Options
"Low interest" and debunked varieties in the Cherrypickers' Guide
Dentuck
Posts: 3,854 ✭✭✭✭
One significant cataloging change in the fifth edition, volume II, of the Cherrypickers’ Guide involves the removal of low-interest and debunked varieties.
Certain published varieties have proven over time to be of low collector interest, and we’ve slated these for future removal from the coin-by-coin listings in order to make room for other, more important, varieties. They will remain Cherrypickers’ Guide varieties (as opposed to being “delisted,” as such); for example, they’ll continue to be cross-referenced and summarized in the appendices.
An exception would be varieties debunked as counterfeit, or which later research revealed to be erroneous classifications. These will be delisted entirely.
A special note regarding our treatment of the various “Micro O” Morgan dollars (1896-O, 1900-O, etc.): These are popular and collectible among VAM enthusiasts. Those Micro O’s known to have been made from counterfeit dies are listed in the fifth edition, volume II, but will be deleted in the 6th edition in order to make room for genuine varieties. Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they’ll continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix.
The 1899-O (FS-S1-1899o-501), which is a genuine Micro O, will stay in the book with its complete listing.
Some forum members have wondered who makes decisions as to a variety’s popularity, rarity rating, liquidity factor, and other details covered in the Cherrypickers’ Guide. These decisions are made by the authors and editor Ken Potter, after consultation and conversation with experts and specialists across the hobby community --- collectors, dealers, researchers, etc.
Certain published varieties have proven over time to be of low collector interest, and we’ve slated these for future removal from the coin-by-coin listings in order to make room for other, more important, varieties. They will remain Cherrypickers’ Guide varieties (as opposed to being “delisted,” as such); for example, they’ll continue to be cross-referenced and summarized in the appendices.
An exception would be varieties debunked as counterfeit, or which later research revealed to be erroneous classifications. These will be delisted entirely.
A special note regarding our treatment of the various “Micro O” Morgan dollars (1896-O, 1900-O, etc.): These are popular and collectible among VAM enthusiasts. Those Micro O’s known to have been made from counterfeit dies are listed in the fifth edition, volume II, but will be deleted in the 6th edition in order to make room for genuine varieties. Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they’ll continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix.
The 1899-O (FS-S1-1899o-501), which is a genuine Micro O, will stay in the book with its complete listing.
Some forum members have wondered who makes decisions as to a variety’s popularity, rarity rating, liquidity factor, and other details covered in the Cherrypickers’ Guide. These decisions are made by the authors and editor Ken Potter, after consultation and conversation with experts and specialists across the hobby community --- collectors, dealers, researchers, etc.
0
Comments
Low interest, according to whom? Not the collectors? Most collectors what more varieties listed, not less. If you are worried about not having room in the two volumes, then print three.
In one paragraph you say
<< <i>An exception would be varieties debunked as counterfeit, or which later research revealed to be erroneous classifications. These will be delisted entirely. >>
Then the next breath, you say
<< <i>For example, see our treatment of the various “Micro O” Morgan dollars (1896-O, 1900-O, etc.). These are popular and collectible among VAM enthusiasts. Those Micro O’s known to have been made from counterfeit dies are listed in the fifth edition, volume II, but will be deleted in the 6th edition in order to make room for genuine varieties. Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they’ll continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix. >>
There are no shades of gray here, if counterfeit
<< <i>These will be delisted entirely. >>
? Or,
<< <i>Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they’ll continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix. >>
Guess it depends on what your definition of "entirely" is?
The Micro O's will be removed from the coin-by-coin listings.
<< <i>Yes, collectors.
The Micro O's will be removed from the coin-by-coin listings. >>
I noticed in the Fifth editoin, the 1971-S DDR-001 (FS-801) is slated to being moved to the cross reference section only. Why, it has some nice doubling on HALF DOLLAR and many collectors are still looking for this variety or looking for a better example of what they have.
On the counterfeit "micro O", are they being delisted entirely or moved to the cross reference section only? If they are being moved to the cross reference section only but retaining thier FS numbers then they are not being delisted. Please let us know what you mean. Confussed.
<< <i>I noticed in the Fifth editoin, the 1971-S DDR-001 (FS-801) is slated to being moved to the cross reference section only. >>
Yes, this was based on conversations with dealers and collectors, and a review of market activity for this variety.
<< <i>On the counterfeit "micro O", are they being delisted entirely or moved to the cross reference section only? >>
The counterfeit Micro O's are being removed from the coin-by-coin section. Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they will continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix.
