GTG: 1925 Lexington Concord Commem

64 and pretty

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Reveal in about an hour

 

I worked at W.E. Andrews in Bedford.

 

Thanks for playing! Comments welcome.

 

I'm neutral on it. The spotted toning around the rim detracts a bit for me. The grade seems fair.

I've recently seen a few lower graded ones that I liked from the pictures. This is one example (I didn't bid on it though). Yours has better detail on the face.
https://www.greatcollections.com/Co...oncord-Sesquicentennial-Half-Dollar-NGC-MS-64

 

Not surprised. I felt high end 64. I can be a bit conservative. The luster may have given it a bump but I saw a couple significant marks that I felt kept it from gem

 

Sorry, clearly over graded.

This one is graded MS-64.



Here is the box that housed these coins. The fact that it is made of wood accounts for some of the funky toning some of these pieces have.

 

This was purchased for a 2 reasons. I needed a 65 or better for my registry set, and the price was right. Did I need another Lexington? Nope. It was strictly a want. My other Lex's are either raw or in an ANACS holder.

@johnmilton - I agree it's overgraded, but that's also how I feel about almost all commems graded by PCGS.

I also have two coins in their original holders:

 

I think they did better with their grading years ago, but now it's graded to their market.

The worst example I ever saw was Panama Pacific half dollar that was PCGS graded MS-67 I saw it at medium sized show. The dealer sensed that I had some money so he started in with the "hard sell."

The coin was hideous with some of the most unattractive toning I had ever seen. Under the toning was a mediocre coin at best. Definitely not mark - free which the grade suggests. Yet he wanted $17,000 and called it “a bargain.” The MS-64 in my collection is better.

I was polite, but I could not get away from him fast enough.

 

I'm going for a 63+. Yes it does have a minor mark on the front almost a scratch as well as some bagmarks on the reverse.

 

see post 24