ANACS RP/PRooF 70... But Not?

Putting the sun issue aside, because that area of the OP's photo is not clear to me.
If you could fractionally grade this coin, would it be a 69.5 or a 69.7?
The imperfection on the coin (the pinpoint hole in the frost) does IMO drop this coin from being a 70. And with no fractional grade, now it's a 69. ( Which I understand are common for this coin, and the premium is for the mystical "70" grade.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting question. If that one little mark is the only detracting feature - the original images are far too small to be sure - it would certainly (in my subjective opinion) be just about as close as you could come without achieving perfection.

 

If that pinpoint drops the grade a fraction of a point...the sun has to drop it more that that. Although the sun is a little unclear in the photo...there is certainly frost over a significant portion of the sun and that cannot be denied. The sun should have no frost and I'd say it's at least 20% frost.

 

I'll bet you will find that the "frost" is not on the actual coin. Only way to prove that to my satisfaction is for the OP to post a photo of just the sun with the coin in a different orientation to the light.

 

What do you think it is then? A reflection from the field?

 

Yes, either the field or the case. Just as it looks like major "bag marks" on the sun. If that is frost (on the bottom and mostly the top of the sun) the coin is the worst reverse proof ever made! I may go so far to call it an "error."

 

I would agree that if it's real it's a terrible reverse proof and a boarder line error. You might be right...it could be a reflection. It'd be interesting to see additional photos.

 

So.... your the authority on who should be collecting and how? What a
[edited - language] Would you like me to bold that for you?
So let me guess you're WAY better than any grading service on the planet. In fact you probably troll this site looking for someone new to push your snobby opinions on. Now I see why there are no new members here.bye

 

I didn't mean that if you can't grade, you have no business dealing or collecting coins in the sense that "if you do this, you are a bad person," or "you must learn how to grade because I know how to grade and that makes me better than you." I mean it in the sense that "if you do this, you are going to make some painful mistakes." You can bold that if you like.

 

You can go back to tooting your horn!

 

Themadhouse7, posted: "So.... your" [you are] "the authority on who should be collecting and how? What a [quoted adapted]" []
"Would you like me to bold that for you? So let me guess [,] you're WAY better [] than any grading service on the planet. In fact [,] you probably troll this site looking for someone new to push your snobby opinions on. Now I see why there are no new members here. [B]bye[.]"


Oh, please don't leave. @Paul M. is way better than you think and it seems to me that you have a lot to learn! Perhaps he can teach you a thing or TWENTY.

 

So, no comments on the "ideal" example, gouges between rays or the OP's example gouges on Liberty's' hand?

 

Perhaps the reason there are no replies is because those are not gouges between the rays and the image of the hand is too blurry to tell anything.

Perhaps, members smarter than me can tell you what depressions into a coin's surface that have 100% original color and match the texture of the surrounding surface could be.

Hint: one correct answer is they are characteristic of a counterfeit. That is not the case here.

Another thing that could cause them is...

 

Many thanks for the post.

sad but true.

also very true.

And that expert can see everything in what? 90 seconds of examining each and every coin.
In the short time allocated to each coin no one can spot every flaw, and yes, they do have 2 or 3 graders for each coin, still no way enough time.
even you couldn't do that.
back to ignoring

 

Love you Uncle Frank...

oh... and thanks for the like for me from Doug!

 

Dear Frank,

BTW, I follow you and this is typical.

Do you have anything to add to my post #113 that can enlighten other members as to what is going on between the coin's rays? Take a guess.

Until then, let me enlighten you and post "between-the-lines:"

You ask: "And that expert can see everything in what? 90 seconds of examining each and every coin. "

In my experience most YN's who have attended one or two ANA Summer Seminars can see everything needed to see/grade a large SE in much less time than ninety seconds.

"In the short time allocated to each coin no one can spot every flaw, and yes, they do have 2 or 3 graders for each coin, still no way enough time."

Actually, most of the young professionals grading moderns do a remarkable job under a great deal of pressure in a very short time. Due to the size of the coin (SE) and their usual 69-70 condition in a FRESH roll, it only takes a few seconds to drop a coin out of the 70 grade and a few more to decide it is a only a 68 which the big submitters do not want graded.

"even you couldn't do that."

Your ignorance is overwhelming. I have heard (attempted it myself) that it usually takes more time to pick up the coin, grade it, punch in a grade on the computer, put it into a flip and go to the next coin than it takes to grade it.

"back to ignoring"

Now, in an attempt to salvage something out of your post and my reply , I suggest CT members do an experiment. Pick up a raw SE and decide if it is perfect, 69, or a reject. How many seconds did it take? Well under 5 seconds right?

PS I love you too "uncle Frank."

 

Whatever the marks are, they were inpressed there by the die and to me look a lot like gouges on the die.

too blurry? The image is sharp enough to see a teeny little dot on the field. again, these marks were impressed by the die and are not part of the "perfect' design

 

I have a feeling that's a photographic anomaly. Check out other examples, lit differently and shot by differing cameras. You'll see similar.

A Proof can reflect into and back off of the lens, casting reflected features back onto itself. Not saying that's the cause here, it's entirely possible you're right, just saying that one single set of imperfect images raises only doubts, not certainties.

If you're right, I'd have a hard time exceeding 66 for it regardless of the rest of the surfaces.

 

@davidh

As you know, the Mint made "dot' in the field is the imperfection we've been writing about on this thread.

Your post: "So, no comments on the 'ideal' example, gouges between rays or the OP's example gouges on Liberty's' hand?" is what I question. As you correctly wrote, the "marks" between the rays were imparted to the coin by the die; however, IMO the die was not gouged. This characteristic is caused by something else.

You have also stated (Post #112) that there are gouges on the hand and posted a photo. The image of the hand is not good enough to identify if anything is on the hand. As of now, I doubt it.

Finally, the dot on the field is ignored by some TPGS making the coin a 70.

 

You very well may be right.