How many varieties were not designated in old PCGS holders?
bammbamm
Posts: 33 ✭✭✭
One of my favorite series is gold dollars (minted 1849-1889). For those who know the series, in 1849, the Philadelphia mint made three varieties: No L, Open Wreath, Closed Wreath. And in 1856, the Philadelphia mint made two varieties: Slanted 5 and Upright 5. I have noticed that coins encapsulated in Rattlers and Old Green Holders (all generations) were not designated with these varieties, except for the 1849 No L. All the other 1849 coins are not designated one way or the other, and all are given the PCGS code for Open Wreath. And all the 1856 coins are not designated Slated or Upright, and are given the PCGS code for Slanted.
I own a few OGH samples of both 1849 and 1856 coins labeled this way. If you research the past auction records of Heritage, for instance, you will see many examples of these.
Given that Rattlers and Old Green Holders were used from February 1886 to September 1998, that's twelve and a half years where all the 1849 Open Wreath and Closed Wreath coins that were graded were all designated with the Open Wreath code and population data; and where all the 1856 Slanted 5 and Upright 5 coins that were graded were all designated with the Slanted 5 code and population data. This must skew the population reports numbers for each date.
The 1849 Closed Wreath is considered scarcer than the 1849 Open Wreath; and the 1856 Upright 5 is considered much scarcer than the 1856 Slanted 5. And this is indeed true. But maybe not as scarce as is believed, depending on how many 1849 Closed Wreath coins and 1856 Upright 5 coins were graded back during this twelve and a half year period. For instance, the combined PCGS and NGC population reports suggest that the 1856 Upright 5 is 16 percent rarer than the Slanted 5. But maybe it's more like 20 to 25 percent.
Two questions I have regarding this:
1. Did PCGS keep records of how many coins of each type and date they encapsulated? And if so, are those records available?
2. Has any other collector noticed this with old PCGS holders of types of coins that they collect?
I'm interested to hear with others think about this and what insight you may have. Thanks.
Comments
Here is an excerpt from an 2005 ANA article about the 1856 gold dollar:
Source: https://www.money.org/uploads/pdfs/1856_Upright_5_Final_Article.pdf
Edited to correct a typo.
That article in Numismatist was 20 years ago (April 2005). Any new information since?
I recognize that the ANA article is dated, and that it does not answer all of your questions.
That said, respectfully, you asked if PCGS documented specific varieties during the "old PCGS holder" period. The article suggests that they did not for the 1856 G$1 during their first 12 years of operation. Doesn't matter if the article was written just after they started to attribute these varieties, or yesterday. The history, complete with commentary from J.D., is the history. And, as you have inferred, this history will likely impact other coins with currently recognized varieties.
@bammbamm, interestingly, just had a similar experience trying to add a coin to my registry set that I’ve had in my collection since the early 90’s. The old green holder does not designate this Flying Eagle cent as the small letters variety. Along with its Large Letters cent counterpart, these both share the same PCGS code for an 1858 Flying Eagle cent. I want to keep the OGH, so I guess I’ll have to bite the bullet, and not enter it into my set.
Yes, you are correct, my wrong, sorry. It is a very informative article. It is also interesting to learn that NGC didn't designate the two varieties for its first 12 years of business either, but that ANACS did designate the two different varieties since the beginning of their grading operation.
The article also gives an estimate of how many 1856 were encapsulated by PGCS and NGC during these 12 years (see copied text of article).
Are there any other articles out there regarding the ratio difference of the 1849 varieties during these same 12 years?
Thanks. Interesting to learn about Flying Eagle cents also not being designated back in the early days either. I'm sure this is the same for other varieties in other series. I agree with you on preferring to keep the coin in the OGH. I would do the same, and I have for my gold dollars in OGHs. I don't have my collection listed on the set registry, so that isn't an issue for me. (Plus, one of my rare date gold dollars is in an old NGC holder, and those are not accepted in the PCGS registry.)
In my research of auction records of 1856 gold dollars in old PGCS holders, I came across this Upright 5 in an OGH. It was given the PCGS code of 6944, which is the code for the 1856 Seated Liberty Dollar. The PCGS code for the Slanted 5 is 7540, which is what is on the 1856 gold dollars encapsulated during their first 12 years. The PCGS code for the Upright 5 is 7451. Not sure why this coin was given the code 6944, other than maybe a clerical error or this was what it was marked down on the submission application.
Appears to be a 'clerical/mechanical' error. It happens.
A studious person could do quite well buying non-designated varieties in all series and even in present day holders. If variety attribution isn’t asked for and it’s not considered a “major variety” then it usually doesn’t end up on the label. A close friend of mine spends his retirement scanning eBay for graded but unattributed minor varieties and cleans up, with several 5 figure hits annually.
Empty Nest Collection
Great coins in this thread! And very interesting topic covered…
Indeed, coins sent in under regular service will not get the designation, I found out after buying an 1866 IHC, it was after showing it on the boards here that it was discovered to be a better variety…
It got an eagle eye, so Rick designated it on his end, and that’s good enough for me!
My YouTube Channel
@renomedphys . I don't know about generating fabulous wealth but the fact coins in holders only get certain designations if "paid for" plays a large role in my collection. It also helps that there are new ways to add those designations that don't require re-slabbing. James
@jfriedm56:
Good choice Zack - any FE collector recognizes that SL. I think we sometimes get caught up in Registry improvement, but it’s good to keep these old ones as is. I have two of those & I think they’re more impressive just like they are:
I would never crack these out for the LL!
Ken
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Here’s another one:
Label #1745 identifies “head of 1838”. It’s actually #1749 “silly head”, which wasn’t a separate designation back in the day. Leaving this one as is.
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Last one:
Pretty obvious this is the 1867/67 aka the S-1 variety. But as it’s in a coveted doily, it’s staying that way. Any IHC collector can spot this with a naked eye!
“The thrill of the hunt never gets old”
PCGS Registry: Screaming Eagles
Copperindian
Retired sets: Soaring Eagles
Copperindian
Nickelodeon
Don't know the answer, but owned this Pop. "0" type 2 for several years!
As I have had this in my collection for over 30+ years, there is no reason I would ever want to have it reholdered. Zack.
MOST OF THEM because as I understand it, NGC and PCGS only did mostly Redbook varieties. The 1946 DDR 50c was an easy call yet commonly found unattributed.