Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 870867, member: 112&quot;]Good God Mike - anybody with eyes can look at the two coins and see it. Do you really epxect me to believe that you can&#039;t ? Somebody with your knowledge ? Or are you, as I said - funnin with me ?</p><p><br /></p><p>Even a novice can look at those two coins and tell whcih one is the nicer coin of the two. This is exactly why I chose the lower graded coins to start this thread. Because then there would be none of these arguments about pictures and what you can see and what you can&#039;t see. But OK, I&#039;ll play.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Eliasberg coin, #1, is graded MS64, the other coin is graded MS62 (these are in post #63). You folks have seen the pics I posted, they were taken straight from the Heritage auction. If you check the properties of the pics, you&#039;ll see that they are even embedded links. I posted those pictures on purpose, because by looking at those pictures alone it appears that coin #2 is the nicer of the two because it has a better strike. </p><p><br /></p><p>Now Mike thought that the #1 was nicer because he thought it had luster and the other coin did not. IMO both coins have an equal amount of luster based on those pics. But it is a debatable point I&#039;ll grant you, that is the nature of pictures when trying to judge luster. Both coins appear to be relatively equal in quality. It is only the quality of the strike that seems to stand out as the deciding factor as to which is the nicer of the two - based on those first pics alone. </p><p><br /></p><p>But simply by going on those two sets of pics alone is misleading. You can&#039;t really see what it is really going on with each coin. You can&#039;t get a good look at the surfaces of each coin. </p><p><br /></p><p>And for those of you who have not gone and signed in to see the blowups - here are those blowups. These allow you to see what you need to see.</p><p><br /></p><p>The MS64 Eliasberg obverse - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://images.ha.com/lf?source=url[file:images/inetpub/newnames/300/5/7/0/570663.jpg],continueonerror[true]&amp;source=url[file:images/inetpub/webuse/no_image_available.gif],if[('global.source.error')]&amp;sink=preservemd[true]" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The MS62 obverse - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://images.ha.com/lf?source=url[file:images/inetpub/newnames/300/4/0/0/3/4003554.jpg],continueonerror[true]&amp;source=url[file:images/inetpub/webuse/no_image_available.gif],if[('global.source.error')]&amp;sink=preservemd[true]" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Now by looking at the blowups it becomes patently obvious that the surface of the MS62 coin is covered with lots of little pimples from being struck with a rusty die. The coin also shows minor pitting, again the result of the rusty die. And what appars to be some black horseshoe shaped mark under the hair curls (which I have no idea in the world what it is). There are also several noticeable hits in the left field and a couple in the legends. </p><p><br /></p><p>The MS64 coin shows none of this and is obviously ( to me and to anybody who looks at it in my opinion) the nicer of the two coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here are the reverses of the two coins - </p><p><br /></p><p>MS64 - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://images.ha.com/lf?source=url[file:images/inetpub/newnames/300/2/0/2/202090.jpg],continueonerror[true]&amp;source=url[file:images/inetpub/webuse/no_image_available.gif],if[('global.source.error')]&amp;sink=preservemd[true]" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>MS62 - </p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://images.ha.com/lf?source=url[file:images/inetpub/newnames/300/4/0/0/5/4005644.jpg],continueonerror[true]&amp;source=url[file:images/inetpub/webuse/no_image_available.gif],if[('global.source.error')]&amp;sink=preservemd[true]" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>They are rather unremarkable except for the fact that the reverse of the 62 reinforces the same things the obverse did as in regard to which coin has the nicer surfaces of the two.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now it must be understood that the pimples and the minor pitting from the rusty dies on the MS62 coin are indeed as struck issues. And while they affect the grade, they do not in any way stop or preclude the coin from being Mint State.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now I will ask you - is there anybody who does not think it is obvious, besides Mike, that the 64 coin is nicer than the 62 coin ?</p><p><br /></p><p>And for the sake of clarity, part of the reason that I posted these two particular coins was to illustrate that when grading these two coins, PCGS followed normal grading proccedures. They did not make allowances for this or allowances for that. They graded the coins as they should be graded - based on their condition.</p><p><br /></p><p>And this is in direct conflict with the way they graded the coins that started this thread. It shows not one bit of consistency.[/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