1944 D Mercury Dime, you vs PCGS

If anyone is acting like a childish troll in this thread, I promise you it is you. The difference of opinion was fine, but coins lacking in luster don’t get premium gem grades. In other words, your analysis made absolutely no sense.

But that also wasn’t a problem. Telling people that they can’t respond to your posts because you are over it, whining about when they do, and then insisting on getting the last word in a thread that you swore you were done with several times is a big problem.

Then you have the audacity to call me a troll after deliberately provoking me. Nobody here is your toddler and nobody here deserves to be treated like a child. Rather than adding me to your extensive ignore list, why don’t you just stop posting on Cointalk. It’s apparent that you can’t get along with anybody.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Bloody hell. The reason why the fasces appear to be lackluster is because I don’t have a third light source parallel with them, so the light hitting the luster on the fasces is not refracted to the lense. It’s one of the disadvantages to my photography setup. It will get fixed in the future.

Have a GIF:

 

Like I said, BLAZING!

 

The luster looks quite good to me. I have no idea why they graded it 65 - it looks like a 66+ any day to me.

 

66+ was my guess; you've got good taste @physics-fan3.14

Steve

 

Daughter just text me from So. Africa saying i don't own a 38 proof set. Bunch of 58's. No 38's. My memory ain't so great these days. Maybe i was wishing

 

She checks cointalk to check on me. Seeing I'm still sain. But she did say i talk way to much.

 

WHO...YOU???

 

OP's coin is a very nice Mercury Dime, and undergraded. I would personally grade it at 66FB, maybe 66+FB, and would not be offended if I saw it in in a 67FB holder (though I would disagree). However, I agree with several other posters that the luster probably isn't there to warrant a 67FB grade, and certainly not there for anything higher than 67FB.

This isn't an insult to the coin. It does have really nice luster, and close to pristine surfaces. It's just that, until you've seen many blast white 67FBs, 67+FBs, and 68FBs in hand, it is really difficult to understand the magnitude of difference in luster. Blast white 67+FBs and higher are absolutely friggin' BLAZING. Standing alone, OPs merc would look fantastic in hand, but compared directly in hand next to a blast white 67+FB it wouldn't look so impressive.

For those that point to examples of toned 67FBs with less luster, I disagree for the most part. Remember, luster does not equal "shininess." The luster on a toned coin may be preserved perfectly, but it does not appear as "shiny" as an equally lustrous blast white coin. What matters more for toned coins is that the flow lines and cartwheel effect are intact, as opposed to being "shiny". For blast white coins, the expectation is that the flow lines and cartwheel are intact, but also that the coin is hurt-your-eyes blazing and flashy.

There are certainly instances where PCGS makes a mistake and gives a ridiculously high grade to a toned example that also lacks luster (I see this a lot with 1916 dates), but this is the minority of cases.

 

This was my opinion pre-reveal. The additional photos definitely better define the luster. MS 66 FB is reasonable, but MS65FB is an under grade IMO.

 

My mistake. I have a few 58's. No 38's. I'm a dreamer

 

Are we good yet. Not sure how long it takes to walk to California from New York

 

I called the op coin 66 fb. I think it’s undergraded at 65

 

not yet

 

Damn one legged mail man