explain this grade please?

Perhaps I'm the least qualified to make this statement, but despite all the discussion back-and-forth on this thread I tend to believe those lines are scratches on the slab. That would explain the coin's high grade and the star.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

According to CAC's website, they only look at the numerical grade when evaluating a coin. Designations like * or + are not considered.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if I am paying for someone to verify my coin, I think it should be the overall coin (grade).

 

I thought that was also a possibility, but they really look as if they are on the surface of the coin.

 

If you read the listing descriptions and view the listing photos there shouldn't be any question as to what the "lines" are on.

This is no star coin.... CAC was on crack

 

I agree that it isn't * worthy, but CAC specifically states they are going by the numeric grade only, no extra designations. That means that they feel this coin is a solid MS66, no more, no less.

 

lol... IMO that coin is a dog for the grade.... nevermid "solid"

 

I think everyone needs to take a step back in this thread. It is impossible to determine if the coin is overgraded from the photos in this thread, but the star designation is most certainly deserved. NGC will issue a star designation for a coin that displays prooflike qualities on only one side of the coin. Does anyone doubt that the obverse of this Washington is prooflike? For more information about this aspect of the star designation, please read the following thread.

The "Other" NGC Star Designation

Furthermore, I encountered a situation a few years ago when I purchased a 1942 Jefferson Nickel NGC PF66 CAMEO w/ CAC sticker. This coin is only worth a few bucks without the Cameo Designation but a few thousand with the cameo designation. I e-mailed the CAC and they informed me that the sticker covered designations as well as the numerical grade. However, I understand the CAC's decision not to touch the star or plus designations.

 

I would take NGC and CAC over any of you grading/assessing the coin from photos.

It is also worth noting that CAC does not assess the * on the coin.

 

You can say that again!

 

Indeed. Folks are reading far too deep into some crappy pictures. There's a HUGE difference between looking at pics over the internet and holding a coin in hand.

 

OK...

I would take NGC and CAC over any of you grading/assessing the coin from photos.

It is also worth noting that CAC does not assess the * on the coin.

As an aside, I would include myself in the "any of you" in the above quote.

 

What ever happened to buy the coin not the holder..Personally I think the coin is unattractive ..and no way would I pay $195

 

Mike,

I also include myself in that category. I really think many of the members of the numismatic community should strive to understand why the TPG's assigned the grade they did rather than trying to prove why the TPG is wrong. I have seen very few coins that the TPG's absolutely blew it. I have seen many in between coins that were not in the grade I would have selected but understand why the TPG would grade it that way.

PS. Doug, you are exempt since you know why the TPG's assign grades but you choose to use a different standard of grading.

 

It is always easier to pick out the shortcomings of others than it is to impartially examine and improve our own behavior. Such is human nature, I suppose, and I think we are all guilty of it to some extent.

 

I thought that was what pretty much all the posts were about....whether or not the coin could/should get a * with all the die polish lines and whether or not CAC puts a sticker on a coin based on grade/designation or both.. ..and people on the forum constantly submit pictures that people offer grade opinions on...why should this one be any different..

 

:foot-mouth: Ok so I read a few of the previous posts bashing the coin, but like Doug said NGC didn't give it the PL designation so the next question is ....Did it get the star because it wasn't quite semi prooflike or almost prooflike but still kinda prooflike.?

 

That is a cool smilie. Haven't seen that one before.

The coin got a star because the obverse is prooflike but the reverse is not. BTW, I don't think either Mike or I was trying to single out a particular poster. It is just the overall feeling that the thread took on.

 

I can see your point it was kinda steering itself into a full blown NGC CAC witch hunt....Get my torch and pitchfork:devil: