Printable View
Thought I would share this interesting coin that was in my last PCGS shipment. It is Cherrypickers' variety 1956D FS508, and also has a big obverse lamination. I didn't ask for the error designation, and it actually prevents me from adding it as a variety to my registry set. Live and learn. Still, it's a neat coin.
Attachment 164361
Attachment 164362
Interesting, I had no idea this disqualifies it from your reg set. WTF? It's still a variety!
Exactly. I sent a message about it. They said I would have to dispute the error designation, which is pretty obvious, so I'm out of luck. Lol. Don't know why an error designation trumps a variety designation. But I guess when you're the king, your rules don't have to make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by BadThad
Ah, bummer Will. Good lesson for all of us. Thanks for taking one for the team.
Hey Will, is a registry set linked so as we can have a look at your reg set? Real curious to see what it looks like
It does show as a RPM FS-508 , does that not count?
Hmmm..I would have thought it would get a "Genuine" grade but maybe its not considered "damaged" so whatever...new one to me also.
Bob
Actually this has been going on with PCGS for a long time. My 1946-S/D has a very small clip - they attributed the OMM but since it's also an error they will not allow in a regestry set. What it really comes down to is any damage, curculation to error detracts from a perfect coin so it's not allowed in a set. My point - I have a copy of 1935-P DDR FS-803 - the harder to find minor buffalo. I sent it in with a circulation scratch because it's the only copy I've found AND it didn't cost me a million bucks. The bad thing about this is on some varieties that are now becoming harder to find, we may not be able to complete a perfect, no problem set.
"Details" was what I heard happened to a coin with a lamination on it. So, it sounds like the grading services "allow" the holder to grade normal but still don't allow them in the registry sets.Quote:
Originally Posted by WaterSport
(Didn't know about the clip being a concern as well.)
I did not solicit an error attribution. I did not pay for an error attribution. I did not get charged for an error attribution, even though they usually charge for such a thing. They usually have no problem charging extra for things. And it is apparently a different result than what usually happens? Beats me. I guess I should be happy they didn't charge me extra.