Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 866222, member: 15309&quot;]Mark,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>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. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>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&#039;s really understand how the TPG&#039;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&#039;s routinely employ that philosophy with several series and CBH&#039;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.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>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. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>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?[/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