| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 2,843 |
|
Valued Member
United States
54 Posts |
Edited by SlyCynic
03/16/2016 9:01 pm
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
They've changed the Variety Vista website so much, that I can't find what I used to locate there. But to me your coin looks like a damaged punch. They mentioned there before about an issue with the punch and now I can't find that information.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
616 Posts |
Nice Cherrypick SlyCynic! It clearly appears to be FS-25-1968S-501 / CONECA: RPM-003! You can easily see the well defined remnants of the secondary mintmark north of the primary S! Coop was right about one thing, many examples of this series were struck with a damaged punch, however what he would have discovered if he could have found the missing information, is that they presented as smeared, mushy mintmarks surrounded by haze with no clear definition of a secondary mintmark whatsoever. Check out page 221 in Vol. 2 of the CPG 5th Ed. There's a great pic of the FS-501 and it's not hard to see that your coin is an identical example, just captured under different environmental conditions. And on a PCGS PR69.....Very nice indeed!  You've got a good eye for cherrypicking!  Lucky Dog!  Got me wanting to pull out all my 68-S sets out of the closet and find me one!  Edited by JDRMCB
03/17/2016 06:26 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
616 Posts |
Here's a pic with the OP's Proof Quarter seen at top left along with three different attributed examples pictured on the PCGS Coinfacts webpage.  Looks good to me!  |
|
Valued Member
 United States
54 Posts |
Thanks JDR! THat's reassuring news indeed. Since getting back into the hobby, this is the first cool find I've had. Motivation, certainly, to continue on my trek.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
54 Posts |
Anyone have a sense for the value of such an error on a PR-69? I can't seem to get a feel for it. Also, is it something I should send back to PCGS to have the error annotated? And, if I do, do I run the risk of them downgrading it? I have zero experience/knowledge of how ratings work. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
616 Posts |
You're veering into uncharted territory with this one!  The PCGS Census Report states Top Pop for this variety is a sole 68 valued at $250 with no CAM's or DCAM's attributed across the board. Sending it in for attribution should not affect the grade, being that it's not a re-grade, just attribution.  With such a small census across the board, this coin could be a game changer!  There's an unattributed NGC PR67 on the bay right now with a BIN price of $105. Not sure of NGC's official pop. for this variety, but one could assume it would be just as low. But as with any other durable good, it's value will be determined by just how much someone is willing to pay you for it on any given date and time. My guess...Top Pop Variety out of an already extremely low total populated census (aka-Supply) equals to obscenely high interest (aka-Demand) from the high end Registry Set builders. I'm an optimist, so I'll just say, "Sky's the limit on this one!" |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
I feel the real value is more in the graded coin. The mint mark issue is not a premium for your coin. You might check the PCGS site to see if they give a value for your coin? There were a lot of high grade proof coins in the 1960's. So you would need a price for that year on this. BU coins some years don't grade very high, some proof coins do have higher grades.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
616 Posts |
Quote:
I feel the real value is more in the graded coin. The mint mark issue is not a premium for your coin. This statement doesn't make any sense to me. Since when has a normal PR69 slabbed coin held more value that the same PR69 coin, with a scarce RPM attribution?  Here's the official PCGS Coin Facts pricing for both coins. 1968-S 25C PCGS PR69 $45 1968-S 25C PCGS PR69 "RPM FS-501" $500+ Coop, I beg to differ. I'm quite certain the real value of this coin lies with the mintmark.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4113 Posts |
WTG, Congrats on a great find! |
|
Valued Member
United States
334 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
54 Posts |
At the risk of seeming overly needy, I need more advice here if some of you are willing to provide. I think the right thing to do is to send it to PCGS to have the variety affixed. For some reason, I'm nervous about that. I sent them an email asking whether or not it could be downgraded in the process, and I got a rather generic response back basically saying "we can't guarantee that."
So, my questions are around submitting (I'm already a PCGS member, though I haven't submitted anything yet). It seems like I should submit as a "reholder" with the "variety attrib" selected... identifying as an RPM FS-501. Questions are:
1. Does that sound right?
2. Is there a risk of downgrading because of the RPM?
3. What's the best way to send the slab? USPS Priority with the form and insurance?
I would just hate to get it back with the attrib but with a grade change to 68. Any advice would be most appreciated. I feel like I have something cool here, and I don't want to screw it up. Thanks!
|
|
Valued Member
United States
477 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
Edited by coop
03/19/2016 01:33 am
|
|
Valued Member
United States
54 Posts |
I think my last questions kinda got lost in the thread - can anyone help me out?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
62064 Posts |
PCGS only uses the FS numbers for the grading purposes, which also costs more for this service. Anacs will graded with other attributors numbers. (even coppercoins numbers will also work) So you would need to see if it matches the FS numbers. Then you might have a chance.
They will tell you how to send your coin.
I would make sure you have a match before you submit your coin. It is always safe in the holder you have. If you have to send it back to them, they will probably ask you to remove the coin from the holder. (which I would not do) IMOHO
|
| |
Replies: 20 / Views: 2,843 |
Posted 03/17/2016 06:24 am
