The sets impacted are those in the most recent version of the CPG. Mercury Dimes lost two varieties. I know someone that lost 27 or 28 varieties across multiple series. Hansen is probably the most heavily impacted. People need to be concerned and expect to lose a lot more money with future editions of the CPG. More expensive pain is coming for collectors if there aren't enough people speaking up, calling, emailing PCGS.
@davewesen said:
maybe they have not been removed but just a temporary computer glitch ?
Not a glitch. This is PCGS destroying trust and value for collectors, in markets they helped create with registry sets.
The sets impacted are those in the most recent version of the CPG. Mercury Dimes lost two varieties. I know someone that lost 27 or 28 varieties across multiple series. Hansen is probably the most heavily impacted. People need to be concerned and expect to lose a lot more money with future editions of the CPG. More expensive pain is coming for collectors if there aren't enough people speaking up, calling, emailing PCGS.
@davewesen said:
maybe they have not been removed but just a temporary computer glitch ?
Not a glitch. This is PCGS destroying trust and value for collectors, in markets they helped create with registry sets.
I'm now confused. Did CPG drop the varieties? Doesn't PCGS follow the CPG?
The sets impacted are those in the most recent version of the CPG. Mercury Dimes lost two varieties. I know someone that lost 27 or 28 varieties across multiple series. Hansen is probably the most heavily impacted. People need to be concerned and expect to lose a lot more money with future editions of the CPG. More expensive pain is coming for collectors if there aren't enough people speaking up, calling, emailing PCGS.
@davewesen said:
maybe they have not been removed but just a temporary computer glitch ?
Not a glitch. This is PCGS destroying trust and value for collectors, in markets they helped create with registry sets.
I'm now confused. Did CPG drop the varieties? Doesn't PCGS follow the CPG?
"Dropped" is a little ambiguous. There are listed varieties no longer published in the CPG and there are former varieties that were delisted because it was discovered they never should have been listed in the first place as varieties. Non-published varieties still have FS numbers and are still considered varieties, while the delisted ones aren't.
@messydesk said:
"Dropped" is a little ambiguous. There are listed varieties no longer published in the CPG and there are former varieties that were delisted because it was discovered they never should have been listed in the first place as varieties. Non-published varieties still have FS numbers and are still considered varieties, while the delisted ones aren't.
So are the ones PCGS "dropped" the same ones CPG no longer published?
Doesn't this seem more like PCGS is following CPG and maybe misunderstood the removal?
@messydesk said:
"Dropped" is a little ambiguous. There are listed varieties no longer published in the CPG and there are former varieties that were delisted because it was discovered they never should have been listed in the first place as varieties. Non-published varieties still have FS numbers and are still considered varieties, while the delisted ones aren't.
So are the ones PCGS "dropped" the same ones CPG no longer published?
Doesn't this seem more like PCGS is following CPG and maybe misunderstood the removal?
It appears that you, and @IkesT, are thinking the same thing.
@IkesT said:
Like @messydesk , I too would like to hear an explanation for why PCGS dropped these varieties. The varieties have not been delisted; they are still CPG varieties with valid FS numbers. The descriptions of these varieties have simply been removed from the new edition (to save on printing costs, I would imagine - it certainly is pared down from the former edition, page-wise, and the paper is cheaper too...). Perhaps this is all a misunderstanding on the part of PCGS, thinking that these varieties were actually delisted...
@IkesT said:
Variety attribution is a key part of the TPG business - I'm still struggling to come up with a reason why a TPG would ever reduce the number of valid varieties they recognize/attribute. Like I said, I'm wondering if it comes down to a simple misunderstanding. The CPG didn't delist the varieties in question, they are still officially listed, they just don't have a full entry in the new edition (it appears to me that they were desperate to cut costs wherever possible, including cutting the book length). Perhaps somewhere along the way, this misled someone at PCGS to believe the varieties were no longer valid...
@PwrHsePro said:
Why would I collect based on someone else opinions... well, for me...
It was a starting place. I would never have known there were varieties until I saw them listed.
It gave me insight collecting those coins in a list... to see first hand what a variety looked like. It gave me a bit of excitement finding something that might be a new or unlisted variety.
There is no sole holder of information... you find info as you learn and you base what you collect based on your experiences.
I can see the "business" changing policy, but that doesn't have to impact past decisions. If a coin was deemed a variety in the past, it should remain so unless new information comes out to the contrary... like if a variety was found to be mass forgery, not because they aren't popular... that is determined by demand. Not many folks collect Uncirculated 16D Mercury Dimes, so eliminate them???
Last night I won a bid for a Merc variety... when I first bid, I did so based on a PCGS Retail value of $550... double checking where my bid was at just before auction close, I double checked to determine what additional if any funds I could spare... the price dropped to $36 and the PCGS number was gone... and I won the auction at $402...
Isn't $36 the type price not the (unlisted) variety price?
Yes!
And why would you reduce a value of a variety just because?
There is, or should be a standardized definition of "Variety" and when found, it should remain as such indefinitely... no Minor Variety... its a Variety or not...
@PwrHsePro said:
I wrote yesterday... and a post here today... I either lost a great purchase of a coin that I've been looking for for about 4 years or over paid $400.00.
