Three Cent Nickels 2 2

[Sandon]

  There doesn't seem to be a topic on the forum devoted to this relatively short-lived series (1865-1889), all of one design type, alternatively known as copper-nickel three cent pieces, nickel three cent pieces, or three cent nickels. This topic will be for members to post questions, comments and research regarding, as well as photos of, these coins.

   I have always liked Longacre's design, which is unique to the series, although variants can be found on some contemporary pattern pieces.  The head of Liberty is reminiscent of the head representing "Helvetia" on some Swiss coins.  The series includes some low-priced issues (1865-76, 81) and others that are low mintage and more expensive but are mostly affordable when compared to more widely collected nineteenth and twentieth century series.

   The initial issue of these coins dated 1865 represented the first use of the 75% copper 25% nickel alloy in U.S. coinage, preceding its use in five cent coins (Shield nickels) by a year. Although this alloy is still in use today in five cent coins and the outer layers of clad dimes, quarter dollars, and half dollars, the U.S. Mint had much difficulty producing coins composed of this alloy for the first five to ten years it was in use.  Weak strikes, die cracks, and clash marks are the rule rather than the exception for the earlier, higher mintage years of circulation issues of this series, especially for coins dated from 1865 to 1869.  Later, lower mintage issues tend to be better produced. Proofs also vary in quality, with some being dull and lifeless in appearance but others being a joy to behold with fully mirrored fields contrasting with frosted devices. 

   I own at least one of each date, including the 1873 "closed 3" and "open "3" varieties, and the 1887, 7 over 6 proof. The mint state and proof issues and a PR 58 example of the 1877 proof only key date are NGC or PCGS certified, with circulated pieces, including some scarcer dates, presently uncertified and housed in pages from an old Whitman bookshelf album for two, three and twenty cent pieces and Shield nickels.  The only pieces I have dated 1883, 84, and 85 are proofs, as purported circulation strikes of these years are much more expensive than proofs, and I question whether anyone, including grading service personnel, can reliably tell the difference between them. This is one of the many subjects that we can discuss on this topic.

  Here are a couple of the certified pieces from my collection, with more to come.

 

1865, PCGS graded MS 64. Relatively well-struck for this first-year issue, but with die breaks and heavy clash marks on both sides. You can see the upside-down outline of Liberty's profile on the reverse due to clash marks.

 

1887, 7 over 6, PCGS graded PR 65 CAM, a boldly struck cameo proof with a clear overdate. You can see curving "lint marks" in the hair beneath Liberty's coronet on the obverse and next to the top right of the second Roman numeral "I" on the reverse. These are thought to be "strikethroughs" of lint from cloths or strands from brushes used to clean the dies and are often seen on proof coins of this era.

 

[Henri Charriere]

Very fine summary of the facts concerning this generally overlooked series accompanied by some splenidiferous examples.

[zadok]

...interesting series for a thread, i personally dont know very many collectors for this series among my circle of numismatist friends...i do remember years ago, few decades really, one of the early dealers i had dealings with, Ed Hipps, who loved this series n the early nickels...definitely an under appreciated n overlooked series...kudos....

[1946Hamm]

I also have a date set with both the 73 open and closed. Here are a couple examples.

 

[RWB]

This should be an interesting topic that is unfamiliar to many. The following might help with the overall approach and its origin.

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by RWB

[ldhair]

[Sandon]

   @RWB has been good enough to provide photos of and historical context for some of the patterns I recall seeing over the years that were inspired by the three-cent nickel design.  Although the obverse design concept was never adapted for another circulating coin, the use of a Roman numeral as the sole indicator of a coin's value was carried over to Liberty nickels in 1883, with less than satisfactory results, as unscrupulous persons gold plated them, reeded the edges, and passed them off as similarly sized five-dollar gold pieces, necessitating the addition of the word "CENTS" to the five cent coins. 

   I have never heard of anyone altering and attempting to pass a three-cent nickel off as a three-dollar gold piece, a larger coin with a limited distribution that likely would have been less familiar to most Americans than the half eagle. It does not appear that during the nineteenth century three cent nickels were readily confused with dimes either, notwithstanding that both dimes minted since 1837 and three cent nickels have identical diameters of 17.9 millimeters.  Presumably, the considerable difference in design from the Liberty Seated dime prevented confusion of these two denominations. (Twenty cent pieces, which bore Liberty Seated and eagle motifs similar to those of the Liberty Seated quarter dollar, were reportedly confused with those quarter dollars.)  I have, however, read occasional reports of worn three cent nickels being found in rolls of modern dimes.     

