1989 FG reverse dies from 1988

[coincents]

what kind of error is this

[Paul]

.... there are quite a few var's in '89 !
i would need better (closer high rez) pics to attribute ....,

i hugeeyes NO current D.I. listing for a '88 rev on a '89 ?? :dunno :dunno
whistling2:

[coincents]

[Daniel]

I think you should contact Wexler and send it to him. http://doubleddie.com/

[PetesPockets55]

Interesting coin but I hate to be a party pooper.
The top of the G stops short of the upright which is a good indicator for RDV-006. And the distance of the initials from the building are consistent with RDV-006 but, with a die issue. Maybe the OP's coin was struck by a die filled with grease. (Unless I'm wrong again. lol: )

Check out this LINK to Wexlers site (Doubleddies.com) for comparisons of the RDV-005 ('88 normal) vs. RDV-006 ('99 normal).

Another thing to check is where the bottom horizontal bar of the F lines up in relation to the top of the G but the easiest I've found is where the top of the G stops in relation to the vertical bar of the G.

(BTW- Wexler is 3-4 months out on attributions because of the popularity of videos recommending sending coins to him. Last year, coins I sent in May came back in Nov. A nice letter came with them updating about assistance he is getting to reduce the backlog but it is still lengthy. )

[Daniel]

Am I missing something here? The OP posted a 1989 reverse correct? This reverse in the images has the FG for an 1988 RDV-005, or supposedly, correct?

If so then we're looking at a 1989 with an 1988 reverse correct?

Because the 1989 RDV-006 reverse is supposed to have the serifs and is thicker, plus the position is different. What I am seeing in the images is the reverse of a 1988 coin on a 1989 unless the OP mixed this up or I am completely confused here.



Also I do recommend Wexler or contacting CONECA Rep and most of them are back-logged even the last time I sent a coin out years ago. That's just part of this business. The videos might have made it worse but it's always took a while.

[PetesPockets55]

Am I missing something here? The OP posted a 1989 reverse correct? This reverse in the images has the FG for an 1988 RDV-005, or supposedly, correct?

If so then we're looking at a 1989 with an 1988 reverse correct?

Because the 1989 RDV-006 reverse is supposed to have the serifs and is thicker, plus the position is different. What I am seeing in the images is the reverse of a 1988 coin on a 1989 unless the OP mixed this up or I am completely confused here.



Also I do recommend Wexler or contacting CONECA Rep and most of them are back-logged even the last time I sent a coin out years ago. That's just part of this business. The videos might have made it worse but it's always took a while.

Thanks for the excellent images for reference.
(Hope I can keep this straight.)

Yes, The OP posted a 1989-P (with Obv. & Rev. images of what I believe are the same coin)

No, I do not believe that is the 1988 Reverse, because....
The top of the G stops well short of the upright of the G, as your top image for a regular '89 reverse shows.

The bumps on the short vertical of the G are missing on some dies from grease or maybe plating issues(?).

BTW- Personally I think the videos, when done properly like you do, are a big help to the hobby. They are easy to watch and can correct erroneous information.
Unfortunately I think Mr. Wexler is getting older like the rest of us, with even more irons in the fire, including attributions, articles, and having a life.

[Daniel]

I agree something has happened to this FG. Could have been abraded down to remove clash marks and there's a mark connecting it to the rim. I had to get a closer look. I don't even look for these myself. I like the comparison images and would make a great video, some people need to visualize.

[Paul]

.... keep in mind:

:eureka:
these are completely different 'style' G's also ....

hugeeyes
notice the toung & tail ?

[Daniel]

Unfortunately I think Mr. Wexler is getting older like the rest of us, with even more irons in the fire, including attributions, articles, and having a life.[/size]

All of them are getting older and crunched for time, more and more people are being turned onto varieties and errors because of Facebook groups, social media, reporting on rare varieties being found in the media, Cherry Picker's Guides, Youtube videos and people need money.

I am hugely involved in the business and full time. I go to a couple shows a month and speak to the experts every chance I get, whether email, Facebook or a coin shows. Even the experts disagree on some things, and most collectors would be surprised to hear that, but 100% truth. I have permission from a few of these experts to use their material in my videos, they see how much I help and study and learn. My far and few in between mistakes come from trying to do to much at a time and not slowing down to look at every detail when I am rushing.

Honestly I don't care what these "message" board members think of my videos. These guys are just living in a tiny world in those dinosaur boards just like this one. People use them but Facebook groups is where most of the activity takes place.

I would rather help the masses than limit myself to a group or message board and sit and critique everyone else from my "bubble". I help thousands of people a month, and although I am not perfect, I do not deserve for anyone to bash what I do. I am not saying you have petespocket but you know the arrogance in those groups and I am not letting is spill over into this group.

Sorry to hijack a thread but I have literally built most of this all by myself and ran it since 2007. When these naysayers do the same thing then only then can they critique me. I held my tongue on the other board because I have too many things to do and what they're doing does not benefit the hobby.

[PetesPockets55]

Well said and I absolutely don't take it the wrong way at all.

I know how much you care for and help us collectors whether we realize it or not. I'm so glad to see the Facebook group take off for you. The hobby definitely benefits from your experience and time. I'm glad to see some positive results for you starting to come of your dedication.

I don't say it often or loud enough sometimes so when I remember I do.

Thanks again for all you do (as well as Paul and Mark) to help us all learn from your knowledge and experience.

[Daniel]

I know you support me. Pahl and Mark are huge in helping me. Mark is helps me in the FB groups more than I can ask.