| Author |
 Replies: 11 / Views: 1,940 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1442 Posts |
Not sure if any of you have had this dilemma.  Say, hypothetically, you have a nice red 1859 DP3 cent in AU+.  You want it in a nice hard holder, so ICCS is out of the question. Lets assume PCGS will give it AU55 but wont designate DP3. Lets assume CCCS will give it EF45 but will designate DP3. Would you: 1. Slab it with PCGS and leave it at that. You have the widest market exposure and highest grade, but no "proof" the coin is a DP3. 2. Slab it with CCCS with the lower grade and have the DP3 on the holder. You may lose potential international customers if you try to resell it. 3. Slab it with PCGS to have widest market exposure, but cross-grade with CCCS to have the variety identified, while leaving the coin in the PCGS holder. Of course, this costs more money - but only $6 more if you're sending 100+ coins to CCCS. This is assuming you will one day sell the coin when you find a 1859 DP3 in mint state, and want to get the most value out of your current coin.  p.s. unfortunately I dont have a 1859 DP3 in AU+  |
|
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
103 Posts |
option #3...get the benefit of PCGS US (and Canadian) acceptance, and CCCS attribution.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2301 Posts |
Edited by nickelsguy
08/04/2011 8:13 pm
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
103 Posts |
@nickelsguy...I'm not a variety collector...so I'm assuming that coin is not a dp#2? So, what is it?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2301 Posts |
It is not a DP #2. I will allow bosox or Dan expand when they see this. :-)
Edited by nickelsguy
08/04/2011 9:06 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
1353 Posts |
It's a minor re-punched 9. Definitely not a DP#2 and worth considerably less. PCGS often lumps different RP 9 dies under the DP#2 label. I have also seen ICCS do this. Buyer beware.
I have also seen both PCGS and ICCS erroneously label high grade (a PCGS MS-63 and an ICCS AU-55) coins as DP#1. Wasn't so.
Louis is better with one cent varieties, but I have also seen CCCS attribution errors. There was a LDLL in a SDLL holder that I recall. Not sure who ate that one.
My best advice is to learn what these varieties look like before you buy. You can download my article (Double Punched 1859 Cents) on the markers for these two varieties here:
Sorry - the direct link did not work. Google "CEVNA errors and varieties" and you should get to the page.
Edited by bosox
08/04/2011 9:28 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2301 Posts |
Thank you sir! Is that gorgous 1904 tucked safely away? :-)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1353 Posts |
10-4  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1442 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1472 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
372 Posts |
Funny ,I had a MS-62RB DP Type 2 in a PCGS holder.Due to all the controversy about the misattribution,I had it moved to CCCS where it now lay in peace as DP N02.
I am just wondering if PCGS would reimburse the buyer of a wrongly attributed variety?
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
103 Posts |
I've heard that PCGS considers mis-attributions to be a "labeling" error, and won't reimburse for it. Has anyone else heard this? I've also heard that ICCS considers everything they put on their label to be an opinion only, and won't reimburse for anything.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,940 |
|
Posted 08/04/2011 11:59 am
