1965 MS64 SMS Kennedy DDO/DDR ? What Say You?

Ethan,

Does any of these die scratches match up with the obverse of your 1965 Kennedy half dollar? I took a few pictures with the lighting at different angles.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ethan,

There is good news and bad news.......

The good news is you have a DDR....

The bad news is that it is not the DDR-001 (FS-801)

The pictures I took are from a coin PCGS has graded SP67CAM and attributed as the FS-801. Dr. James Wiles examined the coin on March 02, 2015 and attributed it as the DDR-003 stage B.

Of the coins in the PCGS population report for the 1965 FS-801 (14 coins 2-CAM and 12- plain), I have to wonder how many of them are actually the DDO-004 / DDR-001 (I now know that 1-CAM and 1-plain are not correctly attributed plus the one from coinfacts shown in this thread).

KODOS to ANACS for not following PCGS and mis - attributing this variety (it looks like at least in this instance ANACS knows what they are doing).

Sorry for the bad news but if you wanted to send it into PCGS they might very well still attributed it as the FS-801......

Tim

 

It wouldn't be the first time a TPG got it wrong.
IIRC, they base there attributions on the photo's in the CPG which, for these large cois, can be very misleading.

SINCE The CPG uses CONECA's die numbers each coin that is submitted should at the minimum go through CONECA which has a complete library of photographs for attribution.

NGC even published their error here:

http://www.ngccoin.com/coin-varieti...ie-varieties/1971-s-ddo-silver-1-fs-106-3903/

The FS-106 is a direct match to the DDO-022 in the Authoritative Reference for Eisenhower Dollars yet NGC attributed the DDO-029 as the FS-106. Similar but not the same when you get right down to it.

The Die Variety Game and the willingness of the TPG's to attribute dies that appear in the CPG without proper validation has fooled more than one collector.

Buy the Coin not the Holder.

 

This statement alone should tell you that your coin is not the FS-801.

They really do need to match.

 

19 Lyds,

I totally understand. Just a few days ago I bought this coin on eBay, http://www.ebay.com/itm/11161735633...l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT#ht_498wt_1026 knowing that it wasn't the DDO-006 or FS-102. You can tell by the die scratches on the obverse that it is the new DDO-017 that Larry just got listed (I have two raw copies of the newer variety just not sure if they would grade higher then MS64).

The newly listed DDO-017 can be found in Mint sets so high grades should be able to be "HAD". http://www.ebay.com/itm/11130856343...l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT#ht_328wt_1026

I fail to understand why the TPG companies don’t put together a working pamphlet of the different series that they attribute with several close up pictures of the different markers for each variety instead of relying on the two (or less) small pictures in the Cherrypickers’ Guide (maybe less mistakes would be made).

As a reference book, The Cherrypickers’ Guide falls short of the mark needed to be useful, especially with the Kennedy series, to attribute accurately. Just look at the 1966 SMS DDOs, some of the varieties listed in the Cherrypickers’ Guide are almost indistinguishable from other varieties not listed in the book based on the photos provided.

NGC is at least trying to build a reference system on the web of the varieties they will attribute for their customer / public to use. I agree that NGC needs to have a competent individual or group review the data to make sure it is accurate and if they are going to cross reference their work to the CONECA files then the photos used should match up to the variety being sited. Hopefully it is a work in progress and as mistakes are discovered / reported then the site will be corrected.

End of my rant,
Tim

 

Ok so now I am confused. I do not have a $75 coin I have a $30 coin. No biggie but I am confused at to exactly why. I have the same die scratches as the PCGS one..and if I understand right, PCGS has it wrong. Interesting indeed. So that begs the question, I have been to the coneca site but there are no pictures. How can I see just what I do have?

Yes I understand, neither does the PCGS example.

I guess this is a pay service correct?

 

Yes almost to the scratch......

 

I was so hoping you were right, but I guess it is not to be......Thank you for your help and explaining how to check it out. I learned a lot and that is a big +1 to you sir!

 

Can someone tell me what page this 801 is in on the Wiles book?

 

Page 126

 

Ok according to this I DO have it.....



Am I missing something?

 

One of my biggest complaints is the lack of available photographic evidence from the CONECA Site. The descriptions are vague in a lot of cases so misattribution is commonplace.

PCGS has a responsibility to get it right for this very reason. I mean, seriously, they KNOW the money involved here!

