1897 Penny - NGC calls these two High Tide, seems incorrect

[Michael-Roo]

Agreed; not high tide.

[terrysoldpennies]

Its one of the most mis attributed types you see , nearly all the so could high tide examples on E.bay are incorrect .

The best way to tell is by the stem of the P in Penny which on the High Tide points to the Gap [space] between the teeth, on all the others it points to the Tooth.

[SilverAge3]

I contacted Great Collections, who has it up for auction, trying to contact PCGS through their web contact form, but the contact options don't exactly pertain to this, so who knows how this will go.

[SilverAge3]

Here is what I plan to send to PCGS

I believe this coin to be improperly attributed as High Tide/ High Sea Level
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/56163554
 
Distinctive markers to determine variety correctly:

Center of the upright part of P in Penny should point to gap between denticles, not to a tooth.

Shield at bottom should basically be touching denticles, whereas there is a gap here in this coin.

Tide on right side of coin should reach next fold up in Britannia's dress, closer to where legs cross.

For comparison, this one is correctly identified:
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/82915544

 

I  can also provide more pictorial proof upon request.

 

Edited 2 hours ago by SilverAge3

[SilverAge3]

Also sent more pics

Edited 1 hour ago by SilverAge3

[SilverAge3]

I noticed that Britannia's foot is also closer to the denticles on the High Tide.

Obviously the tides are different, even if i did not scale the pictures exactly the same.

Using the two PCGS  examples, both correctly, and (IMO) incorrectly attributed.

Edited 1 hour ago by SilverAge3

[Bronze & Copper Collector]

Good luck,

Some members might remember the fiasco of PCGS misattributing an uncirculated 1860 Mule farthing. 

PCGS would not admit that the slightly separated teeth, a known issue and mentioned in catalogs and guidebooks, were not round beads. They covered themselves by identifying it as a new variety, midway between teeth and beads.

It will be interesting to see what their response is. Probably just call it a clerical labeling error.

[SilverAge3]

I'm honestly expecting to be ignored or given nonsense form responses. I am hoping GC is responsive, and applies pressure to PCGS to be accountable. Other examples (from NGC) earlier in this thread were on eBay, not much leverage there, but this is a bit different.

[SilverAge3]

7 minutes ago, Bronze & Copper Collector said:

| They covered themselves by identifying it as a new variety, midway between teeth and beads.

It will be interesting to see what their response is. Probably just call it a clerical labeling error.

New variety. Hah!