| Author |
 Replies: 8 / Views: 3,504 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1479 Posts |
I have seen two PCGS mint state 1988 D FS-901's recently that were incorrectly slabbed as "PCGS Wide AM FS-901". Use caution if considering buying one. The flared G of the designers initials are unmistakable under magnification. The two I saw were normal reverses. I wonder how PCGS could get it wrong twice on this one? The reason I'm concerned and posting this is I was interested in buying both. One look and I knew they were wrongly slabbed. *** Moved by Staff to a more appropriate forum. *** |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
10197 Posts |
To clarify, The "flared G of the designer's initials" I take it you are referring to the 89 reverse on the 88, hence TPG's cert as a "88 Wide AM". Correct? most folks refer to the G as a "Crossbar" (89 reverse) or "No Crossbar" (88 reverse), not as "flared" altho it does extend to the right more. This is one of the more confusing Transitional Die Errors out there because of the silly AM!   Edited by Crazyb0
11/13/2017 5:23 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1479 Posts |
Roger on that crazybo. Both were PCGS slabbed MS RED labeled " 1988 D F'S-901 Wide AM". Why PCGS labels them as such is a $5.00 question the forum has already tackled. These coins if they were actually the fat flared G variety would have went upwards of five figures hands down. One was MS68 (ya seriously) the other MS66. Can you. Imagine having a 88 D F'S-901 in MS68? let alone 66. Boy would that be a cherry. Yesterday a 88 Philly 901 went for $109.00 in 65 RB. I am tapped out right now or would have pounced. I am heading to the lock box at bank tomorrow to fetch the 88-D 901 I found roll searching in April, the one with the coinstar kiss. I will get pics. and load them for the forum, it looks 63RB and is a nice example. I haven't sent it off as I know PCGS will label it UNC details ( machine damage). I gotta a bunch of different variety cents I need reslabbed from ANAC and NGC into PCGS. Ouch I figure 400+ in fees but some of the ANAC are stellar reds and might jump up. There is a 92 Close AM in AU-58 on the block as we speak, argh I can't bid on it...Christmas coming and I have 4 granddaughters stockings to fill, plus 3 sons and two daughters in laws. Money, the root of getting more coins. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Ignore the " Wide AM" part because that is meaningless (the rev of 88 and the rev of 89 are both WAM's), the only real question is whether or not the coin is really an FS-901. |
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
PCGS has been deficient in their variety department for a very long time. Misattributions, wrong attributions, and they even had the wrong phone number link for their customer service phone number. They fixed the phone number and promptly booted the informer. If it's a big enough mistake, ie the recent screw up of the MPL Lincoln...they'll deactivate the cert and correct their mistake.
For the smaller screw ups, say $1,000 to $4,000 coins, they simply ignore those mistakes. Fortunately TrueView can help but not all coins are imaged and for some buyers, even top registry set holders they simply buy the Holder, get the bonus points and don't care whether the coin they paid $5,000 as a variety is really worth only $10 bucks. Not a big fan of the politics of PCGS. I expect too much I guess.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
Here's the PCGS cert# for a misattributed 1953 Lincoln FS-402 Reengraved Design. This one has NO Trueview. I spotted it for sale at GC, notified them and they pulled the listing but the coin remains in the database and it also has the CAM designation and if it were the correct variety it'd be the only example with the CAM designation. It was my understanding that PCGS was conducting a photo review of the listing image to confirm it was the 402. Not sure why they have not deactivated the cert #. Seems that would protect any innocent buyer.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1479 Posts |
I'm sending in to PCGS about twenty LMCS 8 of them ANAC and NGC. Its going to cost about the same as a MS-64 1972 DDO (of which I don't have). Its dawning on me that since I only collect and not sell, why PCGS? and why not ANAC? Its the registry set ego priming thing, I don't know If a registry set is the route to go or not. Vie really studied this thing and concluded just the normal non error dates in MS-66 adds up fast and frightful. $1000+ and probably more. I'm going to think about it for 3 more months, my head says buy a 1955 grandady of them all instead and look at others sets online for free. Hey no kidding my ANAC coins are all greatlooking, a 97-101 ear is a doll in 64, the 2006 102 in 64 looks 65. I'm in fat money for a country boy and I want value not screwups $1000 is a months pay after all deductions, I would have been hot had I bid and won those lemon 88-D's. Without all the books I have, the Forum, and sharp eye, I know I would have made a big mistake. I'm rambling...the light is coming on, this hobby is turtailh high stakes. I think Ive hit my sofmore year... |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
Quote:
PCGS has been deficient in their variety department for a very long time. Like about 31 years. (But at least about 3 or 4 years ago they started guaranteeing their attributions. They still get them wrong but at least they are guaranteed when you catch them) NGC has done poorly for 30 years and they DON'T guarantee their attributions. (They will just reholder with the corrected attribution. You paid a premium price for the attribution? Sorry about that.) Edited by Conder101
11/15/2017 6:55 pm
|
| |
Replies: 8 / Views: 3,504 |
|
Posted 11/13/2017 5:50 pm
