1954-S no JS Dime

[Davids5104]

a few things/questions

 

I am newly aware of the known existence of a 1954-S no JS dime. I was looking at variety info of dimes. I have a few questions. I looked at Ebay and there are quite a few examples of this available. I bought 3 of them myself, but left a few more. It appears this is not a difficult one to find, but I would check everyone's 67FT/FB or stars.

 

1. Does anyone know about this variety and how it came about?

2. PCGS appears to recognize it as some slabbed coins have this variety listed, why does NGC not recognize it?

3. Can I compel NGC to recognize a variety that is already recognized?

 

thanks

[DWLange]

This is not a true variety, but rather a die state in which the letters wore away or were polished off of the die inadvertently while trying to remove clash marks or erosion lines. Given the poor overall quality control for S-Mint coinage in 1954, such flaws are rather common and command no premium. That's why it's not recognized by NGC.

[brg5658]

This is not a true variety, but rather a die state in which the letters wore away or were polished off of the die inadvertently while trying to remove clash marks or erosion lines. Given the poor overall quality control for S-Mint coinage in 1954, such flaws are rather common and command no premium. That's why it's not recognized by NGC.

 

Yet NGC gladly recognizes the 1922-D (no D) Lincoln wheat cent...

 

...and the "no-FG" Kennedy half dollars...

 

I don't think the common-ness or premium of a coin should be what dictates what NGC recognizes?

 

[physics-fan3.14]

command no premium. That's why it's not recognized by NGC.

 

I don't think the common-ness or premium of a coin should be what dictates what NGC recognizes?

 

 

The premium is *precisely* why NGC designates the varieties and so-called varieties that it does! The rarity is unimportant.

 

Three legged buffaloes, two-feathered indians, bugs bunny die clashes - these are also various die states which command a significant premium (and are thus designated).

[brg5658]

command no premium. That's why it's not recognized by NGC.

 

I don't think the common-ness or premium of a coin should be what dictates what NGC recognizes?

 

 

The premium is *precisely* why NGC designates the varieties and so-called varieties that it does! The rarity is unimportant.

 

Three legged buffaloes, two-feathered indians, bugs bunny die clashes - these are also various die states which command a significant premium (and are thus designated).

 

Jason, and? I can read David Lange's reply. Not sure what your listing of more die state varieties (I already listed two) really adds to the discussion as to why that arbitrary decision makes any sense.

 

If a collector wants to pay an extra $15 for a recognized variety to be added to a label, why not do it? The monetary value-added of that nomenclature shouldn't be the determining factor.

[physics-fan3.14]

Brandon, you said that the premium shouldn't be what decides the varieties NGC designates.

 

I said that is precisely how they choose the varieties, and gave a few more examples. Whether that should or should not be the case, I am simply stating that it is the case.

 

I'm not sure what you're confused about.

[Afterword]

It may be more about a lack of interest in said varieties, as indicated by a lack of premiums being paid for said varieties, that make them unworthy in NGC’s eyes.

[brg5658]

Brandon, you said that the premium shouldn't be what decides the varieties NGC designates.

 

I said that is precisely how they choose the varieties, and gave a few more examples. Whether that should or should not be the case, I am simply stating that it is the case.

 

I'm not sure what you're confused about.

 

Jason, the obvious implied question I was asking was "why"?

 

NGC and PCGS slab coins worth only their face value all the time. Why should NGC care what value a variety may be worth? If it is a recognized variety that PCGS will note on a label, seems odd that NGC wouldn't do the same.

 

I wasn't confused by your post -- I just didn't see that it added anything to the discussion. It just regurgitated what David already said.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This is not a true variety, but rather a die state in which the letters wore away or were polished off of the die inadvertently while trying to remove clash marks or erosion lines. Given the poor overall quality control for S-Mint coinage in 1954, such flaws are rather common and command no premium. That's why it's not recognized by NGC.

 

Isn't the job (stated over and over) of NGC to grade coins, not decide the market value?

 

What difference is this coin from the 3 legged Indian Head 37D, or for that matter the 36D 3-1/2 leg? The cause of the same, and neither are rarities by any numismatic definition. I am somewhat surprised that you would tie the decision to market premium forces. That is not what NGC or any TPG should be doing. It is manipulation. The poor quality control statement can be applied to many numismatic pieces and dates that have varieties that are recognized. Favoring one over the other by deciding to economically bless certain varieties is not the job of NGC. If NGC wants to set the market and state what is worthy or not economically for the hobby, then NGC should clearly state this as a business model.

 

Bottom line: it is not a TPG decision to make, if the TPG is going to state the business model is grading.

 

I am very disappointed in the answer. Maybe the wording was not inteneded, but if that is the TPG position, the TPG is doing far more than grading.

[Davids5104]

admittedly this post has been informative despite going a direction I did not expect. I guess I thought that if a variety exists and is confirmed by more than, say 100 examples, then why would a company not want to attribute them?

