I sure thought this coin had a chance of 62. I was not surprised with a 61 right now since they have been a little tight.
Okay - you have to explain to me why this even got a 61? I know nothing about these or really gold. But good lord is that cheek banged up. And from the picture it does not have any luster on it. The reverse picture is not loading large enough for me, but it certainly looks ms to me from what I can see. Did the reverse carry the obverse? Thanks
For a 61 it actually has great luster. If this was a more common date it would have been a 62. The cheek is banged up but the reverse is a solid 63. These coins get tough after MS60. MS63's are bid at $10K and MS62's are bid at $3,500.
You were robbed! Seriously, the MS62s tend to have less hairlines; look at a couple dozen examples at a good auction site. Unfortunately, the market for Type II $20 is not what it used to be though a rarer coin than Type IIIs in mint state.
I agree with 61. And banged up does not equate to wear. And I can see no wear on the coin. Honestly, figuring the difference between a 61 and a 62 is not much different than figuring the difference between a 69 and a 70. I often think it's harder even.
I have owned a lot of MS 60s through MS62s, all the common dates are fairly easy to grade; for me a "62" should look high end with minimal hairlines, that's what kept it a 61. I had a really nice 74-s $20 once bought it as an ICG62, Anacs called it a 62, but both NGC and PCGS refused any better than 61. The barriers were the hairlines and the price jump. A $1000 from 61 to 62. Graders and the companies know exactly what they are doing.
Don't know as I'd say that. Pretty much all 60, 61, and 62 coins look like they came in 8th in an axe fight. Hairlines aren't going to make the difference.
If he weren't ethical, he could just break it out and sell it as a 62. I have also found ANACS is more liberal on these types. I bought a 58 and got it into an ANACS 62. That coin was clean with a tiny bit of rub or friction. I also had an 1866 $20 that was in an ANACS 60 holder. I bought it from Barry Southerland, the chiropractor from Arkansas, a nice guy, who ran his "Oxford Company" giving most of his profits to charity; Jack Kleinman, another $20s dealer and expert would do the same thing in NYC, something that did not make his brother very happy as you can imagine... I tried it at both PCGS and NGC. I even spoke directly to Mark Salzburg about the coin, and he said it had wear, will never MS IHO. I showed it to Randy Campbell, then at ANACS and he thought ANACS could even call it a 61, it was baggy, but not hairlined. I ended up selling back to Barry with a $1500 loss. Here is a guy with both raw and certified $20s. compare. http://www.hokanson-coins.com/US-TWENTY-DOLLAR-GOLD.html
The reverse looks a LOT better than the obverse, which looks pretty beat up. I agree with the net MS61 grade - but what do I know?
I'm not unhappy with it... I knew it was a 61 all day... but was hoping for the MS62 bump. It's probably going to go into my father in laws gold type set.
I'm certainly no gold-coinage expert, but I'd say the luster definitely supports a 62 much more than a 61. Not too sure how NGC's gold grading standards play out, but, my theory is, the abrasions on the obverse on the bust's neck/base and fields nearest the bust's neck may have been enough on their own for NGC to dock the coin a grade. Now, in addition to those surface abrasions, you have bag marks that support a solid MS62 grade. So, 62 - 1 = 61? We may never know what they were thinking on the grading line that day. Plan on a crack-out? Eventually, the coin would get the grade you feel it deserves. -Brian
Based on the pictures I would have graded that a 60 in spite of the much nicer reverse. But Matt's seen it in hand so I yield to his judgment. Lance.
From the pics, I'd have no trouble with that in a 62 slab. How much of a spread are we talking about?