You must be the proud owner of this now crazy overpriced 1945 ddo. I have one just like it, I paid over $500. Aren't we dumb?
That was me! But w/o my permission the seller canceled... I was torn as to what to do, a d they new it.
On one hand, previous to this, the coin had a certain "mintage" and sales records indicated a $550 value... I was undecided if PCGS or CPG had the kind of power ti over turn history and demand.
It all socks!
The seller was expecting $700+ for it, and on one hand, I woild have gotten a great buy... on the other hand, PCGS is obviously not qualified to determine any values.
@PwrHsePro said:
Why would I collect based on someone else opinions... well, for me...
It was a starting place. I would never have known there were varieties until I saw them listed.
It gave me insight collecting those coins in a list... to see first hand what a variety looked like. It gave me a bit of excitement finding something that might be a new or unlisted variety.
There is no sole holder of information... you find info as you learn and you base what you collect based on your experiences.
I can see the "business" changing policy, but that doesn't have to impact past decisions. If a coin was deemed a variety in the past, it should remain so unless new information comes out to the contrary... like if a variety was found to be mass forgery, not because they aren't popular... that is determined by demand. Not many folks collect Uncirculated 16D Mercury Dimes, so eliminate them???
Last night I won a bid for a Merc variety... when I first bid, I did so based on a PCGS Retail value of $550... double checking where my bid was at just before auction close, I double checked to determine what additional if any funds I could spare... the price dropped to $36 and the PCGS number was gone... and I won the auction at $402...
Isn't $36 the type price not the (unlisted) variety price?
Yes!
And why would you reduce a value of a variety just because?
There is, or should be a standardized definition of "Variety" and when found, it should remain as such indefinitely... no Minor Variety... its a Variety or not...
But that isn't the variety price. You just need a different price guide.
@PwrHsePro said:
Why would I collect based on someone else opinions... well, for me...
It was a starting place. I would never have known there were varieties until I saw them listed.
It gave me insight collecting those coins in a list... to see first hand what a variety looked like. It gave me a bit of excitement finding something that might be a new or unlisted variety.
There is no sole holder of information... you find info as you learn and you base what you collect based on your experiences.
I can see the "business" changing policy, but that doesn't have to impact past decisions. If a coin was deemed a variety in the past, it should remain so unless new information comes out to the contrary... like if a variety was found to be mass forgery, not because they aren't popular... that is determined by demand. Not many folks collect Uncirculated 16D Mercury Dimes, so eliminate them???
Last night I won a bid for a Merc variety... when I first bid, I did so based on a PCGS Retail value of $550... double checking where my bid was at just before auction close, I double checked to determine what additional if any funds I could spare... the price dropped to $36 and the PCGS number was gone... and I won the auction at $402...
Isn't $36 the type price not the (unlisted) variety price?
Yes!
And why would you reduce a value of a variety just because?
There is, or should be a standardized definition of "Variety" and when found, it should remain as such indefinitely... no Minor Variety... its a Variety or not...
But that isn't the variety price. You just need a different price guide.
It's the price PCGS gives for that exact PCGS certification number.
@PwrHsePro said:
Why would I collect based on someone else opinions... well, for me...
It was a starting place. I would never have known there were varieties until I saw them listed.
It gave me insight collecting those coins in a list... to see first hand what a variety looked like. It gave me a bit of excitement finding something that might be a new or unlisted variety.
There is no sole holder of information... you find info as you learn and you base what you collect based on your experiences.
I can see the "business" changing policy, but that doesn't have to impact past decisions. If a coin was deemed a variety in the past, it should remain so unless new information comes out to the contrary... like if a variety was found to be mass forgery, not because they aren't popular... that is determined by demand. Not many folks collect Uncirculated 16D Mercury Dimes, so eliminate them???
Last night I won a bid for a Merc variety... when I first bid, I did so based on a PCGS Retail value of $550... double checking where my bid was at just before auction close, I double checked to determine what additional if any funds I could spare... the price dropped to $36 and the PCGS number was gone... and I won the auction at $402...
Isn't $36 the type price not the (unlisted) variety price?
Yes!
And why would you reduce a value of a variety just because?
There is, or should be a standardized definition of "Variety" and when found, it should remain as such indefinitely... no Minor Variety... its a Variety or not...
But that isn't the variety price. You just need a different price guide.
It's the price PCGS gives for that exact PCGS certification number.
Because it's NOT the variety price. Would you only pay the common price for an undesignated variety? What do you do with a raw coin?
I've never once bought a coin using the PCGS price guide.
@PwrHsePro said:
Why would I collect based on someone else opinions... well, for me...
It was a starting place. I would never have known there were varieties until I saw them listed.
It gave me insight collecting those coins in a list... to see first hand what a variety looked like. It gave me a bit of excitement finding something that might be a new or unlisted variety.
There is no sole holder of information... you find info as you learn and you base what you collect based on your experiences.
I can see the "business" changing policy, but that doesn't have to impact past decisions. If a coin was deemed a variety in the past, it should remain so unless new information comes out to the contrary... like if a variety was found to be mass forgery, not because they aren't popular... that is determined by demand. Not many folks collect Uncirculated 16D Mercury Dimes, so eliminate them???
