http://www.pcgs.com/prices/priceguidedetail.aspx?c=46&title=lincoln+cent+(wheat+reverse) You'll notice that the order of the 1909s is 1909, 09-VDB, 09-S, 09-S-VDB. Shouldn't it be 09-VDB, 09-S-VDB, 09, 09-S? This is the correct chronological order for the production of the coins. The Redbook does this, why not PCGS? Just noticed this little thing. (I'm fine with both orders though.)
I think their rationale is that they organize the listings from the most basic variety to the most complex, regardless of chronological order. I think that is the way that their numbering system works as well. The 1909 Lincoln is kind of a unique situation where the most complex varieties were among the first struck.
I tend to like the ordering PCGS has for them. What REALLY bugs me is when some publications (not PCGS) list the mints in P, S, D order instead of P, D, S. It just bugs me to not see the S last. I shouldn't be that worked up over it, but alas, I am.
S was there first. I think some earlier Whitman folders have them in this order. Or maybe it was a different brand of blue folders. Not sure when they switched.
Skipping from one mint to the other and back again is (or at least could be) both confusing and senseless. Listing one than the other is the most obvious and common sense way imo.
I prefer how they do it grouping everything by mint mark and year, it has a better flow to it when looking for a number of coins then jumping back and forth with mint marks would.
OK. How does an order of 09-VDB 09 09-S-VDB 09-S sound? Still in chronological order, but the mints aren't mixed up.
