I got my New Cherry Pickers Guide - anyone else got it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • DCW
    Member
    • Feb 2010
    • 2085

    #16
    I'm disappointed as well. I preordered mine in July and also contacted Mike Ellis and volunteered to contribute in any way I could. Of course, nobody wanted any insight from me. I had many of the really rare ones that I was willing to send in for inspection and photographing.
    There are some obvious oversights in the doubled die dept. While I applaud the inclusions of the 1983 ddr die 2 and the 1996 ddo-1 (I think the ddo-002 is a typo. Die 1 is pictured) I was sure that 1995 ddo die 2 and the 1971-d ddo would have been included. And no 2011 ddo! It is every bit as impressive as the 2014. They instead included many lesser ddos, some of which are class 6's that appear on many dates in the series. So what makes some better than others?
    Ive always thought of the CPG as a hall of fame of varieties. Seems just like in sports, you are left wondering why some great players get overlooked while some average Joes get in on the first ballot.
    I guess there's always next edition!
    By the way, they screwed up the big 2006 ddo, too. They picture it alongside the doubled ear for the same date and called it simply FS-101.
    Really shouldn't be this type of error in a guide that took so long to publish.
    And one last issue I have, at the risk of sounding ungrateful. The prices are absolutely and incredibly out of whack. And I know it's just a guide, but they state that as of printing the prices are reliable! It's hard to price varieties for sure, but some are well documented or could be investigated fairly easily. A 1958 ddo in MS65 Rd is not $40,000. There are 3 and they each sold for over a hundred grand. A 92 clam or 92-d in MS 65rd cannot be purchased for $1000, even a few years after a 64rd went for like $20,000. A 1988 doubled ear will not be bought for $300 in MS65 RD. One does not exist, but for the one I had slabbed MS63BN and sold for $5,000. And point me in the direction of where I can buy 1982 ddrs in GEM for $1500! Where in the world are they getting these prices! If you don't have a general idea, dont put it in print.

    Comment

    • DCW
      Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 2085

      #17
      I just looked and the 1996 ddo is listed in the guide as Coneca ddo-001. So, it is an error on variety vista, not the guide.

      Comment

      • Roller
        Member
        • Feb 2010
        • 6975

        #18
        I'm not in the know about what was included in prior editions other than the 5th edition which is the first one I bought. What struck me (hearing that the 2011 die 4 is not included) is that the 5th edition was published in 2009 and the last variety treated in it is a 2000 S Proof. That means that the authors were 8-9 years behind the curve (discoveries) at publishing. How does the 2014 make it in this one in that it was found when this book should have been completed already and headed for the publisher/printer? In all other respects his book came at a snails pace. I guess miracles do happen. I think who you know counts for a lot. I won't be surprised to see the floodgate on 2014 DDO's opening shortly.

        Comment

        • willbrooks
          Die & Design Expert, LCF Glossary Author

          • Jan 2012
          • 9474

          #19
          Maybe we should just make our own guide.
          All opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by willbrooks or his affiliates. Taking them may result in serious side effects. Results may vary. Offer not valid in New Jersey.

          Comment

          • kloccwork419
            Banned
            • Sep 2008
            • 6800

            #20
            The COLLECTORS Guide
            We Know Better


            lol

            Comment

            • ray_parkhurst
              Paid Member

              • Dec 2011
              • 1855

              #21
              Got mine yesterday and am very disappointed. The images are still very mediocre. I was expecting some improvement there, given the improved state of coin photography in the last few years. I also expected the 56D&S with S between 1 and 9 to show up (as did many others!) but instead the S in the tail of 9 (which looks like a die gouge to me) was listed instead. This is a big surprise as many (including Ken Potter) had the "between 1 and 9" variety already listed with the FS-01-1956D-511 designation already pre-listed. Looks like the variety was listed, then de-listed, before publication! Very disappointing.
              Builder of Custom Coin Photography Setups. PM me with your needs or visit http://macrocoins.com

              Comment

              • duece2seven
                Member
                • Feb 2013
                • 1567

                #22
                Originally posted by willbrooks
                Maybe we should just make our own guide.
                I totally agree.

                Comment

                • jcuve
                  Moderator, Die & Variety Expert
                  • Apr 2008
                  • 15458

                  #23
                  Originally posted by willbrooks
                  Maybe we should just make our own guide.
                  Not a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't have the cache of the CPG. But maybe you have to start somewhere...any publishers out there?



                  Jason Cuvelier


                  MadDieClashes.com - ErrorVariety.com
                  TrailDies.com - Error-ref.com - Port.Cuvelier.org
                  CONECA

                  (images © Jason Cuvelier 2008-18)___________________

                  Comment

                  • Roller
                    Member
                    • Feb 2010
                    • 6975

                    #24
                    Originally posted by jcuve
                    Not a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't have the cache of the CPG. But maybe you have to start somewhere...any publishers out there?
                    The CPG is authored by 20th Century thinking and personnel. This edition shows it. Don't wish them any ill but like myself, we won't be around for an other 30-40 years. It would take a little time but with the right team a respected publication could be achieved. The only question is how long would it take to make it cost effective. And, of course, how to pay for it in the meantime. Maybe our community could raise the funds?

