PCGS Mis-Attribution Of An 1859 Variety

Well, this is what I got on a Guarantee re-submission...

That's too bad that PCGS still didn't get it right even after resubmission. Will PCGS guarantee and make up the value difference to the owner of a coin that has been mis-attributed?

I feel for you jdmern. This has got to be frustrating. I have also bought coins from you in the past and know you to be completely honest and trustworthy. I hope PCGS will get this right for you.

PCGS is letting things get out of hand. There is no way in h*ll that they are going to start listing all the minutia that engulfs the 1859 date. In order for any coin to be called a DP#4, it has to have ALL of the markers, not just a weakly repunched N. I think that you are messing up what was a fairly concrete submission and verification process, C-V. By dreaming up new names for old Zoell varieties and then submitting them for a new certification category, there are just too many fingers in the pie. You could do that with CCCS, because he would put ANYTHING that the submitter wanted on the certification .. I would hope that PCGS is both smarter and more honest with their cert process than CCCS used to be. You mention the '81 triple punched N's ... there are 3 different types. Which one did you convince PCGS to list as triple-punch N? I also don't know what you mean by "PCGS has done this with a bunch of Canadian varieties".

okiecoiner, your beef is entirely with PCGS. I have never asked PCGS to recognize a new variety, you need to speak to bosox and others about the new varieties that PCGS is recognizing and assigning PCGS Numbers to. I only follow PCGS's lead AFTER it has created a variety.

But let me give you one of dozens of examples of where PCGS has messed up. This is so easy to verify, even you can handle it. Please just click on the link and check the 3 photos.

https://www.PCGS.com/valueview/vict...508088&h=pop

Look at the 3 different varieties that PCGS labels 1870 10c Narrow 0/0. One PCGS #, but three completely different repunched Narrow 0s.

"By dreaming up new names for old Zoell varieties and then submitting them for a new certification category, there are just too many fingers in the pie" - I have NEVER done this, so take your false accusations and throw them at someone else. As far as I know, only bosox and zonad have submitted coins to PCGS and requested the naming of "new varieties".

I dont know how to make this any clearer for you. PCGS has dropped the ball here from day 1. And just like I showed you with the example of 3 different 1870 repunched Narrow 0/0s, there is no way for PCGS to correct their mistake now that they've lumped all those different varieties together, slabbed them and sent those slabs out into the world. Most buyers will never send those slabs back to "correct" the mistakes.



p.s. if you need to see more examples of where PCGS has completely messed up slabbing Canadian varieties, I will be happy to post more. Long story short, jdmern has done absolutely nothing wrong here and it makes perfect sense for him to leave the coin in the PCGS DP9-4 slab as is and sell it as such.

Sorry C-V, I misinterpreted what you said above about the 1881's ... that you had several types of T/P's N's you wanted cert'd and more than one "spur" (the one in Regina in the only one), not the one in Canada. It still burns me that they still have the 1896 far 6 in PCGS, when most collectors know there are an infinite number of what constitutes "far" and whether it's up, down, or canted. I have absolutely no use for ANY TPG, but held out hope that PCGS would be truer to numismatics. Some of that ire rubbed off on you .. pardon me.

Boondoggle is the right the word! Seems there really is no consensus on this piece. I certainly understand that the expert specialists feel extremely strongly in one direction (and considering they are the ones who would be paying the extra money for the variety, they certainly have a very valid point), while the experts at PCGS seem to feel just as strongly in regards to several similar varieties qualifying as the 'same variety'.

Certainly an eye opening experience for several reasons, but I wish it had been with a lesser valued piece!

okiecoiner...no problem, and you're right about the 1896 Far 6, it's the same kind of situation, PCGS doesn't differentiate among the many 1896 Far 6s. Lumps them all together.

jdmern, if it will make you feel any better, here is your exact 9/9 variety (Haxby E12), but this time, PCGS attributed it as a DP9 No.2, MS64RB, Sold by Heritage Auctions 2015 for $1997.50USD.
You can confirm it's the same exact coin as yours (die crack on leaf 7)

https://coins.ha.com/itm/canada/wor...bnail-071515

That coin was in the "Eric Beckman Collection of Canadian Coins".
Note that even Heritage Auctions simply called it a DP9 Type 2. That's why I said, just leave it as PCGS DP9-4.

and believe it or not, but your coin shows up again as a PCGS DP9-2 on Heritage Auctions, this time in the 2011 September Long Beach Signature Auction PCGS DP9-2 MS64BN for $1610 USD.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/canada/wor...bnail-071515

That gives you an idea of how common this problem is (and how scarce a real DP9-2 is). PCGS really has trouble with your 9/9, and honestly, in the future, PCGS will probably continue labeling these as either DP9-2 or DP9-4.

In terms of the Haxby 1859 Catalog, your coin is a Haxby E12. You can see it here
https://www.vickycents.com/rev-e12.html