Ok here we go again! Here's a couple Kennedy's for your grading opinions. Guesses now, answers later! Have fun!! Here's a 1965 [/IMG] [/IMG] And a 1969-D [/IMG] [/IMG]
I'd give the 1965 an MS-67, maybe dropping down to 66. I personally don't care for the some of the toning on the obverse but that's just me. I'd put the 1969 at about MS-62. Way too many marks on the obverse and the details on the reverse are not nearly as sharp as the first coin (the shield for starters). One caveat - I am not a very good grader.
First coin MS 65 it is obviously a late die state,based on the flowlines ,, IMHO this would exclude it from a higher grade second MS-61 what appears to be wear but may just be a weak strike on the hair and the rim dings on the obverse and what appears to be wear but maybe be the result of a weak strike on the sheild and tail as well as the bag marks .
Well guys, this thread ain't gettin' too much attention. Guess I'll go ahead and post the grades. Anybody else care to guess before I do?
OK Here ya go!! Here's the 1965 And here's the 1969-D Now, can anyone here justify/clarify how both of these coins recieved the same grade?
The person at NGC had too much coffee and was tired at the end of his shift when he/she graded it....? catman
I assume that you are talking about the slight toning on the '65? If so, that doesn't bother my at all. What I'm seeing is a bag marked '69-D with the same grade as the '65 with nice clear surfaces. Now I know that the SMS coins are "more carefully" produced, but to me, a grade is a grade. No matter if it's business strike, proof, sms etc.
But that's not true - coins from each year and from each mint are graded differently. You can't compare or grade a '65 Kennedy the same way you do a '69 Kennedy. ('69 was a terrible year for Kenndy halves - they were all very weakly struck.) That would be like trying a grade an 1879-S Morgan the same way you would an 1884-O - it simply can't be done. So - when you grade both coins - they can easily be the same grade but look entirely different. And what I see isn't toning - I see spots.