Last night I won a bid for a Merc variety... when I first bid, I did so based on a PCGS Retail value of $550... double checking where my bid was at just before auction close, I double checked to determine what additional if any funds I could spare... the price dropped to $36 and the PCGS number was gone... and I won the auction at $402...
Isn't $36 the type price not the (unlisted) variety price?
Yes!
And why would you reduce a value of a variety just because?
There is, or should be a standardized definition of "Variety" and when found, it should remain as such indefinitely... no Minor Variety... its a Variety or not...
But that isn't the variety price. You just need a different price guide.
It's the price PCGS gives for that exact PCGS certification number.
Because it's NOT the variety price. Would you only pay the common price for an undesignated variety? What do you do with a raw coin?
I've never once bought a coin using the PCGS price guide.
I dont necessarily buy at PCGS price, but it is a guide line and many do buy according tk that price... not only that, I am less likely to buy a certified coin that I think is a variety when the TPG doesn't say it is...
There is no variety price.
That went away.
Pre auction, if you typed in the certification number, the coin showed up, was listed as a DDO and was listed at $550.
Now if you type in that same certification number, it doesn't ome back as a variety and is listed at $36
You can defend this PCGS action all you want... its still basically bait and switch.
@PwrHsePro said:
Why would I collect based on someone else opinions... well, for me...
It was a starting place. I would never have known there were varieties until I saw them listed.
It gave me insight collecting those coins in a list... to see first hand what a variety looked like. It gave me a bit of excitement finding something that might be a new or unlisted variety.
There is no sole holder of information... you find info as you learn and you base what you collect based on your experiences.
I can see the "business" changing policy, but that doesn't have to impact past decisions. If a coin was deemed a variety in the past, it should remain so unless new information comes out to the contrary... like if a variety was found to be mass forgery, not because they aren't popular... that is determined by demand. Not many folks collect Uncirculated 16D Mercury Dimes, so eliminate them???
Last night I won a bid for a Merc variety... when I first bid, I did so based on a PCGS Retail value of $550... double checking where my bid was at just before auction close, I double checked to determine what additional if any funds I could spare... the price dropped to $36 and the PCGS number was gone... and I won the auction at $402...
Isn't $36 the type price not the (unlisted) variety price?
Yes!
And why would you reduce a value of a variety just because?
There is, or should be a standardized definition of "Variety" and when found, it should remain as such indefinitely... no Minor Variety... its a Variety or not...
But that isn't the variety price. You just need a different price guide.
It's the price PCGS gives for that exact PCGS certification number.
Because it's NOT the variety price. Would you only pay the common price for an undesignated variety? What do you do with a raw coin?
I've never once bought a coin using the PCGS price guide.
I dont necessarily buy at PCGS price, but it is a guide line and many do buy according tk that price... not only that, I am less likely to buy a certified coin that I think is a variety when the TPG doesn't say it is...
There is no variety price.
That went away.
Pre auction, if you typed in the certification number, the coin showed up, was listed as a DDO and was listed at $550.
Now if you type in that same certification number, it doesn't ome back as a variety and is listed at $36
You can defend this PCGS action all you want... its still basically bait and switch.
I'm not defending the PCGS anything. I'm telling you that the variety has its own price. There are numerous varieties that PCGS doesn't designate. Their value is not determined by the nonexistent entry in the PCGS database. There are guides like the CPG for varieties.
How much do you think they would sell for today?
I was lucky to Cherrypick both of them and auction them last year, opposed to now.
Speaking of the cert verifications, there appears to be other issues associated with this policy shift.
Because select fields were not 'retained/grandfathered', there are now discrepancies between some existing PCGS labels and their cert verification. Namely:
~ the PCGS coin number. The label has the 'old/variety' coin number printed on it, while the cert verification returns the "base" number;
~ and, the variety attribution. The label has one printed on it, but the cert verification does not confirm it.
How much do you think they would sell for today?
I was lucky to Cherrypick both of them and auction them last year, opposed to now.
Speaking of the cert verifications, there appears to be other issues associated with this policy shift.
Because select fields were not 'retained/grandfathered', there are now discrepancies between some existing PCGS labels and their cert verification. Namely:
~ the PCGS coin number. The label has the 'old/variety' coin number printed on it, while the cert verification returns the "base" number;
~ and, the variety attribution. The label has one printed on it, but the cert verification does not confirm it.
Example (from your links):
>
By the way, won't the guide going forward have the problem of mixing the variety price with the "base" price if they are under the same number?
I believe that there is a separate PCGS Number for the variety... but the certification number of the coun won't bring the specific coin back as a variety
@MetroD said:
Speaking of the cert verifications, there appears to be other issues associated with this policy shift.
Because select fields were not 'retained/grandfathered', there are now discrepancies between some existing PCGS labels and their cert verification. Namely:
~ the PCGS coin number. The label has the 'old/variety' coin number printed on it, while the cert verification returns the "base" number;
~ and, the variety attribution. The label has one printed on it, but the cert verification does not confirm it.
Example (from your links):
>
By the way, won't the guide going forward have the problem of mixing the variety price with the "base" price if they are under the same number?
I am not as 'knowledgable/experienced' as others, but I believe that you are correct.
I also think that this observation is directly applicable to the discussion you are having with @PwrHsePro. The cert verifications for the impacted coins appear to be returning guide values for the "base" versions.
