1863 IHC in PCGS MS66+ ... Is it a POP 20/0??
DMWJR
Posts: 6,042 ✭✭✭✭✭
I think the pop hung around 3 or so until around a year ago and then one day, low and behold, the pop was 17/0. Now it is at 20/0. I've only seen two come up for sale in the last 2 1/2 years.
But if you look at Coinfacts ... you will see 6 of them that are the same coin in 66+. I have to give credit to whomever is cracking it out every time and submitting raw. This one could lose the plus IMO. But, shame on them for not turning in the certs.
Someone is trying hard to make a 67, but IMO, this is not the coin that should go in a 7 holder. For identification below, look at the spot on the first feather, an the one in the center of the O on the reverse.
Currently on Coinfacts - all different certs:
Doug
3
Comments
Wow... that is a shame... Collectors really should mail in the certs. The population numbers are certainly messed up because of this.... Cheers, RickO
...and they are (or should be) lowering the value of the 66+.
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,...
Obviously it's a 66+ and not 67 after this many tries.
My YouTube Channel
Is it poor form to criticize the coin before it grades a 7 and goes to auction as a pop 1? LOL
Remember this thread when you see it in a 67 holder.
CoinFacts is full of similar examles, and it always nice to iknow the original grade. But anyone should be able to bring this to the attention of PCGS to initiate a change in POP? Has anyone on here ever pointed out such duplicate entries to PCGS or to NGC?
If it wasn't funny, it would be funny...
Smitten with DBLCs.
Nice strike for an 1863.
There are quite a few (I counted seven, based on the spot on the first feather in the headdress, and the spot in the O of ONE on the reverse.) of this SAME coin TrueViews which would almost assure that it has a record of the images which will entail the same grade MS66+ for future Gold Shield submissions. If it was sent it a regular, non-Secure Plus / Gold Shield submission...it may garner that MS67.
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,...
knowledge such as this is valuable to the educated collector. knowing the extreme population inflation gives the informed collector the ability to bid smarter than the uninformed when such coins come up for auction.
PCGS CS has informed me that unless an old certification number is turned in, they will not change the present pop numbers. Apparently no matter how obvious it is.
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,...
Crackouts impacting pops has been part of the deal for a long time.
Nice coin. I love IHC's, and I'd love to see it in hand, but the photos don't scream "superb" to me.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I love the fact that in a sense, the person that keeps resubmitting and not turning in the old certs is devaluing their own coin. What I don't love is that their greed and self-centered thinking is devaluing the other coins that others own as well.
But based on current pop levels and at least you should be safe that they would only be lower if they ever fix it.
My guess is there are about 6, but a number of more worthy 66’s. I don’t want to see this one in a seven holder. I’ve seen three 66+ coins better.
In 6 months, someone will tell the owner: "Here's why you never give up".
Maybe that is part of the strategy. Inflate the the under pop so they will let one escape to the next level.
When the under pop was single digits, the finalizer should be more careful on deciding which coin is going to be the first 67.
When the under pop is 20, they probably are more inclined to give out a 67 figuring that others will also get the bump in the future. The submitter would then send in all of the certs to get the under pop reduced and make the lone 67 appear to have less future competition.
If they don't return the certs, the crack out crowd will be leaving an audit trail of their many attempts since Trueviews are now done for all coins submitted at Express level or above.
The other side of that is perhaps he wants inflated POPs so he can buy the others cheaper!
A smart up-grader would turn in all those old 66/66+ certs before marketing the coin as a 67. It would only make their coin more valuable....and hide the tracks.
I know this has been going on forever and a day. It's also a way to sit on the price of the undergrade until you find the one that is deserving. 1863 is a very difficult year to find this nice. The current coin is very nice, my only points were that I don't think this is the one that needs to go in a 7 holder, and I think this new process of PCGS photographing the coins and cycling them through coinfacts is bringing it out in the light. My plaintiff cry is "please do not make this the 67 for this date." I won't buy it. It's like to just get on the auction treadmill with so many others.
I have heard of another year in a different series where an upgrader is sitting on a pile of 20 or so certs, when there are really only a handful of them keeping the price down while he finds the one he can make in the next grade up.
I can't tell about the color of this 66 because I haven't seen it in hand that I recall, but looks to be very nice (little weak on the tips):
Also look at this "lowly" 65:
(Disclaimer: I own none of the coins discussed in this thread)
I believe that could be a possibility, but the person doing the submitting believes for what ever reason that their cent is a 67 and they know that they will profit greatly by getting it in a 67 holder.
IMO the coin in question should not have any spots on it to merit a 67 grade and I believe that is why PCGS has not given it better than a 66+. For that matter I don't even like it as a 66+ because of those spots and would never buy it for even good 65 money.
If the coin in question got in a 67 holder and was offered at auction, would you buy it ?
I certainly would not buy it. The coin would certainly not sticker as a 67
To give you an example of an over graded example of a pop 1, look at the 1909 s s/s horizontal
graded Ms 67 red in the recent ESM auction. He paid $ 50,000 for the coin. It did not sticker
and the coins return was only $24,000 all in .
The old adage of seek and yeh shall find is so true however what you find may not be what you seek.
The solution is a top-pop photo census rated by the coins, not the holder they are in.
I'm curious what this means, Stewart. Interesting thread.
If we keep going down this road, we will have a pretty good census like the EAC'ers do, or like the currency people who have the serial numbers to keep them identifiable.
And no ... If this coin shows up in a 67 holder, I will not bid on it.
This means one should not pay a premium for a maxed out or over graded coin no matter
What the grade on the holder says. A collection is a reflection of the person who has assembled it as well as the advice and help from the professionals who aided the collector.