So recently a friend of mine got back from PCGS a 2002p dime that had the reverse clad layer missing. PCGS graded it MS64. I bought it from Him and out of curiosity checked the certification # to see how many they have graded in the past. However there was no pop. report or even a value. The lack of assigning a value I can see, but why not a pop. report? I`m just getting into error coins, so this is new to me.
the thing I see people making a mis-take on is staging, they known nothing about staging, or the progression of the die, thats why all errors come in stages, I'll use this example: 1972 Lincoln cent DDO #8, if you go into wexlers site he only list up to stage B, he also has photos of both stages, but if you go into concea they have a stage c, for this DDO, but none have been reported yet, on stage c, so if someone says its not the DDO, stages don't match, maybe that person should think and say, maybe it the next stage, or in this case, stage c
I'll assume that PCGS uses the same procedure for errors that NGC uses. NGC does not segregate errors from the normal listings because there can be an infinite number of possibilities. One, for example, is my 2001-D Kennedy that is missing the reverse clad layer. If this were to be separately recorded in the census, shouldn't they also include a category for the obverse clad layer? What if it was never used? Think of all the listings missing obverse or reverse clad layers for the dimes, quarters and halves that may never be used. What a waste of space! Similarly, the 2005-S Kansas Silver Proof State Quarter that had a "die dent" on the butt of the bison would have presented further problems. Until the release of the CPG, 5th Edition, Volume II changing it to a variety in 2012, it was classified as an error. Can you imagine how many listings would be necessary for gouges, dents, clashes, filled dies, etc. that would be required for both obverse and reverse scenarios with different positions? It would be a nightmare for which the grading services would lose total control. Chris
OK. All nice answers but here's the real reason folks. PCGS Populations are based upon "coin numbers" not certification numbers. (BTW, certification numbers are assigned in the receiving department and EVERY coin receives a certification number.) For example On the coin above, the numbers to the left of the "/" are the coin number and assigned grade. (i.e. NNNN.GG) The numbers to the right of the "/" are the certification number (i.e. CCCCCCCC) NNNN.GG/CCCCCCCC Without reading the text of the label, the coin is a 1974-D Eisenhower Dollar which is graded MS66. Now, if the coin number.grade does not match the text of the label, then you're looking at a possible counterfeit. On the coin below, the numbers are ENNNN.GG followed by the Certification number. Both coins are 1974-D Eisenhower Dollars but only the top coin can be used in the registry. As for populations, I do not know if "error coins" are used in the population reports. I expect not since the coin numbers are numeric but error coin numbers are alphanumeric. It is very important to understand that PCGS does EVERYTHING, based upon the coin number which is heart of PCGS's inventory system (i.e. populations). NGC, on the other hand, assigns a certification number for a coin based upon the submission number. Now, it should be as clear as mud.
Take it one step further. Your triple clipped Ike is E7416, E for error and 7416 for 1974-D Ike. with that numbering system a missing clad 1974-D ike would also be E7416, An off-center 1974-D Ike would also be E7416. A double struck 1974-D Ike would also be E7416. So they, and any other error 1974-D ike, would all fall under the same heading in the pop report, but you still wouldn't know how many of each type had been graded.
Thanks to all of You for answering my initial question. Unlike other things in my life, Your answers make sense. I guess I just figured that even with all of the possibilities that You can have for errors, the grading companies would still be able to document them all via pop reports.....but I now see why they would steer clear of it.
