@DCW said:
I once submitted some varieties, and my 1980 Lincoln cent DDO posted without the attribution. It just listed the grade, MS65RD. But, when the package arrived it was correctly attributed on the label.
Are you sure that this hasn't happened here?
Maybe your coins will show up with variety attribution, and it was just the data that was incorrectly posted on your submission page.
I hear you, and that has happened to me once before IIRC, but not the case here. CS rep told me that he spoke with the grading manager and that the manager stated that they did re-examine the coins FOR THE RPM and did not feel it was a match for the FS-501 photos they keep in-house.
When I receive the coins back I will take some photos and post them.
Dimeman has an FS-501 that I sent to PCGS a couple of months ago that is from the same die, perhaps he can get a photo of that coin and post it for comparison?
Ok, here is a pic of the mm on one of the coins that did not attribute. Unfortunately, the pics of this variety on VarietyVista do not show the rpm well at all, so the only readily available pic for comparison is the example on CoinFacts.
Also, the pic in the CPG itself is not so great either.
@Dimeman, can you post pic of your PCGS attributed example?
To further muck up the waters, the CPG erroneously refers to the variety as one of the strongest RPMs in the series. That is laughable, because in reality it is a VERY subtle RPM and THAT is what accounts for the very low population. There was only a single mint state example graded at PCGS and none at NGC until I set about hunting for them.
There are distinctive markers on these that are foolproof identifiers, but rather than reveal these, I have sent one of the coins that PCGS repeatedly failed to attribute to a CONECA attributor for confirmation. Once I get Coneca's blessing I will be sending the coins back to PCGS along with a copy of the Coneca attribution.
@georgiacop50 said:
Ok, here is a pic of the mm on one of the coins that did not attribute. Unfortunately, the pics of this variety on VarietyVista do not show the rpm well at all, so the only readily available pic for comparison is the example on CoinFacts.
Also, the pic in the CPG itself is not so great either.
@Dimeman, can you post pic of your PCGS attributed example?
To further muck up the waters, the CPG erroneously refers to the variety as one of the strongest RPMs in the series. That is laughable, because in reality it is a VERY subtle RPM and THAT is what accounts for the very low population. There was only a single mint state example graded at PCGS and none at NGC until I set about hunting for them.
There are distinctive markers on these that are foolproof identifiers, but rather than reveal these, I have sent one of the coins that PCGS repeatedly failed to attribute to a CONECA attributor for confirmation. Once I get Coneca's blessing I will be sending the coins back to PCGS along with a copy of the Coneca attribution.
With all due respects to the OP and variety collectors/variety specialists EVERYWHERE! **I love varieties and the knowledgeable numismatists who collect them." ** I have a chance to verify them all day long using my stereo microscope. The image above (although fussy) is similar to the view I should see if I cranked up the power. However, microscopes are uncommon at the TPGS's. Every grader does not have one!
ALL THAT SAID - Consider this: IMHO, this fly-speck, micro numismatics," crap should be relegated to the group of collectors who drool over the excitement of finding something so small you need high-power magnification to see!
You have specialists to seek out for confirmation.
IMO, You folks are extremely lucky that a coin as this is even considered for a slab. The solution is for the top two TPGS's is to state that "we reserve the right to refuse to slab anything..." Decades ago, coins as this were not recognized by PCGS and NGC. By attempting to include all varieties as the second tier services do a huge can of worms represented by the problems of the OP was opened.
I've changed my original opinion about this thread. I now side with PCGS and against the OP in the case of this coin. I feel the TPGS has done more than enough to satisfy the OP. If I were still at NGC or PCGS, I'd send the coin back as something we don't do! That is final no matter how many markers on the coin that CONECA shows.
This is the problem that most variety collectors ignore. Putting this coin in a holder as RPM#324.26 (using 100X magnification ) places a value on this coin far above the value of a normal BU. In which case, somewhere down the road, there is the possibility that an ignorant collector will get "screwed!"
As I've written before, decades ago, although some DDO coins of the same date with several different "spreads" exist, the major TPGS's would ONLY recognize the major variety due to the price drop for the other varieties. We are lucky today that a coin as this can be sent in.
Anyway, I hope it works out for the OP.
PS My hat goes off to anyone in the country that could catch this coin while grading hundreds of coins a day in a grading room.
But Insider2 you are ignoring the fact that PCGS has ALREADY attributed 4 of these coins I submitted in the last few months! They all look exactly like that.
That is a big percentage of my beef: INCONSISTENCY
You can not attribute them one day and then turn around the next day and refuse to attribute an identical coin and still maintain credibility.
And yes, I agree that this is a micro variety and never warranted inclusion in the CPG in the first place. But it was published, and once that happens "it is out there". Go to the Coinfacts image and have a look... do you see a clearly defined RPM? NO
Blame it on good old Joe Ridzy… he discovered the damn things!
If PCGS wants to exclude certain CPG varieties from their attribution program (as NGC does) that is OK with me. But I am afraid it is too late for that.
To me it doesn't matter how micro or how late the die state is.....if it is the variety.....IT IS!!! And once the variety has been added to the PCGS Registry sets it should NEVER and I mean NEVER be taken out. Collectors are out there spending time and money on these varieties and it would not be fair to take out a variety once it is "IN" just because it is minor or LDS!!
@georgiacop50 said: But Insider2 you are ignoring the fact that PCGS has ALREADY attributed 4 of these coins I submitted in the last few months! They all look exactly like that.
That is a big percentage of my beef: INCONSISTENCY
You can not attribute them one day and then turn around the next day and refuse to attribute an identical coin and still maintain credibility.
And yes, I agree that this is a micro variety and never warranted inclusion in the CPG in the first place. But it was published, and once that happens "it is out there". Go to the Coinfacts image and have a look... do you see a clearly defined RPM? NO
Blame it on good old Joe Ridzy… he discovered the damn things!
If PCGS wants to exclude certain CPG varieties from their attribution program (as NGC does) that is OK with me. But I am afraid it is too late for that.
LOL, then I'm back on your side...JUST THIS ONCE. However, in my personal opinion it is a "nothing-burger."
Have you compared the position of the mintmark on your coin with the one on Variety Vista? If you look at the left side of the D in relation to the space between 'ER' in 'QUARTER', yours looks further to the right than the Variety Vista example.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
The mm position of the coin featured on Vista does not appear to match the pic in the CPG nor any of the five mint state examples PCGS has certified as FS-501. So will the REAL FS-501 please stand up?
Does anybody in Chicagoland know if Joe Ridzy still has a coin shop open there?
I may be nit-picking here, but...the two examples on CoinFacts show two different markers, other than the original PUP, being the mint Mark. The AU53 image has, what appears to be, a Misplaced Letter (Mint Mark?) where the black arrow is pointing upward towards.
The MS65 does not, it may be the lighting for all I know. Curious to compare yours ( @georgiacop50 )to these images.
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
Just spoke with Joe Ridzy and he is going to check out this thread but may have to wait for join/approval before he can post to it.
He said his discovery coin was most likely circulated from a bag and that it was a LONG time ago, and that maybe the AU53 example on CoinFacts is the discovery coin... maybe.
@georgiacop50 said:
I know for fact that your coin Jon is a match to the MS65 on CoinFacts.
Here is the best I can get on my dyno-lite. It matches the pic in the CPG down to the machine doubling and the spec up North under the stem. Although mine has something inside the mm that does not show on the CPG pic.
The AU coin at first just looked like a EDS of the variety with the complete arch across the top of the "D". But the MM position is different and the "extra" above in the stem makes me think that this is a different variety. This is interesting.
The mm position of the coin featured on Vista does not appear to match the pic in the CPG nor any of the five mint state examples PCGS has certified as FS-501. So will the REAL FS-501 please stand up?
Does anybody in Chicagoland know if Joe Ridzy still has a coin shop open there?
On the plus side, if your coin isn't 501 and is a true RPM, you could have a discovery on your hands that should go to James Wiles.
You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
sent in three coins (two in one submission, a single coin in another). Attributions posted maybe an hour apart. One of the coins in the two-coin submission had an incorrect attribution. Called CS about it. Then when the one-coin submission posted, saw that it too was in error. Called CS about that too. So if this was baseball, PCGS would be doing great with a .333 average. Not baseball, not doing great. I did have the correct attributions on the forms, but I guess the grader/"expert" at PCGS knows more about half dimes than I do to bother reading what I wrote. Let's hope CS encourages their "expert" enough to get them right...because they will be going back (not on my dime) if not.
