I am going to post in this order 1909, 1890, 1888, 1879 - so patience while I do uploading of pictures. 2 Are NGC graded, but I believe one is off and should be an MS63. Not really disappointed in the grade, but the feather tips on the 1888 are not as strong as I think they should be. Not saying anything about NGC, but this auction brings to mind - buy the coin not the slag. Maybe the picture is just bad on the auction. Now for the order - the 1906 is first because what looks like might be reverse scratchs are not. The 1890 is second because of the texture of the copper - it almost looks like feathers all over the surface under the scope - it is really a neat copper mixture. Only did the obverse on the 1890 cause my batteries died on my camera. Have to juice them back up. Then the 79 and 88. You might notice a little glare on them because of the lighting trying to get the feathers as best as possible.
"but this auction brings to mind" That is one rrrreally poorly graded NGC coin. oops, couldn't move link. http://cgi.ebay.com/1909-S-Indian-H...0QQihZ003QQcategoryZ41086QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Graded key dates seem to irk me a little. I think my keep dates are both off a little(IMO), but not this bad. Off kind of like the 1888 above - I think is a solid 63, not the 64 on the holder.
very nice coins there mark, I really like the 79. Could it be that the 88 just has a weak strike area causing that lack of definition on the feathers, that should keep it form 65 but I think 64 is still an acheivable grade.
Here are my thoughts on "weak strike" - remember this only my opinion. First telling the difference between weak strike and wear is hard. It is obvious on this coin that it is not wear. Second - if MS64 requires in other dates of the series more definition to be 64, do not lower the requirements just because of weak strike. To me this inflates the grades on the coins - for example, just so more 64's are around. So to me the 79 is correctly graded and the 88(weak strike or not) is over graded. BUT I STILL LIKE both coins as they are. I think on the 1909-S people say "weak strike" way too much - so what if the best obtainable grade could possibly be MS63. Remember this is my opinion only.
Anyone and everyone is entitled to their own opinions when it comes to a grade assigned to a coin. But is the same really true when you are discussing the standards used to determine that grade ? To me it is not true. Different people using different standards is one of, if not the, largest problem we have with the current grading system. So, about the best thing we can do, if we ever hope to solve that problem, is to accept one set of standards and stick to it when it comes to grading coins even if we don't agree with one or two of those specific standards.
Could you clarify some for me - are you saying the industry takes into account weak strike and what I think is wrong(and maybe I should change how I think). Don't worry I am not offended or anything trying to figure out exactly what you are saying. I actually looked it up in my ANA grading standards book - it kind of waffles about weak strikes. I agree everyone should be on the same page - sounds impossible without a set forumla of some type. Even the ANA standards book says eye appeal can play a role in the grade assigned. Now whose eye gets used.
Have a friend who's dad had a coin shop in the early 70's. He needed money one day so I gave him a couple dollars. Next thing I know, he breaks out a set of coins. He knew I collected coins. He said since I helped him he was going to give me them. I wasn't expecting this at all. He gave me 2 rolls of indian head cents, 5 mint sets, 4 prrof sets, and 6 birthday sets (earliest was 1911). I asked him if he knew was he was doing, he said it was nothing. I couldn't believe it. When I got home I looked at the rolls of indians. No junk, mixed years, with none of them being less than VF, most XF full diamonds. Never in a million years was I expecting this.
That's exactly what I am saying. Not all coins are graded based on the same criteria when it comes to strike. There are many cases where a coin from a given year and mint is known to be weakly struck and they are not graded the same as coins from different years or mints that were not weakly struck. A good example would be Morgan dollars - just about any Morgan from the early years and the O mint is weakly struck. Rarely are the hair details all there on the O mint coins, the hair is downright flat in many cases. So flat in fact that if it were an S mint coin of the same year that the coin would be graded XF due to wear while the O mint coin is graded as MS.
On this same subject there is one other thing I would like to say regarding weak strike. And that is that there is a difference between 1 specific coin with a weak strike and the case where the entire mintage for a year from a given mint has a weak strike - and it plays a large part in grading that 1 specific coin accurately. If it is 1 specific coin that is weakly struck then that coin cannot be graded higher than MS64 based on ANA standards.
I agree with what GDJMSP said. The graders often grade a coin compared to other coins of that year. They don't grade the same type of coin the same for all years. Often, key dates are given a small bump in grading. So an 09-S Indian in VF may not look quite as nice as a common Indian in VF. GDJMSP's example comparing New Orleans and San Francisco minted Morgans is an excellent example. Also, look at some 1893-S Morgans in TPG holders. Nearly all of the VF-XF coins will be inferior for the grade and cleaned, sometimes harsly. By the way, nice group of Indians!!
Okay - I could probably agree if the whole date run was weak - like some of your examples. But from what I read the 1888 was an average strike run - per Rick Snows book. I looked at almost every 1888 MS64 on Heritage that was sold - most show slightly more details than mine. He mentions in his book to look for "superior strike" coins - this isn't one. I actually bought it because of the color(love that dark reddish brown) not the feather tips. I have looked at a bunch of 64's and most have slightly better detail - but mine is better because of the color. The red 64's are bugly in my eyes. Some of the RB's aren't too bad, but I still like this color brown better(plus its cheaper).
Well Mark, think about what you just said. You have just addressed your own comment about this coin and explained why it is graded as a 64 even though the strike is weak
Doug, I believe that you hit it on the nail's head in explaining why the 1888 got a higher grade! Based on the pics and if the coin looks as good as the pics, then I would have gave it a bump up in grade due to the eye appeal if I was grading coins for NGC. Frank
