Options
1952 bugs bunny Franklin PROOF discovered. Will be in CPG Vol. 6
coindudeonebay
Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭
A friend ATS discovered apparently the first verified Bugs Proof. Here is a picture of the coin pre slab. This has been since verified and certified as such. See more details ATS.
0
Comments
sure is one disturbing looking variety...in my book
Has the List been made Public, apparently PCGS knows?
<< <i>PCGS received this coin directly from Bill Fivaz after verification that it was what it was. Fivaz gave the coin a number and let PCGS know what the number would be in the new CPG. I'm sure that's the norm on things like this. >>
That's funny, I was told PCGS only certified discovery coins AFTER they hit the publications. I sent the 1919 DDO Mercury Dime to ANACS to get labeled as such (ANACS reached out to me to certify it), although NGC also has recognized the variety already (via confirmation from Bill Fivaz assigning a CPG and CONECA assigning it that number as well).
Would be nice if PCGS had a page on the site for Discovery coins - procedures of who can submit them after who has verified them, what #'s you need, etc.
But.. congratulations on a very nice discovery!
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
<< <i>Would be nice if PCGS had a page on the site for Discovery coins - procedures of who can submit them after who has verified them, what #'s you need, etc.
But.. congratulations on a very nice discovery! >>
having found, viewed, traded, bought and sold many nice frank BS 401/402, this is amazing to see on a proof!.
.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS received this coin directly from Bill Fivaz after verification that it was what it was. Fivaz gave the coin a number and let PCGS know what the number would be in the new CPG. I'm sure that's the norm on things like this. >>
That's funny, I was told PCGS only certified discovery coins AFTER they hit the publications. I sent the 1919 DDO Mercury Dime to ANACS to get labeled as such (ANACS reached out to me to certify it), although NGC also has recognized the variety already (via confirmation from Bill Fivaz assigning a CPG and CONECA assigning it that number as well).
Would be nice if PCGS had a page on the site for Discovery coins - procedures of who can submit them after who has verified them, what #'s you need, etc.
But.. congratulations on a very nice discovery! >>
OK, that's nice, now what? How is it "Officially" recognized as a Die Variety? How many years will it take?
The 1952 Proof Bugs Bunny is but one Coin!
I don't know Bill to show him in time, so do I need to wait another 8 years for Volume 7 of the CPG to come out?
I am not trying to Hijack the thread, I am just stunned that the Coin Bid'ness has no true 'clearing' house or procedure.
<< <i>That's funny, I was told PCGS only certified discovery coins AFTER they hit the publications. >>
Yes. That has always been the norm.
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>
<< <i>That's funny, I was told PCGS only certified discovery coins AFTER they hit the publications. >>
Yes. That has always been the norm. >>
I can't tell you what the norm is, I just know how this one came about.
<< <i>Looks more vampire than bunny.
+1
Hey guys, My name is Chris. I am the one who found and discovered the coin! It all started for me when I read the CPG for the first time about 4 years ago or so. Shortly after I began reading it I made it goal of mine to make my own discovery that would be noteworthy enough to get someone excited, and have its own spot in the in the CPG. I never imagined it would happen in time to make it into the next volume.
I thought maybe a photo of the coin freshly slabbed would be a good addition to the thread.
For the talk about the process, and how to proceed when you discover a new variety... I am relatively new to the business, and really up until the time when I found this coin, all I had done was read the Cherry Pickers Guide. So, when I found it, the first thing I wanted to know was whether or not bugs bunnys were known to be on proofs... I was active on the coneca forum a while ago, so I went there and came across the contact info for James Wiles... I sent him an email the night I found the coin, basically telling him I found a bugs on a 52 proof, and just asking if it was they were known to be on proofs (I hadn't heard of it ever obviously). the email to James was very general, I wanted to know if it was known, and if it was something that would be worth talking about, or get anyone excited about.. Would it be noteworthy and command a premium, or just a fun conversation piece.
The next day, I got an email from Bill Fivaz, (I am not positive but I believe James must have forwarded him the email I sent him the night before). Bill wanted a photo... so I sent him a photo, the same one posted in this thread. Once he got the photo is when I got excited because I could sense Bill's excitement and I figure he has been through this about a million times with "new discoveries". Bill asked me to send the coin to him, he wanted to photograph it, write a short article about the discovery to send to coinworld, numismatic news, and errorscope. He then gave me the option of either having him submit the coin to PCGS, or send it back to me so I could submit... He said he would include his blessing, or whatever it is called when he attributes and assigns an FS#.. I am not sure what is included, because I just had him send it directly to PCGS, and they shipped it back to me.