@Barndog said:
sent in three coins (two in one submission, a single coin in another). Attributions posted maybe an hour apart. One of the coins in the two-coin submission had an incorrect attribution. Called CS about it. Then when the one-coin submission posted, saw that it too was in error. Called CS about that too. So if this was baseball, PCGS would be doing great with a .333 average. Not baseball, not doing great. I did have the correct attributions on the forms, but I guess the grader/"expert" at PCGS knows more about half dimes than I do to bother reading what I wrote. Let's hope CS encourages their "expert" enough to get them right...because they will be going back (not on my dime) if not.
@Barndog said:
sent in three coins (two in one submission, a single coin in another). Attributions posted maybe an hour apart. One of the coins in the two-coin submission had an incorrect attribution. Called CS about it. Then when the one-coin submission posted, saw that it too was in error. Called CS about that too. So if this was baseball, PCGS would be doing great with a .333 average. Not baseball, not doing great. I did have the correct attributions on the forms, but I guess the grader/"expert" at PCGS knows more about half dimes than I do to bother reading what I wrote. Let's hope CS encourages their "expert" enough to get them right...because they will be going back (not on my dime) if not.
What were the dates and attributions? Without that, I'm in the dark. In a recent discussion a member was raising holy heck because a coin with a blob on the mintmark was not attributed the way he wished. It is not resolved yet.. Oops, this is the discussion. I've been pro TPGS and Pro collector on this one.
1829 LM-6.2 attributed as 6.1. I WISH it was a 6.1, since so far just one exists. This one is not a 6.1, sadly. I can understand how a regular Joe with just the book in his hand and referring to the wrong page can make the mistake. A PCGS "expert" would not make the mistake.
1832 LM-9.1 attributed as a 9.2. This is so simple that I have no idea how the mistake was made, other than the dart landed in the wrong square. Is the upper loop of the second S in STATES filled? If so, it is a 9.2. On this coin, clean S2 means 9.1. Again, I WISH it was a 9.2, for it would be the worth multiples of the price paid.
Capped Bust Half Dimes with incorrect attributions on the labels are an albatross. They require explanation and negotiation if one wishes to sell them. And they totally do not work for the set registry when they are wrong.
@Barndog said:
sent in three coins (two in one submission, a single coin in another). Attributions posted maybe an hour apart. One of the coins in the two-coin submission had an incorrect attribution. Called CS about it. Then when the one-coin submission posted, saw that it too was in error. Called CS about that too. So if this was baseball, PCGS would be doing great with a .333 average. Not baseball, not doing great. I did have the correct attributions on the forms, but I guess the grader/"expert" at PCGS knows more about half dimes than I do to bother reading what I wrote. Let's hope CS encourages their "expert" enough to get them right...because they will be going back (not on my dime) if not.
What were the dates and attributions? Without that, I'm in the dark. In a recent discussion a member was raising holy heck because a coin with a blob on the mintmark was not attributed the way he wished. It is not resolved yet.. Oops, this is the discussion. I've been pro TPGS and Pro collector on this one.
and I'm both pro-collector on this and the PRO collector on these coins
@Barndog said:
1829 LM-6.2 attributed as 6.1. I WISH it was a 6.1, since so far just one exists. This one is not a 6.1, sadly. I can understand how a regular Joe with just the book in his hand and referring to the wrong page can make the mistake. A PCGS "expert" would not make the mistake.
1832 LM-9.1 attributed as a 9.2. This is so simple that I have no idea how the mistake was made, other than the dart landed in the wrong square. Is the upper loop of the second S in STATES filled? If so, it is a 9.2. On this coin, clean S2 means 9.1. Again, I WISH it was a 9.2, for it would be the worth multiples of the price paid.
Capped Bust Half Dimes with incorrect attributions on the labels are an albatross. They require explanation and negotiation if one wishes to sell them. And they totally do not work for the set registry when they are wrong.
Seems simple, unless the coins are heavily circulated. What grade do you give each?
