Guess the grade #57

Either that, or I need a better memory. Tell me, which were stronger struck?

They are planchet marks, IMO, and it is worth noting that it would also be an assumption to presume they were contact marks. I suppose that it's simply a coincidence that this coin, the most strongly struck one I can recall being posted, also has the fewest planchet marks.

As for your question... They have nothing to do with the age of the die, obviously. My comment was in relation to fullness of strike with a general lack of detail (i.e. older die) with clues that it was fairly well struck.

The point was this... Many people would look at the obverse lack of detail and presume a weak strike. I submit that's not at all what's going on with this coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

66

 

66

 

First, I don't recall ever saying "always".

That said, no, it doesn't make sense that the planchet marks would occur on the high points of the design. They occur on points that aren't fully struck like the O in ONE and on the obverse in the shoulder.

That is but one more reason to think that marks on the O are contact marks and not planchet marks.

Lastly, if you are going to suggest I'm wrong about something, I would appreciate you post examples of where I was wrong, like a more well struck O in ONE. Like I said, I cannot recall one, but am open to the possibility. Just saying I'm wrong without showing me an example makes me think you just want to argue.

That 50/50 split assumes the distribution is equal. I would suggest on the O in ONE it is not. While it would stop short of "always", the vast majority of strikes on O in ONE when weakly struck (on very high grade coins like those in this thread) are planchet marks.

Of course it can. By being a fully struck coin from an abraded/worn die....

I didn't say (or I didn't intend to say) it was a weak strike, I intended to said that die wear made it appear weakly struck. THat's what I was referring to in post #16 and #21, and I appreciate the opportunity to make the point more clearly.

 

With all due respect you didn't suggest I go back and look, you said:

Which, frankly, I took as an insult. I do look closely -- and my results on these little threads confirms I look more closely than most.

Now that you questioned me I will go back through each and every coin posted by RLM to find a better strike in O in ONE -- but will have to do it tonight, as I gotta get some work done today.

And, No, I don't remember grading in 1987 -- I was chasing 17 year old women not coins at the time. However, I have heard of the changing standards, and I believe you (and others) when they tell me about them.

Lastly, please don't get confused between understanding how the TPGs grade and subscribing to or making excuses for those grades. When did I ever say I agreed with their grades? To the contrary, I find myself grading coins with these planchet marks lower than the TPG myself. That doesn't change their opinion, my opinion, or your opinion -- other than to note they are different.

 

The feeling is mutal.

Gotta run now, will be back on later tonight....

 

I do not know what to say about this one. It is a solid 67. Solid enough that I could see them giving it a 67 in spite of the spot, let alone that the spot may not have been there or at least smaller when graded.

 

I'm about to give up. These 66's and 67's are almost impossible to grade without seeing in hand. The deduction for the carbon spot wasn't much.

 

That's the first 67 I've ever seen with a carbon spot of that size and in such a distracting location.... makes me wonder if all these spotting NGC cents were spit polished a bit before slabbing, and then are toning as a result of the conservative spital. Not worthy of a 67 imo,, 67's should "make" you look twice,,, this spot prevents this on this one. Still, from a technical perspective, the lack of hits on this puppy, and strong strike, are very nice....
66+,, but no "wow".