Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;physics-fan3.14, post: 4982156, member: 19165&quot;]Compare the pictures of this coin to the pictures on Variety Vista: <a href="http://varietyvista.com/01b%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%202/1959PDDO001.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://varietyvista.com/01b%20LC%20Doubled%20Dies%20Vol%202/1959PDDO001.htm" rel="nofollow">http://varietyvista.com/01b LC Doubled Dies Vol 2/1959PDDO001.htm</a></p><p><br /></p><p>This coin is actually not a late die stage - it is Stage B. I don&#039;t see the die crack on the lapel, but I do see the die polish shown under Liberty. </p><p><br /></p><p>In theory, grading will account for various die stages. Die stages primarily affect two things: the amount of detail on a coin, and the luster of the coin. Theoretically, a brand new die will have more detail, and a later die state will have some of the detail worn off from having struck numerous coins. In reality, most issues are not well studied in terms of die state, and thus it is not accounted for. Early US issues (such as bust halves, etc), and notable varieties (such as the 1922D Lincoln cent) may be studied in more detail, and will have the die state included as part of the grading criteria. </p><p><br /></p><p>Over the course of a die&#039;s life, the character of the luster is going to be a very noticeable change. Luster is one of the important factors in grading, and so will change how the coin is perceived. </p><p><br /></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><p>I&#039;m not entirely sure where you&#039;re quoting from, but that simply is not true. </p><p><br /></p><p>If I look at a coin, I can not objectively state where the coin has been or what its history is. And frankly, it doesn&#039;t matter. </p><p><br /></p><p>The only thing that&#039;s important is the current state of the coin. </p><p><br /></p><p>A &quot;Mint State&quot; or &quot;Uncirculated&quot; coin is defined as a coin which shows no evidence of wear. </p><p><br /></p><p>It may have been used in circulation. It may have traded hands a dozen times. It may even have fingerprints! (as much as I hate those). However, as long as the coin shows no evidence of wear, then it is mint state (or uncirculated - the two terms are interchangeable). This use of terminology is one of the most unfortunate choices in our grading scale, because it leads to confusion such as this. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Theoretically, if you were to line every coin up that was ever graded, there would be a difference between the 65/66/67 coins. You&#039;d be able to tell that the 66s are objectively nicer than the 65s. That would be in a perfect, ideal world. </p><p><br /></p><p>However, grading is subjective, it evolves, and it varies from grader to grader. The key with NGC and PCGS is that they try to maintain internal consistency as much as possible. </p><p><br /></p><p>The coin in question here appears to have a couple of major marks on the obverse, and a few spots that I find unattractive. I personally would like it better at the 65 grade. However, if you look at a bunch of 65 Lincolns, there could be an argument that this coin is nicer than them. That reverse is especially strong.[/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