True FS on 1943 P DD Reverse Nickel?

Jim,

I got the info from the Cherry picker's guide, pgs 310-311. Both the 030 and the 30.3 are said to have doubling of the the LLO and CENTS with the 030 being very easy to see. CPG says of the 30.3 "Doubling is evident on all reverse lettering, Especially E PLURIBUS UNUM, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FIVE CENTS, and LLO ". The photos show URIBUS and UNUM, and the notching is very small, and that is why I wanted to see the UNUM or other lettering to see if the notching is there.

Perhaps the CPG used the wrong photo and description for 30.3. , but that is what I was going from.



Jim
​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That explains it. There is some doubling on all of the reverse lettering but it is much more prominent on the lower lettering. I don't know why they would use photos of the upper lettering in the book.

 

030 has the strongly doubled MONTICELLO. That's the one i showed.

030.3 has really thick feet on the letters of UNUM. and doubling on the E PLURIBUS UNUM that I like to check.

030.5 is the one you pictured in the NGC slab. It has good doubling on the lower letters.

I don't think that the OP's coin is 030 or 030.5....I want to at least check to see if it is 030.3 with the thicker feet on UNUM

If heritage described the coin you pictured as 030.3, they are incorrect.

Thanks,
Bill

 

Does that mean my coin has been attributed incorrectly? The label says FS 030.3

BTW, the description I posted above was not for my coin but another NGC graded FS-030.3 I have provided the description and link below.

1945-P 5C Doubled Die Reverse MS65 Full Steps NGC. A solidly struck and frosty example, lightly gold-toned on the reverse, that has doubling most prominent at the lower lettering. Listed on page 130 of the 2007 Guide Book

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=422&Lot_No=2427

It seems unlikely that both coins have been attributed incorrectly by NGC.
​

 

Think about it, if NGC attributed one of them incorrectly, it is more likely that they would attribute two or more incorrectly if their source info is wrong. The coin you show in the holder is 030.5 unless the cherrypickers' guide is wrong and in this case, it isn't

On 030.3, the feet of the N and M of UNUM are huge and they are not on your coin, also ruling out 030.3.

Also, take a look at the mintmark on your coin. if it looks doubled the coin is definitely 030.5 which, by the way is a tripled die. Check the upper left of the mint mark for a notch.

 

The feet of the N and M are larger than normal on my coin and I don't see an RPM. I just think that the doubling of letters is more prominent on the lower lettering. Here is an enlarged photo of the top of the reverse.



I guess NGC's source info could be wrong but that is a pretty big mistake for such a well documented variety.

 

My NGC submissions have the first part of the # on the coin, as the number on the submission form, and the number after the dash as the line number of that specific coin,
so 123456-004 would be the 4th coin listed on submission form 123456.

When I look at all of the NGC 1945P DDR 30.3 on Heritage, the first 16 ( I stopped there) seem to be from the same person/group as the order numbers are

1851015 -001, -004, -007, -009, -020
1851016 -001, -006
1851017 -011, -022, -022
1851018 -008, -0010, -014, -018, -019

So it looks like someone had a hoard and sent them in a similar time frame, and maybe even all graded the same time by the same person.

Jim

 

Jim,

That makes it even more unlikely that the coins are misattributed. Not only would NGC have to make a mistake on all 16 coins, but the submitter (presumably and error/variety dealer) would have to make the same mistake. Otherwise, the submitter would have noticed the mistake when he received the graded coins.

I now understand that the large feet on the "N" and "M" is the primary diagnostic of the FS 030.3, but are you guys saying that the lower lettering is not doubled on the FS 030.3 therefore it must be the FS 030.5. If not, I am inclined to believe that the coin is attributed correctly and I simply was not using the correct diagnostic when identifying the coin. That is what happens when a toning freak tries to become a variety collector.

 

Lehigh,

I also am not the expert with these, just relying on the CPG. In a nearly identical thread recently you showed the same coin, and I can't find it now, I thought your coin was neither a 030 nor a 30.3 . I was using the Heritage photos. The "O" in OF on yours looked more like the 030 than the 30.3, but not the LLO. I thought it was different than those 2, but I couldn't see the mm well enough to tell if it was the 30.5. Heritage only has one 30.5 in their archive and it is from 2005 and isn't the jumbo photos, so I can't tell if yours is a 30.5. Since you have it, you have the best chance to see if there is notching on the "P".

Jim

 

030.3 has almost no visible doubling on the llo and cents although it is slight. The doubling is more evident on the lettering around the perimiter of the coin and is why the feet of the letters are thicker.

030.5 has excellent splits on the ENTS of CENTS and some separation on the LLO. that matches up to your coin.

So this may indicate that you have another die variety that was labeled as 030.3 since the attributor would have noticed the thicker feet on the UNUM, for example.

This has some "hybrid" attributes. Your coin has the thicker feet and the stronger doubling such as that on the LLO of 030.5.

So a new suggestion is that your coin and all the rest, since if they screw up one , they will screw them all up, is possibly something altogether different.

keep in mind that if the same grader and the same grading company gets a piece of paper saying that the coins are one thing, based upon the submitter, and they see something close to what they should be looking for....the coins are going to end up in a slab incorrectly labeled.

The coin definitely does not have the doubling on the LLO of MONTICELLO to be 030.3

By the way, I've seen numerous slabs from major graders that had the labeling wrong. I've also known of people to send in major Doubled dies that are easily identifiable and that are listed in the Cherrypicker's guide and have them come back as not even being a die variety even when the submitter indicated the page number in the CP guide. One specific one was a 1994 DDR Lincoln cent.

In my humble opinion, with respect to die varieties, some of the major graders are not sure of what they are looking at.

I've also seen coins graded as errors or die varieties placed in slabs by major graders that are machine doubled coins or that are coins that have been faked.

I never look at a slabbed die variety without questioning the label. They get the simple ones, but they often seem to have a little "difficulty" with the more complicated ones.

Thanks,
Bill

 

Bill,

You have me quite confused at this point. Are you saying that my coin is some new undocumented die variety that shares characteristics of both the FS 030.3 & 030.5?

So the grader sees the submission form an then attempts to match the submitted coin with the variety listed on the paper. Therefore if the submitter screwed up but the coin has similar diagnostics, the coin will end up misattributed. Is that right?

I believe that TPG's make mistakes regarding die varieties. I am just branching out into this aspect of numismatics and it is maddening. I doubt I ever get very good at it since I don't have the patience to roll search. Maybe I will just stick to the really easy ones from now on.

Paul

 

That is exactly what I am suggesting. There are other doubled dies for this date that are not even listed in the Cherrypickers guide. I don't have a reference for them at hand but it is entirely possible that this is another known die variety and they labeled it as the "closest" one they could come up with, which of course would be incorrect....

OR...It is one that is not known that looks like another die variety to them and they labeled it as such.

In any case, your coin needs some further research as it is not the one it is holdered as.

 

This is very true and I have also seen it a few times in

This is very true and I have also seen it a few times in TPG slabs (mostly PCI and some SEGS) and about ten thousand times on eBay and with other sellers.
Often with a major die varietys there are more minor ones in same mintmark/date coins.
This is nothing new and every single die variety must stand on it's own and be dead on with the die markers. Do not forget that people will also sell very late die stage coins of a popular die variety and on many they are only worth as little as 40% of the EDS type.
It would not be a far fetch for someone who resubmitts to carefully open the old slab and keep it (the plastic) for a future project such as these cases may be.
There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to cheats, liers and thieves, I hope this is not the case but we are all subject to a being had if we are not very careful and lucky.