<< <i>One significant cataloging change in the fifth edition, volume II, of the Cherrypickers’ Guide involves the removal of low-interest and debunked varieties.
Certain published varieties have proven over time to be of low collector interest, and we’ve slated these for future removal from the coin-by-coin listings in order to make room for other, more important, varieties. They will remain Cherrypickers’ Guide varieties (as opposed to being “delisted,” as such); for example, they’ll continue to be cross-referenced and summarized in the appendices.
An exception would be varieties debunked as counterfeit, or which later research revealed to be erroneous classifications. These will be delisted entirely.
A special note regarding our treatment of the various “Micro O” Morgan dollars (1896-O, 1900-O, etc.): These are popular and collectible among VAM enthusiasts. Those Micro O’s known to have been made from counterfeit dies are listed in the fifth edition, volume II, but will be deleted in the 6th edition in order to make room for genuine varieties. Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they’ll continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix.
The 1899-O (FS-S1-1899o-501), which is a genuine Micro O, will stay in the book with its complete listing.
Some forum members have wondered who makes decisions as to a variety’s popularity, rarity rating, liquidity factor, and other details covered in the Cherrypickers’ Guide. These decisions are made by the authors and editor Ken Potter, after consultation and conversation with experts and specialists across the hobby community --- collectors, dealers, researchers, etc. >>
The only real problem here is that PCGS does not recognize nor attribute varieties which are "summarized in the appendices".
A perfect example is the 1977-D Kennedy Half Dollar DDO-001. It's in the old 4th edition appendix and even has an FS-101 number but PCGS will not attribute it as such.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>I noticed in the Fifth editoin, the 1971-S DDR-001 (FS-801) is slated to being moved to the cross reference section only. >>
Yes, this was based on conversations with dealers and collectors, and a review of market activity for this variety.
<< <i>On the counterfeit "micro O", are they being delisted entirely or moved to the cross reference section only? >>
The counterfeit Micro O's are being removed from the coin-by-coin section. Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they will continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix. >>
Nobody asked me.
The name is LEE!
Then we can buy the one we collect and you can put many many many more varieties in it.
<< <i>On the counterfeit "micro O", are they being delisted entirely or moved to the cross reference section only? >>
The counterfeit Micro O's are being removed from the coin-by-coin section. Their Fivaz-Stanton numbers will be retained, and they will continue to be listed in the cross-reference appendix. >>
So your statement "An exception would be varieties debunked as counterfeit, or which later research revealed to be erroneous classifications. These will be delisted entirely" was and is not correct.
A counterfeit is a counterfeit and if they maintain an FS number what is next? Do the Chinese counterfeits stand in line for FS numbers to be put into the cross reference section or maybe Dan Carr’s 1964 Peace dollars?
Whitman might want to re-think their policy on this. If the Cherrypickers’ Guide wants to maintain the elusion of being a reference book to rare die varieties of United State coins, do they really want known counterfeits listed within the pages of said book giving creditability to such counterfeits? Or be known for recognizing some counterfeits but not others? Maybe Whitman should be concerned with the Cherrypickers’ Guide recognizing varieties of United States coins produced by the United States Mint.
To me, all counterfeits should be treated the same, none of this “all are equal but some more equal then others” stuff.
<< <i>A perfect example is the 1977-D Kennedy Half Dollar DDO-001. It's in the old 4th edition appendix and even has an FS-101 number but PCGS will not attribute it as such. >>
Lee,
Hopefully this has been taking care of in the Fifth edition. Dad sent a 1977-D DDO-001 to Ken Potter for photographing and it is now listed in the main text of the book so hopefully PCGS will start attributing this variety.
Caleb
<< <i>
<< <i>A perfect example is the 1977-D Kennedy Half Dollar DDO-001. It's in the old 4th edition appendix and even has an FS-101 number but PCGS will not attribute it as such. >>
Lee,
Hopefully this has been taking care of in the Fifth edition. Dad sent a 1977-D DDO-001 to Ken Potter for photographing and it is now listed in the main text of the book so hopefully PCGS will start attributing this variety.
Caleb >>
You know that we've been throuhg this exercise before but as long as its listed, with a photo, in the body of the book, it'll get attributed.
My concern is that coins which get moved to the appendices will eventually fall of the charts since no photographs will be available in the CPG to guide collectors. And yes I realize that there are other publications but as it sits right now, a lot of folks ONLY reference the CPG. In other words, if it ain't in the CPG it ain't sh%^&!