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

I agree that the 3CN is a cool, lesser collected series.  Looking forward to seeing more of your collection.

[RWB]

Overlaying three-cent nickels was an internal Treasury and political argument. One group, including Director Pollock, felt that except for the cent and expedient 2-cent, all base metal coins were temporary substitutes for existing silver coins. Once specie was reintroduced, base metal coins would be abandoned and replaced with 3-cent silver and 5-cent half dimes. The contrary view, by Snowden and others, was that the dime (or even quarter) should be the lowest denomination silver coins, and that base metal pieces offered advantages in convenient size, resistance to abrasion, and seigniorage over silver. Further, Joseph Wharton felt that base metal convenience in size would outweigh the inconvenience of tiny silver coins for small denominations.

Three cent CuNi coins proved to be more popular than 3-cent silver, and the public used them as replacements, not temporary substitutes. A 5-cent CuNi received the same reception. This led to elimination of half dimes and 3-cent silver in the Act of 1873.

Edited August 3, 2023 by RWB

[olympicsos]

On 8/3/2023 at 12:42 PM, RWB said:

Three cent CuNi coins proved to be more popular than 3-cent silver, and the public used them as replacements, not temporary substitutes. A 5-cent CuNi received the same reception. This led to elimination of half dimes and 3-cent silver in the Act of 1873.

Although with the nickel costing 10 cents to produce and the dime costing 4 cents to produce, an argument can be made to reinstate the half dime as a copper nickel clad coin today as it would reduce the loss in making nickels and actually generate seigniorage. 

Edited August 3, 2023 by olympicsos

[Sandon]

   The three cent nickel series has a number of known die varieties, mostly repunched dates and minor doubled dies, as shown in such references as the Cherrypickers' Guide to Rare Die Varieties and NGC VarietyPlus.  Nickel Three Cents (1865-1889) | VarietyPlus® | NGC (ngccoin.com). One of the more interesting varieties, however, is an apparent misplaced date digit, the 1875 FS-301.

   Those of you who collect Indian cent varieties will likely be familiar with the 1897 FS-401, commonly referred to as the "1 in neck" variety due to the top flag of a "1", presumably from the date logotype, protruding from the left side of the "Indian's" neck. The 1875 three cent nickel variety is similarly described as having the flag of an errant "1" punched into the obverse die so that it protrudes from Liberty's neck. This protrusion, which is straight and angled upward, does not appear to match the flag of the "1" in the date, which is differently shaped and angled downward. NGC VarietyPlus states that "[t]he projection is probably the numeral's base, but it could also be its flag."  Here is the VarietyPlus photo of the area including the neck, the anomalous protrusion, and the date:

   Interestingly, the obverse die with this presumed misplaced "1" was used to coin both some 1875 circulation strikes (228,000 reported issued, a scarcer "common" date) and some proofs ("700+" reported issued). It is doubtful that anyone has ever tried to accumulate enough 1875 three cent nickels in either format to form an informed opinion as to what percentage of either exists with this purported misplaced digit.

   I purchased the unattributed 1875 three cent nickel that NGC graded PF 64 whose photos follow at an August 2021 internet auction. I could see from the auction photos that it was of the misplaced date variety.

 

  The surfaces of this coin are rather dull for a proof, but this is not unusual for proof three cent nickels. The obverse is somewhat more reflective than the photos (courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries) suggest but exhibits considerable "cartwheel" when rotated under a light.  The reverse is hardly reflective at all and is frosty in some areas but exhibits heavy die polish marks when viewed at a certain angle.  While these factors render the proof status of the coin somewhat questionable, the appearance of several "lint marks" on the obverse, the strong strike--note particularly the absolutely full lines in the digits of the Roman numeral-- and the scarcity of marks indicating coin-to-coin contact justify by a preponderance of the evidence NGC's classification of this coin as a proof.

  This interesting variety represents a "cherrypicking opportunity" among both certified and uncertified coins.     

Edited August 3, 2023 by Sandon

[Coinbuf]

Not a series that I have collected or a design that I'm overly fond of.   I do have one type example raw in my 7070 album.