Edited to Add:
At the moment, the coin in the examples from @keyman64, PCGS #510032, still shows up in the PCGS price guide. Notwithstanding, this info does not appear to be populating the cert verification page. This is likely due to the coin number change (i.e., 'old/variety' coin number to "base" coin number).
Niche specialist collectors like Eagle Eye and the early SSDC VAM collectors flourished before PCGS was inundated with minor varieties.
As a variety specialist myself, nothing worse than finding a low pop, high grade minor $500 (guessed value) variety nobody wants in the first place... lol
Makes the specialist proud, the flipper angry, and wastes the time of the graders TBH...
If you need a major TPG to verify what you already know... then you are doing something wrong.
After grading fees, ebay fees, etccc... you can likely flip it raw for a decent price and without all the aggravation.
I feel for those harmed, but it is still the same professionally graded and attributed coin.
I would caution panic selling... or buying.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
@alaura22 said:
Now I"m worried about a coin that I am looking to buy. The item number is NOT in the list of coins for that slot in the registry and it happens to be a "variety"
Now what?
If you are a collector, how does this affect you?
Existing variety coins in current holders should hold some value.
They still have got a professionally trained opinion.
If you are a flipper... pass
If the coin is meaningful part of your collection beyond $$$... then buy it.
Could be a buying opportunity for the patient.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
I would suggest advocating for something more useful like a volunteer collectors/customer council that maybe meets with PCGS execs once a quarter and relays our concerns and experiences and vice versa.
jmlanzaf's reaction, "Why would you collect based on someone else's idea of what you should collect," is one of the things that drove the SSDC to develop its own registry for VAMs. All VAMs can be registered, often using my attributions rather than a TPGs, any set composition can be created, although mainstream sets (Top 100, 1878 8TF, &c.) exist that are the most competitive. This is where you ask, "Isn't the Top 100 list just someone else's idea of what you should collect?" Yes, it is, but it was a list of coins created by people on the inside of that hobby and then pushed to the grading services to follow once it became mainstream. The only variety to be removed from it was one that was later determined not to exist. The grading services had and have no influence over the content of this list and they're kept at arm's length with respect to attributions.
I would be interested in PCGS's rationale for dropping a lot of varieties from long-established set compositions. Did they actually not foresee the reaction above when they effectively crashed values of people's collections? Did they drop these because they have too many complaints about misattributed coins?
Finally, if competitive registries on MyCollect really get off the ground, I imagine specialists in other series will settle in there for their competitions. MyCollect wouldn't even have to sponsor awards, simply provide a platform for the competition to take place and for specialty clubs to create sets that suit them best. When a MyCollect-based registry award is valued to the same degree that a PCGS registry award is, specialists won't be at the mercy of grading service decisions.
To be clear, my point is that people can continue to collect the varieties whether PCGS recognizes them or not. This has been going on NOW with all the varieties that they don't recognize.
Yes, but the unfortunate thing is that PCGS's imprimatur translates into a lot of money. Pulling the rug on formerly recognized varieties has cost people a lot of money. There are ways forward that mitigate that.
That is true. But isn't that really the mistake of collectors, humbly, not PCGS. PCGS elevates a minor variety to a registry set and people start buying minor varieties they don't care about. Is it PCGS's greed or the collectors'?
There's plenty of blame to go around. I do agree that at the end of the day, the values of any coins are determined by collectors. Exposing yourself to a potential rug-pull by an entity who isn't involved in collecting what you collect comes with considerable risk, as we can see in the OP. If PCGS or any other grading service is going to attribute varieties, they need to commit to it, which includes establishing the expertise to do it in the industry leading manner which we're led to believe they're capable of. If they are going to make changes, it needs to be done with some advice from collector groups that know a lot more about the varieties they collect than the grading services do. Making sweeping changes that affect a lot of people in a big way is a big deal and irresponsible of a market leader.
I think we are saying the same thing when I say that a variety is determined by the coin itself ND not any collector, dealer, or TPGS. Just because micro DDO#14 is not recognized by a TPGS or coin reference and most collectors don't know it exists and don't care because it would be worthless to them and most others... food for thought.
@messydesk said:
"Dropped" is a little ambiguous. There are listed varieties no longer published in the CPG and there are former varieties that were delisted because it was discovered they never should have been listed in the first place as varieties. Non-published varieties still have FS numbers and are still considered varieties, while the delisted ones aren't.
Where are the “listed” varieties not published in the CPG listed?
Where are the “listed” varieties not published in the CPG listed?
When you flip to the coin type you’re interested in, the first couple of pages under the main heading have sections about varieties removed from the current volume and new varieties added to the current volume.
@messydesk said:
"Dropped" is a little ambiguous. There are listed varieties no longer published in the CPG and there are former varieties that were delisted because it was discovered they never should have been listed in the first place as varieties. Non-published varieties still have FS numbers and are still considered varieties, while the delisted ones aren't.
Where are the “listed” varieties not published in the CPG listed?
Other references that are more complete for the type, mostly the CONECA and VarietyVista listings, but if you look at the cross-references in the CPG, there are other references (Snow for Indian cents, Fletcher for shield nickels, Lawrence for Barber coins, VAM). These attempt to be exhaustive catalogs of everything that has been found. The CPG is a "best hits" compilation and was never meant to be exhaustive.
