Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 2644253, member: 15309&quot;]No, they did not screw the pouch, for the reasons that you have already listed in your second post in this thread.&nbsp; I think it is helpful in situations like these to post comparative coins to get an idea of what the other grades look like.&nbsp; Take my NGC MS66 5FS for example.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Full%20Steps/JN%201947%20NGC%20MS66%205FS_zpse5tgwu8z.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Full%20Steps/JN%201947%20NGC%20MS66%205FS%20Steps_zpsyzxg859s.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Note that both coins have significant planchet flaws in exactly the same area, the cheek and jaw.&nbsp; Now I&#039;m not saying that every mark on the PCGS example is remnant planchet flaws, but between my NGC MS66 and the PCGS MS67, the PCGS MS67 is definitely the cleaner coin with respect to surface preservation.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>While I agree that it is extremely difficult to differentiate between planchet roughness and contact marks, this only affects the highest points on the coin which are well known for the series.&nbsp; In addition, in some years, it is nearly impossible to find examples without remnant planchet roughness.&nbsp; It would essentially create the same problem that not allowing for roll/cabinet friction on Saint Gaudens.&nbsp; All of the coins, regardless of the other attributes and overall quality would be relegated to the same lower grades.[/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