Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 3597663, member: 15309&quot;]I think from a holistic view of this coin, the assigned grade is correct. The scratch is right on the edge of severity that would cause a details grade but because of the toning, it isn’t very distracting.</p><p><br /></p><p>Did PCGS go through the thought process of net grading it for the scratch and then bumping it back up for the exceptional eye appeal generated by the color?&nbsp; I really doubt it.&nbsp; I think they decided the scratch was acceptable and that the overall appearance of the coin was that of an MS64 coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>To me, it doesn’t matter, the value of this coin is solely dependent upon the color.&nbsp; I don’t know the spread in value between MS62-MS64, but they are all lower than $100 and the market values this coin over $1K.</p><p><br /></p><p>Imagine if this coin was blast white, the only thing you would see is that scratch.&nbsp; Monster toning often trivializes surface flaws, both by hiding them and by distracting the viewer with incredible overall eye appeal.&nbsp; This coin reminds me of the $100K+ 1958-D Franklin Half Dollar that had several surface flaws but was given a top pop grade because of the overall eye appeal.</p><p><br /></p><p>In the end, it is up to each of us to decide what standards we apply to our grading of coins.&nbsp; Many people in this thread are very strict with regards to scratches and would consider this coin a problem coin.&nbsp; Others feel the coin should have been net graded and been assigned a lower grade.&nbsp; And people like me agree with the assigned grade on a holistic level by weighting overall appearance more than the strict interpretation of the surfaces.&nbsp; So who is right?&nbsp; IMO, we are all</p><p>right, and that demonstrates the inherent subjectivity of coin grading.[/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