Agreed @messydesk but where will any idea of valuation come from if CGP, Greysheet, PCGS &NGC price guides drop them? It seems quite unfair to me that they can just randomly make that decision. I understand if a specific variety is in dispute, but that isn't all that common.
When hunting for Lincoln varieties VarietyVista makes it easy, then just match up to PCGS and apply a PCGS to CPG or Greysheet adjustment.
Are there any reliable current pricing guides for varieties that become unlisted?
@Slade01 said:
Agreed @messydesk but where will any idea of valuation come from if CGP, Greysheet, PCGS &NGC price guides drop them? It seems quite unfair to me that they can just randomly make that decision. I understand if a specific variety is in dispute, but that isn't all that common.
When hunting for Lincoln varieties VarietyVista makes it easy, then just match up to PCGS and apply a PCGS to CPG or Greysheet adjustment.
Are there any reliable current pricing guides for varieties that become unlisted?
But to that point, do these trade often enough to be able to have a price guide with any accuracy? At some point it's a fool's errand if there's not enough transaction data and even then, I would imagine some or most of the varieties have huge pricing volatility just due to the fact that sometimes you'll have the correct audience for an auction or platform and get great prices and sometimes you don't and the sale price will disappoint.
@Slade01 said:
Agreed @messydesk but where will any idea of valuation come from if CGP, Greysheet, PCGS &NGC price guides drop them? It seems quite unfair to me that they can just randomly make that decision. I understand if a specific variety is in dispute, but that isn't all that common.
When hunting for Lincoln varieties VarietyVista makes it easy, then just match up to PCGS and apply a PCGS to CPG or Greysheet adjustment.
Are there any reliable current pricing guides for varieties that become unlisted?
But to that point, do these trade often enough to be able to have a price guide with any accuracy? At some point it's a fool's errand if there's not enough transaction data and even then, I would imagine some or most of the varieties have huge pricing volatility just due to the fact that sometimes you'll have the correct audience for an auction or platform and get great prices and sometimes you don't and the sale price will disappoint.
Yup, I suppose that is one factor that variety collectors need to understand and expect. Hunting for bargains and hope that you don't need to do a forced sale.
@messydesk said:
"Dropped" is a little ambiguous. There are listed varieties no longer published in the CPG and there are former varieties that were delisted because it was discovered they never should have been listed in the first place as varieties. Non-published varieties still have FS numbers and are still considered varieties, while the delisted ones aren't.
Where are the “listed” varieties not published in the CPG listed?
Other references that are more complete for the type, mostly the CONECA and VarietyVista listings, but if you look at the cross-references in the CPG, there are other references (Snow for Indian cents, Fletcher for shield nickels, Lawrence for Barber coins, VAM). These attempt to be exhaustive catalogs of everything that has been found. The CPG is a "best hits" compilation and was never meant to be exhaustive.
Thanks, I actually was trying to ask where the varieties that still have FS numbers are listed if they are not in CPG.
Actually, I think PCGS should take this issue as an opportunity to expand their variety attributions to include those listed by CONECA and/or Variety Vista. For example, the 1935-S/S Buffnick RPM is listed by CONECA and Variety Vista but not CPG, yet the 1935-D/D IS in CPG. Seems to make no sense not to include both.
The elimination/reclassification of varieties happens. A couple years back the 1849/8 H10C (145432) Overdate FS-302 (001.5) was reclassified to 1849/6 H10C Overdate FS-302 (001.55) -or-1849/6 H10C Over Widely Spaced 6 (4342). I don't want to go through the hassle of resubmitting to our host and CAC, so she is staying in the old designated holder.
oih82w8 = Oh I Hate To Wait _defectus patientia_aka...Dr. Defecto - Curator of RMO's
@Slade01 said:
Agreed @messydesk but where will any idea of valuation come from if CGP, Greysheet, PCGS &NGC price guides drop them? It seems quite unfair to me that they can just randomly make that decision. I understand if a specific variety is in dispute, but that isn't all that common.
When hunting for Lincoln varieties VarietyVista makes it easy, then just match up to PCGS and apply a PCGS to CPG or Greysheet adjustment.
Are there any reliable current pricing guides for varieties that become unlisted?
I imagine that in general, the varieties that become unlisted from the CPG were removed for lack of collector interest, from which I'm going to infer that there wasn't a demand for the coin at any premium. The variety market beyond the Red Book and major specialty clubs is so thin that it's very difficult to come up with a price guide that has credibility normally ascribed to the trusted guides you mention. Moreover, if someone did come up with a price guide for all 259 RPM Lincolns from 1959-1964 that are on VarietyVista, I'd view it with arched brow.
Thanks, I actually was trying to ask where the varieties that still have FS numbers are listed if they are not in CPG.
Ah, in that case, here’s the copy from the most recent Cherrypickers edition:
“Varieties removed are still considered Cherrypickers’ Guide varieties . . . and will continue to be cross-referenced and summarized in Appendix H.” (In Vol 6.2, Appendix H starts on pg 270).
So the removed varieties are still in there, it just takes a little extra page flipping to find them.
Thanks, I actually was trying to ask where the varieties that still have FS numbers are listed if they are not in CPG.
