PCGS Penny Population Report What A Mess

[emu666]

1919, 1920 unsubstantiated assignment of mints
1922 bizarre designation (Mod rev???)
1931 unnecessarily complicated descriptions of reverse dies
http://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail.aspx?c=5031

George VI and QEII reverse die identifications at variance with the established designation scheme (1957Y reverse Fp: what is reverse Fp??).
http://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail.aspx?c=5032
http://www.pcgs.com/pop/detail.aspx?c=5033

Extremely disappointing
Not to mention the mess this has made of the set registry:
http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/publishedset.aspx?s=118292
http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/publishedset.aspx?s=120231&ac=1

[serial]

Nice set there!

[echidna]

Its a huge stuff up.
Not just pennies - others too.

They will get it sorted one way or another because of their guarantee.
And it will be good to see the numbers eventually.
Some surprises I reckon.

[autocoupler]

Yes, I noticed the change in their population list the other day. Agree there are a few weird descriptions, but I thought it was at least a positive move in differentiating between London and Indian penny obverses as well as the date variations of the 31.

A couple of notable emissions were the 1920 DBBS London Obverse, 1921 London obverse, 1922 Indian obverse, 1953M reverse H (long 5 diff. 3), 1955Y. Obverse 9, 1956Y. obverse 8 and the 1957 reverse H (wide date). If they're going to do it, they should do it right.

So, I'm wondering if these alterations/corrections/updates were instigated solely by PCGS, or due in part from submission details by collectors? If these changes to the population report spill over into the set registry, it may make things interesting if the new additions become a perceived requirement for that area.

[r9453]

No doubt its a work in progress, I try to follow it as best I can. Its a pity that when they make changes they can't be for the better.

[Goldseeker]

Do PCGS actually note on the slab as to what variety the coin is?

[trout]

Do PCGS actually note on the slab as to what variety the coin is?

Yes

[nealeffendi]

So, I'm wondering if these alterations/corrections/updates were instigated solely by PCGS, or due in part from submission details by collectors? If these changes to the population report spill over into the set registry, it may make things interesting if the new additions become a perceived requirement for that area.

Might not be "collectors", it might be dealers. I noted that the top slabbed 1920 dot above English is for sale by a dealer. That same dealer had previously created the "Benchmark Collection" (which had the Indian/English etc) on the NGC registry so perhaps some pressure/inducement involved to encourage them to switch slabbers.

[r9453]

So, I'm wondering if these alterations/corrections/updates were instigated solely by PCGS, or due in part from submission details by collectors? If these changes to the population report spill over into the set registry, it may make things interesting if the new additions become a perceived requirement for that area.

Might not be "collectors", it might be dealers. I noted that the top slabbed 1920 dot above English is for sale by a dealer. That same dealer had previously created the "Benchmark Collection" (which had the Indian/English etc) on the NGC registry so perhaps some pressure/inducement involved to encourage them to switch slabbers.

Spot on, a rival dealer told me exactly the same thing yesterday.

[trout]

I think that the recognition of the different varieties is a positive step and is a long time coming.
If you look at the Canadian and US coins you will see Many different varieties recognised by both NGC and PCGS so it is about time that the Australian   coins are starting to get some recognition as well :good:

I do realise how tough it is to complete a set registry and fill all the gaps in the list and it is satisfying to finally complete the set.

The addition of new varieties only adds depth to a collection as far as I am concerned and is a Good thing :ok:
This probably means that the ranking of sets change and can be upsetting for some collectors whose sets are affected by these changes.

I personally feel that the more of the different varieties recognised the better and can only be a step forward as far as I am concerned :yahoo:

[echidna]

The 1942 India without mintmark and 43 large denticles are now part of the regular set and therefore much more in demand.
Previously these were not included.

The unanswered issue now is will these other "new varieties" become part of the regular set ?
The impression I get is that they will be...

[nealeffendi]

I have just had a closer look at the population report and noticed that the double dot has (s) for Sydney after it. That is WRONG (with 99.999%certainty as I have seen the reports from that year and the double dot was released in Melbourne) and I'm wondering if somebody has influenced PCGS to make that mistake. I won't say who did it but just maybe they were influenced by the NGC publishing that mistake when the Benchmark Collection was published. NGC even allowed the dealer to write all their descriptions for them and for a number of coins those descriptions were wrong. The same applies to the dot above English that cannot be attributed to Sydney with any certainty as the Benchmark NGC (and now PCGS) have done  (more likely Perth).
I do hope that they will fix the screw up as there is no way I want the wrong mint put on my 1920s.

[echidna]

I have just had a closer look at the population report and noticed that the double dot has (s) for Sydney after it. That is WRONG (with 99.999%certainty as I have seen the reports from that year and the double dot was released in Melbourne) and I'm wondering if somebody has influenced PCGS to make that mistake. I won't say who did it but just maybe they were influenced by the NGC publishing that mistake when the Benchmark Collection was published. NGC even allowed the dealer to write all their descriptions for them and for a number of coins those descriptions were wrong. The same applies to the dot above English that cannot be attributed to Sydney with any certainty as the Benchmark NGC (and now PCGS) have done  (more likely Perth).
I do hope that they will fix the screw up as there is no way I want the wrong mint put on my 1920s.

Yeah I also get the impression they are getting their information from one source only.
Basically heresay.
If so its not the first time its happened in a catologue.

[Basil]

I have just had a closer look at the population report and noticed that the double dot has (s) for Sydney after it. That is WRONG (with 99.999%certainty as I have seen the reports from that year and the double dot was released in Melbourne) and I'm wondering if somebody has influenced PCGS to make that mistake.e wrong mint put on my 1920s.

Good to see you back posting Neal,way OT but if you get the time could you look at a possible DoT in this thread,

https://www.australian-coins.net/showthread.php?tid=3377
post 567.Poor quality coin but i don't think its a double dot.Thanks...

[echidna]

Another problem - looks like they forgot to include them in the main set or any set.
I had a 1927 Indian re-attributed and its now disappeared from my registry set and cant be added.