Did PCGS mess up (edited)?

If thats a MS65 ike, then i sold a $1500 raw coin ('72p T2) for $50 a couple years ago.
I agree, this practice seems like an excuse to overgrade! I dont care when these gouges/hits occured, bottom line is, they are still on the coin!! I am glad, i took the time to learn how to grade. I dont wanna spend MY hard earned $$ on a coin 2 points overgraded (atleast) which is what seems to be happening here. Maybe Salzberg WAS onto something

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

65 is not a hard grade to hit on a full struck coin . Hits just knock it down, that all : And 65, have lots of hits on them ....

 

MS66, no full steps

 

Right but do u feel that Ike is worthy of 65?

 

From recent discussions about PCGS is looks like they've lost a step, so to speak.

 

Even by comparison to their published standards.

 

From them images, who knows . But I know this is better then a 62RB grade .

 

By two grades, and that's conservative.

 

Im thinking they deducted it on account of the rough obverse rim most notably from 10-2 oclock, the big ol' finger print and weird chatter under the bust (kinda looks like counting machine damage) I agree that it should of graded out higher than 62 and the defects i mentioned are probably non-existent in-hand. Im not a copper-head so what do i know.

Sidenote- i am really starting to appreciate IHCs though (i like em, i like em alought)

 

I went on Pcgs coin facts and all the images for this year on full steps kinda look the same . Kind of reminds me of week struck Morgan years, their just graded for what the rest of the coin look like for that year .

 

Had it at the Fun Show last Fall, no finger prints, or anything else going on . Just bad grading and color ...

 

There is NO way that the OPs coin is a FS coin, whether PCGS says it is, or not

 

Its called Market grading, they are grading your coin but (sometimes) they are ALSO pricing it. If they feel the coin has outstanding eye appeal or some other feature that should merit the coin a higher value (like rainbow toning) they grade it a point or 2 higher to reflect closer to what they feel the value should be. Hence why i said: if it had real nice toning/eye appeal i could maybe see it. I felt like the OP coin was no better than a 64/65 and no FS designation should have been granted and im not alone in my thinking it appears so far

 

Just add it to the growing pile, Mike.

 

This is just another reason to justify why I said that grading is BS. Standards are different for different series. Standards are different for different years within a series. Standards are different for who submitted the coin for grading. Standards are different for different TPG's. Standards are different for a coin's rarity.

 

Let me answer them as a lawyer might in a legal response:
1) Admitted.
2) Admitted in part, denied in part.
3) Denied in its entirety.
4) Admitted to the point of preferring to call it a feature.
5) Admitted.

 

That opens the question of whether a 1939 (P) Reverse of '38 Jefferson can exist in PCGS MS66FS. I own one. The steps look pretty much like this OP's do. All Reverse of '38 have mushy steps. It's what makes them Reverse of '38. Yet FS examples exist in the pop reports. (Unless it's the hits that bother you.)

 

Standards are NOT different for different years within a series, the coins from year to year are compared against other examples of the same date and mint mark, so, similar looking coins from differing years may grade differently. This is an important difference and one that many fail to understand.

 

But do tell us, oh oracle, what should happen in a series when a rehubbing is done. Two different dates looking very similar, not only SHOULD have different grades, they MUST.

 

Sounds like us collectors, get to eat crow ?