The whole process was very fun, and I am blessed to have found it. I had never met Bill, nor did I know anything about him, or anything else about how to accomplish something like this. I simply sent out a couple emails inquiring and he got in touch with me and very kindly walked me through the process so to speak. He is a very down to earth, and awesome guy!
Thanks for the kind words everyone.
<< <i>
<< <i>PCGS received this coin directly from Bill Fivaz after verification that it was what it was. Fivaz gave the coin a number and let PCGS know what the number would be in the new CPG. I'm sure that's the norm on things like this. >>
That's funny, I was told PCGS only certified discovery coins AFTER they hit the publications. I sent the 1919 DDO Mercury Dime to ANACS to get labeled as such (ANACS reached out to me to certify it), although NGC also has recognized the variety already (via confirmation from Bill Fivaz assigning a CPG and CONECA assigning it that number as well).
Would be nice if PCGS had a page on the site for Discovery coins - procedures of who can submit them after who has verified them, what #'s you need, etc.
But.. congratulations on a very nice discovery! >>
That is what I have always understood as well, that it needs to be published in the CPG, or otherwise become known and also command a premium before the grading services will attribute it... I think the reason this was a little different is because the "bugs bunny" is already a published, very well known and somewhat popular variety.
<< <i> I think the reason this was a little different is because the "bugs bunny" is already a published, very well known and somewhat popular variety. >>
First off, welcome to the Forums!
I have to disagree with that last statement.
There are plenty of Bugs Bunny Varieties, but there is no logic that says yours should automatically get that FS-401 because there are other BB Varieties !
You got a a great break! You got the attribution because of Information from the guy who writes the book, who gave you some 'help' (Which is not a knock!)
What is seemingly off is that there are plenty of other recognized varieties that match your Bugs Bunny situation that DO NOT get attributed simply because they didn't time out to fit into next CPG edition!
There is a popular 1952 "Scarface" FS-402 in the Book right now and by your logic above, my (3) 1950 "Scarface" should also be attributed, as well! However, its too late, th 6th Edition is probably 'put to bed'
Alas, If I send it in, it will be rejected. I have to wait until the powers that be place it into the next 7th edition, say 5-7 years from now!
Because I am making a stink with this post, I have probably guaranteed it will never get in the Book.
<< <i>
<< <i> I think the reason this was a little different is because the "bugs bunny" is already a published, very well known and somewhat popular variety. >>
First off, welcome to the Forums!
I have to disagree with that last statement.
There are plenty of Bugs Bunny Varieties, but there is no logic that says yours should automatically get that FS-401 because there are other BB Varieties !
You got a a great break! You got the attribution because of Information from the guy who writes the book, who gave you some 'help' (Which is not a knock!)
What is seemingly off is that there are plenty of other recognized varieties that match your Bugs Bunny situation that DO NOT get attributed simply because they didn't time out to fit into next CPG edition!
There is a popular 1952 "Scarface" FS-402 in the Book right now and by your logic above, my (3) 1950 "Scarface" should also be attributed, as well! However, its too late, th 6th Edition is probably 'put to bed'
Alas, If I send it in, it will be rejected. I have to wait until the powers that be place it into the next 7th edition, say 5-7 years from now!
Because I am making a stink with this post, I have probably guaranteed it will never get in the Book.
Sounds to me like you have made some assumptions...
Maybe you should consider looking at this through a different perspective. First of all, if you have 3 of these scarface coins you are talking about, they are probably not all that hard to come by. I have noticed more 50's and 60's era coins with die cracks more extreme then the Franklin you posted a picture of than I could ever possibly count.... Literally just last night I noticed a 1967 Kennedy b.s. strike half with a die crack that goes from his forehead all the way to the back of his head, it is almost at the top of his head, from one end, all the way to the other.... just like well never mind.. They are not anything special majority of the time. Back to the bugs, After I got this coin attributed I asked Bill what the normal procedure is to having a new variety established and get assigned its own FS #, inclusion in the CPG, etc... The first thing he said was along the lines of said variety being worthy of a premium.... there were a few other things, but I think if you look at this logically, it would stand to reason that the conversation about your Franklins with minor die cracks would end there...