PCGS will still have the coin number on file BUT once the varieties go "low interest" (as determined by whatever means) and slowly move to the appendices, won't the interest fall off even more and wouldn't the appropriate action by PCGS be to "delist them" as they have with other varieties?
I do believe that the CPG is a valuable tool for new and experienced variety collectors but I also believe that since it is such a widely used and accepted tool that what appears within its pages should stay within its pages. The book should be modified to accomodate all the significant varieties as suggested above. I mean, it's already split into two separate volumes right now, why not split it again with perhaps Volume II dedicated for half-dimes to Quarter Dollars and a Volume III dedicated for Half Dollars to Everything else?
The name is LEE!
IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!!!
<< <i>Low interest or not - I feel very strongly that once a variety is listed and put in the PCGS set it should NEVER be taken out.
IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!!! >>
Not to mention that it kinda messes with the value as well.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Low interest or not - I feel very strongly that once a variety is listed and put in the PCGS set it should NEVER be taken out.
IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!!! >>
<< <i>
<< <i>Low interest or not - I feel very strongly that once a variety is listed and put in the PCGS set it should NEVER be taken out.
IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!!! >>
I can think of lots of reasons a coin should be added or subtracted form PCGS lists such as the famous 1869/8 vs 1869/9 cent. Also if PCGS added it because it made another list and upon seeing it in hand it doesn't impress them is as good a reason as any to take it off. While the fans of said variety will be disappointed it keeps the gene pool of the ones that do rate strong without diluting it too much with minor stuff.
Nothing in life is static and forever and neither should PCGS's lists. If a variety deserves to truly be on the list it will stay, no one is threatening to take the 1942/1 dime off the list.
I'm tired of reading about how little interest so-called "advanced" collectors have in these. They are significant (some more dramatic and rarer to find than others) errors that should have been recognized by all of
the grading companies (not just Anacs) by now and given their due. Admittedly the 100+ identified errors (not as clear cut as a '55 dd cent) and the volume that they were produced make them seem less
important but there are a few of these errors that are, as I stated before, more rare and dramatic than the average that should definately hold a place of importance in the history of mint errors. For those that
say you can only see them through magnification, that is true for any small coin. I even need my loupe to see vams on Morgans, so even larger coins can be a challenge to view varieties. (by the way, I have
20/20vision). I would imagine that since the leaders in the numismatic world are "advanced" collectors there is a reluctance to take a second look at their collective opinion on these so we (who do champion
them) are left waiting and hoping. As to the suggestion that there is only a small percentage of collectors that care about these I would counter with the same argument others have suggested....the less said in
the major publications and TPG's the less interest will be generated. If they are omitted, as Lyds said, they won't count for *%&#! Now, please let me and the rest of us that do think these should be recognized
in the CPG and Redbook publications and not relegated to a footnote, finally hear that indifference is turning into acceptance and enthusiasm. Viva la 2009 double dies! Now is the time for the revolution...let the
groundswell begin here and now!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Low interest or not - I feel very strongly that once a variety is listed and put in the PCGS set it should NEVER be taken out.
IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!!!!! >>
I can think of lots of reasons a coin should be added or subtracted form PCGS lists such as the famous 1869/8 vs 1869/9 cent. Also if PCGS added it because it made another list and upon seeing it in hand it doesn't impress them is as good a reason as any to take it off. While the fans of said variety will be disappointed it keeps the gene pool of the ones that do rate strong without diluting it too much with minor stuff.
Nothing in life is static and forever and neither should PCGS's lists. If a variety deserves to truly be on the list it will stay, no one is threatening to take the 1942/1 dime off the list. >>
IMO, the "importance" of a particular variety should never be determined by how "impressed" either an individual or an organization might be with it since the importance of the variety is actually determined by the folks which collect it and are intimately familiar with its particular significance.
The name is LEE!
Like it or not, when a variety gets put in the CPG and assigned an FS#, it usually becomes eligible for PCGS Variety Attribution and, most importantly, inclusion in PCGS Registry sets.
Because of the Set Registry guys pursuing set completion and Registry points, a minor variety can be suddenly transformed from an igsignificant micro variety nobody cares about, into a four figure coin.
Here is an example. I bought a minor tripled die 1960 proof 5c many years ago , attributed, in an ANACS slab for $18.
Once the variety was put in the CPG, I decided to send it to PCGS. You can see the result here!: $1550 plus juice!!
So how would this buyer feel if his precious nickel got an appendectomy??