Fortin Attribution

This may be an obscure question but I recently discovered a Seated Dime that has not been attributed by Gerry Fortin. I have read the instructions on how to contact him in order to have the coin validated.
I have also verified that PCGS recognizes his Fortin Numbers.
My question is, if it is a "NEW" Fortin number, how do you go about getting PCGS to recognize a number not currently in their list of accepted numbers? Would I have to ask MR. Fortin to contact PCGS?
Anyone with information or ideas on the process greatly appreciated.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would think Gerry Fortin would have to attribute it first.

 

Yes. But then does HE contact PCGS or is there some other hoop you have to jump through? I also wonder if they make any kind of distinction for a discovery coin? If so what proofs are required?

 

Have other published sources been reviewed, to make certain it is a "discovery" coin?

 

He should give you documentation that you would send along with your coin. I guess I'll be the first to ask, why not post pictures here?

 

In many cases attributors ask to be shown another one . On numerous occasions I have sent in new finds only to be asked for other proof of the die marriage or variety. Then to have either of the 2 top TPG give it a variety attribution is quite tough. Now I believe that Anacs will document the slab if you have proof it is in fact a variety....a letter from the person who attributed it. Or is listed in the CPG .

I totally understand that an expert doesnt want to look bad...so they want to make sure that they are correct.
As a variety collector who has a few discovery specimens as well plate coins, it is hard at times to get someone to back your discovery . It not an over night event believe me.

 

Sorry, I don't have a camera or a smart phone. If I need to at some point I will have my oldest daughter do it. however, if you have ever had to ask a teenager to straighten up their room; that is the look I will get.
I will also add that the key attribution points are clash marks from a reverse die. several are large enough to see with naked eye but would require some finess with a camera to
have any value.

 

Brian Greer does not list an 1860 with obverse die clash marks either.

Yes. I appreciate what you say about difficulty in getting a coin attributed. In the early 2000's when bugerts New Orlreans book came out I discovered a new 1850-o die marriage, but at that time no one recognized those numbers. I made several attempts to get ahold of the author but failed. In the end I sold it to a person on the east coast who was interested in such things. no idea what happened after that.
I will also say, this is not some rare date. I can easily imagine paying a buch of money to send this coin on an extended Nortt American tour, and then some day selling it for a 100 dollars less than what I've paid to authenticate it.

 

I would call PCGS and ask them. I would also email them to see if you get the same answer from another individual. That's just me.

 

I would require paperwork from Mr. Fortin, as would ANACS. Not sure what PCGS would require, but chances are it would include that paperwork.

 

ANACS told me a couple years ago to get James Wiles (CONECA) or Wexler to attribute my Barber dime discoveries. Wexler never responded, Wiles said they now leave it up to the "specialty groups", in this case BCCS. ANACS also said it had to be published, or something like that. So... I discovered it and I published it, does that count? NGC said there had to be "collector interest", which of course is a chicken/egg problem. If CPG or somebody with a wider audience publishes it, then there's interest, but they won't publish it unless there's interest. You get the idea. CPG said they'd publish it 2+ years ago, then told me there wasn't space, then 2 years later contacted me again about it, wanting everything redone in a week, and I didn't feel like wasting a bunch of time again. I kind of gave up on it, but maybe I'll pursue ANACS again at some point. I don't know what the process with PCGS is but it's a giant time suck from my experience trying to get something recognized.

 

A relatively quick way to get your coin and claim in front of a very knowledgeable audience is to write up your findings with first-rate photos and have it published in the Liberty Seated Collectors Club journal. The latest one just arrived in my mailbox yesterday and it's published three times per year. So, there is just enough time for your claim to be published if the editors agree.

Even if you don't get published, the simple act of communicating with these people may gin up enough interest for their serious investigation of your claims. Pretty much every serious die variety collector is interested in credible claims of new die marriages but understand that those claims are often ultimately not substantiated.

Also, if you can make it to a big show then you can show your coin to acknowledged experts for opinions and if they agree with you then you are well on your way to assembling the necessary evidence. The next big show is FUN in Orlando, FL in early January. Gerry Fortin is almost certain to be there as will other experts.

But this venue is a great and easy way to start your journey and there are lots of us who love to attribute coins and are happy to help you. But you have to learn what constitutes adequate photography and then how to make one. Modern cell phones are capable of taking excellent coin photos but since you seem phone-challenged, do what a lot of people do and place it on a scanner and send the image to a file and determine if that shows what you need to show.

 

Thanks for all the feedback. I don't think I have one chance in a million of finding a second coin with obverse clash marks. However my daughter raps up finals Dec. 18th and has a four day work break around Christmas. She should be able to photo the coin and the four largest segments of wreath and ribbon clash marks.
I can send that to Mr. Fortin and see where it goes from there. thanks again and I will follow up post either way.

