Featured GTG: 1922-D Lincoln Wheat Cent - there's gonna be a fight

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by C-B-D, Sep 21, 2019.

  1. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    If you squint your eyes, it looks UNC-something.
     
    Stevearino, Razz and Johndoe2000$ like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    These coins are graded by the Obverse.
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  4. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    I agreed with your post in the beginning. AU-58.
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  5. Legomaster1

    Legomaster1 Cointalk Patron

    XF40. Can't possibly be AU- too many nicks and dents as well as a weak strike.
    Not accounting the worn die, there does appear to be some wear on the coin as well.
    Hard to imagine this would go AU or even MS.
     
  6. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    I saw some nicks and rub. I was torn between 55-58 and finally decided 58
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  7. Santinidollar

    Santinidollar Supporter! Supporter

    I just sat back on this one. Most interesting!
     
    Johndoe2000$ and C-B-D like this.
  8. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    Result already posted on page 4.
     
  9. TIF

    TIF Always learning.

    Wow! This was a surprisingly fun and educational thread! :)
     
    Johndoe2000$ and C-B-D like this.
  10. mlov43

    mlov43 주화 수집가

    63?
    I have an environmentally-damaged "No D," (VG Details) and this sucker looks a LOT like my coin!
     
  11. C-B-D

    C-B-D Well-Known Member

    Post pics! Let's see it.
     
  12. Marshall

    Marshall Junior Member

    This has a bad case of cabinet friction. This is what old timers would call a formerly Uncirculated coin the has been attended to and shown off too much. The highest points of the cheek bone and jaw line are discolored and typically would be enough to lower it to AU58 on a common cent. No one can tell me that even the top TPGs don't inflate the grade for desirable dates and varieties.

    I would have posted earlier, but my keyboard went out.
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  13. gronnh20

    gronnh20 Well-Known Member

    Skillz baby!:cool:

    Any TPGs looking for graders? You know where to find me.:cigar:
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  14. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    I initially thought this was a 62, and the number and severity of the obverse marks amended my guess downward. 63 is too high for this coin
     
    LA_Geezer and Johndoe2000$ like this.
  15. TypeCoin971793

    TypeCoin971793 Just a random guy on the internet

    Both of these graded MS-63. HUGE difference in quality. I rest my case.
    10721673-7E6B-43BA-A3B8-A83C03D1F4ED.jpeg 84444A0A-11B1-4269-B01B-F84FF944C169.jpeg

    I guess we can change the fighting topic to the blatant inconsistency of the graders :troll::p:rolleyes::cigar:
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  16. gronnh20

    gronnh20 Well-Known Member

    There may be some friction, but, very little from the pic I see. Most of what may be perceived as wear is in fact a planchet that didn't fully strike up. Leaving original planchet marks on the coins high points. Look at the fields. There are very few contact marks or residual planchet marks showing in the fields of that coin. Even an AU58 or 55 coin would show more field contact than this coin does.
     
    Johndoe2000$ likes this.
  17. Mainebill

    Mainebill Bethany Danielle

    I disagree. I feel the coin has enough contact marks to be an au. Part of why my grade of 58. The rub plus the marks tell me it’s been handled more than a little
     
    LA_Geezer and Johndoe2000$ like this.
  18. Azariana

    Azariana Member

  19. Johndoe2000$

    Johndoe2000$ Well-Known Member

    I also thought 58, but I think we're missing the main ingredient to this.
    We are overlooking the Magic tier. You know, the one where you send in some extra money and you get to choose the grade yourself. (within reason) ;)
    It's the only logical conclusion IMO. :D
     
    Mainebill and gronnh20 like this.
  20. RonSanderson

    RonSanderson Supporter! Supporter

    Before reading any replies I will say MS 63 BN. The weak reverse is due to worn dies, not wear on the coin. The reason I brought this down to 63 was the chatter on the obverse at the 7:00 position.
     
  21. RonSanderson

    RonSanderson Supporter! Supporter

    Now that I’ve read the thread I will share another Denver cent from just 4 years earlier.

    01c 1918-D full 01.gif

    This was graded MS61. When I went to the NGC Registry set site, I saw an identical one graded MS65. (Reference coin: Coppermania Registry Example MS 65) I think even the TPGs have trouble with these.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2019
    LA_Geezer, Azariana and Johndoe2000$ like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page