Thread: Large Cent Tip 8/2

This is a mislabeled PCGS holder indicating a Reverse of 94 when it is a Reverse of 97. It is unattributed, but the reverse is easily identifiable as Reverse K with two leaves at (C)A and touching the A. The leaf above is directly below I(C). There is a PAIR of leaves under C(E) which is what makes it identifiable as reverse of 97 rather than reverse of 94 (counting leaves on low grade specimens is a hopeless task). Now Reverse K was used only on one die pairing and the obverse date spacing is consistent with that pairing. S-94 R5+ is my attribution.

Now it's overpriced because of it's mislabeling and overgrading, but under priced because it's not properly attributed. Is it a wash? It's up to the buyer to determine.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1796-REVERSE-OF-94-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-PCGS-GRADED-ID-Z336-/230832635118?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item35beb 27cee

ps I see Heritage has their 6th example ever up soon. This is about half as frequent as most R5+ Varieties.

It seems like here lately I have been seeing more misattributed coins in general. Not just large cents, but others as well. Ebay and on heritage.

Yes S-94 a very tough R-5+ It was the third to last 96 Bust in my set. If I had the free cash at the moment I'd seriously consider it. (Actually if I had the free cash Bill McKivor has an Essex 3 Conder token that I'd buy instead because I already have an S-94.)

I've seen a couple misattributed pieces myself, it's a little out of hand. But to the trained eye and the educated in the series like Marshall, it might be a good buy.

Collectors would be wise to question ANY TPG's attribution. For some reason which is beyond me, they are simply not good at it.

Originally Posted by Leadfoot

Collectors would be wise to question ANY TPG's attribution. For some reason which is beyond me, they are simply not good at it.

From what I've read, they simply don't spend the time to attribute a piece properly. I've heard they have seconds to make a grading judgement and I suspect they wouldn't spend too much more time attributing it. It's probably more like, sent in with an attribution, is there any GLARING error? If not, stick the label on it. Got 20 more before my coffee break.

Yeah, Marshall, that's what I understand as the process too. What I was referring to is why they don't design a process do it right, particularly considering variety attribution can be such a large part of valuation. I can only surmise it would cost too much and/or they cannot get the talent, but that's really "beyond me"....

Originally Posted by Leadfoot

Yeah, Marshall, that's what I understand as the process too. What I was referring to is why they don't design a process do it right, particularly considering variety attribution can be such a large part of valuation. I can only surmise it would cost too much and/or they cannot get the talent, but that's really "beyond me"....

It is my opinion that if they can't do it reasonably well, then they shouldn't do it at all. I saw one earlier this week where they labeled a 1796 as a 1797. Forget attribution, they can't even get the date and type right.

The finest known 1964 accented hair half dollar in a PCGS holder, PF-69 DCAM, is actually not an accented hair. A guy who specializes in them sent in a non-accented hair piece marked as accented just to see if they would catch it. Not only did they not catch it but it also came back as the finest known.

For many years I used to complain that PCGS couldn't tell the 1794 heads of 93, 94, and 95 apart. I don't know how many heads of 94 I've seen slabbed as heads of 93. And just as a type, not varieties, that can result result in a loss of hundreds if not thousands of dollars if they pay head of 93 money for them.

Originally Posted by Conder101

The finest known 1964 accented hair half dollar in a PCGS holder, PF-69 DCAM, is actually not an accented hair. A guy who specializes in them sent in a non-accented hair piece marked as accented just to see if they would catch it. Not only did they not catch it but it also came back as the finest known.

For many years I used to complain that PCGS couldn't tell the 1794 heads of 93, 94, and 95 apart. I don't know how many heads of 94 I've seen slabbed as heads of 93. And just as a type, not varieties, that can result result in a loss of hundreds if not thousands of dollars if they pay head of 93 money for them.

I don't think they should even offer the service if they won't do it right. I prefer a little card that says Attribution by Grellman. Of course, that's the opinion of an actual expert in a series rather than simply a new income stream. At this point, I place about the same confidence in Attribution by Conder. I have thoroughly enjoyed our interaction on CT.

Well... I went and did it. I'm supposed to be disposing of my collection and I went and got another one. This was just too good to pass up. I'm thinking AG3 net AG3. The obverse looks like it could use some Verdi-Care for some light verdigris. The seller had Tom Reynolds look at it to confirm both the reverse of 94 being inaccurate and it being a 'rare' variety. I payed more for this one than I do most of my R5+s, but it has less damage and corrosion than most of the ones I get. It's also a tougher R5+ than some. Now how do I get it out of it's tomb?

Another eBay sale from earlier this year.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1796-RARE-VARIETY-S-94-FINE-DETAILS-NOT-PRETTY-BUT-RARE-DRAPED-BUST-LARGE-CENT-/390416952372

How do you think they compare?

Ah well, it seems that I thought about it just a little too long..... Seriously, I am glad you got it, and I think you got great deal.
(I guess I thought it was a bit generously graded at AG3 details. I have an S-116 in PCGS (no details) AG3 which shows more detail).

Still I think you did well for the price, and an S-94 is nothing to sneer at. It is a rare coin and desirable

Overall also it seems a better deal for the price than the other example you showed. That fine example has more meat on it, but the
scrapes detract too much in my opinion.

May I ask - why are you disposing of your collection? You have mentioned this a few times.

regards,

Eduard

Originally Posted by Eduard

Ah well, it seems that I thought about it just a little too long..... Seriously, I am glad you got it, and I think you got great deal.
(I guess I thought it was a bit generously graded at AG3 details. I have an S-116 in PCGS (no details) AG3 which shows more detail).

To be fair, I called it AG3, but it's in a "Genuine - Not Gradable" slab. But it's definitely on the low end of AG3.

Still I think you did well for the price, and an S-94 is nothing to sneer at. It is a rare coin and desirable

Overall also it seems a better deal for the price than the other example you showed. That fine example has more meat on it, but the
scrapes detract too much in my opinion.

May I ask - why are you disposing of your collection? You have mentioned this a few times.

regards,

Eduard

I decided a while back to dispose of my collection since my kids haven't shown any interest in collecting and are poorly equipped to do it right. This and alternative uses for my resources through my church spurred me to action.

I have also been facing 'end of life' questions due to poor health, punctuated by a couple of crisis in the last 5 years. I feel like I'm living on BONUS time (as opposed to borrowed time) so I'm trying to live by the spirit rather than the flesh.

The other one has a little more detail than yours but if I was offered either of them at the same price my pick, I'd take your coin.