 

[ldhair]

[Sandon]

   The three cent nickel series boasts three proof only dates, the 1877, 1878, and 1886.  They have limited mintages that would be considered extremely low today but are readily available in grades as high as PF 66 for prices that would seem to be incredibly low in comparison to coins with similar populations in more popularly collected series or to proof only dates in such series, most notably the 1895 Morgan dollar. Let's take a look at each of these issues, beginning with the 1877.

   The 1877 is considered to be the key date to the series with a reported distribution of 900 pieces per the 2023 "Redbook". (Some earlier dates have lower reported proof distributions but are also represented by surviving examples of considerably larger circulation quality mintages.) It is possible that more 1877s were minted and either sold or subsequently released into circulation. The NGC Coin Explorer notes that the mint did not begin recording records of the sale of minor coin proofs sets until 1878. 1877 3CN PF | Coin Explorer | NGC (ngccoin.com).  (The 2023 "Redbook" shows a similar mintage of 900 for the key, also proof only 1877 Shield nickel but "1,250-1,500" for the remaining proof minor coin issue of that year, the Indian cent.) 

   Although grading service population data is inflated by resubmissions of the same pieces to the same or other services, it is the best information available to obtain some idea as to how many of these coins exist. The resubmissions can be assumed to be partly offset by remaining uncertified coins in older collections and coins in the holders of other active grading services such as ANACS and ICG and now defunct services such as PCI.  However, it is probably safe to assume that the majority of the existing examples of this rare coin, which almost always sells for at least four figures in any grade, are now certified by NGC or PCGS. It is probably also safe to assume that, as this coin was issued for a premium to collectors of the time, most of the original mintage has been preserved.  

  The NGC Census shows a total population of 485 numerically graded 1877 three cent nickels, plus 2 details graded pieces. The PCGS Population Report shows a total of 668 numerically graded pieces. (PCGS does not report the number of coins it has details graded.) The combined population is 1,153 pieces based on the gross number of submission events. Of the 485 numerically graded NGC submissions, 296 (61%) were not awarded a "cameo" designation, 187 (38.6%) received the "CAM" designation and only 2 pieces received an "Ultra Cameo" ("UCAM") designation. Of the 668 reported PCGS submissions, 490 (73.4%) did not receive a "cameo" designation, 174 (26%) received the "CAM" designation, and only 4 pieces received the "deep cameo" ("DCAM") designation.  It is reasonable to conclude from this data that most 1877 three cent nickels have insufficient field to device contrast to be designated "cameo" and that "deep" or "ultra" cameos are quite rare.

   The population data also reveals that the "64" and "65" grades are by far the most commonly awarded, with coins graded "66" being far fewer in number but with still enough pieces graded to be available with some frequency.  Pieces graded "67" are quite unusual. The highest numerical grade awarded by either service is "68", 4 in PF 68 CAM by NGC (perhaps the same coin submitted 4 different times?) and a solitary PR 68 CAM by PCGS.

   @1946Hamm has posted on this topic a photo of the obverse of an NGC holder containing an NGC graded PF 65 example of an 1877 three cent nickel.  My own coin, acquired in 2015 to complete my set by date and shown below, is PCGS graded PR 58, one of only a few pieces at either service to receive a circulated grade. The coin was likely brushed or otherwise mishandled by a previous owner rather than being actually used in commerce. 

Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

Edited August 5, 2023 by Sandon

[ldhair]

PCGS gave this PF-65. I fell in love with the color. 

 

[Sandon]

    The second proof only three cent nickel, the 1878, has a reported distribution of 2,350 pieces, which is more likely accurate than the lower numbers in the "Redbook" for proof issues of previous years, all of which are followed by "+" signs in recent editions. NGC Census data reflects a total of 728 grading events with no pieces receiving a "details" grade. The PCGS Population Report reflects 1,068 graded submissions. The combined number of grading events for the two services is 1,796, as compared to the 1,153 for the more valuable 1877, so whatever the actual 1877 distribution was, it was likely smaller than that of the 1878.  Combined data for the two services shows 1,334 awards of non-cameo grades (74.2%), 454 cameo designations (25.3%), and only 8 deep or ultra cameo designations (0.4%), 4 at each service. As with the 1877s, the most frequently awarded grades are 64 and 65, with a fair number of 66s, and 67s being very few in number. The highest grade awarded is again 68, with NGC reporting 4 grading events of a 68 CAM and PCGS reporting 2 non-cameo designations at the 68 level and 1 piece graded 68 CAM. 

