. I have noted to myself that the respective #s are now FS101, 103, and 105. Someone (not the OP) posted here dozens of varieties and die states for the '64Ds which showed me how really mucked up this whole series is. Some clearly have LIBERTY doubled which leaves me with some questions: who decides what numbers go with what coins? what is the basis for changing existing #s, and does it matter much? It seems like all the die varieties are all worth about the same, with no keys from what I can tell, and gem varieties seem to fall in the $75 -$95 range - on the border of slab-worthiness if the slabs cannot be relied on for clear attribution. I could use some clarity clearly. For what it's worth.

georgiacop50 · October 25, 2014 11:44PM

I can think of several PCGS Franklin Varieties that PCGS misattributes in a similar manner, so this does not surprise me at all.

The surest way to get an answer to your question would be through James Wiles.

Which of These Is Really 1964-D FS-108 DDO?

Comments

Leave a Comment