This is ridiculous IMO. This reverse is way too scratched up to straight grade... the obverse isn't much better. This is graffiti...
It's too random to be categorized as graffiti. And coins in the lower end of the scale do get some forgiveness for marks and small scratches and stuff. But yeah, I agree with you, in this particular case. That one probably shouldn't have gotten a straight grade. It certainly wouldn't have if I had been the one who sent it in! That one there was evidently graded just before closing on a Friday, when everybody was eager to head out the door and start their weekend! PS- it does have nice original contrasting patina (i.e., "CircCam" contrast). Bet that helped it slide past, somewhat. I don't think it is an unattractive coin, despite the old scratches. PPS- Oh, yeah- and it's a '61-O. That's a very special and historic date in Seated halves, as you likely know. I wonder if that one was struck under the authority of the US Mint, the state of Louisiana, or the Confederacy. It was an eventful year.
I agree with your point that the coin pictured receiving a straight grade is highly questionable. However, I don't think you need to throw ANACS under the bus to make your point. While the market may value ANACS graded coins at a lower level, I think they actually do a pretty good job at grading. I also think that here lately they tend to be on the conservative side.
All I'm saying, is some people knock anacs grading. And I'm saying is anacs would not pass this coin. And I don't understand why pcgs did. I feel like this is beyond forgiving a nick or a ding. And I know if I sent this in anywhere it would come back details scratched graffiti or damage. NGC has gotten lax lately too but I'm not sure they would have passed this.