   I acquired my own 1878 three cent nickel at the 2003 A.N.A. convention auction conducted by Bowers and Merena. NGC graded PF 66, It has a somewhat satiny rather than highly reflective surface but is clearly a proof, with an absolutely full strike and some contrast between the fields and the devices.

  All of the 1878 three cent nickels that I recall seeing have the frosted area in the top loop of the second "8" visible on the photo of my coin, which presumably can be used as a diagnostic element of the obverse die.

[1946Hamm]

Nice 78. Here is mine.

[Sandon]

   The third and final proof only three cent nickel, the 1886, had a reported distribution of 4,290 pieces, over 50% more than that of the 1878.  The NGC Census reflects 1,136 numerical grading events plus two occurrences of "details" grading, while the PCGS Population Report indicates an additional 1,494 numerically graded submissions. The combined total grading events by the two services is 2,630.  It appears that pieces qualifying for a "cameo" designation are rare, with 93 at NGC and 100 at PCGS and that pieces qualifying for a "deep" or "ultra" cameo designation are extremely rare, with none so yet designated at NGC and one solitary piece at PCGS, a PR 66 DCAM.  The vast majority of submissions grade at both services 64, 65, or 66, with 67s being relatively few.  As with the 1877s and 1878s, the highest numerical grade awarded to date is "68", with 5 grading events at that level at NGC (one a cameo) and 4 at PCGS.

    While many 1886 three cent nickels have mirrorlike surfaces, many others are satiny, and I have seen some that had frosty luster like regular issue uncirculated coins. My example shown below, NGC graded PF 66 and acquired at the same 2003 A.N.A. convention auction is mirrorlike and attractive, with lightly frosted devices:

 

[RWB]

Nice !

[Sandon]

   In addition to the proof-only issues, the three-cent nickel series has three scarce issues, the 1883, 1884, and 1885, whose respective circulation strike mintages are reported as lower than their respective proof mintages. In each case, purported circulation strikes sell for much higher prices than purported proof strikes in equivalent grades. Many purported proofs are satiny or even frosty, and some purported circulation strikes are prooflike. All of these issues are generally well struck. Although grading services purport to be able to tell proofs from the much pricier circulation strikes, I have never heard or read any satisfactory explanation as to how this is done. Accordingly, I have chosen to collect these issues only in purportedly proof format.

   The 1883 has a reported proof distribution of 6,609 pieces, the highest for the series.  This relatively high distribution, which is equal to that of the proof Indian cent of that year, is presumably due to the high demand for minor proof sets due to the three different types of nickels that ended up being issued in 1883.  The circulation strike mintage is reported as only 4,000 pieces.  Ron Guth, writing for PCGS CoinFacts, states that "most of the circulated examples have a small die crack at the top of the reverse, connecting the border and the left tip of the wreath, and another at 3:00. This may be a diagnostic for the Mint State versions, but we've seen some certified Proofs with these same cracks. It could be that at least one pair of dies was used to strike Proofs, then followed by some circulation strikes. If that is the case, there will be some coins of questionable intent, including those that are poorly made Proofs and/or Prooflike early strikes." (Emphasis added.) Would you really want to spend thousands of dollars on a purported uncirculated circulation strike as opposed to hundreds for a gem proof on these uncertain criteria?

   NGC has certified 1,685 (not necessarily different) pieces as proofs, including one details graded piece, with a grade range of "VF" to PF 68. PCGS has numerically graded 2,258 submissions as proofs with a numerical grade range of 30 to 68+. The combined number of proof certified submissions is 3,943.  As with the other proof issues examined so far, the most common grade range is 64 to 66, with 67s being much scarcer and 68s very rare. Similarly, cameos make up only a small percentage of the certified population, with deep or ultra cameos apparently being very rare.

