I don’t see that grade as 66. I was low at 64, but I could see it as 65, not 66. Not enough luster for 66. I think they blew it, frankly.
I'm one of those that voted 63 because I thought the marks on Booker's face were hits. I'm always happy to be wrong when I learn something from the experience - in this case that BTWs are subject to planchet marks. Is it possible solely from the photographs provided and without prior knowledge that BTWs are characterized by these planchet marks, to be able to determine that those marks are indeed planchet marks and not hits? If so, I would very much like to know the diagnostic markers in these photographs.
I guess it kind of comes down to experience with them, but it's always in the same location; cheekbone, jaw, forehead. Same thing with the Washington-Carvers; jawline, forehead, browline. These are all the highest highpoints on the obverse, and it's much much easier to tell with the coin in hand. Both the BTW's and the W-C's weren't struck very well overall, and most will have the planchet marks, until you get into the 67's and up, which I think accounts for the huge price jump at 67 for both. I have seen some PCGS OGH's at 64 for clean cheeks, and those went for close to 67 money, most likely going to be cracked and resubmitted for the upgrade. When I'm looking at those 2 series, I'm looking at the fields, rim, and devices for hits that shouldn't be there. This is an example of 2 hits that shouldn't be there, and aren't planchet marks, and really is easy to discern in hand (it's the 47-S GTG from my other thread): The lower mark is definitely a hit, but the upper mark has a 50/50 shot at a hit or a planchet mark.
Luster pattern on these (and many commems) is unlike the pattern most of us are used to (think Morgans), and tends to be a circular pattern, rather then a bowtie across the coin. When I'm imaging my coins, luster is not typically what I'm going after. Usually it detail and color I'm chasing, and for those I tend to use flatter lighting. Is this any better?
Much better. I can see 66 now. It is verging on 66+. It was the photo angle. I have posted my 4 Bookers here before. They range from 65 to 66+ CAC. They are all toned, and the GTGs ranged from 63-67. With photos, it can be really tricky.
I think experience looking at examples of planchet marks can help with the diagnostics. Lincoln's shoulder and Jefferson's jaw are 2 examples. I like to show my '45 LWC as the coin is really clean from marks on the obverse except at the high points on the shoulder and some on the face. If those were pmd why would they be concentrated only in one spot rather than randomly across the coin surface? Anyway hope this helps:
Exactly on both points! Planchet marks also (IMO) have a certain look vs hits/pmd. Look at enough coins, and you'll be able to tell.
I was debating whether to give it an MS-62 or 63. The vertical scratch that shows up on the OP photo would distract me to no end, in addition to the breaks in the mint frost on Washington's forehead and cheek bone. Sorry, I could never give that coin an MS-66 except in a grade-flation alternate universe. PCGS graded this one MS-64 many years ago.
I was too harsh and did misinterpret some planchet marks for hits. I also believe your original photo made some of them look harsher than the Heritage photo. I likely would have still been low using the Heritage photo, but would have been more comfortable guessing 65 (vs my 64 guess).
I will stick by my original guess. MS64 CAC. I can't see a coin that is not fully struck attaining a MS66 grade.