Guess the Grade--1922-D Peace Dollar NGC

If I were buying this coin, I'd pay 65 money for it; if I were submitting it I'd hope for 66. I voted 66.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I said 63, based on the PCGS 63 Peace dollars in my own collection. While the cheek appears to be nice and clean, the neck area seems to have some problems. There also appear to be a couple of scuffs in the left obverse field

 

lol


And I grade it a 65

 

I honestly want to buy every raw coin that Doug feels merits a 65. I'll even give him 65 money for the coins he things are AU58.

 

Does that mean that you would grade it MS65 if the neck did not have what you consider grade limiting marks?

BTW, would you like to know what year the coin was graded?

 

Would you like to know what year the coin was graded?

 

So, what's the grade?

 

The coin is an MS65 graded in either 1988 or 1989 based upon the fact that it resides in an NGC generation 3 holder.



The 1923-D that I posted was graded over a decade ago. This coin was graded over two decades ago. One would think that if the grading standards had loosened over the years the members of CT would have guessed that the coin would grade higher. But yet again the majority guessed a lower grade.

And remember, these aren't examples I searched through the Heritage archives to find. I didn't have to look any further than my own collection. So much for gradeflation.

Now Doug will say that this proves nothing. He will say that you can't grade a coin from photos. He will say that we have not seen a Peace Dollar that has been graded in the last few years for comparison. If I post one that shows similar surfaces, he will complain that it is a different date and that you can't compare the two coins from different dates using the same standards. But take solace Doug, you graded the coin correctly. It was a PQ MS64/Low end MS65 in 1988 and it remains a PQ MS64/Low end MS65 today.

And Doug, since you like to quote Q. David Bowers, here is one from THE EXPERT'S GUIDE TO COLLECTING AND INVESTING IN RARE COINS.

 

Paul,

So what would you grade it? I went with 66 and thought that was stretching it.

Jody

 

I grade the coin low end MS65. The marks on the neck that would cause some others to limit the grade to MS64, but Liberty's cheek is very clean, the toning and eye appeal are exceptional, and the luster is fantastic. Those attributes are enough to bump the grade to MS65 IMO. However it would not bother me to see this coin in an MS64 holder.

 

I vote MS63!

 

I voted MS64 but a low end 65 it is! I have to wonder if some of the color didn't come after it was slabbed??

 

PURE PROPAGANA, nothing more.

How many Peace Dollars do the TPG's grade each month Doug? When it is convenient, you claim that you can't lump coins of different series together. But in this case, you want to lump all of the coins graded from all of the series (including moderns) so that the numbers appear to support your claim.

The NGC population reports list that 500,000 Peace Dollars have been graded in their entire history. I would imagine that PCGS is in the same ball park. I posted the first two coins I found in old NGC slabs. I did not search for a coin that would support my opinion. The result was that both coins were graded higher than what most of the membership of this forum thought they would grade. If there was an intentional loosening of the grading standards for Peace Dollars over the last decade, it would be reflected in opinions of the CT members.

Your first excuse after the first Peace Dollars was that you can't accurately grade coins from photos. After the second Peace Dollar, your excuse is that looking at such a small population of coins can't prove anything about the standards of such a large population. When I post the next one, you will have another excuse. You eloquently provided the reason why you will have another excuse.

That sums you up pretty well. You believe what you want to believe and when evidence to the contrary is presented, your only reaction is to defend your belief and make excuses. Then you proceed to post in the most condescending manner possible a delcaration of how your opinion is the only logical opinion and attempt to bolster support for your opinion by claiming that all experienced collectors and dealers agree with your opinion without ever providing evidence that they do.

I have asked on numerous occasions to provide an examples to support your claims. You fight with me tooth and nail about every point I try to make. Not one time have you yielded and admitted that any of my points have any merit. You are so willing to engage me at every turn, but you refuse to post examples. Why is that Doug? Your claim is that it won't prove anything. If it won't prove anything, why are you so hesitant to do it. I challenge you to try to find an auction archive from Heritage over the last two years of a Peace Dollar in an older holder that supports your claim. You will be hard pressed to find one. Most of the examples that you will be searching for have already become victims of gradeflation and have been upgraded. All that remains in the older holders are those coins that were low end for the grade when they were graded.

Now before you get excited Doug, remember that I don't dispute that gradeflation exists. I freely admit that it exists. Our difference of opinion hinges upon the cause of gradeflation. You believe that gradeflation is caused by an intentional loosening of the grading standards in order to boost resumbissions. I believe that it is an inevitable result of the inconsistencies inherent in the grading process. All those coins that were graded over a decade ago as PQ for the grade now reside in Low end holders of the next highest grade.

So if you want me to believe that the increased number of coins that are low end for the grade have caused a gradual erosion of the grading standards over time, I can accept that. But you are asking me to believe that gradeflation is caused by the TPG's purposefully changing their grading standards in order to boost resubmissions. That I cannot accept.