PCGS Attribution Service Question

I'm not a Kennedy collector at all as there are too many varieties to even keep track of for myself. I'm awful with the DDO/TDO on these. Hopefully I can turn enough profit from this one to feed my private collection or invest into my vehicular hobbies. I have hopes anyone watching is like you and can see that at SP67, it is well worth the money if you collect Kennedy's or even just want an investment. Even to buy it at $1800, pay the $65 for the holder, and resell...if it gets book price me and the high bidder both win. I have enough faith in people that someone out there is wise enough to realize that and win this bad boy

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just for clarification. The 1966 SMS FS-901 is only for coins from CONECA DDO-002 in VLDS (Very Late Die State), Stage F. The 1966 Kennedy half dollar CONECA DDO-002 in Stage F also becomes the ADR-001 which is what the FS-901 in the Cherrypickers’ Guide is cross referenced to.

If you examine the Cherrypickers’ Guide, you will note that the description states: The designer’s initials on the reverse are totally missing. If your coin has a dot or ghost image where the FG is supposed to be than you do not have the DDO-002 in Stage E which is the ADR-001.

I have seen photos of the 1966 Kennedy half dollar SP68 FS-901 being offered on eBay. The coin is a ‘wolf in sheep clothing’ and it is not the right critter because parts of the FG are still visible and it is not yet struck by the Stage F die.

Just food for thought, remember there is a 1966 SMS Kennedy half dollar ADR-002 which is not paired with the DDO-002.

To a previous comment, the 1966 Kennedy half dollar FS-901 is required in the PCGS Registry, but it is only required in the Major and Complete Variety sets. One of the sets it is required in can be viewed here:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/ha...n-strikes-proof-1964-present/alltimeset/43295

 

From PCGS, the FS-901 IS the FS-901... either way. Where from PCGS/NGC or one of the representatives does it state this information? I have found opinions on what classifies a NO FG but when PCGS labels "FS-901-No FG", it is exactly what it is, correct? An FS-901 is not cross referenced to anything as far as their information. It is simply an FS-901. Same as any FS-101 referring to a specific die as well. An FS-101 1942 D Quarter then...it's cross referenced to an entirely different Designation to be the specific designation? I would simply appreciate some evidence to back your claim as fact, not opinion. To you, that SP68 "Wolf" is nonsense, yet to PCGS, they HAVE attributed it as the FS-901 No FG. Hmmm...leads me to wonder who is correct? Your opinion or their grading service. Either way, FS-901 is FS-901, as seen on the SP68. It's not only on ebay, but also the top coin photo on Coinfacts in the NO FG category. So please, enlighten me with evidence from the exact words of PCGS that states anything to back up your statement. Please.

 

PCGS uses published attribution guides for their definitions of varieties, as they should, otherwise they'd be inventing their own varieties (NGC does this with some of their VarietyPlus varieties, for better or for worse). The Cherrypicker's Guide references the CONECA numbers as their definition of FS-901 and says the initials are totally missing. If PCGS says FS-901 and it's the wrong die pair, then PCGS is wrong. If PCGS says FS-901 and it's the correct die pair, but the wrong die stage, then they misread the CPG, making them wrong. Knowledgeable buyers will pass on the coin, as they want the initials completely gone. If the 6th edition of the CPG Vol. II ever comes out, it will hopefully make this even more clear.

 

I hope the attached file is viewable, this is the first time I’ve tried to use this feature.
The below attachment from Wiles’ book, please pay attention to Stage E, the “VLDS Reverse is LISTED as ADR-001”

The Cherrypickers’ Guide cross references the 1966 Kennedy half dollar as the ADR-001 and further states that designer’s initials on the reverse are totally missing.

News flash, PCGS is not always correct in their attributions, but unlike NGC, PCGS does back up their attribution with their guarantee if you buy the “wolf in sheep clothing”. Point, if you look at coin facts for the 1967 FS-801, you will see three pictures of coins they graded. All three of these coins are mis attributed. I know this because on the obverse of the coin in all three pictures you will notice die scratches going through IN and then again from the designer’s initials through WE and to the left side of the 6 in the date. I had two of these same coins in PCGS plastic with the same die scratches, the two coins that I had purchased went to Wiles for confirmation and once he agreed that they were not the 1967 DDR-001 they went back to PCGS along with Wiles’ notes. PCGS relabeled the coins for me as “Minor Variety” and sent the coins back to me along with a check for $1650.00.

