Part 1 is now in the books; check it out here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-first-for-me-show-grading-guess-the-grade-part-1-of-5.395975/ Now we move on. Please guess the original grade and the new grade (originally PCGS and now PCGS). Are they the same or different? Here I am including two photos (a PCGS TrueView and a photo from the seller).
Wouldn't that be an end of roll toner? The different reads between the photos is making me guess that they only gave it a 64. It really depends on how flashy the contact on the cheek is?
This one was a 65 and remained 65. I thought it could have added a plus (due to nice color and good luster) but this one was more of an add-on to get to the five coin minimum and to have a TrueView (I don't always like TrueViews but it helps the marketability if selling).
Part 3 here: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-first-for-me-show-grading-guess-the-grade-part-3-of-5.396139/
Well I was a grade low, PCGS must have liked the color enough to give it a gem grade. Or, the toning is covering some of it.
If you are talking to me. Yeah. in my defence contact like what is on Washingtons cheek should not be allowed on a gem grade coin.
No I'm referring to the results of the two posts so far, zero changes in grade. I'm also 0 for 2 guessing.
I love coins that look like they just came from the Mint. I am not a fan of the "coloring" that is on the coin. I have about 20 or more with small amounts of "color) the near the edge of my Morgans. Other than that, the coins that you showed us is pretty neat.
Dang, I missed this one. I will get in on your number 3 though. Nice Washington! Edit, I would have been at 64 for the surfaces, I think they gave it the ole' color bump to 65.
I think it's a gem as the surfaces are on par with other 65s I've seen. The luster really solidifies the gem status. If it was a 65+ or 66, then I'd say a color bump was given.