Yes. It is. But the upside is that they get it right. Since PCGS Charges $18 + grading Fee for coin attributions that they may or may not get correct, most collectors that want their Varieties in PCGS Slabs, get the coin graded first. Then it gets shipped off to CONECA for accurate attribution then, if the label is available with PCGS, the coin(s) get sent back to PCGS for attribution.

My experience in the past has been that, when graded coins were submitted to CONECA for attribution, the "results" letter always included the certification number. This way, if I ran across a variety thqat was NOT in the CPG and that I wanted to sell as a variety, I could include a copy of the Results Letter with the coin when it sold. I could even state with certainty what the variety was.

This is where coin collecting can get very expensive in today's environment.

Tim and Caleb have a goal of collecting 1 of each Kennedy Variety in the CONECA Master List in the highest grade possible and they have assembled quite a nice collection. Their goal is not in flipping the collection but in "building" a unique collection. Quite different than a coin dealer who searches only for CPG Varieties and gets them graded for the sole purpose of selling them. Whether the attribution is right or wrong does not matter to them since the goal is simply to produce a profit.

 

Look on page 129

That is what I think you have if the die scratches match up with I pictures I posted earlier. (note in the description that Stage B has "Minor Doubling on WE TRUST")

 

I was hoping you had it, but I guess PCGS had their example misattributed. I'm still unsure since no one seems to have any marker details published other than photos of the doubling itself, and it seems that both 004 and 003 are almost identical in that respect.

 

One last thing.

Obverse and Reverse dies have different striking lives.
What this means is if you are looking for a Reverse Die Variety and you are relying upon die characteristics of the Obverse Die, you could possibly have a match but only fro a different die "marriage".

The accented Hair Kennedy is a prime example in that the Variety occurs on the Obverse Die YET the Reverse Die is also married to non-Accented Hair Obverse Dies. Just because the reverse matches up, does not mean that the collector has an Accented Hair Kennedy.

 

Nope that means you have Accented Hair's Little Brother...



Guys I thank you for your help and I am trying to learn. I just realized that I need to get this process down before I tackle the 64's and 66's....there are way too many of those for sure...

I believe the die scratches do match...almost exactly.

Isnt that the truth...a money game and a big one at that.

 

Ethan,

I share you confusion and frustration. The coin I had (have) in our set graded by PCGS SP67CAM and attributed as the FS-801 I thought was the real critter too until last fall when I got a package from Tim Wissert (you will see his name in the CONACA files in several denominations as the one reporting the variety) with a raw 1965 Kennedy half dollar.

The doubling on this raw 1965 Kennedy half was stronger then the FS-801 we currently had in our set and after examining the three coins side by side, we felt it would be good to send them in our next box to Wiles (remember that we have to pay Wiles $7 per coin to look at so we are a little fussy on which ones to submit).

Like 19Lyds stated, we are trying to build a reference set of Kennedy varieties, I only know of a few collectors doing this, one more that participates on these boards which is who I go to for information.

Would it be nice if Wiles would write a new book on Kennedy varieties, you bet! But please remember that Dr. Wiles is a “one man operation” and lately he has been stuck doing the Lincoln Cent e-books (when he gets time to do the Kennedy series is anyone’s guess).

Happy hunting,
Tim

 

Thanks but I guess I should be happy I am learning. I am going through my others (65's) that I saw a reason to self slab, have 40 sets to go through....

I sure wish he would.....Cents? Who collects cents?

Thanks I have having a good time for sure..

 

Well a quick glance is I have 3 of the DDO-005. One in MS67, one is SP64.

These would be page 127.....3/4 the price of the one DDO/DDR in question.

The coin in question in this thread seems to be rare no matter what.

 

Ethan,

The 1966 DDOs and the 1964 DDOs & DDRs are a “piece of cake” to do compare to the 1967 DDRs and even the 1968-D DDRs. Patience and perseverance should be the rule of the day.

Remember this is a hobby and is suppose to be “fun” but I know it can get under your skin from time to time. To me there is nothing more frustrating then to get a box of halve back from Dr. Wiles and you read his observation that infamous line; “Too minor to list” and you start scratching your head wondering ‘what the heck is he talking about! How would this be too minor to list? Should I send in a pair of eye glasses in with the next box? Maybe I should see if Tim Wissert will submit the coin for me, he seems to get everything listed.’ Then I settle down and look at the coin again, half the time I agree with Dr. Wiles that maybe I shouldn’t have submitted it and the other half of the time I will tuck the coin away to be resubmitted at a future date.

Tim