| Author |
 Replies: 60 / Views: 8,672 |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
@CASMAN, I do not have no idea who pay 4.5K. Possible. I put here My 64 and 58 (I use the photos I have from PCGS, better then I will take). If you know so well why do not want to share the knowledge with us to recognize; and show me the semblance with what I have. I thing my coins are on the PCGS web. Thank you.  Edited by silviosi
04/26/2022 10:05 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2376 Posts |
Coop This is my VLDS example of FS-901    |
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
Stonemans example is definitely the FS-901. The remnants of the engraving remain on the arrow bundle. Regarding the photos above, left is a FS-901, middle is a misattribution made by PCGS, and coin on the right was my former AU 55 which per my request was imaged by PCGS.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2784 Posts |
wow totally incredible images.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2784 Posts |
silviosi if your 3 quarters are the same. why is the center coin different.
|
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
@silviosi While I wouldn't expect you to know "who would pay", as I don't know you, I will nonetheless tell you. PCGS has registry sets which are highly competitive. Some of the registry players are self taught while others know very little about coins and simply buy the holder. Generally the top registry set holders will buy top examples to increase their set totals. So when a total pop of 1 coin is offered for sale, they buy it. Of the 3 coins in your photo, left is a legitimate FS-901, the middle is a PCGS misattribution, and the right is my former AU-55 which was purchased by the former #2 finest variety set collector. At that time, there were only 2 known examples attributed by any TPG, both by PCGS. This included the misattributed MS 64 example which was held by the #1 set holder. He was made aware that his coin was misattributed, but because PCGS does not guarantee attribution he kept it in his set. He later purchased a legitimate example from GreatCollections at auction for approx$2k. The other legitimate MS 64 was recently sold on ebay for in and around $2.2K within the last few months. So to date, there are 4 coins graded and attributed, all PCGS, 2-AU-55's, and 2 MS-64's, and 1 misattributed MS64. NGC will not attribute the FS-901. |
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
@Silviosi As I read through your reply above you stated "I put here My 64 and 58 (I use the photos I have from PCGS, better then I will take" I think this is very clear and indicates you claim to own the MS 64 in your photo and the AU 58 as you state using PCGS images, as you state better then I will take. First, there is no AU58. The coin in your post above is a true view of my AU55, which I sold to jwb1040 the then #2 registry holder, then later sold on GreatCollections and currently registered in a variety set, not yours. Can you clarify your statement above? Edit: @Silviosi I'm calling BS, as I know BS when I see it. I found your statement "If you know so much" a bit offensive. The coin you have shown above as yours is currently owned, and in the registry set of Tom Sedivy. That was my discovery coin, and you are not Tom. For reference, PCGS cert # 32400001. The MS 64 you claimed was yours, is owned by Dr. John Phillips, also not you. Should you wish to make any other claims keep in mind there are some well versed collectors aboard. Here's an article link to CW on my discovery coin. https://www.coinworld.com/news/us-c...nghouse.html That's all I've got to say about this thread. Edited by CASMAN
05/02/2022 6:53 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
Me I put my 58 normal and the 64 901. Not more not less. I was surprise by the high price, maybe I am far back with the new market tendencies.
@ Rocky, why the middles are different? Different dies at different stages. In 901 I own one 64, is enough for now, but I way one better. In general I like 66 and plus but Denver 1957 is a question for this quality. This year give me headache because also in Type B I do not find one better then 62.
From 30 years I collect Halves and Quarters. I study them and I collaborate with those who wright about. No one here know my name and will be not publish because is not necessary. Me if I find something I say and then when my study is finish I send to those who publish or others collectors. Everything I find or I thing is new I send with full copyrights, I have mine in sciences and no need for more. This it is, I like those coins, I collect and study and try to have all,
Nice feed back from all, I appreciate the clarity and the skepticism.