 

Gerry a good guy. And loves new discoveries. I haven’t seen him in a couple years cause of all that’s been going on in my life I kind of dropped off the face of the earth in the coin world. But we’ve done a LOT of business. And actually set up together at coin shows

 

There are many, many examples of new die marriages that have been verified with only one example ever surfacing.

Now, getting PCGS et al to recognize a new die marriage and label it on the slab is another matter. My understanding is that the TPGs will require some significant verification from well-recognized experts.

I am somewhat confused, though, by your description of your find. As a general rule, clashes do not constitute a new die marriage on their own. Sometimes, clashes are part of other unique markers of a particular die. But the same die may come both with and without clashes. Often clash marks represent only a different die state. While a previously unknown die state of a known die is of interest to specialists, it won't merit a new die marriage attribution, what you've been calling a Fortin number.

Other than clash marks, what has convinced you that you have a previously unknown die?

 

I am a simple hobby guy. I get a new coin, I look in the guide books and I log whatever number matches.
My first thought when I spotted a piece of ribbon protruding from behind the rock Ms Liberty was sitting on was, "Man , this is going to be the easiest match-up ever!"
I can tell you sometimes finding a match can be a real pain.
Sometimes trying to match a common coin with numerous dies gets tedious. About the seventeenth time you see a description of "Diagonal die scratch through left claw", you wonder if they were paying some jerk to just do that.
I looked through the guide books and could find 2 coins that were described as having reverse clash marks. No coins are described as having Obverse clash marks.
That is why I will send Mr Fortin a picture,(and hopefully be able to get close ups of the various pieces of ribbon and wreath) and with any luck he will know if it is important or not.
Things just have to wait though. It is Christmas time.
My daughter has 2 jobs and is getting a Master degree.
the coin is over 160 years old so it isn't like there is a deadline to meet.

 

Every series has it's nuances. In early copper, clash marks are more of a die stage/state indicator than a variety indicator, though recognizable cracks, clashes and engravers scratches make die identification easier. It is much more common to find a new die stage/state than a new variety.

I can only imagine the complications in a series with whole die Hubs creating multiple almost identical dies which might make them practically unidentifiable without cracks and clashes. In my area, a clash is considered a strike induced error from two dies which are struck without a planchet between them and impart damage to those dies.

Now with hubs, that could occur when the master hub is made, when the master dies are made or when the working dies clash.

It's reasonable for experts to be cautious with that many possibilities.

 

I went through Kamal Ahwash's book for the 1860 and he makes no references to clash marks for the 1860 Philadelphia issues. But his book was the seminal reference and Gerry Fortin has vastly expanded upon Kamal's work.

Within Gerry's on-line references, I find four mentions of clash marks for 1860-P:

F-101a-clash on obverse
F-105-clash on reverse
F-109-clash on reverse
F-110-clash on reverse

Note that the clashes he references are not presented as diagnostic on their own but in concert with other, more specific pickup points.

 

Hi Marshall, Thanks for your feed back. I would be remiss if I didn't say I'm a big fan of yours. You have a very discerning eye to cherry pick so many varieties of large cents. Unfortunately for me, even when you point out what to look at, half the time I still can't see the details. It's one of the reasons I tend to avoid any kind of overdates, rpm's, etc. Why pay for what you can't see.
I know this isn't your series but you know a lot more about the minting process than I do. The coin I have is an 1860 Seated Dime. If you check out Fortin's web book he lists 13 varieties. Mine most closely matches F-105. My coin has medium date, down slope, Base of 1's thick, closed 6.
Things go off the rails when he than says, "/clashed die."
The reverse of my coin does not seem to have any clash marks. (Bear in mind, I mentioned I am terrible at seeing minute detail.) The obverse of my coin has a half dozen clash marks, 2 or 3 are very obvious. Fortin doesn't list any 1860 coins with obverse clash marks.
Another odd thing is that the reverse has a very sharp strike. I have a dozen other dimes for reference and this coin has by far the best reverse. Having said that, the obverse has the worst strike as far as the main figure of Liberty is concerned. There are several coins Fortin refers to as having a badly over polished die. I don't know if that would account for the mushy strike or not. Just seems odd to have both types of strike on the same coin.
The last thing that puzzles me is that the date, (which is firm and well struck) has a large clash mark underneath , but the letters of the date show no clash marking at all. I know in that day they punched dates with a gang of 4 punch or some such thing, but to me this would indicate the clash marks would have had to be there before the date was applied. If clash marks occur because empty dies collide, than how on earth does the date miss being struck? Never the less, whether you have any further information or bother with this thread again; thanks for your interest.

 

Publius, I have no desire to be rude but none of the 1860
varieties mention an obverse clash.