Ah, in that case, here’s the copy from the most recent Cherrypickers edition:
“Varieties removed are still considered Cherrypickers’ Guide varieties . . . and will continue to be cross-referenced and summarized in Appendix H.” (In Vol 6.2, Appendix H starts on pg 270).
So the removed varieties are still in there, it just takes a little extra page flipping to find them.
Ok, so maybe PCGS should not remove them from Coinfacts or the Registry if they are still in the book (in the appendix) and still have FS numbers.
Why would removed varieties still be "in there?"
I could see them having a list where you can reference debunked CPG varieties and those deemed "too minor." But this is confusing.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@DCW said:
Why would removed varieties still be "in there?"
I could see them having a list where you can reference debunked CPG varieties and those deemed "too minor." But this is confusing.
There's just too many of them, many of which have little collector interest.
Mistakes happen, Change happens. One mans variety is another mans meh. Vamworld recently kicked many VAMs to the curb and is continuing to do so. Gee, how many degrees of a circle validates a collar clash? Do you think those with discovery coins appreciate it? Right now I'm working on a coin that lists many varieties exclusively for die file lines. Really? It's why I laugh when I read a For Sale listing and the seller wants $3000 for a $200 coin but it has, as they say, a "special VAM". Variety may be a spice but I'm not eating it.
@PapiNE said:
Mistakes happen, Change happens. One mans variety is another mans meh. Vamworld recently kicked many VAMs to the curb and is continuing to do so. Gee, how many degrees of a circle validates a collar clash? Do you think those with discovery coins appreciate it? Right now I'm working on a coin that lists many varieties exclusively for die file lines. Really? It's why I laugh when I read a For Sale listing and the seller wants $3000 for a $200 coin but it has, as they say, a "special VAM". Variety may be a spice but I'm not eating it.
It is extremely rare that a VAM is delisted for a variety that actually exists unless it is determined to be the same as another variety. Certainly no such ones are premium bearing ones with variety representation in the PCGS Registry. They just get renumbered to reflect the state of scholarship. And anyone who pays a significant premium for a discovery coin of a variety of no real interest can only blame themself.
Love the variety game!
To me, next to the history/condition of a certain coin. Is that "variety" appearance! So, so interesting and unknown to most. Makes it that more fun, as well as, profitable!
Could our host also be doing this because of the "Redbook" subject?
Meaning, if the variety is in the Redbook, than the variety attribution is FREE!
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.
@PapiNE said:
Mistakes happen, Change happens. One mans variety is another mans meh. Vamworld recently kicked many VAMs to the curb and is continuing to do so. Gee, how many degrees of a circle validates a collar clash? Do you think those with discovery coins appreciate it?
There is a big problem with most of the VAMs listed as collar clashes. None were listed in the context of a comparison of the same die pair without a collar clash.
There are also problems with collar clash varieties in general. Weak collar clashes don't stand up to wear. They may not appear with weak strikes or if struck on planchets with rims that weren't sufficiently upset. Some aren't visible when the coin is in a slab. This is why the requirement of the clash being strong and having a sufficient arc.
When I took over the VAM catalog, I outlined the rules for getting a new variety listed that would help prevent someone's discovery being delisted. For stuff like die breaks and clashes (including collar clashes), someone wanting a new "sub-variety" needs to produce evidence that the die pair made coins with and without the feature in question.
Right now I'm working on a coin that lists many varieties exclusively for die file lines. Really? It's why I laugh when I read a For Sale listing and the seller wants $3000 for a $200 coin but it has, as they say, a "special VAM". Variety may be a spice but I'm not eating it.
If someone says a coin "has a special VAM," they're misusing the terminology, and you can assume they don't know much about valuation of VAMs.
Comments
The sets impacted are those in the most recent version of the CPG. Mercury Dimes lost two varieties. I know someone that lost 27 or 28 varieties across multiple series. Hansen is probably the most heavily impacted. People need to be concerned and expect to lose a lot more money with future editions of the CPG. More expensive pain is coming for collectors if there aren't enough people speaking up, calling, emailing PCGS.
Not a glitch. This is PCGS destroying trust and value for collectors, in markets they helped create with registry sets.
https://greatcollections.com/Collections/1120/The-Keyman64-Mercury-Dime-Collection/2024-07-07
so if they just dropped the dimes and quarters from the new CPG, did they also add some new ones that are now listed?
It is not just dimes and quarters in the newest book. They have not added any coins yet.
https://greatcollections.com/Collections/1120/The-Keyman64-Mercury-Dime-Collection/2024-07-07
I'm now confused. Did CPG drop the varieties? Doesn't PCGS follow the CPG?
They dropped some varieties.
https://greatcollections.com/Collections/1120/The-Keyman64-Mercury-Dime-Collection/2024-07-07
"Dropped" is a little ambiguous. There are listed varieties no longer published in the CPG and there are former varieties that were delisted because it was discovered they never should have been listed in the first place as varieties. Non-published varieties still have FS numbers and are still considered varieties, while the delisted ones aren't.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
So are the ones PCGS "dropped" the same ones CPG no longer published?
Doesn't this seem more like PCGS is following CPG and maybe misunderstood the removal?
It appears that you, and @IkesT, are thinking the same thing.
wow, how could I forget half dimes and twenty cent pieces
Yes!
And why would you reduce a value of a variety just because?
