I thought die polishing left some raised lines these are like a mirror , But you're probably right as there would be hairlines if it was polished . Rusty
I suspected you were speaking of mirror-like areas (which are much more prevalent on Mercury Dimes). Anyway, they are almost certainly as made.
So the shiny areas are from a polished Die , thanks for answering that , and yes Ive seen the same type of areas mostly on Mercury dimes . rzage:bow:
Not all die polishing leaves raised lines (incuse on the die) on the coin. Think of a Proof, fields smooth as glass that look just like a mirror. How do you think they got that way ? There are two types of die polishing, that done while the die is being made, and that done to repair the die after extensive use and wear. The first, you never see any lines on the coin. The second you do. But there's a reason for that. That reason is that what we call die polish lines is really a misnomer. What we call die polish lines are not caused by the repair polishing. Rather they are what is left over after the repair polishing is completed. The repair polishing is done to try and remove the lines on the die which were cause by repeated metal flow during extended use or clashed dies. Instead of calling them die polish lines, we should call them die wear lines. That would be a more accurate name. But it is what it is and we accept it.
From the pictures, it looks Mint State to me. There can be some nicks or scrapes allowed on MS coins, you know. If you're really uncertain, send it to NGC for their overgrade evaluation. At least you'll get a professional's opinion. Here's the NGC guarantee from their website: " The owner of any NGC-certified coin believed to be over-graded or not genuine may submit it to NGC under our Appearance Review service. If, in NGC’s sole opinion, the grade determined under such review is ultimately lower than the grade originally assigned, NGC will offer one of the following three remedies: NGC shall purchase the coin from the submitter at its determination of the current market value (see below) for an example of that coin which is correctly graded at the original grade level assigned. NGC shall exchange the coin in question with an equivalent coin at the original higher grade. NGC shall return the coin to the submitter at the correct lower grade and pay the difference between the current fair market value (see below) of the coin at the newly established grade and the current fair market value of the grade originally assigned to such coin." Now, if you simply don't like the coin, that's another issue and you need to solve that with Heritage. But for me, the coin seems properly graded.
As I posted to another thread very recently, the largest problem, by far with a grading guarantee, is that the company which graded the coin gets to be the arbiter of whether it is over-graded or not. And, however good their intentions, it is hard to believe that they can be objective in their review, especially considering that a down-grade can be very costly to them.
Mark, that's a good point, but if it's obviously an AU and everybody knows it, they wouldn't be able to get away with 65. If they did, the damage to NGC's reputation would be far worse than any payout. Granted, in less obvious situations, I think you're right, but an obviously over-graded coin would be downgraded, IMHO. I think NGC realizes this. The last thing they want is some coin display showing changes in grading standards or something with an obviously overgraded coin in one of their holders. Back to this particular coin... looks MS to me, so I think the OP needs to deal with the auction house.
We're in basic agreement, then. Part of my point was that if, for example, the coin might deserve a 64 instead of a 65, it would probably be pointless/a waste to submit it for a down-grade. By the way, I have seen coins which appeared to be obviously over-graded, resubmitted for down-grades and whose grades went unchanged.
Sorry about hijacking the thread, is this coin overgraded? there a some marks on the reverse that seem excess for this grade. it's a ms66 so there shouldn't be major marks this these right? the obverse is fine.
The reverse marks, by themselves, wouldn't automatically disqualify the Alabama from a 66. But those images don't allow for a good look at the surfaces - I wouldn't kn0w if it was a 62 or a 66, though I would have guessed 65 or lower.
Mark did you cklick on the picture and then reclick again till the little magnifying glass shows up , if you did what's up with the lines on the top of the reverse , hairlines or die flow lines (POLISH LINES ) rzage
Doug or Mark if you're interested in seeing the 1914 Barber I'll send it to either of you with a check for return mail . Rusty
Rusty - if you'd like me to look at the coin for you I'd be happy to do so. But, would my opinion, regardless of which way it goes, sway or change yours ? I doubt it. If you're not happy with the coin buddy you can either reurn it or sell it and look for another. Not much else to do at this point is there ?
I can't get the larger images to come up. But, it doesn't matter what I think. If you don't like it you should at least try to return it. And of course the longer you wait to do so, the less the chances of success.
Your'e both right , I think after hearing what you have to say , it's just a poorly struck MS coin , like I said the MS-64 Barber I bought with it is a superior coin , I guess it will take me awhile to realize they can give Gem status MS-65 to a weakly struck coin . I'll probably w trade it to someone who might like it , thanks again . And Mark about the double clicks , I was talking about the commemerative coin a few posts down . Rusty
Oops, now that I have clicked on the Alabama, it looks like a 64 to me, but I feel the same about many MS65's and some MS66's I've seen.