How on Earth...

+1. This coin is a 66 without the scratch. I could see a lower grade too 62-3

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As to the Newman provenance I bought one that had an unc details cleaning and lost the pedigree in a crack out but got a straight ms 62 grade

 

Or as one poster said "a struck thru." We'll never know. If it is not a scratch, they should have indicated a mint error. Without this designation: IMO, over graded due to provenance.

 

I have found it advisable to give a strong third - and perhaps fourth look -- to any pedigreed slabbed coin. I've gotten some good ones -- and seen others that made me wonder if the grader was really off his game -- or if a hoard/collection was getting special consideration.

 

It makes you think that in the future, perhaps pedigree coins will be considered over graded - in general, like it's commonly said or thought that old pcgs rattlers are more conservatively graded than today. If you take all existing rattlers and compared them to all pcgs slabs from the past 4-5 yrs, I'm sure the older slabs would more often grade higher if regraded. But then again, what's left of the rattlers may be rejects that no one thought would grade higher. The history of TPGs is pretty interesting, for better or worse

 

This is market grading in action. The TPG's know the provenance will increase the price, so they give the coin a grade appropriate to the price it will fetch.

 

From Sheldon MS64 grade:
Coin has good, overall average luster and even strike for the type. Several small contact marks in groups, as well as one or two moderately heavy marks may be present. One or two small patches of hairlines may show under low, (3-4x) magnification. Noticeable, light, scuff marks or defects may be seen within the design or in the field. Attractive overall quality with a pleasing eye appeal. Copper coins may be slightly dull.

 

Yes but you aren't Eric Newman or other big name with a major world class collection.

 

Call me a dumb, ignorant, member . Please, please educate me!

What EDITION of Sheldon's book "Penny Whimsy" did you find this information? Did he write other books on Large cents?

AFAIK, when Sheldon developed his grading system THERE WAS NO MS-64! What gives here! I'm .

 

Wait! I think I get it. This is someone's definition of what an MS-64 is in the present grading system that is BASED on Sheldon's work. So, please save me some time looking - whose definition of MS-64 are you quoting from?

 

And Sheldon never developed a grading system. He developed a pricing system laid onto the existing grading system.

And that definition listed above, whose is it? NGC's? You get different definitions from different people, TPG's or organizations.

 

DITTO Where did that definition of an MS-64 come from please?

 

Came from Wikipedia or an outdated PCGS page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_coin_grading_scale

Which came from PCGS 1995 posting

http://www.pcgs.com/News/How-United-States-Coins-Are-Graded

Though their current page differs some.

http://www.pcgs.com/grades/

 

I guess I'm a little confused, is the argument the coin is over graded or undergraded? Because the dent (I doubt very much it's a scratch) is certainly not enough to detail it and given the near pristine reverse and the lack of any other issues, it's a 64 all day long....

 

The argument most are presenting is that it should not have straight graded and should have been in a details holder

 

I think a stronger argument is why is it not a 64+ or even a 65? Survey the vast number of copper coins graded MS64 and the numerous bag marks, scuffs and other abrasions they contain and you'll come to the conclusion this coin was probably graded conservatively, if anything. Yes, TPG's do make mistakes on occasion and yes, you can sometimes resubmit coins and get higher grades but you can also get lower grades that no one likes to talk about. By in large, however, they're right far more times than they're wrong, despite what the many armchair experts tell you.

 

In the real world I think the provenance is the real answer. Aside that, the only conclusion is they determined it to be an original, "day of striking" mark (as if someone dropped it maybe), and adjudicated that as not "damage" in the strict sense.

But I'm still back to the provenance. I doubt you or I would get that coin into a straight-graded slab.

 

That probably is true, the longer look the provenance graded coin gets could have saved it from a quick glance details scratched. I'm leaning towards I like it better with a net grade though and that they got it right. The marks are certainly in an unfortunate place, but overall it is a pretty stunning coin and whatever it was appeared to happen a while ago.

 

I guess this begs the question, "If a Proof is accidentally scratched before release by the Mint, does it qualify as "damage?"

 

The coin is a joke! Take any small coin and put a deep gouge in the center of the PFA of the obverse and assign a straight grade? For shame, that's something I should expect from a third tier TPGS.

If, if, if...If it didn't come from a famous collection it would have been detailed. The sucker who bought it will be really "happy" when he tries to sell it. The only thing that could redeem this coin and its assigned grade is if the graders decided it was a "struck thru;" but if that were the case it should have been put on the label.

I guess this begs the question, "If a Proof is accidentally smashed with a hammer and kicked across the coining room floor before release by the Mint, does it qualify as "damage?" That's makes THREE JOKES on this thread.