Guess the grade # 5

I don't know much about this series, but it appears that what may be considered rub looks to me like a weak or flat looking strike in the high points of the hair, maybe a bit as well on the reverse,..I am thinking ms64
but that being said I am a total novice so it's probably 58

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Au-55

 

I'm not extremely familiar with the series, but I am quite comfortable with grading in general. The dark color on all the high points to me says "wear". It may not be, but that keeps me from spending lots of money.

As far as luster, there just doesn't seem to be enough in the fields to grade it higher.

Again, this is just what I see in the pics. The coin in hand may tell a completely different story.

 

:mouth:
Incomplete die filling and whatever gave this gal her rosie cheek (IMHO)....just a thought

 

The responses were about what I though would be posted. Au 58 or MS 63 is what I would have guessed on this coin based on a photo. The difference between these grades can be somewhat subtle. The reason I posted both pictures was the PCGS picture does show the luster on the coin , mine does not show it that well. This picture was taken over a year ago when my camera skills needed a lot of improvement.

 

yes the op said that himself he was wondering if you would grade it differently due to the different pics.

 

ur saying they dont overgrade the unc ones??

i m going with 53 on this one

 

hmmmpf...
So I thought the pictures looked 55 to 58 and said they'd grade it 63!!
I'm feeling more and more like GDJMSP everyday!!

 

Au55

 

IMHO, I don't see why this coin did not grade a 63. A just missed, I suspect.

 

At the very least, this coin has been thumbed.

 

you should buy a bigger bottle if you have got GD itis

 

how bout they see u alone int he dark instead

you can show them your 1964 peace alongwith your other coins

 

And the coin in your example is graded MS – 62 , 63, 64, 65 ??
Is this coin raw or in a slab . ?? Posting that coin and not giving a grade does little for your argument that my coin is over graded.
The coin in your example is not the same quality of strike .
The left wing in your example if fully defined, the strike on your example is extraordinary to say the least. My coin has not been thumbed . I don’t think you would agree with any grade a TPG gives a coin , or do you care if it was certified buy CAC.

 

I think some people (who should know better ) are confusing toning with wear.

The example that GDJMSP posted appears freshly dipped, and Mark's coin does not. I'd wager the amount of actual circulation is similiar, however the photos make it appear quite different.

Tell us, Mark, how's the cartwheel when the coin is under light?

 

I cant believe my eyes. Brother Mike please tell us your account has not been hacked

 

Lead - the coin is in my safe deposit box .
The reason I posted the two pictures was because the PCGS picture showed the luster better then my dull picture. It is a nice coin with great eye appeal and nice luster under the tone. The surface of the coin is very smooth for a MS 62 .
Notice the coins I brought up for guess the grade were all CAC certified. Forget ANA VS TPG grading standards for a minute and think about this.
Some people here are calling these CAC certified coins over graded by 5 to 6 grades. That Quarter Eagle AU 53 ??? This coin Au 50 ?? One guy went as far as calling this coin thumbed. This is ridiculous , conservative grading is best but some people here think they can grade better from a photo then John Albanese can with the coin in hand . Their grade assessment holds about as much water as a spaghetti strainer.

 

Thank you for your kind words. Tell us how you really feel.

Now, to REPEAT something I said earlier in this thread, this is just what I see in the pics. The coin in hand may tell a completely different story.

​

 

Mark,

The PCGS photo does show the luster better than your photo. Unfortunately it also shows the breaks in luster better. Now if the apparent breaks are over-emphasized by the photo, it would explain why so many people are calling the coin AU.

However, you even expected some people to call the coin AU instead of MS63. The reason for your expectation relied solely on the fact that only people who collect CBH's really understand how the TPG's grade these coins. In a way, your expectation is an admission that the coin shows wear. Now whether slight wear should be ignored because of cabinet friction is a different argument. However, the TPG's routinely employ that philosophy with several series and CBH's are one of them. If the same type of luster breaks were present on a Walker, the coin would be called AU in a heartbeat.

Having said that, determining the AU grade is a function of remaining luster. How people are calling this coin less than AU55 with so much luster obvious in the photos is a mystery to me. This does not mean that you can fault people for calling the coin AU. If they call it AU50, they are not off by 6 grades, they are off by 2-3. That was a little muddy, but I hope you see my point.

But consider this, you stated that the coin is very smooth for an MS62. Almost every person in this thread who thought the coin was mint state thought it was MS63. Given the quality of the surface conditions, why did it only recieve a grade of MS62? Is it related to the fact that the coin is actually a market graded AU?