Bottom line, when it comes to what coin has an FS number, it is up to the Cherrypickers Guide to determine and not PCGS or NGC. NGC attributes some coins but use their own VP numbers. As long as the Cherrypickers Guide states that “The designer’s initials on the reverse are totally missing”, then that is what is required for it to be a 1966 FS-901.

You are free to “wonder you is correct” all you would like. All I can tell you is that most collectors will not buy the coin unless it meets the description in the Cherrypickers’ Guide.

In Maine we have a saying, “If your cat has kittens in the oven, you don’t call them biscuits do you?”

 

Honestly...Maine sounds like a horrible place with such a rediculous saying. Aside from that, in your photos from CPG, it matches Coneca EXACTLY! Stage D only lists that the F(!) is Abraded away. NO MENTION of the G. Stage E doesn't even say anything as far as the "initials being ENTIRELY abraded", it mentions the abrasion of the nose/eye area. Where are you getting this? An FS-901 is an FS-901. It mentions that prices reflect the latest stages of the die, but does not say ANYWHERE that an FS-901 requires FG to be ENTIRELY ABRADED, only that the latest stages carry the highest premium. Coming from the guy attempting to offend my intelligence in the most side handed way that I have ever seen, do you truly have the ability to comprehend what you read, let alone preach?

 

It does NOT say that the initials must be ENTIRELY ABRADED AWAY. It does say that the initials are Abraded away. Vague as Stage D specifically mentions that the F is fully Abraded away, where Stage E mentions nothing of the sort for the G. I'm not understanding where anyone is reading the word ENTIRELY anywhere through Coneca or the CPG? The F is entirely gone. The G is Abraded to 80% missing. The nose is abraded down to full mirroring under the eye. Do you have the ADR-001 listing available? Even if so, how can there possibly be any argument to the FS-901 attribution?

 

Also, I can see a slight ghost of the G on Wiles' photo. Straight on it's not there on any... At an angel however, the story changes...
Same exact coin...if it's taken head on like the photo from Wiles, it's gone. When taken at an angel, the left overs of the G are present. This is why the SP68 is there and this is why it does not, however many times it is read, state that the initials are ENTIRELY abraded away. Surely someone is understanding this?

 

Stage D is NOT the ADR-001 in James Wiles’ book. The variety becomes ADR-001 only at Stage E, period. The photo I uploaded came from Wiles’ book, “The Kennedy Half Dollar Book, An Attribution and Pricing Guide”

Please note that the master listing for the 1966 Kennedy half dollar DDO-002 for Stage E (VLDS) states that: Bridge of nose and eye abraded away, Designer’s initials abraded away.

The Cherrypickers’ Guide (Page 312 , Fifth Edition Volume II) clearly cross references the ADR-001 to the FS-901 and has the description of, “The designer’s initials on the reverse are totally missing.” The Cherrypickers’ Guide qualified the requirements of the variety being an FS-901 further then the CONECA listings by stating that the FG on the reverse are totally missing instead of just the designer’s initials abraded away. Not sure what is so hard to understand about being “totally missing” or how you fail to comprehend this simple requirement.

FS numbers are established by the authors, editor and publisher of the Cherrypicker’s Guide, not by PCGS, NGC or any other third-party grading company.

The PCGS SP68 specimen on eBay labeled as the FS-901 is mis attributed period, the FG is not totally missing and if your coin matches this one then it is also not the FS-901

 

Please show the CPG, page 312. The FS-901 is clearly defined in your previous example by Dr Wiles. While I understand what you're getting at, how can it possibly be argued that this is not an FS-901 by the definitions given this far?
Bridge of the nose and eye Abraded away: Coneca Listing:
Designers initials Abraded Away: Again, all that I'm asking is verifiable evidence that PCGS/NGC requirements go beyond the description of of the FS-901.

 

Perfect example from another forum of collectors: I certainly enjoy the "for some reason" part. The reason would be that the FS-901 IS the FS-901. ADR-001 or ADR-002, they both come from the same FS-901, which is the original listing and the EXACT listing that PCGS lists as well. It is not the ADR-001 No FG, it is the FS-901 that is the major variety

 

Also: There is doubling on this one

 

The Cherrypickers’ Guide is still in print so I’m hesitant to post copy write material. Wiles’ book has been out of print for decades and the last time I spoke with him about his book he had no problem with showing the occasional page on the internet for educational purposes.

