1894 25c Guess the Grade..

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by blu62vette, Mar 2, 2011.

Page 1 of 2
  1. blu62vette

    blu62vette Member

    Just curious for some grade thoughts on this coin. It is in a PCGS holder, bought at FUN Jan 2010 from Glenn Holsonbake, ex:MFH coin.

    Fire Away!!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    blu62vette, Mar 2, 2011
    #1 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. oval_man

    oval_man Elliptical member

    Beautiful photos. I don't collect proofs so this is just a stab until the experts come along. PF62?
     
    oval_man, Mar 2, 2011
    #2 + Quote Reply
  4. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    I'd like to buy in a 58 slab, but suspect it lives in 63 clothing.
     
    Leadfoot, Mar 2, 2011
    #3 + Quote Reply
  5. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    p.s. very attractive coin and superb photos too!
     
    Leadfoot, Mar 2, 2011
    #4 + Quote Reply
  6. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    Is it a little PL?
     
    Leadfoot, Mar 2, 2011
    #5 + Quote Reply
  7. rlm's cents

    rlm's cents Numismatist

    64pl?
     
    rlm's cents, Mar 3, 2011
    #6 + Quote Reply
  8. au and ms coins

    au and ms coins Junior Member

    Looks like a proof, so I would grade this(with my limited experience) a PR 61.
     
    au and ms coins, Mar 3, 2011
    #7 + Quote Reply
  9. mark_h

    mark_h Somewhere over the rainbow

    One makes me think proof and one proof like, so I will just grade it - very nice coin and good pickup.
     
    mark_h, Mar 3, 2011
    #8 + Quote Reply
  10. mpcusa

    mpcusa "Official C.T. TROLL SWEEPER"

    P-f 60
     
    mpcusa, Mar 3, 2011
    #9 + Quote Reply
  11. 900fine

    900fine doggone it people like me

    Just curious... for those grading it really low (60 and 61), why so serious ? What is it you don't like about this coin ?

    Personally, when I shoot coins like this, they tend to show hairlines and other minor blemishes worse than they look in hand. Flashy coins like proofs and better Morgans are the worst. I'll take that into account when I say... my guess is this coin is in a PR63 holder.
     
    900fine, Mar 3, 2011
    #10 + Quote Reply
  12. blu62vette

    blu62vette Member

    It is very PL. That is why I did the "mirror" shot. So far the guesses are way off, which is part of why I did this coin. It is a tricky little bugger.
     
    blu62vette, Mar 3, 2011
    #11 + Quote Reply
  13. rld14

    rld14 Custom User Title

    Au58
     
    rld14, Mar 3, 2011
    #12 + Quote Reply
  14. oval_man

    oval_man Elliptical member

    Hmm, everybody's way off. Is it foil-wrapped chocolate? :confused:

    Seriously, if it's PL, it's not PF and it certainly isn't XF40, so I'll raise the grade to MS66. I see only slight grazes on the devices.
     
    oval_man, Mar 3, 2011
    #13 + Quote Reply
  15. oval_man

    oval_man Elliptical member

    The only other thing I can think of is that it's been cleaned/polished (somehow).
     
    oval_man, Mar 3, 2011
    #14 + Quote Reply
  16. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Hmmmmmm - if 58, 60, 62, 63, 64 are all way off, and given that second obv shot - reckon I'll have to guess it's in a Genuine holder.
     
    GDJMSP, Mar 3, 2011
    #15 + Quote Reply
  17. blu62vette

    blu62vette Member

    Ok not way off with all those choices but none correct so far. It is in a PCGS holder with a grade, not a genuine.
     
    blu62vette, Mar 3, 2011
    #16 + Quote Reply
  18. Leadfoot

    Leadfoot there is no spoon

    My sense is now that Tom ATS got it right, and they graded it 55. MFH is a fan of AU coins, IIRC.

    Prooflike coins are tough to judge from photos, I've always thought.
     
    Leadfoot, Mar 3, 2011
    #17 + Quote Reply
  19. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Well ya had me wondering. No way even they'd go higher than 64 given that 2nd obv shot. So I figured maybe they tagged it as harshly cleaned or something.

    It's gotta be AU, and since 58 is wrong, then I'd guess 53.

    But I gotta tell ya, that first obv shot sure is misleading if they graded it AU. Based on the second though, yeah I could believe it.
     
    GDJMSP, Mar 3, 2011
    #18 + Quote Reply
  20. oval_man

    oval_man Elliptical member

    I have to agree. 1st shot suggests a lot of luster, especially on the face. I can see where the 2nd shot might suggest wear on the brow and temple, maybe even on the Phrygian cap. But the high points of the reverse photos still appear shiny to me, not dulled by rub.
     
    oval_man, Mar 3, 2011
    #19 + Quote Reply
  21. rzage

    rzage What Goes Around Comes Around .

    61
    rzage
     
    rzage, Mar 3, 2011
    #20 + Quote Reply
7 more messages...
Page 1 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page