Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;jtlee321, post: 3078162, member: 73983&quot;]So the results of this were very interesting.&nbsp; EVERYONE here agreed that they thought coin #2 was an MS-66.&nbsp; When in fact EVERYONE got it wrong, with the technical exception of [USER=78244]@TypeCoin971793[/USER] who would have guessed that #2 was a MS-65.&nbsp; That is until he changed it due to the rules of at least one coin being a 66.</p><p><br /></p><p>Coin #2 is actually a recently graded PCGS MS-65 I bought at the PNNA show back in March.&nbsp; All the other coins are MS-66&#039;s that I pulled off of PCGS CoinFacts.&nbsp; I reshot #2 to try and match the lighting of the PCGS coins, but there was a very subtle hint that it was not like the rest.&nbsp; If you look closely, you&#039;ll see the prongs on the edges of the coin.&nbsp; The TrueViews do not have the prongs as they are shot raw.</p><p><br /></p><p>This was a very small sample size to run an experiment, but I think it get&#039;s my thoughts across.&nbsp; PCGS has started to tighten up on their grading standards at least on a few series.&nbsp; Could it be that 20 years down the road, we will look back on the &quot;Old Blue Label with QR Code on the back&quot; as a desirable holder?&nbsp; Same way we view &quot;Rattlers&quot; and &quot;OGH&#039;s&quot;?&nbsp; I&#039;ve bought a couple Morgans in the newer holders that have been graded recently and both of them have felt undergraded by at least a point.</p><p><br /></p><p>Anyway, I thank you all for your participation.&nbsp; I honestly did not expect to get the results that I got. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]774612[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]774613[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in