It's not 1883/2. I get it. There must have been a lot of false claims at some point to get the variety specialist so worked up. Warning heard, heeded, and appreciated. How about 1882/882, FS-301? The dies are so jacked it's hard to know what I'm looking at, but this coin seems match up with the FS-301 image in the Cherrypickers' Guide. - smooth denticles, the extra bit under the 2... maybe the inside of the eights show an earlier die state? I appreciate information and encourage speculation.
No, it's not FS-301. Neither the artifact to the left of the 2 or the misshapen first 8 is present. There is some strike doubling east, most noticeable within the 8's. This coin is a common 1882 with a filled 2 (FS-999). BTW, FS-301 is not an 1882/882. Description from CPG: The upper portion of a secondary 2 is evident low between the primary 8 and 2.
One must remember that the CPG is just that a guide not etched in stone as being 100 % correct!. As a variety collector I can assure you first hand that the CPG ,"yes is a good reference " however can and does have some wrong information within its covers. I also warn you on some so called experts as again are subject to being incorrect as they are human! I would advise any find('s) as such be explored as much as possible . Until you are completely satisfied in the results of your research .
CPG contains no inaccuracies that I see regarding FS-301 (unless you consider the pricing suspect, which is always possible). @Paddy54, perhaps you can tell us what you think CPG got wrong about FS-301?
@howards Did you read my statement correctly ? I think not.... As I made no mention referring to the FS-301 variety in my post what so ever. And yes the CPG does contain inaccuracies . One first must be able to comprehend the written word before calling out another on what they think they read ,and what "was actually written."
Hey man, Paddy made no mention of WHICH varieties were incorrect. Just that you shouldnt take the CPG as the end all be all and give up. He was actually giving you some pretty sound advice, and you had to go and get all froggy. Tsk Tsk
Paddy's statement says (in the context of a discussion about FS-301) that since CPG contains errors one should not assume that the description of FS-301 is correct. I asked politely for clarification. I (personally) was responsible for a large amount of CPG content regarding shield nickels. I take errors in CPG seriously, and asked for clarification in case there was a heretofore undiscovered error regarding FS-301. On that note, I would be happy to receive comments on any CPG shield nickel with errors. Paddy, please point some out. No need for snarky comments regarding my comprehension ability or my "frogginess." (whatever the heck frogginess is)
Once upon a time I had the NGC 1871 DDO 2c, FS-101, Pop 1/0. I crossed it over to PCGS, where it was also Pop 1/0. Then the 6th edition of the CPG came out...debunked. I had to call myself out earlier this year. I thought I picked an RPD Indian Cent based on the CPG. PCGS agreed and slabbed it as such. Again, a Top Pop 1/0. Then I got Rick Snow's Attribution Guide. It was a dead on match for a variety that simply wasn't in the CPG.
Again @Dough "the OP" yes this is only one of the examples I was referring to in the CPG another ,and I will state edition and volume and "not post copy right material" CPG 4th edition ,volume ll page 2 1829,9 over 3 H-10. Is a listing that is completely in error. In fact was listed in a newer edition And noted in future editions would be completely deleted from the text do to space limitations. And the fact it was in error and not a variety as stated. Another prime example is on the front cover of the fifth edition volume l . It shows an image of an 1847 large cent 47/4 small 7. This variety isn't even listed in the book at all! Yet it is one of the major varieties in the U.S. Large cent varieties . Again Dough I reiterate always follow up when researching variety coins. This is something that I always do. First I love doing the research something in my youth I hated doing. And second after 50 plus years of collecting place little trust in opinions of some "so called experts " whom do or say whatever it takes to cover their human mistakes other than say " oh I was wrong"!
