#3 1912-D ICG slabbed NOTE: If you don't vote in the poll, your vote will not be counted This one will be a minor bit different. Here are 3 1912-D's. The first 2 are graded by PCGS and they will count in the cumulative scores. Plus a third (this one) graded by ICG that will not count, but I would appreciate your grading / opinions. (Please score the ICG with your honest grade, not what you think ICG gave it.) There is at least one of these I think is misgraded, so please add all the comment you can.
That's the first one I've seen in your posts that I don't feel has an argument for MS.. but I'm sure some will... anyway, gut said 55... so will take the 58 slot.
kinda along the lines as Bahabully's but I was going think MS60 but when I saw the reverse I couldnt. I gave it a 58.
Nice coin! These are tough. Early Denver issues can be deceiving due to poor strikes. With the exception of the 1916-D, this holds true up to about 1928. As I recall, the mint workers started putting out better product in Denver for fear of losing their jobs. I think Philly finally started giving the new dies more often too.....as best I can remember. Obverse - The high points show evidence of rub (obvious). It was worked its way to the lapel and shoulder. Indications the coin is AU. The dies were non-parallel, you can see the weakness on the right side of the last T and the 2. Some may mistake the 2 as wear, it is not. The scratchiness on the shoulder also indicates the strike weakness, usually excessive die spacing. Also notice the flow lines all the way up the portraits back. Reverse - Again, the right side weakness is obvious due to the non-parallel dies. Perhaps contrary to most, the first thing I look at on the reverse of a wheat is the wheat grains and not the wheat heads. It's usually easier for me to see rub on those grains because they are nearly as high as the lines. When the lines are weakly struck it can be difficult to see wear. Also, the sharpness of those grains says a lot about the die age and strike.....I digress. There is a slight rub in the top, left grains. Again, that points to an AU coin, especially to a 7 second grader. The reverse hits I personally believe are due to the mint or general bank processing and not something that happened in circulation. Overall - IMO this is an MS coin. I'd call it MS-63. However, I'm pretty certain NGC or PCGS would AU-55/58 this coin. Why do I say MS then? I believe the coin was put away in MS red. Over the years the coin was slightly mishandled as it passed from collector to collector. The browning pattern is indicative of touching the coin and probably some sulfur containing holders. That is what caused the slight rub on the high points and not circulation wear. The coin is too clean to have been out in the wild during it's lifetime. Here's my grade guesses: IGC - They were brave: MS-62 to 64 (if they were really bold) NGC/PCGS - AU-58 BadThad - MS-63
Boy ! - You had me all kinds of confused here. I thought you were showing 3 different coins in this 1 thread Didn't realize what was goin on until I got to the other threads. Very weak reverse on this one ! So I'd grade it by the obverse. But even then I'm kind of torn between 50 & 55. That 2nd pic of the obv is misleading, guess I'll go with 55.
Out of the three this is the one I like the least - the color just makes it look lifeless to me. No luster at all. I am sorry, but I not give it a 58 because I thought 58's should look nicer and have more luster. This is only the second one you posted that I did not like.
This one, http://www.cointalk.com/t126398/, and http://www.cointalk.com/t126399/ will be ending tomorrow.
This coin is another I am not sure of the grade. On this one, I fully understand the AU's given. I think I would call it MS, but it is a real close call and if it were MS, I would likely go with a 62. However, ICG figured it was a 63.