Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lordmarcovan, post: 26669356, member: 10461&quot;]<b>Next, let&#039;s examine the NGC results and photos of my 1564 Saxony thaler.</b></p><p><br /></p><p>If you read this whole report, you&#039;ll recall that <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/lordm-2026-fun-show-report-live-updates-from-the-floor.420707/page-7#post-26632692" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/lordm-2026-fun-show-report-live-updates-from-the-floor.420707/page-7#post-26632692">I bought this coin at the show</a>.</p><p><br /></p><p>When I saw the pics below, I was delighted.&nbsp; I think it looks <i>fantastic </i>here.&nbsp; Doug Plascencia does good work.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1701573[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1701574[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1701575[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>You may recall that <a href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/lordm-2026-fun-show-report-live-updates-from-the-floor.420707/page-10#post-26634593" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.cointalk.com/threads/lordm-2026-fun-show-report-live-updates-from-the-floor.420707/page-10#post-26634593">I expressed hopes earlier</a> that this coin would receive a straight grade of XF40, but that a result of VF30-35 would have been acceptable to me.</p><p><br /></p><p>I was partially vindicated by <b><a href="https://www.ngccoin.uk/certlookup/2183137-001/NGCDetails/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ngccoin.uk/certlookup/2183137-001/NGCDetails/" rel="nofollow">the results</a></b>, but also disappointed. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Being rather twitchy about &quot;details&quot; grades, and a stickler for straight-graded coins, I was paranoid that this coin would get a details grade for an old mount removal (that&#039;s the bane of so many old thalers).&nbsp; So I had examined the edge closely for traces of an old jewelry mount, and didn&#039;t see anything.</p><p><br /></p><p>As it happened, that did not come to pass.&nbsp; They did <i>not</i> ding it for a mount removal. Whew!</p><p><br /></p><p>What they <i>did</i> spank it for, however, was <i>cleaning</i>.&nbsp; I didn&#039;t see that one coming.&nbsp; It got an &quot;XF details/cleaned&quot; grade.&nbsp; <i>Rats!</i> <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie46" alt=":facepalm:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>OK, so this 462-year-old coin got cleaned at some point.&nbsp; That’s not surprising.&nbsp; What <i>is</i> surprising (to <i>me</i>, anyway) is that NGC would not deem this particular case to be “market acceptable” and give it a pass.&nbsp; I’ve seen much worse in straight-graded holders.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="https://ccg-imaging-ngc-coins-production.s3.amazonaws.com/17695523-8298-419f-b5b7-b27e643e1aec/NGC2183137-001_OBV.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Oh well.&nbsp; So it goes.&nbsp; I still think it is a very nice coin, and perhaps I&#039;ll have to loosen my standards a bit.&nbsp; I <i>do</i> make occasional exceptions to my &quot;straight grades only&quot; policy for my Ancient &amp; Medieval stuff, and this 1564 coin <i>does</i> predate my arbitrary 1600 AD date cutoff that I use to divide &quot;medieval&quot; from &quot;modern&quot;.&nbsp; I really only apply the straight grade rule to post-medieval material.&nbsp; This coin is nearly 500 years old, after all.</p><p><br /></p><p>So I think some leniency is in order, and I&#039;ll be adding it to my collection.&nbsp; I&#039;m happy to keep it until an upgrade happens someday.[/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