There is, or should be a standardized definition of "Variety" and when found, it should remain as such indefinitely... no Minor Variety... its a Variety or not...
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
That was me! But w/o my permission the seller canceled... I was torn as to what to do, a d they new it.
On one hand, previous to this, the coin had a certain "mintage" and sales records indicated a $550 value... I was undecided if PCGS or CPG had the kind of power ti over turn history and demand.
It all socks!
The seller was expecting $700+ for it, and on one hand, I woild have gotten a great buy... on the other hand, PCGS is obviously not qualified to determine any values.
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
But that isn't the variety price. You just need a different price guide.
It's the price PCGS gives for that exact PCGS certification number.
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
@PwrHsePro @Sandman70gt
I sold these two last year via GC.
1945 DDO FS-101 PCGS MS63 for $355.50. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1172165/1945-Mercury-Dime-DDO-FS-101-PCGS-MS-63
PCGS Price Guide for this exact coin now says $22!!! https://www.pcgs.com/cert/42600257
1945 DDO FS-101 PCGS MS65 for $1,306.12 https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1216634/1945-Mercury-Dime-DDO-FS-101-PCGS-MS-65
PCGS Price Guide for this exact coin now says $45!!! https://www.pcgs.com/cert/41680970
How much do you think they would sell for today?
I was lucky to Cherrypick both of them and auction them last year, opposed to now.
https://greatcollections.com/Collections/1120/The-Keyman64-Mercury-Dime-Collection/2024-07-07
it looks like they cancelled the variety
I got burned a few years ago with a 1922 No D weak reverse ...
Because it's NOT the variety price. Would you only pay the common price for an undesignated variety? What do you do with a raw coin?
I've never once bought a coin using the PCGS price guide.
I dont necessarily buy at PCGS price, but it is a guide line and many do buy according tk that price... not only that, I am less likely to buy a certified coin that I think is a variety when the TPG doesn't say it is...
There is no variety price.
That went away.
Pre auction, if you typed in the certification number, the coin showed up, was listed as a DDO and was listed at $550.
Now if you type in that same certification number, it doesn't ome back as a variety and is listed at $36
You can defend this PCGS action all you want... its still basically bait and switch.
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
I'm not defending the PCGS anything. I'm telling you that the variety has its own price. There are numerous varieties that PCGS doesn't designate. Their value is not determined by the nonexistent entry in the PCGS database. There are guides like the CPG for varieties.
Speaking of the cert verifications, there appears to be other issues associated with this policy shift.
Because select fields were not 'retained/grandfathered', there are now discrepancies between some existing PCGS labels and their cert verification. Namely:
~ the PCGS coin number. The label has the 'old/variety' coin number printed on it, while the cert verification returns the "base" number;
~ and, the variety attribution. The label has one printed on it, but the cert verification does not confirm it.
Example (from your links):
>
By the way, won't the guide going forward have the problem of mixing the variety price with the "base" price if they are under the same number?
I believe that there is a separate PCGS Number for the variety... but the certification number of the coun won't bring the specific coin back as a variety
I mainly collect raw Ancients, PCGS Mercury Dimes, and raw CSA'S... but have misc other sets...Jeffhttps://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/set/215647https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/mysetregistry/showcase/8378
I am not as 'knowledgable/experienced' as others, but I believe that you are correct.
I also think that this observation is directly applicable to the discussion you are having with @PwrHsePro. The cert verifications for the impacted coins appear to be returning guide values for the "base" versions.
Edited to Add:
At the moment, the coin in the examples from @keyman64, PCGS #510032, still shows up in the PCGS price guide. Notwithstanding, this info does not appear to be populating the cert verification page. This is likely due to the coin number change (i.e., 'old/variety' coin number to "base" coin number).
Source: https://www.pcgs.com/prices/detail/mercury-dime-1916-1945/703/most-active/ms?specNo=510032&pn=2
Niche specialist collectors like Eagle Eye and the early SSDC VAM collectors flourished before PCGS was inundated with minor varieties.
As a variety specialist myself, nothing worse than finding a low pop, high grade minor $500 (guessed value) variety nobody wants in the first place... lol
Makes the specialist proud, the flipper angry, and wastes the time of the graders TBH...
If you need a major TPG to verify what you already know... then you are doing something wrong.
After grading fees, ebay fees, etccc... you can likely flip it raw for a decent price and without all the aggravation.
I feel for those harmed, but it is still the same professionally graded and attributed coin.
I would caution panic selling... or buying.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
If you are a collector, how does this affect you?
Existing variety coins in current holders should hold some value.
They still have got a professionally trained opinion.
If you are a flipper... pass
If the coin is meaningful part of your collection beyond $$$... then buy it.
Could be a buying opportunity for the patient.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Looks like the phrase"the only thing constant is change" is applicable here.
I would suggest advocating for something more useful like a volunteer collectors/customer council that maybe meets with PCGS execs once a quarter and relays our concerns and experiences and vice versa.
I think we are saying the same thing when I say that a variety is determined by the coin itself ND not any collector, dealer, or TPGS. Just because micro DDO#14 is not recognized by a TPGS or coin reference and most collectors don't know it exists and don't care because it would be worthless to them and most others... food for thought.
Where are the “listed” varieties not published in the CPG listed?