Here is a TPGS laugh for you. One day I was trying to attribute a Capped Bust half dime and couldn't find it. I was positive I had discovered a very rare and unlisted new DISCOVERY COIN!
Then I realized I was looking in the JRCS Capped Bust dime book!
@Barndog said:
I did have the correct attributions on the forms, but I guess the grader/"expert" at PCGS knows more about half >dimes than I do to bother reading what I wrote.
I get the distinct impression they do not read the notes. When I send something in I write it on a Post-it note and
tape it around the slab.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
so PCGS fixed one of the errors (1832 LM-9.1 now properly attributed).
The other error in attribution, they are sticking with their call of 1829 LM-6.1. So I will get to send that back to PCGS for correction. Key attribution point for this one: if there is a die chip in the letter N in UNITED, coin is a 6.2. Anyone else see a die chip? In hand, I sure do.
I have had a lot of difficulty with the Jefferson Nickel attribution in the last 18 months. However, My very last order was 100% accurate on 7/24/18. Kudos on that one. Prior to that 5 out of 11 were missed.
The “minor variety” label seems to be hit or miss with choice as I have only ever received 1
I have cracked out previously attributed ngc, anacs, segs, and sent raw varieties I identify with loupe and microscope. It’s usually half and half. I have about 16 or more graded actual varieties (now not attributed on label) that I ponied up the $18 fee for each, or $9 after denial.
Problem varieties in the Jeff’s for me have been
1953 Proof ddo (sent 3, one hit Minor Variety)
1960 qdr Proof
1961 tdr Proof
2004 ddo sent 4 no hits
1939 ddo sent 3 got one
1956 tdr And qdr sent at least 4 probably 6 over the years with no hits ever.
1938 qdo never even went to attribution
(cs offered free reholder with attribution but I haven’t sent it back due to so many misfires at the total mistake cost of over $140 plus shipping so far)
To be fair I’m not an expert but I obsessively research and check for die markers, cross reference variety vista and cherry pickers guide, microscope, loupe, then check it all again. And I have attributed varieties in hand for comparison.
Not trying to blast Pcgs, but I am echoing the frustration with inaccurate attributions.
Comments
I hear you, and that has happened to me once before IIRC, but not the case here. CS rep told me that he spoke with the grading manager and that the manager stated that they did re-examine the coins FOR THE RPM and did not feel it was a match for the FS-501 photos they keep in-house.
When I receive the coins back I will take some photos and post them.
Dimeman has an FS-501 that I sent to PCGS a couple of months ago that is from the same die, perhaps he can get a photo of that coin and post it for comparison?
Ok, here is a pic of the mm on one of the coins that did not attribute. Unfortunately, the pics of this variety on VarietyVista do not show the rpm well at all, so the only readily available pic for comparison is the example on CoinFacts.
Also, the pic in the CPG itself is not so great either.
@Dimeman, can you post pic of your PCGS attributed example?
To further muck up the waters, the CPG erroneously refers to the variety as one of the strongest RPMs in the series. That is laughable, because in reality it is a VERY subtle RPM and THAT is what accounts for the very low population. There was only a single mint state example graded at PCGS and none at NGC until I set about hunting for them.
There are distinctive markers on these that are foolproof identifiers, but rather than reveal these, I have sent one of the coins that PCGS repeatedly failed to attribute to a CONECA attributor for confirmation. Once I get Coneca's blessing I will be sending the coins back to PCGS along with a copy of the Coneca attribution.
With all due respects to the OP and variety collectors/variety specialists EVERYWHERE! **I love varieties and the knowledgeable numismatists who collect them." ** I have a chance to verify them all day long using my stereo microscope. The image above (although fussy) is similar to the view I should see if I cranked up the power. However, microscopes are uncommon at the TPGS's. Every grader does not have one!
ALL THAT SAID - Consider this: IMHO, this fly-speck, micro numismatics," crap should be relegated to the group of collectors who drool over the excitement of finding something so small you need high-power magnification to see!
You have specialists to seek out for confirmation.