   The purportedly circulation strike certified population is much lower, consisting of 75 grading events at NGC, 13 of which are "details" graded, and 202 numerically graded submissions at PCGS, for a combined total of 277 at the two services. The grade range runs from VG to MS 68 at NGC and F 12 to MS 67+ at PCGS. (How can one tell that a well-circulated example, with no original surface, was coined as a circulation strike? For that matter, how likely is it that a coin of this vintage intended for circulation and not given special handling could grade 67 or 68?)

   My own 1883 three cent nickel, shown below, is PCGS graded PR 65 in an old green label holder.  Purchased at a local coin auction in March 1992, it is the first proof example of this series I acquired. These coins actually went for more at that time than they do now, and the auctioneer had mistakenly listed the already much higher price for a MS 65, creating confusion. I would take a loss on it if I were to sell it today. The coin is nice, however. Based on its moderately mirrored surfaces, it was presumably struck as a proof.

   

   

[VKurtB]

On 8/3/2023 at 11:42 AM, RWB said:

Further, Joseph Wharton felt that base metal convenience in size would outweigh the inconvenience of tiny silver coins for small denominations.

Of course, the fact that Joseph Wharton owned the largest then-known nickel mine, in far eastern Lancaster County, PA, near the town now known as Gap, PLUS the only plant capable of creating “malleable nickel”, in Camden, NJ, was merely a coincidence. Uh huh.

[Sandon]

   The 1884 three cent nickel had reported mintages of 3,942 proofs but only 1,700 circulation strikes.  The NGC Census shows a total of 1,297 submissions graded in proof format, with a grade range of VF to PF 68. The PCGS Population Report shows a total of 1,636 proof graded submissions with a grade range of F 15 through PR 68.  The total proof population between the two services is 2,933. As with other dates we've examined in this topic, (1) the vast majority of the proof populations have been graded from 64 to 66, with 67s much scarcer and 68s in single digits, and (2) the vast majority of these populations are graded non-cameo, with cameos having about 20% of the population of non-cameos, and deep or ultra cameos totaling 2 at NGC and 4 at PCGS. The circulation strike population is only 49 at NGC, ten of which are details graded, and 111 at PCGS, for a total of 160 grading events, some of which are likely multiple submissions of the same coin. The grade range of these circulation strike submissions varies from Fine through MS 67, with most awarded circulated grades.

   I recall reading that all 1884 three cent nickels, both proof and circulation strike, were coined from a single pair of dies but can't currently identify the source. (Feel free to post what you know about this issue.) The date, the only portion of the die that would have been punched in separately, appears to be in the same position on every example of this date that I've seen. The NGC Coin Explorer states that "[t]he typical 1884 is sharply struck from fresh dies and looks more like a poorly made proof than a true currency strike. Historically, there has been a great deal of misattribution between the two editions." Similarly, Ron Guth has written for PCGS Coinfacts, "beware of Proofs masquerading as Mint State examples...sometimes they are hard to tell apart, and the Proofs are worth much less than the Mint State versions." (Ellipses in original.) I defy anyone to state objective criteria to distinguish between pieces struck as proofs and as circulation strikes, especially for coins in circulated grades whose original finish has worn away. Nevertheless, purported 1884 circulation strikes list $1,250 to $1,600 in F 12 and $7,500 to $8,500 in MS 63 in various price guides, and certified examples have in fact sold for well into four figure prices in such grades at auction. In comparison, certified proofs list $500-$550 in "65" and $750-$850 in "66". In the absence of established objective criteria for distinguishing between proof and circulating issues, I recommend buying this date only as a proof.

   I purchased my own 1884 three cent nickel, which PCGS graded PR 64, at a 2015 auction for a total of about $333, including shipping. The coin is well-struck with nearly unblemished surfaces but has satiny surfaces with little reflectivity. Presumably, it was struck as one of the 3,942 proofs and not one of the 1,700 coins for circulation, but no one may ever know for sure.

    Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

   

Edited August 19, 2023 by Sandon
had difficulty getting some portions to post as written

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/19/2023 at 3:01 PM, Sandon said:

....  Ron Guth has written for PCGS Coinfacts, "beware of Proofs masquerading as Mint State examples.... and the Proofs are worth much less than the Mint State versions."

 

I defy anyone to state objective criteria to distinguish between pieces struck as proofs and as circulation strikes,....

 

I recommend buying this date only as a proof.

    Photos courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.  

I guess I am not reading this right, but...  If the Proofs are worth MUCH LESS than the Mint States, and it is difficult  to tell them apart in the absence of objective criteria, why would you recommend buying this date as a Proof?

