Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Lehigh96, post: 1744283, member: 15309&quot;]I have often been a strong believer that marks in that marks in the prime focal area of a coin are essentially grade limiting marks.&nbsp; After all, how many times have we seen a gem coin with one distraction that prevents the coin from achieving gem status.&nbsp; Here is a good example of what I am talking about.&nbsp; This 1880-S Morgan Dollar was graded MS64* by NGC because of the significant mark found on lady Liberty&#039;s cheek.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Morgan%20Dollars/MorganDollar1880-SNGCMS64Star155-6.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>If we remove this mark from the coin, the effect is pronounced and there is very little doubt that the coin is an MS65.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Morgan%20Dollars/MorganDollar1880-SNGCMS64Star155-7.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Even PCGS supports this grading practice as evidenced by this quote from <i>THE PCGS OFFICIAL GUIDE TO GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION</i> (pg 5).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>This leads me to my question.&nbsp; Should a single significant mark in a prime focal area prevent a gem grade from a TPG?&nbsp; Even if the other elements of the grade from a holistic approach would normally merit a gem or even premium gem grade, should the grade be limited by the mark?&nbsp; For the purposes of this discussion, a significant mark is one that can&#039;t go unnoticed even upon casual inspection of the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is an example of the kind of coin I am talking about <i>(photos courtesy of Heritage Auctions)</i>.&nbsp; This is a 1964 Jefferson Nickel with a major mark right on Jefferson&#039;s jaw line.&nbsp; The 1964 was an issue that was produced over 1 billion nickels.&nbsp; Quantity not quality was the goal of the mint that year and the majority of the coins bear marks and poor overall strikes.&nbsp; This example has an unusually strong strike and in fact bears full steps.&nbsp; The surfaces are those of a gem state coin with the exception of the mark on the face.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Full%20Steps/JeffersonNickel1964PCGSMS65Seller.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Without the mark, this coin would have a shot at MS66 even though the two significant marks in the reverse fields could hold the coin at MS65.&nbsp; The overall appearance of the coin is impressive for a 1964 Jefferson Nickel.&nbsp; Without the mark, the coin has the appearance of a premium gem as seen from the healed photo below.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Full%20Steps/JeffersonNickel1964PCGSMS65Healed.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Now we know that the TPG&#039;s employ a system of market grading coins.&nbsp; We have all seen how rainbow toning in combination with luster can create eye appeal that will cause a coin to receive a grade bump due to the resultant eye appeal.&nbsp; It appears obvious that PCGS has also market graded this Jefferson due to the otherwise excellent surfaces and the superior strike for the date/mm.&nbsp; What I want to know is should they have?&nbsp; Does market grading coins like this one hurt the integrity of the gem grade?</p><p><br /></p><p>Please vote in the attached poll and share your comments regarding this topic![/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