All I can tell you on what makes the grade, so to speak, is that I have a few 1966 Kennedy half dollars that were returned to me unattributed by PCGS with a note from Mike Faraone (who was the attributor for PCGS at the time, now retired) that when tilted he could make out parts of the designer initials and they were not totally gone.

The past couple of years, since Mike Faraone retired, I not sure who has been doing the attributions for PCGS but from what I’ve seen he needs to go back to school especially with the Kennedy series. I sent two coins in last year that were mis attributed under their guarantee and I was made whole. I have two more coins in right now, one 1967 MS64 FS-102 (top pop 3 – 0) which instead of being the DDO-007 is the DDO-003 and the other is a 1964-D MS66 (supposedly top pop by itself) FS-108 which is a DDO-009 instead of the DDO-008.

One thing I will say for PCGS, they have always stood behind their attribution mistakes with their checkbooks which is more then I can say for NGC.

 

So ultimately, because of your previous run ins and attempts with the way your coins were handled "years ago", you're saying that now whoever does the attribution will likely attribute it, but it's wrong because of your previous attempts with a previous attributor? This seems to fall more into the same issues as "Crack Outs" from OGH Coins than the topic of this particular variety. You cannot say that this, by definition, is not an FS-901, yet argue the point because of your particular submissions in the past? All jokes and sarcasm aside, I do not appreciate you coming in to argue this with me making my coin look like a lie based on your opinion and past with the attempts at the submissions. Just because you personally believe that the coin is not because of your particularly odd interpretation of the FS-901 by definition doesn't mean that PCGS is now wrong in their attribution of the FS-901. Maybe they pulled their head out if their stink holes and decided to go by the definition opposed to the parts that they picked and chose? If the numbers used are from particular attributions from other people, and Coneca, namely Allen Levy, designated the FS-901, then it is in fact the FS-901. James Wiles can add all he wants to that, but if PCGS uses the FS-901 designation, which they do, then it is an FS-901. I'm not arguing for my sake as much as the fact that it is irritating and irrational to say Yes, it is that, but it can't be this because a different guy came and decided to add numbers. If it is FS-901 that everyone is after, who is Wiles to add other nonsense to the ewuaequa when a typical DDO/DDR is a specific number, then only uses Die State to identify markers on the particular variety? I stand with full conviction in agreeing with MessyDesk that someone is wrong and it needs corrected. This shouldn't be an option to pick and choose as it is extremely difinitive down to the study of FIVE separate die states. The FS-901 is the number used to attribute the variety and is very, very specific on all five of those die states. Technically, a minor DDO falls into the same category as a full No FG because of that designation. I understand that somebody decided to elaborate on that designation, but that doesn't change the fact that PCGS labels it an FS-901 opposed to the ADR-001. Therefore it is exactly that until the designation is changed by the TPGS. Honestly it's kind of a catastrophe that they allow you to capitalize on finding miniscule errors in their attribution and pay so much based on a separate opinion. Why does anybody even use this system!?

All of that being said, I honestly do understand what you're saying to a degree, but the price reflects an FS-901, not an ADR-001, and until that changes, it is only your opinion and you are the one who is wrong in my opinion. A minor bump from the G is still a major abrasion of the initials and falls right in line with the definitive VLDS FS-901 from CONECA. Nothing whatsoever is mentioned about the initials being ENTIRELY of TOTALLY Abraded away, just that they are Abraded away. Up until stage E, the requirement is that the F is gone. Stage E from CONECA only mentions the extra of the nose/eye being Abraded, not the G.

 

LOL.

Yes, PCGS and NGC both have attributed examples of the 1966 ADR-001 and ADR-002 as the FS-901. They have both also attributed examples of the 1982 ADR-001 and ADR-002 as the FS-901 for that date.

Just because they have attributed the ADRs for those two dates as the FS-901 don’t make them right when the Cherrypickers’ Guide clearly cross references both dates to the ARD-001.

Just for clarification, the 1966 Kennedy ADR-001 and ADR-002 are not stages of the same die, they are different and distinct.

Could you imagine the third-party grading companies start attributing all 1966 business strike doubled dies as the FS-101 when only DDO-005 is the right critter? Or, how about if the TPG companies started labeling all 113 different RPMs for the 1960 D Lincoln Cents as the FS-501 when in reality only the RPM-001 is the FS-501.

