1868 Shield Nickel DDO - Possible FS-104 / F-34

[oih82w8]

Hello all, I was wanting to see if I could get some assistance in attributing my 1868 5C DDO. I have a pretty good idea that it is an FS-104, but I would like some other opinions.

 

There is a comment in Cherrypickers Guide Vol I 4th Edition, "The date is high with the first 8 touching the ball, and slanting slightly to the right. Reverse Hub IIa (1867)."

 

The only difference is that the ball is not complete (lower half) on my nickel.

 

The other doubling markers appear correct for FS-104 / F-34.

 

 

 

 

 

The reverse hub is correct (IIa (1867)),

 

 

Thanking you in advance!

[skippy]

Nice photos!

 

I am positive it is *not* FS-104/F-34. In your defense, there is simply not enough information in either Fletcher or CPG for you to determine this.

 

I am 99% sure that this is SNV S1-1004, CONECA 14-O-IV. It is possible that this also cross-references to F-35, but Fletcher does not have pictures that allow me to confirm. The doubling and date position are a good match, and the unusual shape of the engraved leaf also looks like a match.

 

In the blank vertical bar directly over the ball, I believe I can see a die line that points SW/NE slightly above the bottom of the vertical bar. If that die line is there, it confirms my attribution.

 

If the TPG who graded this labelled it F-34 (or equivalent), that is a typical TPG error - they often attribute shield nickel varieties as the closest thing they can find in CPG. There are 9 1868r67 DDOs listed in CPG; by comparison, I have 47 different 1868r67 DDOs in SNV. So the TPGs only look at what's in CPG, they are missing almost 70% of the DDOs.

[oih82w8]

Thanks Howard, NGC does not have any attribution listed on this Nickel. As far as the diagonal die line from the lower left to the upper right in the blank bar goes....you nailed it...it is there.

 

I am putting together a variety 7070 and I do not think that this would receive such attribution.

 

Now I know, thank you very much!

[dooly]

Stunning just my kind of thing

[DWLange]

So the TPGs only look at what's in CPG, they are missing almost 70% of the DDOs.

 

That's not true, at least not at NGC. We use the Fletcher book for any varieties that are not obvious, and NGC will assign a VP (VarietyPlus) number to worthwhile varieties not already recognized in the Cherrypickers' Guide.

 

Many of the 1867-68 varieties are so similar that we sometimes decline to attribute an otherwise worthwhile variety, because we believe it cannot be done consistently across a broad range of grades.

[oih82w8]

DW, I was thinking about sending this to NGC for Variety Attribution, do you think it would receive a VP number?

[skippy]

So the TPGs only look at what's in CPG, they are missing almost 70% of the DDOs.

 

That's not true, at least not at NGC. We use the Fletcher book for any varieties that are not obvious, and NGC will assign a VP (VarietyPlus) number to worthwhile varieties not already recognized in the Cherrypickers' Guide.

 

Thank you for the clarification, Dave. NGC is ahead of the competition in this regard. I see I left out an important word in my post - should have read: "So *if* the TPGs only look at what's in CPG".

 

How do you handle attribution of varieties such as the one in question here, where it isn't in CPG, you can't even tell it's not in CPG, and Fletcher doesn't provide enough photos to make a positive ID either? Just assign a VP number and don't worry about what it cross-references to?

 

 

[dooly]

So the TPGs only look at what's in CPG, they are missing almost 70% of the DDOs.

 

That's not true, at least not at NGC. We use the Fletcher book for any varieties that are not obvious, and NGC will assign a VP (VarietyPlus) number to worthwhile varieties not already recognized in the Cherrypickers' Guide.

 

Thank you for the clarification, Dave. NGC is ahead of the competition in this regard. I see I left out an important word in my post - should have read: "So *if* the TPGs only look at what's in CPG".

 

How do you handle attribution of varieties such as the one in question here, where it isn't in CPG, you can't even tell it's not in CPG, and Fletcher doesn't provide enough photos to make a positive ID either? Just assign a VP number and don't worry about what it cross-references to?

 

 

i have to ask when did this come into play as i have a few which have been sent in and come back with the wrong VP and None on where it is a clear one

 

sorry for hijacking thread.

 

PS Please recognise the missing leaf

[DWLange]

The diagnostics provided in the Fletcher book are not complete enough to make a reliable attribution, so NGC would have to pass on this one. It's unfortunate, but that is the case with so many 1867-68 nickels.

 

One very clear diagnostic mark of your coin that is not mentioned in print is a diagonal die scratch NE-SW through the annulet. If this were described in any published reference, it would nail the attribution.

[oih82w8]

Sound like I am sending this one back to the seller. Thank you for the edification!

 

As for the "Missing Leaf" Attribution, NGC does have this one listed in VarietyPlus;

 

1868 18/18 REV OF 67 FS-311 MISSING LEAF

 

 

[skippy]

Sound like I am sending this one back to the seller. Thank you for the edification!

 

Just curious - you would send a coin back to a seller because it isn't attributable by a TPG? Or was the coin represented as an F-34, and you have to have an F-34?

 

In the former case, you might have a lot of returned shield nickels.

[oih82w8]

Good question Howard. It was identified as "DDO S1-1004", and I was thinking that it could be attributed as F-104, kinda like the Old versus New FS numbers change just a little bit (sometimes). Was I ever wrong!

 

No, I don't have to have a F-34, I just want an attributed variety w/o rays shield nickel to go along with my 1867 5C With Rays FS-303 RPD, but I did pick up a nice 1869 5C RPD FS-1305.

 

I am putting together a PCGS Variety registry set and I bought this coin thinking that it would easily attributed going by the FS-104 images (upper half) in the CPG. But as you edified me on, there are other markers that are not illustrated for the variety. It's a really good looking coin, it just won't fit into my collection like I thought it would. I know, I am vain.

[skippy]

Nice to hear the seller got the attribution exactly right!

 

I understand it doesn't fit your collecting goals. Good reason!