The Official Grading Experiment, Phase 2, #4

At the conclusion of Phase 1 around Christmas, I began to think that the photos I was using (from Heritage) might be biasing the grading guesses. So, I want to host Phase 2. I will again be using standardized photos, but this time I'll be using PCGS TrueViews. Again, we will stick to problem free US coins.

So, let's grade some more coins!

All you have to do is guess the grade! I will be attaching a poll to each thread. Please select the grade that you think best represents the coin (to avoid bias, please select your grade before viewing the rest of the thread).

Also please post your opinions about the coin, and it would be most educational if you could explain why you chose the grade you did.

We're going to cover a wide range of material, and some of it may be out of your wheelhouse. However, if you are a confident grader, you should be able to accurately grade almost any coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The surfaces are immaculate but the strike is a tad mushy in spots so I said MS66.

 

MS65

 

MS66

 

MS67
Great luster and decent strike.

 

I like the obverse, but the reverse looks to have a few issues which bring this one to a 65.

 

I gave it an MS-63 due to some damage on the reverse to the right side of the S in CENTS, and also the berry to the right of the S has a substantial ding to its right side. Maybe it is an MS-64, but MS-65 seems too lenient.

 

66. Immaculate fields, luster looks really nice, strike a little weak only at the left corn cob and stars 6-7. Mushiness comes from overused dies (note radial die crack at 2:00 on the reverse between AM). Coloring is probably quite attractive in hand.

 

I think it’s definitely gem. I’m having trouble reading the luster on it so I figured 65 for sure. If the luster is great I think it makes 66.

65 was my vote.

 

66. The whatever it is below the eye bothers me. Great looking coin.

 

66 (based on if the TruView is accurate and doesn't conceal any additional flaws)

 

Just a few marks on the cheek and less-than-spectacular luster hold this from 67. I voted 66.

 

Great luster and clean fields. A bit hard to read how significant the marks on the cheek are from the pics but I think it’s not so bad 66

 

Enough chatter around the eye to hold it to MS65 although my first impression was 66.

 

I am loving these grading threads!

Does quality of the strike affect the grade? Or put another way, can a poorly or weak struck coin, that has the other surface qualities of 66, 67.... get that 66,67 grade?

Brad

 

It depends upon the typical strike quality for the date/mm of the series in question. For example, a weak strike on an 1881-S Morgan would preclude a premium gem grade but strike softness on an 1883-O Morgan would not.

The real question is, what is the typical strike quality for a 1900 Liberty Nickel? Unfortunately I have no idea. I guessed that since Liberty Nickels are lower relief, they didn’t suffer the same strike quality issues that plagued both Buffalo and Jefferson Nickels.

 

There has been some good discussion here. Everyone else, feel free to post your grades and discussion. I'll reveal the answer this evening.

 

MS67

 

Alright, time to end this one, I think. I thought this one would be easy, but there were some pretty low guesses that brought it down. PCGS called this a 66, but the CT average was a 65.2 with 25 guesses.

I think Messydesk nailed this one with his description:

Big issues for people on this one seem to be a few trivial marks below her eye (remember, this is magnified ridiculously huge - I bet you'd have a hard time seeing those in hand). And the slightly weak strike. At 66, strike starts to become important. This might prevent a 67 grade, but minor weakness of strike is acceptable at 66.