 

So you go by the CPG opposed to what it says on the holder, that's fine, but it's your opinion to do so. Bottom line is that if PCGS or NGC don't go by the ADR listings, it doesn't make them wrong. I feel like you've been quite a pain on this topic. I've sent the photos to GC, a very large online coin dealer, and spoke to several PCGS Dealers at the recent ANA Show in my area and this one got me an offer from each and every person I spoke to. Your opinion means nothing to me on this topic so go by CPG and I'll go by PCGS. One if them is wrong as MessyDesk stated, and it certainly should be corrected, but it's not and can be attributed as the FS-901. I'm done.

 

For the record, no. They wouldn't ever attribute the multiple DDO's as FS-101. The same way that they don't attribute all DDO SMS as FS-901. The Obverse is FS-1__ based on the variety, the Reverse is FS-8__, and the FS-9__ is the same situation for Die Variety. They don't attribute FS-101 to EVERY DDO of whatever year The same goes for FS-901 for every year you mentioned. It fell into a very specific category of variety for those years. Same goes for the Misplaced MM 57 D Quarter with the designated FS-501. If the D was in a different area of the reverse, with different diagnostics, it would be the FS-502 with more, less, of equal value. It would be an entirely different variety such as the RDV Jefferson Proofs of '38. What are there, 3? So they're not all clustered into the RDV-401 category..they're designated as their own number because of variation. If the FS-901 Kennedy was separated this way, it would be a different number as well. However, the die states are the difference, not the dies used to make this coin a particular variety. One of us is having trouble understanding

 

If you think your 1966 is the FS-901, send that puppy in and get it attributed. I’ve paid my tuition to learn what it takes to get a variety attributed.

James Wiles does not and never has assigned FS number. FS stands for Fivaz and Stanton, the authors of the Cherrypickers’ guide. Whitman owns the book now and that company controls what varieties get assigned number, not CONECA, PCGS, NGC ANACS or any other third-party grading company. Not sure why you brought Allen Levy’s name into this.

What I can tell you is the Cherrypickers’ Guide states that the 1966 FS-901 has the description: The designer’s initials on the reverse are totally missing.

Yes, I go by the Cherrypickers’ Guide because they determine what constitute each and every FS number and if a third-party grading company strays from what the CPG states and still puts an FS number on then it is mis attributed, period. When it comes to FS numbers, the Cherrypickers Guide is the only rule book.

As far as using “die states” to identifying certain varieties, come on, just think about the VAM numbers used on silver dollars or the clashes used on the “bug bunny” Franklin half dollars that are in the Cherrypickers’ Guide. Die states are used all the time to establish separate individual varieties. With the coin being discussed, the 1966 FS-901 only exist on Stage E of the DDO-002 referred to as the ADR-001. All other stages of the DDO-002 are not the ADR-001. Wiles nor I determined that the FS-901 was the ADR-001, the Cherrypickers’ Guide did that when they cross referenced the variety to the CONECA ADR-001 which is only Stage E of the CONECA DDO-002.

Yes, one of us is having trouble comprehending that the 1966 ADR-001 and ADR-002 are from different dies, both in the later part of their life. If they were from the same die, they would have both been listed as one with different die stages.

Unlike the other grading companies, PCGS guarantee what they attribute as varieties and if they are wrong they stand behind it. I should qualify this, if you submitted the coin for variety attribution and PCGS made a mistake then they will fix it as a “mechanical error” (correcting the mistake only). If you bought the coin from someone else that was mis attributed then under their guarantee PCGS will pay you fair market value for what is on the label of the coin.

When it comes to collecting Kennedy half dollars and their varieties, I will admit that I’m still learning but not necessarily born last night.

 

JFI:

In this thread, David Lange states clearly how NGC handles the 1966 FS-901.

https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topi...ould-i-say-no-f/?tab=comments#comment-8558893

 

Pudding’Farts…I think you are missing a very important requirement for the FS-901 in the CPG, that is the FS-901 is also the CONECA 66 DDO-002, and the ADR-001. I think those are conclusive and very important markers for the FS-901. The ADR-002 is not associated with the FS-901. For your reference, attached are photos of the triple spread on the last T of TRUST for the CONECA listed 66 SMS DDO-002, stage E and the last T of TRUST, and Designer’s Initials for the ADR-002 in my collection.

Larry Nienaber