Edited by silviosi
05/02/2022 7:19 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
@Rocky If I understand correctly, he posted a PCGS photo of a misattributed FS 901 and has one that looks like this misattributed example. It's not a different die state as such, rather not the FS 901 at all. When PCGS misattributed and trueviewed that coin, it was quickly acknowledged by experts in the series as a mistake. Some believed the reason none had been found since the example imaged in the CPG was that somehow the image was wrong. Several already had examples which matched the misattribution and were in the process of submitting when I discovered a match to the coin pictured in the CPG. While it's true the dies were heavily used, the polishing could not remove all signs of the reengraving as shown in stonemans coin. Despite heavy polishing, the arrow bundle being raised as it were wasn't polished and the remnants of the original engraving work still exists. Perhaps @silvioui can produce his own images, instead of others, it would clear this up. Or if Silviosi would confirm that his purported 64 matches the misattributed PCGS coin, that would make sense. Then he would simply upload images of the purported AU58, unattributed as it must as no AU58 has been attributed by any TPG. Plus, I'm sure everybody would benefit in his/her sharing of knowledge. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
@CAS: Due to your post I send (ADD) 8 more coins shipped to ANACS for reattribution. Let wait what they will say and I will post here. Me in general at 90% I am with the ANACS and VVS. PCGS has problem in attributions or maybe it is just an market business way to do. Sure it is an Type D 1969-D come from them like Type D (RDV-004) do not exist. I send before to them then I learn that it is not an relabel company.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
6244 Posts |
@CAS: You specify the Dr. J. O. Phillips? The gastroenterologist from somewhere from meddle of US? If this is the person, I meet with him one in New York or Corpus Christy (Texas). If same person then I will tell you: we was four DR. at the table to discuss the quarters. If it is the same person then I can tell you: Him was to have all quarters collection but not focus on varieties of the design from RDV-001 trough RDV-0014. If it is same collector him focus of the main Quarters collection with very good sense of the small DD's and Dies events, which us the others we just past over, due to the fact that you can not be on every aspects.
I hope the ANACS will certify me the 901 in what now the certifying go. Hope the 64 and 58 are true even I do not agree with the denomination AU (almost uncirculated) because for me is really non sense. For me a coin is Circulate or Uncirculated, the appellative AU must not exist. But we live with.
time off, see you guys tomorrow.
|
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
Yes, that is the guy. Though you didn't confirm, I'd hope you didn't buy his misattributed MS64. I looked at his set and he still features the misattributed example in his registry set, with the claim that it was the first attributed. Fortunately the coin was true viewed with hi-res image. This image is the same coin you included in your post above, the middle of the 3 coins you posted, alongside my former AU55 to the right. This coin is nothing more than a deteriorated die with heavy die polish lines "somehow" confused by PCGS as reengraving. As I said earlier, the true example LDS similar to Stonemans legitimate example will still show the raised lines within the arrow bundle. I have uploaded a close up photo of the misattributed example.  Also @Silviosi, you've indicated "your 58 and your 64", are these coins actually graded? If so by which grading company? Are they then graded, but not attributed? Edited by CASMAN
05/04/2022 11:30 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2784 Posts |
Thank you for the information very well explained.
|
|
New Member
 United States
5 Posts |
I apologize for taking so long to reply I've been going thru a divorce and is also a reason I haven't sent it in. I'm 100% on this being the (FS-901,Red-001). Also in the little free time I've had I found a (1957d-MM 001), and a few RPMs. Also looking thru my collection have found a 1953 proof Fs901 with the re-engraved wings. I'm not a novice been a collector for 27 years and I'm only 35. Well seasoned when it comes to being under the scope. Each line is rasied and all markers known match. I'm going to be loading more images today as I have a new scope and some free time. I'm considering to sell it and the 53 proof raw as I don't have the time to wait. It was also confirmed by Ian Russell of Great Collection Auctions himself. I've got emails from him to show. Thanks for everyone who commented and I'll post those images soon.
|
|
New Member
United States
33 Posts |
Your photos were enough to attribute as the FS-901. I definitely would not sell it raw or the 53 RTF without first determining the grade. I'd like to see some pics of the 53. I've handled 50+ of that variety and have several raw laying around. If your pics are good enough it's grade potential could possibly be guesstimated. For reference price wise the 57 901 in MS 64 would likely sell in the $1,500 range. A 65 would be the finest known and I'd price it in and around $4-5K. The buyer pool is limited between players #1 and #2. If it were mine I'd submit without attribution first. PCGS is rumored to be harder on variety grades. The last raw coin sold on ebay for approx$400. It was listed as a 57D but the PUPs were visible. NGC will not attribute the FS-901. I just sold a 1953 RTF graded by NGC PF67 and it sold with 1 bid of only $249. I also did not want to wait as I'm indifferent, however, a PCGS in 67+ recently sold for $3600 IIRC. Lastly, regarding the 57-D 901 I just sold my second example in AU55 for $1,000. |
| |
Replies: 60 / Views: 8,672 |
First Page
Posted 04/27/2022 06:53 am
