Deeply toned coins can be hard to grade IMO.

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Closest you've ever gotten to participating in a GTG thread, Doug. You did everything but say what you would grade it, based on the limited pics, anyway.

 

PF64

 

With all due respect, I'm not buying that wear this visible happens only within a one and one-half millimeter band precisely along the center vertical axis of the coin. Especially when a large percentage of pieces from this year one might observe, including the very highest-graded, Condition Census examples, show the same "wear" to one extent or another.

Issue-specific knowledge is relevant here. "Wear" on the shield like that does not appear until lower XF grades on this issue; if it were Circulated, based on the shield detail I wouldn't go over XF40 for it. And by that point, the outline of the shield should also be mostly obscured. Further, in XF the raised ridge around "C" on the reverse should be nearly worn away.

Not that I agree with NGC on the grade, either. The coin looks like it's been in a rock tumbler, and given the near-Details condition of the rims I was seriously considering MS60-61 for it.

 

I see that this could go any which way. My honest opinion Is that this coin is a 58. This Coin must be pretty impressive in hand, to get a 64. Jmo

 

I agree with your wear comment. Other series have issues with varying degrees of flattening (3CN in vertical lines; number of distinct steps in Jefferson nickels). In general (in my opinion), magnification of older series reveal more flaws than today's modern coins so mint state levels are like comparing apples and oranges.

 

Good examples but couldn't deteriorating dies and strike have an effect as well?

 

Again one must remember that these were proof dies.....only 500 proof coins struck,and 300,000 ms struck on a small silver platchet strike on all of these IMHO should of been spot on using the proof dies and the amount of coins struck.

 

If I was grading by the book or I was buying this coin I wouldn't have gone higher than AU58. The large diamond on the reverse has a wear spot along with the lower bar in the star on the obverse. My thoughts are the coin received TPG bump into MS for color and because the toning is preventing a true examination of the surfaces.

I mean anyone with a grading guide should be able to see what Doug is referring too. Below is a grading guide photo showing exactly where wear first occurs on the highest points of the coin. Then compare that to the OP coin and again according to the guide a coin with any trace of wear shouldn't be graded higher than AU but we all know or should know that TPG's flex their own grading standards all the time.

 

It was a toss up for me: 58 vs. 64. I went with 64 originally because I did not see the wear, but now that you guys point it out, I will say 58 (final answer).

 

I appreciate reading all of the comments on this thread. One's never too old to learn from others. I tend to agree now that there is wear on the high points which would keep this coin from being MS.

 

I may be wrong but I feel the flattened horizontal lines were caused by the dies being clashed. If you go to CoinFacts and look at the images for this coin with clash marks, many of them show this effect. Just a thought to consider.

 

I do not agree. The direct result of agreement requires belief that most of the Condition Census examples - including all three PCGS CoinFacts plate coins - are circulated instead of MS67.

Now, I fully agree that there are many circulated coins in Mint State TPG holders. But this? This requires Conspiracy Theory levels of belief.

Go look for yourself, guys. There is no dearth of high-resolution imagery on the Internet to study. Don't just believe me. Gather evidence and think for yourself. This is not how 3CS's wear, despite what you're being told.

 

Now that I thought about this a little more I am not sure about my last comment. Since the dies clashed then couldn't the weakness in the center of the shield be the result of clashing with the middle column from the reverse? They seem to line up well.

 

No, if only because on the "striking" die, the column of the I is a deep recess. The only artifact I could see it creating in a clash is vertical lines formed by the sides of the digit.