                    Comment

                    • Maineman750
                      Administrator

                      • Apr 2011
                      • 12071

                      #25
                      Originally posted by jcuve
                      Not a bad idea. Of course it wouldn't have the cache of the CPG. But maybe you have to start somewhere...any publishers out there?
                      I believe Peter has some knowledge of publishing.....an e-book might be an inexpensive way to start
                      https://www.ebay.com/sch/maineman750...75.m3561.l2562

                      Comment

                      • kloccwork419
                        Banned
                        • Sep 2008
                        • 6800

                        #26
                        I'm down to help any way I can. Coins, money, pictures, sales..bout all I'm good for..lol

                        Comment

                        • mikelellis

                          #27
                          Hello everybody,
                          This is my first post here. I have no problem with your posts. But please, feel free to write me and ask any questions you may have. There is nothing easy about this project and each time one is published only a certain number of items can be added. Remember, Lincoln cents are but one section of the book. The other series published deserve attention as well. I am hoping we go to 3 volumes soon so we can list more items. Most that are deleted are still recorded in the table in the appendix in the back of the book. Also, many of your comments are answered in this book, you just have to read it and not rely totally on the pictures. I rarely spend time on forums of any kind but I do read and answer email on a very regular schedule. So, email me and I will answer and I do not care if you transfer my answer to this forum. I do greatly appreciate all of your contributions to both the error/variety and the general numismatic community! mikeellis2001@yahoo.com
                          Last edited by Guest; 10-04-2015, 06:19 PM.

                          Comment

                          • onecent1909
                            Wrong Design Die Expert
                            • Feb 2012
                            • 2597

                            #28
                            Originally posted by WaterSport
                            7 Coins delisted:

                            FS-01-1951 D-521 Misplaced Mint mark (D in 9)
                            FS-01-1955 D-511 RPM (D over Horizontal D)
                            FS-01-1964-803 DDR
                            FS-01-1969 D-901 Missing Designers Initials
                            FS-01-1971-102 DDO
                            FS-01-1980 D-000 OMM
                            FS-01-2000 S-901 Circulation Rev
                            Question? Are they delisted or do they just not have the pictures and a place in the book?
                            I do not have a new copy yet... however in the back of my old copy is a list of all FS numbers new listing and old listing... with the new ( at that time ) listing numbers and the old listing numbers
                            I know that the 1958 type 2 half dollar has a cherrypickers FS number and is listed in the back of the book... but it does not have pics and a placement in the 2nd cheryypickers that covers everything above the nickle
                            Member: Florida State representative for the ANA, Florida state representative for CONECA, F.U.N. and the Ocala Coin Club

                            Comment

                            • mikelellis

                              #29
                              Explanation of Deleted Listings

                              Explanation is added to the end of each line, Mike

                              FS-01-1951 D-521 Misplaced Mint mark (D in 9): There is no proof this is and MPD (was listed as D in 5, not 9) so was deleted so we could add a coin we know exists

                              FS-01-1955 D-511 RPM (D over Horizontal D): This coin has been viewed as damage by those who have ever seen it, and I am one of those people. A second has never surfaced.

                              FS-01-1964-803 DDR: This coin is the same as 1964 FS-801

                              FS-01-1969 D-901 Missing Designers Initials: The coin shown in the last Volume I is a proof coin and nobody that I am aware of that worked with this volume has seen a proof or circulation strike with reverse designer's initials this clearly missing.

                              FS-01-1971-102 DDO: This is clearly not a doubled die. It is most likely die polish doubling (abrading if you will)

                              FS-01-1980 D-000 OMM: This coin was long ago declared to not be an OMM hence the number of 000. If you go back and look at it, you will see the listing was just advance notice of it being removed in this volume.

                              FS-01-2000 S-901 Circulation Rev: This coin is still in the book on page 174

                              Comment

                              • mikelellis

                                #30
                                Originally posted by ray_parkhurst
                                Got mine yesterday and am very disappointed. The images are still very mediocre. I was expecting some improvement there, given the improved state of coin photography in the last few years. I also expected the 56D&S with S between 1 and 9 to show up (as did many others!) but instead the S in the tail of 9 (which looks like a die gouge to me) was listed instead. This is a big surprise as many (including Ken Potter) had the "between 1 and 9" variety already listed with the FS-01-1956D-511 designation already pre-listed. Looks like the variety was listed, then de-listed, before publication! Very disappointing.
                                Not completely sure what happened with this coin. It was not included in any materials I received to work with, including not on any of the appendix cross-references. What I do know is many specialists continue to debate the legitimacy of this variety. Specialists have agreed, then disagreed. Agreed, then disagreed. As far as I know, the majority of specialists currently disagree. I have some of these and I would love to declare it positively legit so I could sell them for the money they have brought in the past but when questioned, I don't do it. As of now, I am not convinced one way or the other.

                                Comment

                                Working...