| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 2,270 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
Thoughts? My personal vote is for 1859 1c DP9 No.4. I have never seen more misattributed coins or holders than for this variety  I know for a fact that one of the PCGS 1859 1c DP9 No.4 MS64 in their population report is NOT a DP9 No.4. The coin below is extremely rare, not because its MS63 but because it's correctly attributed by NGC    Edited by canadian-varieties
04/18/2016 9:18 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9862 Posts |
CV, have you ever seen one of these that wasn't misatributed?  "Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5585 Posts |
C-V: I think that the most incorrectly attributed is a #2 .. where they assign a #2, when the coin is a #3, 4 or other repunched 9. I've even seen #1's marked as #2's.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
302 Posts |
I'm more inclined to agree with C-V on this one. #2 is one of the easiest to diagnose (I know, I know, some still blow it). The problem with #4 is that the die collapsed near the date and with time the coins from it became increasingly difficult to diagnose as a repunched 9 at all. I've long harped that a late state #4 (which can still be identified by die cracks) is worth much less than an early state example (like the beauty C-V has shown us here) where the repunching is crystal clear.
Edited by JHax
04/19/2016 12:33 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
257 Posts |
Hey that's the coin I sold you!!
hehe, glad to see it is getting the attention it deserves :)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1442 Posts |
Jhax...I totally agree with your assessment.
GregJG...I absolutely LOVE this coin. It will be in my book and it will be off the market and in my collection until I've kicked the bucket lol...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5585 Posts |
Maybe something got lost in the translation. I said #2 because the TPG's many times call a #3, #4, or other repunched 9 (that is similar) a DP#2. They usually always get the ACTUAL #2's right ... it's just that they tag other varieties with the #2 moniker. That's why I said #2 was the most misattributed... not that the #2's are hard to misidentify. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
You're right okiecoiner... I picked DP9 No.4, because it can be found in DP9-1, DP9-2, DP9-Variation, or unattributed holders. And when the holder DOES say DP9 No.4, it sometimes ISN'T the DP9 No.4 coin! LOL... The PCGS population report overstates the numbers of actual DP9-2s and DP9-4s in mint state... In fact, I'll be as bold as to say, that the DP9-2 may be one of the most undervalued "major" 1859 varieties in mint state. They are difficult to obtain and I've been very fortunate, in 5 years to obtain 3 true DP9-2s in mint state (a MS62, MS63 and MS64) for $1000-$1500 each...which is ridiculous, as they may be among the Top 5 or 6 known  Edited by canadian-varieties
04/19/2016 9:14 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
Quote:
I picked DP9 No.4, That is one sweet and 'oh so tough' cent to find in that great grade..and a great coin to have.. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
Thanks DEVLEC...its the first one in mint state I've seen in 5 years I believe...
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
257 Posts |
I actually bought the 1859 #4 at an auction where it was holdered in the NGC 1859 #4 it is currently in, but labelled on the auction website as a variety #2 with no picture.... auctions...
Luckily I knew the collector who was selling and saw it in person beforehand.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
..and my #4 was called a #1 way back in the day..and it's still in that ICCS holder. It's interesting to see the die cracks that came out near the end of it's life..The d/c at leaf 7 is so very visible in mine..when compared to the above state..which does show the 9 in much greater definition than mine. More d/c's at leaf 3/4,..8,..and 11/12.. I also like the RP in the 5 and that does not get much mention when discussions come up as to ID-ing the #4..       . . Edited by DEVLEC
04/25/2016 5:27 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
The Charlton Catalogue bears responsibility for a lot of the confusion...
they keep recycling the same garbage picture of a 1859 DP9-4 year after year, where crud completely obscures the doubling of the 5.
Seriously...is it THAT difficult to update one picture in your book in 10 years? Or is it that the authors/editors/publishers simply dont care?
|
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 2,270 |
|
Posted 04/19/2016 07:49 am
