Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 2755108, member: 15309&quot;]The problem is that you and others are substituting your standards for NGC&#039;s standards.&nbsp; I have no problem with your standards and actually find them preferable to NGC&#039;s.&nbsp; With respect to most coins, both your standards and NGC&#039;s will align and you will find very little difference in the way you grade the coins.&nbsp; It is only an outlier like this one that the divergence can be seen.</p><p><br /></p><p>As we have already established, the photos are magnifying the hits on the coin.&nbsp; The slab photo is a much better representation of the appearance of the coin IMO.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F5%2F4%2F5%2F7%2F15457907%5D%2Csizedata%5B850x600%5D&amp;call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /><img src="https://dyn2.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B1%2F5%2F4%2F5%2F7%2F15457908%5D%2Csizedata%5B850x600%5D&amp;call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>The core problem that almost everyone has with this coin is the number of minor hits and the fact that the seemingly biggest of the minor marks is in the focal area of reverse, the eagle&#039;s breast.&nbsp; Your contention is that the mark is large enough to qualify as a major hit in the focal area and preclude a gem grade.&nbsp; I don&#039;t blame your for that analysis, I just disagree.&nbsp; Based on the slab photos, I can barely see that mark and consider it minor enough that a gem grade is still in play.&nbsp; Without a loupe, the coin appears to have premium gem surfaces, mostly because of the clean fields.&nbsp; When viewed under a loupe, the myriad of minor ticks (mostly on the reverse) would become evident and I think that most people would not consider a premium gem grade for surface preservation.&nbsp; Personally, I give the surfaces of this coin an MS65 grade.</p><p><br /></p><p>But this is where your standards and NGC&#039;s diverge.&nbsp; While you are unwilling to market grade the coin above MS65 for superlatives in the other aspects of grading, NGC is perfectly willing to do just that.&nbsp; As a collector of Washington Quarters, you must know from experience that most toned coins are deep, dark, and often have muted luster.&nbsp; This is one of the very few Washington&#039;s that I have seen with bright pastel hues.&nbsp; Combine that with an excellent strike and what would have to be incredible luster based on the assigned grade, and they decided that the overall appearance of the coin was that of top tier premium gem and that the problems associated with the surface preservation were less important than the holistic view of the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>As I said, I prefer your grading method because it is more consistent and less prone to the controversy that is abound in this thread.&nbsp; People often confuse my attempts to explain the actions of the TPG&#039;s with agreement (eg Doug).&nbsp; My initial assessment of this coin was that it was a low end MS67.&nbsp; However that assessment was me attempting to utilize NGC&#039;s grading standards.&nbsp; If I were to employ my own grading standards, like the other members of in this thread are doing, I would say that this coin has no business being in an MS67 holder.[/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