IMO, You folks are extremely lucky that a coin as this is even considered for a slab. The solution is for the top two TPGS's is to state that "we reserve the right to refuse to slab anything..." Decades ago, coins as this were not recognized by PCGS and NGC. By attempting to include all varieties as the second tier services do a huge can of worms represented by the problems of the OP was opened.
I've changed my original opinion about this thread. I now side with PCGS and against the OP in the case of this coin. I feel the TPGS has done more than enough to satisfy the OP. If I were still at NGC or PCGS, I'd send the coin back as something we don't do! That is final no matter how many markers on the coin that CONECA shows.
This is the problem that most variety collectors ignore. Putting this coin in a holder as RPM#324.26 (using 100X magnification
) places a value on this coin far above the value of a normal BU. In which case, somewhere down the road, there is the possibility that an ignorant collector will get "screwed!"
As I've written before, decades ago, although some DDO coins of the same date with several different "spreads" exist, the major TPGS's would ONLY recognize the major variety due to the price drop for the other varieties. We are lucky today that a coin as this can be sent in.
Anyway, I hope it works out for the OP.
PS My hat goes off to anyone in the country that could catch this coin while grading hundreds of coins a day in a grading room.
The photo shows a blurb north and east. Not much there to be honest. Late late die state?
But Insider2 you are ignoring the fact that PCGS has ALREADY attributed 4 of these coins I submitted in the last few months! They all look exactly like that.
That is a big percentage of my beef: INCONSISTENCY
You can not attribute them one day and then turn around the next day and refuse to attribute an identical coin and still maintain credibility.
And yes, I agree that this is a micro variety and never warranted inclusion in the CPG in the first place. But it was published, and once that happens "it is out there". Go to the Coinfacts image and have a look... do you see a clearly defined RPM? NO
Blame it on good old Joe Ridzy… he discovered the damn things!
If PCGS wants to exclude certain CPG varieties from their attribution program (as NGC does) that is OK with me. But I am afraid it is too late for that.
I completely agree. And they all look just like that as far as I know there are no EDS coins discovered.
To me it doesn't matter how micro or how late the die state is.....if it is the variety.....IT IS!!! And once the variety has been added to the PCGS Registry sets it should NEVER and I mean NEVER be taken out. Collectors are out there spending time and money on these varieties and it would not be fair to take out a variety once it is "IN" just because it is minor or LDS!!
JMHO
LOL, then I'm back on your side...JUST THIS ONCE.
However, in my personal opinion it is a "nothing-burger."
Have you compared the position of the mintmark on your coin with the one on Variety Vista? If you look at the left side of the D in relation to the space between 'ER' in 'QUARTER', yours looks further to the right than the Variety Vista example.
You are right cmerlo1.
The mm position of the coin featured on Vista does not appear to match the pic in the CPG nor any of the five mint state examples PCGS has certified as FS-501. So will the REAL FS-501 please stand up?
Does anybody in Chicagoland know if Joe Ridzy still has a coin shop open there?
I may be nit-picking here, but...the two examples on CoinFacts show two different markers, other than the original PUP, being the mint Mark. The AU53 image has, what appears to be, a Misplaced Letter (Mint Mark?) where the black arrow is pointing upward towards.
The MS65 does not, it may be the lighting for all I know. Curious to compare yours ( @georgiacop50 )to these images.
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...
Clearly the 2 images from Coinfacts depict two different dies.
WTH?
I will check mine.
Just spoke with Joe Ridzy and he is going to check out this thread but may have to wait for join/approval before he can post to it.
He said his discovery coin was most likely circulated from a bag and that it was a LONG time ago, and that maybe the AU53 example on CoinFacts is the discovery coin... maybe.
I know for fact that your coin Jon is a match to the MS65 on CoinFacts.
Here is the best I can get on my dyno-lite. It matches the pic in the CPG down to the machine doubling and the spec up North under the stem. Although mine has something inside the mm that does not show on the CPG pic.
The AU coin at first just looked like a EDS of the variety with the complete arch across the top of the "D". But the MM position is different and the "extra" above in the stem makes me think that this is a different variety. This is interesting.
On the plus side, if your coin isn't 501 and is a true RPM, you could have a discovery on your hands that should go to James Wiles.
Wiles should be receiving an example to examine tomorrow..
My dyslexia stops me from posting. But when is the funeral?
