Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by Beefer518, Feb 21, 2021.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
Thanks @ddddd for doing my heavy lifting!
The Columbia needs a second (third) set of eyes. '62 is terribly unwarranted as I associate such grades to baggy ugo's of which this example is not........
I don't know much about ANACS grading standards but when PCGS or NGC give an MS62 grade to a coin with surfaces that are obviously better than MS62, it is almost always a net grade for washed out luster due to what they perceive as an over dipping. That was my first impression, and I believe that it was @johnmilton as well.
A 62 is baffling. I doubt the luster was that muted to at least prevent a 63 grade (as there is certainly not enough hits/marks to justify the grade). Anacs can be overly conservative at times. I had an AU 55 Anacs coin go MS 62 at NGC and then there is the thread below...Anacs AU 55 Details to PCGS MS 64:
That is what they do. For a coin that is improperly cleaned, they give it a details holder, but for an improperly dipped coin where the luster is muted, they will often assign a net grade of MS62. It is usually totally incongruent with the surface preservation level and often leaves people scratching their head about the grade. Here is an example, a 1924 Standing Liberty Quarter.
There is no way that anyone can look at that SLQ and say the surfaces deserve MS62. But in NGC's opinion, the coin was obviously dipped and the luster impaired. I cracked that coin of an AU58 holder and resubmitted it expecting MS64, NOPE!
That is insane! The dip obviously impacted luster to a degree. However, 62?? That has no bearing on reality. The surface preservation of that LSQ is in the gem range. I can see dropping it one grade, for not being the most lustrous coin in the world. However, every blast white Morgan Dollar in the world has been dipped, and they still get gem grades. Geez!!
Separate names with a comma.