Your Opinion Please--Is This Kennedy Overgraded?

At the risk of sounding pedantic, let me post a 1964 Kennedy graded by PCGS at 65. The difference between this coin and the last is clearly obvious on the reverse. The shield has fewer contact marks, as does the entire coin, devices and fields. Also note that the shield, arrows, and tail feathers exhibit a much stronger strike, with copious detail.


The obverse of this coin has fewer hits at the base of the neck, but the hits on the cheek are comparable to the coin graded 64. And Chris - I see that odd metal flow on this coin as well - I had never noticed that before!

So all told, fewer hits plus stronger strike equals one grade higher, as it should.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's my guess that the spots were the result of an improper rinse. Several years back, I won a Scotsman Auction listing for a lot of 60 - 1964 Kennedy proof sets, and some of them were discolored such that a good dip was in order.

Chris

 

Now let me post another coin graded 66. I chose this coin because you really have to look past the toning to see the hits. The obverse is much cleaner than the obverse of the coin graded 65. It appears there are some small hits on the cheek, but maybe that's a part of the toning - you would have to examine the coin in hand to say for sure. There are a couple of minor rim dings at 3 o'clock, but other than that the coin is remarkably clean. I don't see any chatter at the base of the neck at all...


But this upper point echelon becomes very subjective in my opinion. Take the reverse of this coin, for instance. There's a large hit in the right field, above the arrows - more of a gouge than a hit really. Plus, although the coin is fully struck-up, the shield, tail feathers, and field below the tail have significant chatter. Frankly, if you're talking only about contact marks, the reverse of the coin graded 65 is much cleaner than this one.


So why should this coin grade 66 and the OP coin not? Perhaps the grader of this coin liked what appears to be the blazing blast-white luster of the reverse, and felt that it outweighed the contact marks, which are not anywhere near as numerous on the OP coin.

I agree with Morgandude that regardless of the number grade, a serious collector would pay more than 66 money for the OP coin. It's a gorgeous example of its type. With all due respect to other posters, it doesn't do to simply say "...too many hits, 63." The question is, too many hits compared to what? Compared to a modern proof, yes, absolutely. Compared to other circulating business strike 1964 half dollars, not so much.

I take issue often with PCGS grades, but I stand by my original assessment that Osmanli's coin is correctly graded, at least by the grading standards PCGS claims. In fact, I think they got it more right on the OP coin than the one in this reply.

Btw, here are the full images of the last coin...

 

I wouldn't say that...and I didn't say that. I think the issue with coins like this is people like to look at coins and hyper-focus on only one part of grading. That is the ear/dings/hits...and called surface preservation. Yes, this is a critical part of grading (and probably the most important part)...but it's not the only thing that is factored in. You also have to factor in other aspects of a coin...those include luster, eye appeal and strike. This coin has a decent strike and it appears to have very nice luster and eye appeal.

So, lets say you grade the surfaces preservation MS65 due to the dings it has...but the eye appeal and the luster are that of an MS67 coin, the coin warrants an MS66 grade. This isn't "market grading" or "value-grading" or any other name you want to give it. This is analyzing all the features of the coin and giving it an appropriate overall grade.

 

The old adage of buying the coin and not the slab may be hackneyed, but it still couldn't be more true, at least for me. I myself made the mistake of buying top-grade coins and not liking them for one subjective reason or another, and what could be more subjective than overall eye-appeal?

As far as fair trading goes, I suppose PCGS did me a favor when I sold the coins I didn't like, because perhaps the collectors who bought them were also at the start of the learning curve. Or maybe the collectors that bought them actually liked them, or maybe all they wanted was a slab with a high grade on it. I don't understand this last breed at all, but each to his own.

 

There is (or should be) no such thing when it comes to numismatics. Fine posts, sir.

Well said.

 

A few years ago I tried to put together a PCGS grading set for these and found it impossible. The coins and grades were all over the place, 64's that looked like 62's, 63's that looked like 65's. It looked like PCGS assigned Kennedy Halves to the trainees.

 

In fact, I've heard that said among collectors - that PCGS did in fact assign trainees to the Kennedy half dollar series. Whether that's an urban myth or reality, I don't know...

 

No it's not...all these things are supposed to be factored in when you "traditionally grade" a coin. The problem is, most people fail to realize that and they only focus on the surface preservation of a coin.

 

You mean NGC right?

BTW, that "fingerprint" you don't care for is part of the design. A lot of folks stumble on this when they actually look at the coin.

As for the OP's coin, NGC graded it according to NGC's specs and I think PCGS would probably agree with the grade.

CamaroDMD's comments are spot on an the only time buyers remorse should come into the question is if the buyer paid too much for the coin. I don't recall seeing what was paid but prices in the 66 range would have been appropriate.

Sorry for screwing up the attachments.

 

Eh...I totally misread that. All the coins I posted were graded by PCGS. Never mind me, as you were.

I'm not sure how the standards compare between NGC and PCGS. I never collected any NGC Kennedy's.

 

Sorry, I was referring to Post #13 where you said:

"I've collected a handful of 1964 Kennedy half dollars slabbed by PCGS in various grades, and I think PCGS got the OP coin right."

 

Yeah, for some reason I thought the OP coin was slabbed by PCGS. Reading comprehension much? lol

 

My downfall.

 

You're the person that would know though - how does PCGS grading of Kennedy's compare to NGC? Are they generally similar or not?

 

Similar but it really depends upon the coin.

The only real absolute is that PCGS coins generally bring more money in the market place. As such, folks usually feel that PCGS is more accurate which could not be further from the truth.

Each coin should be evaluated individually and you either agree with the grade (and buy) or you don't (and you pass).

 

I'm with your Troodon, the VAST majority of toned coins just look awful to me. Some look like they have been sitting in crud! Give me blast white any day! That example posted by John Anthony is a perfect example, sorry, but... EEEWWWW!!!

 

I think it's a hard line to walk. People don't want cleaned coins...but they want blast white coins. The chemistry just doesn't work.

I agree that ugly toning on coins is unfortunate, but I personally prefer original surfaces if given the choice. As much as I enjoy blast white coins...that's not an original surface. I don't have any problem with proper coin cleaning...especially for coins with ugly or damaging toning though. It's just a fine line.