Opinions Please!

Maybe someone can explain the grading on this coin. I think I am missing something. It is graded by ICG. BTW, that mark on the shoulder is a bit of a planchet flaw.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think worn dies were an issue for this one so I'm assuming the the "trust" isn't worn, its a worn die. The reverse at 6 oclock appears to have the inward curvature known for the 20 S. Also assuming the very minor discolorations are staining not corrosion. Ding on N and T on the reverse and near Lincoln's temple on the obverse. I think Red ones are a little rare for this date. Lots of detail in the hair. All things considered I'm thinking MS 65

 

It's a trick !!!

Could go either of a cpl ways.......I keep my trap shut and start my NY resolution early....read more and type less, lol.

 

I would sooner think that the "trust" is weak because of some grease. The rest of the details are definitely there - particularly for this date. And my camera seems to like the red. It is mostly red, but definitely RB. I could only dream that it would make a 65.

BTW AJ, there is no trick on my part.

 

Here are Heritage's pics.

 

ICG?... 62? I really don't know. 62 is my guess.

 

I have no idea as to what ICG graded it at but I somewhat agree with snaz on the MS-62 grade! From what I can tell (based on the pictures, which is difficult at best), there appears to be a lot of mainly little problems that would hold it back from a higher grade. A somewhat weak strike, weak rims, quite a few (mainly minor) hits here and there but most of all (unless they are on the holder) is the amount of rub, friction (or whatever you want to call it) on Lincoln's face and shoulder. If that rub or friction is actually on Lincoln's face and shoulder and not on the holder, then that alone significantly effects the eye appeal of the coin and would significantly effect the grade. If it were not for that, the coin should have at the least graded at MS-64RB!



Frank

 

I'll say it is a MS-63 R/B. I like how Heritage captured the color in their pics, is that how it looks in hand? That's a very nice strike for a 20-S, nice coin rlm!! :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Phoenix

 

Pretty much the color is sort of a cross between the two and I think it is better looking than either picture.

As for the nicks and rims of huntsman53 concern, the rims are due to the holder. They are not weak. The strike is much above average for this date and the only nicks I see are by his temple and by the "NT" in cent

 

That actually sounds about right IMHO if you're going to go off his pics which I think do show the distractions better. Still, though, very nice looking 20-S. :thumb:

 

Well, Whats the news? Are we right?

 

My pics are lousy for slabs. In hand, that coin looks a 64 to me. If you take off for the "TRUST" and planchet flaw, maybe a 63. However, you were right. ICG gave it a 62. I do not know what I am missing. To me, that is a real nice coins.

BTW, sorry for being so late posting this, but my neighbors house caught on fire. No injuries (he was away) and no major damage, but I know little else yet. Although I am curious why it took 7 trucks over an hour

 

horrible news with his house!
I guessed a 62 because the nick on the reverse IMO is too nasty and keeps it from a 63 or potentially higher.
The way Im thinking is if that coin was in a 63 slab, with that nick, I would only want to pay 62 money for it,
Shawn

 

But I will say the Obverse is super clean!

 

I did not realize the the planchet flaw would affect the grade that much. That being said, most of your "marks" described above are not on the coin, but rather dust or scratches on the slab. I personally think the Heritage's pic much more accurately reflect the coin's marks than mine do.

"This is a case of where you should have trusted that the slab was telling you something that you did not or could not see." - I actually underbid because it was ICG. What I am saying is that I was pleasantly surprised to get a coin that, at the very least, was properly graded or, in my opinion, was slightly undergraded.

 

OK, here you go! BTW, I reduced the picture to the size you are supposed to grade coins, 5X (actually got 6X on my computer), and not 15X.

On the reverse, the green X's are marks on the slab. The black X's are dust as best I can figure. The "mark" on the "N" in one is a discoloration and is not an indentation. The "marks" below the "F" in of are die polish lines as best I can figure. They are extremely faint in hand. Just to be fair, there is a mark above the "O" in one and a very small one below the "R" that you did not mention.

On your blow up of the face, there is a (single) mark at your arrow and a (single) mark on the brow. If you are trying to say that there are more marks below your arrow, all I see is hair detail.

At the date, the stuff to the left are some more die polish lines I believe. Again, these lines are extremely faint. At your arrow, I cannot find the top line, the middle is discoloration (see the Heritage pic), and I can make out a minute line at the bottom. With your 30X blow up, things appear that I cannot see at 5X.

This coin is not perfect, but I have seen 65 coins with as many marks as are on this coin excluding the planchet flaw.

 

Are you saying ICG has never over or under graded a coin? I thought that one of their problems was that they were not as consistent as NGC/PCGS. Ask AJ about his ICG XF 1914-D that became AU when NGC regraded it.