1961 cent

Hello,

My photographs are garbage. Though, I would like to read a general opinion regarding the grade of the following coin:

​

Salutations.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm looking for someone to second this, but I'm going to give it a grade of PF-67.

 

I think that's a fair grade.

 

I appreciate the responses.
[HR][/HR]
Before sending it in to ANACS, I successfully removed most of the blue toning that was located in and near part of the "I" pertaining to UNITED. There's also some orange toning around parts close to the rim. Anyway, from my part, there was faith for a "PF 68" grade...but it was returned as PF 67 RED.
Within my manner to ratiocinate this occurrence, there isn't sufficient flexibility to abandon my consistent faith. Consequently, NGC will probably receive this piece. (With the hope of acknowledging a "passable" coin, I have no desire to dismember another 1961 proof set of my collection.)

​

 

I'm not afraid of big words but simple language gets the point across better. Nonetheless, I am missing something.

Isn't this a $25 coin as it is now graded? Any you believe, or hope, it might bump to PF68, which would increase its value to say, $50? So you are planning to spend more than that on grading fees and shipping for the long shot possibility? Why not buy a PF68 already slabbed?
Lance.

 

Is the coin of sentimental value to you? Were it a 68CAM with the strong possibility of pulling DCAM, resubmission could be understandable, but with a basic proof I cannot see how the expense is justified. The cost of the NGC submission, even if it did receive the desired grade, will bury you even more with no potential top side. It is a nice coin, so why not enjoy it as it is now and simply buy an already slabbed NGC PF68. Just my two cents.

 

Sometimes, in an attempt to decrease the angle that a reader may have to deviate itself towards something that isn't actually conveyed, I use words that only have two or three different senses. Those words maintain more efficiency for the transmission of a message.

I'm planning to keep learning from the grading of ANACS and NGC.

I like to collect coins that have been sent from my part.

 

I think that having it graded twice is going to end up costing more than what the coin is worth, not worth it to me. Its already in a holder, why resend it in?

 

If the coin were to have "sentimental value" to some of my memories, I would never send it in for grading.

There's a strong possibility that my physical body will not die of malnutrition.

 

Oh boy.

 

Keep submitting like this and you very well may.

Very efficient.. very efficient! Shure doned wished I coulda gota learnin ta tak like dat, Yee haw!



Instead of attempting to write in a style and fashion that... aghh, never mind!

 

The problem is not that he is "attempting to write in a style and fashion like that" is that that is how the OP does write, and think, from what I can tell. And he either is able to communicate with others in his life and on line with it, or not. I don't know. I do know that it's difficult for me to understand, and I have a good grasp of a lot of the English language. I think that mocking his natural style is wrong, because that doesn't help anything.

I usually pass his posts by when it gets to the point that I'm unable to or when it takes too long for me to translate what he is saying to something I can understand.

 

Reading a little too deep, are we? Do you know for a fact that this person write like this in everyday life, or is it just here? I too have read many of his posts and believe it clear he has a grasp on the English language, but is attempting to use his "big words" as a means of sounding intelligent. As for " mocking his natural style" (and again, so much for the obvious) please do explain.

 

I don't see it grading higher and if crossed over to either PCGS or NGC it might come in lower, like 64-66.

 

I think I'll grab my thesaurus.

 

It means to reason methodically, and logically.

 

I've owned Porsches for 40 years so I'm going to try to help you a little. I'm guessing by your forum name you are an enthusiast. The rest of you, forgive me.

"...an attempt to decrease the angle that a reader may have to deviate itself towards something that isn't actually conveyed" is not just convoluted and cryptic. It is some of the worst writing I've ever encountered. A reader deviates itself toward an angle to misconstrue your meaning? BTW, is "itself" the reader or the angle?

"...I use words that only have two or three different senses." Instead, write a message that has only one meaning for everyone.

"Within my manner to ratiocinate this occurrence, there isn't sufficient flexibility to abandon my consistent faith." You are trying to say you gave the PF67 grade reasonable consideration but couldn't agree with it.

Use words and structure that make your message clear. That will get you the respect of your readers and, let's hope, an answer to your question.

Remember, the principle of KISS applies as much to communication as it does to engineering products.
Lance.

 

lkeigwin,

In "within my manner [...]," I never specified how my manner developed, develops, or might develop itself. The rest is quite clear: "[...] there isn't sufficient flexibility to abandon my consistent faith". Excluding tactical maneuver(s), my possible flexibility has no direct relation with the supposed acknowledgement of the "PF 67" grade.
With "[...] that a reader may have [...]," I'm trying to not ignore the possibility of a natural inconvenience within part of the reader's mentality. The word "angle" is present, but only to add cordial flexibility in favor of some people that may not easily remember and/or comprehend certain neurological processes that would be interchangeable with "angle".

 

The possibility of not grading cleanly would be the only thing that would provoke me a degree of inquietude, in this case. I'll maintain your words in mind, though.