[VKurtB]

On 8/27/2023 at 9:37 AM, Henri Charriere said:

I guess I am not reading this right, but...  If the Proofs are worth MUCH LESS than the Mint States, and it is difficult  to tell them apart in the absence of objective criteria, why would you recommend buying this date as a Proof?

Do you REALLY want to open the Pandora's box of why coin people do what they do? Seems like the ultimate rat hole to me.

The three coin set RWB showed above is cool. I could have grown into an American Maundy set, except instead of the. Head of State giving them to the poor, Presidents would be giving them only to their extended family members. After all, it's what we have become now.

Edited August 27, 2023 by VKurtB

[zadok]

...recommendation was to buy this as a proof...operative word "as"...meaning pay the proof price n not the mint state asking prices...duh....

[RWB]

On 8/27/2023 at 10:37 AM, Henri Charriere said:

I guess I am not reading this right, but...  If the Proofs are worth MUCH LESS than the Mint States, and it is difficult  to tell them apart in the absence of objective criteria,

I agree with you....although possibly for different reasons. I feel that whenever a TPG makes a "Grand Proclamation" that a coin is somehow special or a "specimen," of declares certain ambiguous coins such as 3-cent CuNi proof vs circulation strikes, the TPG should publish clear and specific research, measurements and analysis to justify their conclusion.  So far, I have never seen this from any TPG for any coin. (The cute promotional article don't count - they are just fluff and filler.) Simply put, TPG should tell collectors how and why a decision was made.

[Sandon]

On 8/27/2023 at 10:37 AM, Henri Charriere said:

If the Proofs are worth MUCH LESS than the Mint States, and it is difficult to tell them apart in the absence of objective criteria, why would you recommend buying this date as a Proof?

    I have two reasons:

   1.  As the grading services have no stated criteria for telling 1883, 84, and 85 three cent nickels struck for circulation from those struck as proof and admit that they are "difficult" to tell apart, the coin you buy in a grading service holder that purports it to be a circulation strike may in fact have been struck as a proof.  Why pay a much higher price for it than for a coin of the same date in an equivalent grade in a holder that designates it as a proof? In the unlikely event that anyone discovers a reliable (or at least consistent and generally accepted) method to tell them apart, you may discover that your "circulation strike" would now be classified as a less valuable proof. 

  2.  Although "proof" is defined as a method of manufacture rather than a grade, coins that were struck as or appear to be proofs tend to be superior in strike and overall appearance than those struck for or appearing to have been struck for circulation. Nineteenth century collectors apparently considered proofs to be the same issue as circulation strikes of the same date and denomination and tended to only collect proofs as the best examples of those issues. This view apparently persisted well into the twentieth century. The Louis E. Eliasberg, Sr. collection was considered to be a "complete" collection of U.S. coins by date and mint even though many of the Philadelphia mint issues were represented only by proofs. Today's collectors consider proof and circulation strike coins to be different issues, but where it may not be possible to tell them apart, wouldn't you rather have a beautiful, fully struck gem quality example with a proof designation than a lower grade, less attractive example for a much higher price just because the grading service holder designates it as a circulation issue?

    I'll pick up this topic with a discussion of the 1885 three cent nickels and then turn to an examination of dates with larger circulation strike mintages.

[Henri Charriere]

On 8/27/2023 at 12:26 PM, RWB said:

.... Simply put, TPG should tell collectors how and why a decision was made.

I don't know if an explanation would be possible as they entail setting forth reasons which require time, and time is money.  The sheer volume of submissions received and processed may make that impractical.  It may very well come down to providing the requested information for an additional fee, or incorporating the feature when submission fees are raised, which seems inevitable.

[RWB]

This is not referring to routine matters, but to their "Specimen" and related items such as mentioned for 3-cent CuNi proofs.

[VKurtB]

On 8/27/2023 at 11:26 AM, RWB said:

TPG should tell collectors how and why a decision was made.

You have to take the Summer Seminar course. We discussed exactly that for a week. Yes, for "Specimen" strikes specifically. They stressed that NGC and PCGS are in SERIOUS disagreement on what constitutes a Specimen. PCGS is much "looser" in designating Specimens.

Edited August 28, 2023 by VKurtB