When you flip to the coin type you’re interested in, the first couple of pages under the main heading have sections about varieties removed from the current volume and new varieties added to the current volume.
Other references that are more complete for the type, mostly the CONECA and VarietyVista listings, but if you look at the cross-references in the CPG, there are other references (Snow for Indian cents, Fletcher for shield nickels, Lawrence for Barber coins, VAM). These attempt to be exhaustive catalogs of everything that has been found. The CPG is a "best hits" compilation and was never meant to be exhaustive.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Now that I’m reading messydesk’s response, I realize I misunderstood the question. My bad. Listen to him, not me.
Agreed @messydesk but where will any idea of valuation come from if CGP, Greysheet, PCGS &NGC price guides drop them? It seems quite unfair to me that they can just randomly make that decision. I understand if a specific variety is in dispute, but that isn't all that common.
When hunting for Lincoln varieties VarietyVista makes it easy, then just match up to PCGS and apply a PCGS to CPG or Greysheet adjustment.
Are there any reliable current pricing guides for varieties that become unlisted?
But to that point, do these trade often enough to be able to have a price guide with any accuracy? At some point it's a fool's errand if there's not enough transaction data and even then, I would imagine some or most of the varieties have huge pricing volatility just due to the fact that sometimes you'll have the correct audience for an auction or platform and get great prices and sometimes you don't and the sale price will disappoint.
Yup, I suppose that is one factor that variety collectors need to understand and expect. Hunting for bargains and hope that you don't need to do a forced sale.
Thanks, I actually was trying to ask where the varieties that still have FS numbers are listed if they are not in CPG.
Actually, I think PCGS should take this issue as an opportunity to expand their variety attributions to include those listed by CONECA and/or Variety Vista. For example, the 1935-S/S Buffnick RPM is listed by CONECA and Variety Vista but not CPG, yet the 1935-D/D IS in CPG. Seems to make no sense not to include both.
The elimination/reclassification of varieties happens. A couple years back the 1849/8 H10C (145432) Overdate FS-302 (001.5) was reclassified to 1849/6 H10C Overdate FS-302 (001.55) -or-1849/6 H10C Over Widely Spaced 6 (4342). I don't want to go through the hassle of resubmitting to our host and CAC, so she is staying in the old designated holder.
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...
I imagine that in general, the varieties that become unlisted from the CPG were removed for lack of collector interest, from which I'm going to infer that there wasn't a demand for the coin at any premium. The variety market beyond the Red Book and major specialty clubs is so thin that it's very difficult to come up with a price guide that has credibility normally ascribed to the trusted guides you mention. Moreover, if someone did come up with a price guide for all 259 RPM Lincolns from 1959-1964 that are on VarietyVista, I'd view it with arched brow.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
>
Ah, in that case, here’s the copy from the most recent Cherrypickers edition:
“Varieties removed are still considered Cherrypickers’ Guide varieties . . . and will continue to be cross-referenced and summarized in Appendix H.” (In Vol 6.2, Appendix H starts on pg 270).
So the removed varieties are still in there, it just takes a little extra page flipping to find them.
Ok, so maybe PCGS should not remove them from Coinfacts or the Registry if they are still in the book (in the appendix) and still have FS numbers.
Why would removed varieties still be "in there?"
I could see them having a list where you can reference debunked CPG varieties and those deemed "too minor." But this is confusing.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
There's just too many of them, many of which have little collector interest.
Mistakes happen, Change happens. One mans variety is another mans meh. Vamworld recently kicked many VAMs to the curb and is continuing to do so. Gee, how many degrees of a circle validates a collar clash? Do you think those with discovery coins appreciate it? Right now I'm working on a coin that lists many varieties exclusively for die file lines. Really? It's why I laugh when I read a For Sale listing and the seller wants $3000 for a $200 coin but it has, as they say, a "special VAM". Variety may be a spice but I'm not eating it.
USAF veteran 1984-2005
It is extremely rare that a VAM is delisted for a variety that actually exists unless it is determined to be the same as another variety. Certainly no such ones are premium bearing ones with variety representation in the PCGS Registry. They just get renumbered to reflect the state of scholarship. And anyone who pays a significant premium for a discovery coin of a variety of no real interest can only blame themself.
Love the variety game!
To me, next to the history/condition of a certain coin. Is that "variety" appearance! So, so interesting and unknown to most. Makes it that more fun, as well as, profitable!
Could our host also be doing this because of the "Redbook" subject?
Meaning, if the variety is in the Redbook, than the variety attribution is FREE!
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.There is a big problem with most of the VAMs listed as collar clashes. None were listed in the context of a comparison of the same die pair without a collar clash.
There are also problems with collar clash varieties in general. Weak collar clashes don't stand up to wear. They may not appear with weak strikes or if struck on planchets with rims that weren't sufficiently upset. Some aren't visible when the coin is in a slab. This is why the requirement of the clash being strong and having a sufficient arc.
When I took over the VAM catalog, I outlined the rules for getting a new variety listed that would help prevent someone's discovery being delisted. For stuff like die breaks and clashes (including collar clashes), someone wanting a new "sub-variety" needs to produce evidence that the die pair made coins with and without the feature in question.
If someone says a coin "has a special VAM," they're misusing the terminology, and you can assume they don't know much about valuation of VAMs.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution