The coin looks much better than what NGC typically grades a 62, IMO. Look at the edges and cheek and apparent luster. That's 64 or 65 material, IMO. Perhaps a touch of high-point rub? Sure, but nowhere near AU level at least how NGC grades them. My gut says a recoloring and silent net grade.
I don't collect these and am no expert at grading, but wouldn't the rim damage alone at 6 o'clock on the reverse keep it from going higher than 62?
Perhaps you're on to something, but if you're looking at what I think you are, then to my eye that doesn't look like a dent, it looks like a planchet void and is as struck.
No. Rim damage does not count as heavily as the fields, etc. Yes it counts, but not that much. However, there appears to me to be a total lack of luster. Putting that with the other nicks, etc., I would have guessed 63, but a 62 does not appear that far off.
The closest I con come to giving you an answer is from "Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection", the fields are generally orange or yellow and the rims are generally blue. Their order of importance goes most - Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue - least. That does not specifically quantify it, but it should give you some perspective.
Never woulda guessed that's what you were talking about as I would not have ever guessed they graded it higher than 62. I thought they did it a favor by calling it a 62. I think you're right on the net grade part though. But I'm more inclined to think what has been suggested by the others is the reason why. And that rim ding, look at how there appears to be a tiny cut trailing off to the left side of the ding. Couple that with the other smaller rims marks in the same area and there's no way I'd think that to be a planchet flaw.
Is it just an incredibly smooth AU58 that was bumped to MS62 based upon the lack of field marks? The nostril, hair above the ear, haircurl behind the nape of the neck and haircurl on the shoulder nearing the clavicle not only look a bit flat, which can be due to insufficient strike, but also appear to be a different color from the fields, date and cheekbone and hairlines. Additionally, some of the tops of the leaves and bow on the reverse show a darker hue. If this coin were turned under a strong light it might be easier to determine if this is from light friction or insufficient striking pressure.
I don't think there's any answer to that. I've seen coins bagged for a rim ding like this cent has. But where the TPGs are concerned, it makes a whole lot of difference as to what the coin is. A Merc or a Roosie, they'd be bagged in a second for a ding like that. A Morgan or a double eagle, they'd probably shrug their shoulders and say no biggie. And let's face it, the TPGs don't play by the same rules with early coinage, nor with coins of any scarcity.
I for one am in total agreement with TomB's assessment of this coin. I would have written the same words explaining why this particular coin received a somewhat rather rare (ish) 62. Note: No I'm not becoming a TomB groupie, it's just that I feel he's spot on. Happy Collecting
Thanks Doug. I knew that I had seen several coins with dings similar to this one that have been bagged.
I know this will be repetitive, but what struck me right away was the apparent total lack of luster. I also quickly noted what seems to be rub at the top of the ear and some of the rear leaves? My gut was telling me a 55 despite the clean cheek and fields. However, I have much to learn in grading early copper.
I guess I think of MS62 coins as being baggy, poorly struck, or just ugly... but uncirculated. To me, this coin looks lightly handled, but practically pristine otherwise. Market grading rearing it's ugly head?
