| Author |
 Replies: 5 / Views: 1,381 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1348 Posts |
Well, PCGS in their infinite wisdom (not) have added three one-cent coins to this registry set. The 1896 Far 6 was added as a mandatory item. The 1887 Far 7 and the 1908 Large over Small Legends were added as optional items (probably soon to be mandatory). For the record, I had nothing to do with these three additions. Luckily for my set, I had two of these three already graded by PCGS. I will now have to submit the third. PCGS is very happy to add these minor varieties to the set, as it drives submission revenue for them. I think the addition of the 1908 is righteous, as these were created by a single working die. IMO, the other two do not belong, as coins from multiple working dies can be considered as Far 6 or Far 7 in those two years. PCGS also frequently gets them wrong. If you do not believe me, check the three photos of coins PCGS attributed as 1896 Far 6 cents in this link and tell me how many should be called 1896 Far 6 cents. The answer is none. https://www.pcgs.com/valueview/vict...568816&h=popI can make similar arguments for the 1881H Repunched N and the 1893 Repunched 9 cents that PCGS has recently added. Both come from multiple dies and do not belong is this set. I have no problem with the 1881H Triple Punched N and the 1893 Triple Punched 9, which come from single dies and are easily identified. Many of us love to collect varieties, but I think the addition of such ill-defined and minor varieties to the PCGS set undermines its integrity of an important set. I am not sure if PCGS is doing this on their own, or if somebody is encouraging them. IMO, it is counterproductive. I also think that PCGS handles these ill-defined, multiple-die varieties so badly that unsuspecting variety collectors will be burned by erroneously labeled PCGS variety coins, and that is very bad for variety collecting. Edited by bosox
10/01/2025 6:01 pm
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5584 Posts |
I wholeheartedly agree that the 1896 and 1887 should not be there and PCGS should actually be able to define a specific variety to a single die. I also agree that not a single coin shown from the PCGS link is actually a "far 6". Since they were handpunched last numerals, the question becomes "How far is far?" And the placement of the last digit was only as accurate as different men's hands at that moment and multiple multiple dies were struck that way. For the 1896 you have not only the space between the 9 and the 6, you have highs and lows added in, as well as canted right or left. In the old CCRS days, I think that we counted 4 different dies with just the spacing distances and on an even plane. Toss in the high, low and canted, you probably have more than 10 variations. I won't even make a hard mention as to "near 9's or "near" 7's. When we brought it up to Bill Cross at Charlton, he agreed that the "far 6" was not a valid variety. Once Charlton put it in the book, Trends normally followed in less than a year, but they've keep it in there so maybe some dealers can make money.
Regardless, I hope that PCGS takes those 2 Vickies off the registry. Just for info, in our working group, we decided that the "true" far 6 really is a far, far, high, canted right 6. I don't know about the 1908, because I stuck mostly to collecting Vicky. As Rob says, it's the same thing with the huge number of hand repunches in the 1881's and 1893's. I agree that the triple punched N for '81 and 9 for the '93's should be the most valid choices for them making to the PCGS registry set. You can take bosox's word as the gospel on Vicky large cents. Everyone who knows him does.
Edited by okiecoiner
10/02/2025 11:00 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1101 Posts |
I was looking at the set compositions and noticed the 1887 and 1896 aren't shown in the Victoria variety set, even though they are in the overall large cent variety set. Maybe they just haven't got around to that yet.
None of my large cents are certified anyway, but I agree from what I've seen PCGS doesn't do a very good job with correctly identifying varieties of Canadian large cents. Collectors shouldn't depend on what's written on the holders. It's best to spend the time studying and learning the varieties. For me, that's most of the fun of collecting anyway.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1348 Posts |
As other examples, they seem to periodically have had trouble correctly identifying the 1891 reverses. I have seen a couple of mint state LDLL cents graded as SDLL. Substantial price difference there.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1348 Posts |
http://www.victoriancent.com2011 & 2025 Fred Bowman Award Winner, 2020 J. Douglas Ferguson Award Winner, & 2022 Paul Fiocca Award Winner. Life Member of RCNA.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5584 Posts |
Yes, one of the things that Jack Griffin told me at one of the shows, when he knew I was a Vicky collector, was that small leaves will always be a small date. We would always chat briefly when I would see him at shows.... Jack talking and his son, much older than me, standing or walking there with Jacks 2 briefcases.
Edited by okiecoiner
10/08/2025 09:59 am
|
| |
Replies: 5 / Views: 1,381 |
|
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.25 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
Posted 10/02/2025 09:12 am
