Nor should it be, Doug is showing photos at 10x magnification in order to make the rim dings appear much worse than they really are. Things that are considered damage and relegate coins to problem coins are a matter of degree. Does this coin have rim dings? Yes. Are those dings severe enough to warrant a details grade? I say surely not, and so does PCGS, and so do the overwhelming majority of respondents of this thread. This is just another example of Doug blowing minor problems way out of proportion. Honestly, it reminds me of the shovel scoop thread.
64BN. No wear, great surfaces, but not perfect. Luster is good, but not great. A few hits here and there, but none heavy where it counts most. The stuff on the rim looks like hits, especially since they're on both sides.
Alrighty: with 57 guesses, we had one of the more contentious coins so far! I am pleased to say that the correct answer was the highest picked at 64. However, the average grade CoinTalk gave was a 63.3 (so, a solid 63). Several of you identified this as an AU coin: I see absolutely no trace of wear here. In my opinion, this definitely looks like an UNC coin. Remember, *contact marks are not wear.* A coin can be marked all to heck and still be UNC. Several of you identified the weak luster on this coin, and I believe that is one of the factors that limited this coin to a 64. The strike actually looks pretty good, from what I know of large cents. At the 64 level, strike is not usually a primary driving factor of the grade. Weakness in the dentils is one area where the strike could have been better. Additionally, the eye appeal on this coin is fantastic. The smooth, even, chocolate brown color is quite attractive. You might not like brown, and you might not collect brown coins yourself - but for a copper enthusiast, this would be desirable surfaces! But.... the rims. This is where a large part of the debate seems to be focussed. On the majority of the coin, fields and devices, there appears to be a distinct lack of major contact marks. This appears to be quite a clean coin. I will agree that there appear to be some contact marks on the rims. However, these small marks are nowhere near severe enough to warrant a details grade! I think the weak luster and the rim bumps are what made this coin a 64. Remember, we are looking at these pictures many, many times larger than the coin itself. If you were examining this coin in hand, I'll bet half of you wouldn't even see those rim marks! They are quite small. All in all, I think this is an accurately graded 64.
I think you're seeing a bit of fin around the rim, but I think there are some hits both obverse and reverse. The fin is quite normal on these coins.
You get coins flying out of a coining chamber into a bin, and there's going to be some incidental contact between them! No shovel scoops and no circulation required! Contact marks are naturally occuring during the life of a coin - otherwise, literally every coin coming out of the mint would be MS-70!
One small problem with that specific coin getting those rim dings from falling into a bin at the mint,or being put into a bag at the mint - there would be no coins with reeded edges in that bin, or bag, because cents don't have reeded edges. And cents would be the only thing in that bin or bag. The only way that coin could come into contact with another coin that had reeded edges would be in circulation. And before you suggest that "it's possible" that a reeded edge coin was stuck in the bin and this coin just happened to fall onto it and get the reed marks in the rim dings that way - a cent is not heavy enough to produce rim dings that severe from falling on a larger coin - and it sure didn't fall on a stuck coin 3 times either. BUT - a larger coin with reeded edges like a dollar or half dollar - they are plenty heavy enough to produce rim dings like those if they fall on the cent ! Just like they likely could and would if the cent were in a cash drawer or change purse. But you go right ahead and believe what you want to believe. I mean after all if a TPG says it's so it has to be so doesn't it
I should have cheated before posting my opinion. After I looked the coin up I wanted to delete my earlier post to stoke my ego. Seriously, these kind of exercises are good. I'm not a large cent collector right now so having to think outside my comfort zone is a valuable learning experience.
I voted without looking at anyone else's; I'm with Rodney D at 66....umm, I mean @wxcoin... I keep getting those guys confused. This is one smoooooth coin. I would have even gone 66+ but there was no option for that. Steve
MS62 IMO. Would grade it higher but the rim causes hesitation. Looks like dings but hard to tell in the holder and the photo angle.
Another great example of subjective grading without having the coin in hand...I own many examples of this in my slabbed coins.
@Conder101 , @Eduard , as copper collectors, I'm curious to hear your opinions on this particular coin.
And that is why I said AU-58, I would never purchase it as an ms-64 regardless of the tpg grade given. I doubt I would have paid the amount it last sold for either.
I don't often offer my opinions or reasoning for my grading choices, however most of which I learned over the years from many of you, but in most circumstances I go by the accepted standards in the industry. I think the overall look of the coin is appealing, the surfaces are exceptional, except for the rims. The luster, however, is low. A higher grade is acceptable in the case of older or rarer examples, but I just can't see the 64 designation in this case. I guess I'm just not with the times.
Not to be a brat here, just would like to know how many that guessed MS something would say there is some cabinet friction, but consider it a non-issue. Comments?