Guess the grade #25

From what I've seen of 19s's this is a strong strike,, very strong. Not to my taste however,, kinda like a burger with no tomato... I'd rather have an evenly detailed AU58 that shows all details to a good degree.. these MS cents with flat area's just pull the eye to the problem spot rather than allowing it to enjoy the fullness of the design and coin.. at least that's what it does to me. They are very interesting in these guess the grade exercises.....
Cheers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Indeed, there are really no words to describe ANY of the TGP's grading practices. Any experienced collector knows all too well the variations in grading.

 

even after years people have not got it.

 

I definitely acknowledge tpg variability,,, and like to point it out when I can, especially when we have a good example to show how what they say doesn't always jive with what they do.

 

64

 

63 rd/brn

 

I'm thinking ti got a 64.

 

65 RB NGC is more liberal

 

Since the power company screwed my schedule up yesterday, I will be ending these tomorrow. See also http://www.cointalk.com/t118468/.

 

Using NGC as the standard, you actually did worse on this coin than the 1922-. I am 99% sure NGC got this wrong, but I am not sure just what is right. I bought this as a MS63 red by PCI. Well, it is not red. Never even noticed the scratch on it and sent it to PCGS. You have to be at the right angle and still most of the time it looks like someone ran their fingernail across it. i.e. not a true shiny scratch, but a line where you can tell something ran across the coin. PCGS came back and said it was authentic - scratched (this was before they slabbed them). You will be seeing another PCGS slab with a worse (IMO) scratch that they graded and did not even appear to have deducted for it. After playing with it for this post, I am almost sure that it is not scratched. Rather, that is a die scratch. When I manage to catch the light just perfectly, it appears raised. Also, it ends where a scratch cannot end - right at the nose. It does not go up the nose at all. Personally, I think it deserves a grade and better than 61. Sorry, but these are the best I can do with my camera.

FWIW, this is the second worst item and definitely the worst set I have posted yet.

BTW, Doug, at least 9 graders have looked at this coin and none have said anything about the back being worked on.

 

A giant ouch. (For me, grading anyways)
Shouldn't a 'scratch' be going into the coin's surface and not above?

 

I cannot add much of anything to what I have said. The grading of this coin makes no sense to me. Personally, I think PCI came the closest.:fish: But, hey, I have been thinking for a year that it was scratched, so who am I to complain.:dead-horse:

 

Wow, and such a great beard. That one really kicked me in the back side.

 

Those with MORE than 20 participations lost their second worst guess.

Top 10. Columns are rank, name, average, and number of guesses.

1. mark_h 0.579 21
2. Leadfoot 0.615 14
3. ldhair 0.684 20
4. abe 0.750 13
5. BadThad 0.750 22
6. bahabully 0.842 20
7. jallengomez 0.857 7
8. ddoomm1 0.889 9
9. Duke Kavanaugh 0.947 20
10. Shoewrecky 1.111 19

 

I'll go with 64.

 

Oh man....this is a VERY interesting coin! I thought the scratch was on the HOLDER. You can actually see it in the new pictures. Even if it is a die scratch, it's in THE main field and distracting. I can understand why PCGS rejected it. All I can say is that it's a crying shame coin, I still say it's a 64 without the scratch. The 1919-S working dies were massiviely over-used and most coins have poor detail. This coin is unbelievably sharp on the obverse! Once again, this coin shows TPG differences and practices.

 

Since that is not on the holder it should be a No Grade IMO.

 

Since what is not on which holder?

 

The scratch. That thing is big. I'm just suprised that is graded with that big of a mark on it.