Guess the grade #454

1958-D PCGS slabbed

NOTE: If you don't vote in the poll, your vote will not be counted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

67

 

EXTREME LUSTER! That thing is off the charts. The right obverse field nicks may hold it back...I'm gonna think on this one.

 

Does the roughness over the enitre bust count toward anything? I think it does which is why I voted MS64.

 

Like #453, I went with my higher guess of MS-67 RD

 

die polish lines aside, i'm going 67 on this here one

 

like it...

 

67.

 

67rd

 

6

 

haven't done one of these post in years. but I am going 67... very nice.

 

C'mon, it surely grades higher than a 6.

 

67 luster , but is that a die polish line or a hit over the 1 ?

 

Polish, I think.

 

Die polish line over the 1 then 67 .

 

The luster is killer but I had to go with 66.

 

After explaining the 1939-S, I am not sure why this one did not get the same treatment. This one has super luster, minimal nicks. Anyone see a problem with the eye appeal of this coin? Now, there is a tiny spot south of the last T in TRUST and another not-so-noticeable spot west of the C in CENT.(more noticeable in hand than in the picture). Again, not a carbon spot. Just a different color. I am guessing this kept it from a 67, but I still think this one earned a +, but PCGS disagrees and only gave it a 66.

 

Apparently Leadfoot was not kidding last week when he threatened Duke Kavanaugh. My guess is that he is now after Irish2Ice.

Columns are rank, name, average, and number of guesses.

1. Irish2Ice 0.270 39
2. Leadfoot 0.300 32
3. Duke Kavanaugh 0.348 24
4. ldhair 0.357 29
5. BadThad 0.435 48
6. rzage 0.455 46
7. mark_h 0.512 45
8. pumpkinpie 0.515 35
9. bahabully 0.550 21
10. ddoomm1 0.563 50

 

One right and one wrong , I would have bet my last dollar this was a 67 , goes to show why I'm not a betting man . Pcgs is tough , I forgot to include that into my calculations , bet this is a 67 at NGC .

 

Looks like the die was relatively recently polished and the reason I graded it 66 rather than 67 was because of the apparent lack of luster that results. If it is like that in-hand, I cannot say, but that was the impression I got from the photo. Every PCGS 67 I've seen in-hand (admittedly only a handful) has had that great LDS luster. They are also very stingy with this grade, as you know.

The other coin was much, much closer to a 67, IMO.

Bring it!