You must have meant this for another thread???
sent in three coins (two in one submission, a single coin in another). Attributions posted maybe an hour apart. One of the coins in the two-coin submission had an incorrect attribution. Called CS about it. Then when the one-coin submission posted, saw that it too was in error. Called CS about that too. So if this was baseball, PCGS would be doing great with a .333 average. Not baseball, not doing great. I did have the correct attributions on the forms, but I guess the grader/"expert" at PCGS knows more about half dimes than I do to bother reading what I wrote. Let's hope CS encourages their "expert" enough to get them right...because they will be going back (not on my dime) if not.
I feel your pain...….been there......done that!!
My dyslexia stops me from posting. But when is the funeral?
You must have meant this for another thread???
Yes I did.Sorry:(
What were the dates and attributions? Without that, I'm in the dark. In a recent discussion a member was raising holy heck
because a coin with a blob on the mintmark was not attributed the way he wished. It is not resolved yet.. Oops, this is the discussion. 
I've been pro TPGS and Pro collector on this one.
1829 LM-6.2 attributed as 6.1. I WISH it was a 6.1, since so far just one exists. This one is not a 6.1, sadly. I can understand how a regular Joe with just the book in his hand and referring to the wrong page can make the mistake. A PCGS "expert" would not make the mistake.
1832 LM-9.1 attributed as a 9.2. This is so simple that I have no idea how the mistake was made, other than the dart landed in the wrong square. Is the upper loop of the second S in STATES filled? If so, it is a 9.2. On this coin, clean S2 means 9.1. Again, I WISH it was a 9.2, for it would be the worth multiples of the price paid.
Capped Bust Half Dimes with incorrect attributions on the labels are an albatross. They require explanation and negotiation if one wishes to sell them. And they totally do not work for the set registry when they are wrong.
and I'm both pro-collector on this and the PRO collector on these coins
Seems simple, unless the coins are heavily circulated. What grade do you give each?
Here is a TPGS laugh for you. One day I was trying to attribute a Capped Bust half dime and couldn't find it. I was positive I had discovered a very rare and unlisted new DISCOVERY COIN!
Then I realized I was looking in the JRCS Capped Bust dime book!
both are AU58
dimes and half dimes are too small, that's for sure.
I get the distinct impression they do not read the notes. When I send something in I write it on a Post-it note and
tape it around the slab.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I used to leave my labels on the slabs. Looks like I will have to get back to that. Truly an annoyance.
so PCGS fixed one of the errors (1832 LM-9.1 now properly attributed).
The other error in attribution, they are sticking with their call of 1829 LM-6.1. So I will get to send that back to PCGS for correction. Key attribution point for this one: if there is a die chip in the letter N in UNITED, coin is a 6.2. Anyone else see a die chip? In hand, I sure do.
I have had a lot of difficulty with the Jefferson Nickel attribution in the last 18 months. However, My very last order was 100% accurate on 7/24/18. Kudos on that one. Prior to that 5 out of 11 were missed.
The “minor variety” label seems to be hit or miss with choice as I have only ever received 1
I have cracked out previously attributed ngc, anacs, segs, and sent raw varieties I identify with loupe and microscope. It’s usually half and half. I have about 16 or more graded actual varieties (now not attributed on label) that I ponied up the $18 fee for each, or $9 after denial.
Problem varieties in the Jeff’s for me have been
1953 Proof ddo (sent 3, one hit Minor Variety)
1960 qdr Proof
1961 tdr Proof
2004 ddo sent 4 no hits
1939 ddo sent 3 got one
1956 tdr And qdr sent at least 4 probably 6 over the years with no hits ever.
1938 qdo never even went to attribution
(cs offered free reholder with attribution but I haven’t sent it back due to so many misfires at the total mistake cost of over $140 plus shipping so far)
To be fair I’m not an expert but I obsessively research and check for die markers, cross reference variety vista and cherry pickers guide, microscope, loupe, then check it all again. And I have attributed varieties in hand for comparison.
Not trying to blast Pcgs, but I am echoing the frustration with inaccurate attributions.
Aspie Rocco
Jefferson Nickel super fan
http://www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/publishedset.aspx?s=142753
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/