 

If I was able to get paid $10-20 to type a computer document that is literally 7 keystrokes sign me up

 

The submission form itself requires the submitter to attribute the variety with the appropriate information and is just confirmed or refuted by the TPGs, so seems easy enough?

 

Never really thought about the value of this variety either but if i can pay for my 2011 penny to be in plastic......

[KMAG100]

I really find this a interesting topic. I have encountered similar issues on the world coin side. I completely like & agree with both the points Jason and Brandon made. I also agreed with Mcknowitall's point.....

 

I think it comes down to the TPG not having and/or applying a well thought out grading policy... .....If they do have a policy they are not applying it well over all the coins submitted for grading. I think this is probably where the TPG's business plan over powers the grading policy. Most likely the business plan is talked about more often inside the business unit than the grading policies are talked about, so you get this inconsistency in applying policy standards across all coins.

 

At the end of the day for me: If a customer wants a designation on a later die state......and the critter is clearly missing a leg, feathers, or what ever because the mint polished it off, and the TPG clearly can see that, agrees its gone, then they should put it on the label and not be concerned with market value. TPGs do not seem to have a problem putting "first strike" on a label to market for increased value. Why the heck would the worry about putting a true physical feature of a coin on the label?

[RWB]

I think Mr. Lange was making an aside comment, not stating a policy of some sort. He was being helpful in explaining the die state and suggesting it was of little value. If the owner wants to submit it for authentication and grading that is the owner's choice - but it would not seem to be a financially beneficial decision.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think Mr. Lange was making an aside comment, not stating a policy of some sort. He was being helpful in explaining the die state and suggesting it was of little value. If the owner wants to submit it for authentication and grading that is the owner's choice - but it would not seem to be a financially beneficial decision.

 

That may be. However, he clearly stated the reason for not doing so is a policy and the policy is and was a policy of market economics. yes, he did state it was policy. What seems financially beneficial to a collector is not the responsibility of, and is not the reason for the TPG business model. the business model is grading. That is it. Nothing else. No TPG should be interfering with market value in grading decisions. The policy reasons given for not attributing the coin in question can be applied to many coins and years that are attibuted by the TPG.

 

What the comment wasn't was an aside comment, considering the known position and authority of Mr. Lange.

 

As to economic considerations of the hobby, you have many times stated....and I agree....that collecting should not be undertaken as a financially beneficial investment because the majority of time the hobbyist will not be financially rewarded.

[brg5658]

I think Mr. Lange was making an aside comment, not stating a policy of some sort. He was being helpful in explaining the die state and suggesting it was of little value. If the owner wants to submit it for authentication and grading that is the owner's choice - but it would not seem to be a financially beneficial decision.

 

Roger, you know that the TPGs grade coins worth nothing more than their face value (or bullion value) all the time. In fact, a huge proportion of the income of PCGS and NGC likely comes from the hundreds of thousands of silver eagles they slab...the point being, whether the notation on the slab label adds value or not should not be the reason for why that notation is accepted.

 

NGC slabs die state "varieties" all the time. Nearly a dozen have already been mentioned in this thread.

 

1943-S No "AW" Half Dollar

 

1982-P No "FG" Half Dollar (NGC has graded more than 700; it commands no premium)

 

...

 

And, many, many more examples.

[Afterword]

I do not see how grading can be separated from financial benefit. The whole purpose of grading is to determine quality, which then translates to value in the market.

 

Value and demand are similarly linked. If a variety does not command a premium it is due to lack of demand. If TPGs recognize unpopular varieties and in so doing create more interest in discovering such varieties and collecting them, which in turn creates demand/value, would that not be manipulating the market?

 

[PocketArt]

I always thought the TPG's listed varieties they label based on the popularity of the variety with collectors. Market value I viewed as an independent function based on scarcity of the variety, and demand.

[KMAG100]

If TPGs recognize unpopular varieties and in so doing create more interest in discovering such varieties and collecting them, which in turn creates demand/value, would that not be manipulating the market?

 

They already do this. What would you say the TPG is doing to the market when it designates a coin on a label as "first strike" ? What do you think a TPGs purpose is when they label a coin with this type of a label? Even better when they agree to label a coin slab first monster box out of the mint?

 

I feel very confident it is not to devalue the coin, rather to artificially raise the perceived value of a coin, and yes to collect a fat premium on the grading fee for no additional effort on the TPGs part. ( so is this business plan or grading policy at work?) Does the coin really have a premium value because of the coin itself, or is it applied artificially by the words on the holder?

 

With die state decay, and the recognition of the die state variety it could potentially create increased value to that particular coin. However the difference is the increased value stays with the coin whether it is in a TPG holder or not. Because the physical feature can still be seen on the coin.

 

I personally think if a TPGs does not want to manipulate the market they should focus on the *, +, and over grading of coins. Not whether the coin has 3 legs and suppose to have 4 and by putting that on the label impact market value. Regardless how it may or may not impact market price for said coin. Again, because the coin has only 3 legs regardless being in a slab or not. The abomination comes with designation on coins that can not be seen or know unless it is in a slab, and if it is ever removed from the slab can never be know again about the given coin.