I am curious, did you pay a premium for your 3 1950 scarfaces? ( I hope not, and I doubt it
Bottom line is you are making pretty much no sense at all with your understanding of how all of this works... Luckily for you though, I don't think you will have to worry about it keeping your scarface Franklins from future CPG's...
On this 1952 Franklin being assigned a FS # and earning a spot in VOL 6 of the CPG, maybe it was because I discovered it right exactly at the perfect time... ? Maybe it is because a die clash on a proof from this era is exceedingly rare due to the blanks being hand loaded into the press and done all manually, by hand, by a mint worker... many dealers thought a clash like this on a proof to be impossible until this coin surfaced. It could also be that the clashing on this 1952 Franklin proof is as bold, extreme and noticeable as the bugs bunny that started all this bugs bunny nonsense in the first place the 1955 circulation strike "bugs bunny" Franklin (that part about it being as bold/extreme as the 55 bugs was straight from Bill Fivaz, those are his words)... Either way though, no matter what the reasons are for this one to make it into the CPG and get a label and your 3 scarfaces to come up short, its an awesome coin that I feel blessed to have been able to find. I look forward to my next discovery whether it makes it into the CPG or not....
<< <i>
<< <i> I think the reason this was a little different is because the "bugs bunny" is already a published, very well known and somewhat popular variety. >>
First off, welcome to the Forums!
I have to disagree with that last statement.
There are plenty of Bugs Bunny Varieties, but there is no logic that says yours should automatically get that FS-401 because there are other BB Varieties !
You got a a great break! You got the attribution because of Information from the guy who writes the book, who gave you some 'help' (Which is not a knock!)
What is seemingly off is that there are plenty of other recognized varieties that match your Bugs Bunny situation that DO NOT get attributed simply because they didn't time out to fit into next CPG edition!
There is a popular 1952 "Scarface" FS-402 in the Book right now and by your logic above, my (3) 1950 "Scarface" should also be attributed, as well! However, its too late, th 6th Edition is probably 'put to bed'
Alas, If I send it in, it will be rejected. I have to wait until the powers that be place it into the next 7th edition, say 5-7 years from now!
Because I am making a stink with this post, I have probably guaranteed it will never get in the Book.
I am sure this die crack with a "wart" on it will make it a shoe-in for the 1950 Scarfaces , someday..lol... I will just wait, accumulate and whine ;> !
1950 Scarface Die 1
How about we just get to discussing the "Elephant in the Living Room"?
You 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.
I'm sure it is a regrettable mistake.
But no doubt some folks have inside info of what's ahead for the new Varieties destined for a new official attribution, so why not just release a list of new varieties that have been selected to be in the new CPG Vol. 6?
Just say'n .........
<< <i>This a very significant discovery! I know it hasn't been long since it went public, but any reports of a second example? >>
I actually saw one today, someone sent me a link.
<< <i>Coinboy. As usual, you are making a lot of sense. Wondercoin >>
Thanks Mitch!
I just wish I could learn how to be a little less like a Bull in a China Shop
Since some Franklin experts are here, do you think it's strange that PCGS will recognize the 59 but not the 58-D? The varieties are practically identical.
<< <i>Any word on if the 58-D Goiter will be in the next CPG? I've found a handful of those, but even more of the 59 that was added to the last CPG (one was cert'd PCGS MS65).
Since some Franklin experts are here, do you think it's strange that PCGS will recognize the 59 but not the 58-D? The varieties are practically identical. >>
Glad to hear you found some! I've been hunting for that coin in the raw for over a year!
By all accounts that should be in the new Book..........but we won't know until....we know...
.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
<< <i>
<< <i>Any word on if the 58-D Goiter will be in the next CPG? I've found a handful of those, but even more of the 59 that was added to the last CPG (one was cert'd PCGS MS65).
Since some Franklin experts are here, do you think it's strange that PCGS will recognize the 59 but not the 58-D? The varieties are practically identical. >>
Glad to hear you found some! I've been hunting for that coin in the raw for over a year!
By all accounts that should be in the new Book..........but we won't know until....we know...
. >>
Keep looking because they're definitely out there. I found a raw one in MS at a Long Beach Expo a couple of years ago. The dealer saw the die break but dismissed it as a "minor mint error". Sold that coin for a tidy profit at the show that same day.
In my experience the 58-D is much rarer than the 59; all the more reason it should be added to the CPG.
cert - max
.
