Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;MercuryBen, post: 3647711, member: 44521&quot;]OP&#039;s coin is a very nice Mercury Dime, and undergraded.&nbsp; I would personally grade it at 66FB, maybe 66+FB, and would not be offended if I saw it in in a 67FB holder (though I would disagree).&nbsp;&nbsp; However, I agree with several other posters that the luster probably isn&#039;t there to warrant a 67FB grade, and certainly not there for anything higher than 67FB.</p><p><br /></p><p>This isn&#039;t an insult to the coin. It does have really nice luster, and close to pristine surfaces.&nbsp; It&#039;s just that, until you&#039;ve seen many blast white 67FBs, 67+FBs, and 68FBs in hand, it is really difficult to understand the magnitude of difference in luster.&nbsp; Blast white 67+FBs and higher are absolutely friggin&#039; BLAZING.&nbsp; Standing alone, OPs merc would look fantastic in hand, but compared directly in hand next to a blast white 67+FB it wouldn&#039;t look so impressive.</p><p><br /></p><p>For those that point to examples of toned 67FBs with less luster, I disagree for the most part.&nbsp; Remember, luster does not equal &quot;shininess.&quot;&nbsp; The luster on a toned coin may be preserved perfectly, but it does not appear as &quot;shiny&quot; as an equally lustrous blast white coin. What matters more for toned coins is that the flow lines and cartwheel effect are intact, as opposed to being &quot;shiny&quot;. For blast white coins, the expectation is that the flow lines and cartwheel are intact, but also that the coin is hurt-your-eyes blazing and flashy.</p><p><br /></p><p>There are certainly instances where PCGS makes a mistake and gives a ridiculously high grade to a toned example that also lacks luster (I see this a lot with 1916 dates), but this is the minority of cases.[/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