<< <i>.
cert - max
. >>
"PCGS Price Guide Value: $750"?
Why do I feel like the real value is closer to 10x that?
<< <i>.
cert - max
. >>
"PCGS Price Guide Value: $750"?
Why do I feel like the real value is closer to 10x that?
<< <i>Cool coin! As far as coinboy trying to rain on his party, just do this............................ >>
You just don't get it, do you?
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.
coinboy,
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>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!!
<< <i>
<< <i>That's funny, I was told PCGS only certified discovery coins AFTER they hit the publications. >>
Yes. That has always been the norm. >>
News Flash!
PCGS does not slab coins as "Discovery Coins"
PCGS has been attributing Frankie's as Bugs Bunny FS-401 since around 2009.
Doesn't matter what year or manufacturing process, it's still an FS-401.
As for the coin itself, I cannot help but wonder if this is the result of a clashed
Business strike die, getting some how mixed up with dies intended for proof die
Processing? How else could a clash have occurred since the coins were hand fed into the
Presses which would eliminate the possibility of a mechanical mis-feed?
The name is LEE!
<< <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.
"You Suck Award" - February, 2015
Discoverer of 1919 Mercury Dime DDO - FS-101
Both of us are very happy for Chris!!
I think Chris should be recognized in every Coin publication there is! Why Not!?
Like Strikeoutxxx, I have been attempting to just point out (to anyone that cares) what rules (made by PCGS) are "in place" for any new variety attribution of an old coin.
The issue has NOTHING to do with Chris's BB Discovery! Jeez!
Unlike what Chris experienced, StrikeoutXXX **experienced ** what it normally takes in getting a coin like the 1909 DDO attributed in a manner that 99.99% of all 'Discovery' owners are forced to operate under when seeking a new attribution of a new variety of an old coin!
This process of being forced to go thru the CPG for a PCGS recognition is almost primeval !
A coin can't be recognized as being of a new variety and assigned a PCGS number until it gets in the CPG Book? That's absurd to me!I personally don't believe that PCGS should rely upon decisions found in a Book that gets updated every 6-8 years! PCGS has some pretty good coin experts working there that know how to do coin varieties, too!
I have no problem in forgoing a "Discovery Coin" label. Being recognized as the discover is up to the Coin industry newspapers and magazines, not a TPG service.
Remember a few years ago when PCGS didn't follow the CPG? Didn't PCGS create a variety recognition with the 2008 W w/ 2007 Reverse Silver Eagle without a CPG blessing?
Maybe its because the ultra-low volume of these types of discovery coins force the new variety recognition issue of old coins thru the CPG Book?
Perhaps, but I still think PCGS needs to take the leadership in new variety recognition.
Right now, the current process for the 'official' recognition of new varieties of old coins has become an "insider only game" . We regular folks are fustrated, it gets old trying to figure what will be selected for inclusion in a Book during the intervening years all based on what the CPG authors decide? They also decide what gets removed, too !!??
I personally believe that the insiders-only perception to this process is **real** and it is in practice. I am sure this process was not developed or intended to grow into this reality, but the unintended consequences of insider-only knowledge having the advantage of the future is what is actually happening and that only hurts the Hobby.
Just MHO ! ..
<< <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 should not be slabbed as FS-503 since the 5xx numbers are reserved for mintmarks.
It should have been slabbed as FS-403 which is what the Post ATS related that Bill Fivaz stated.
I'm a little surprised that any FS number was used other than FS-401.
The name is LEE!
So should they wait for the CPG Book Vol. 6 to publish to see what Bill Fivaz wrote down, to get it right for sure?
<< <i>
<< <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 should not be slabbed as FS-503 since the 5xx numbers are reserved for mintmarks.
It should have been slabbed as FS-403 which is what the Post ATS related that Bill Fivaz stated.
I'm a little surprised that any FS number was used other than FS-401. >>
Its funny, I never would have noticed had you not pointed it out.... I cant imagine it being anything other than a misstep.
About the 401 however, I do know that the reason it isn't a FS401, or an FS402, is because they already exist for a 1952 Franklin... the number doesn't distinguish from proof or business strike, so with two 1952 Franklins in front of it, it had to be 403.... which somehow gets us a 503... I couldn't quite care much less what the FS # was, or is... I just wanted the "bugs bunny" on the holder
Thanks for pointing this out.
<< <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...