One of my Christmas presents arrived today, and I'm quite happy with the coin. This is a Rial, minted in AH1321 (1903 AD). The coin is a large piece of silver, about the same size as a Morgan dollar. However, I'm trying to figure out if I agree with the grade on the holder. So, I'll put it to you, forumites. Guess the grade on the holder!
I know nothing about these coins but it does not appear to show any wear. But it does seem to have a lot of scratches and marks so I don't see it being higher than 63, 64 at a stretch.
MS 66 Another beautiful addition! I would guess most of what people are seeing as scratches are die polish lines. I do see hits on the first photo, inside the lower three "triangles" of the star. That would make me think it is not a 67, but I do think it's better than a 64/65.
It looks like it's got awesome luster, but a few too many hits to go gem (I'm mostly looking inside the triangle areas on the stars). I'd be leaning towards a REALLY nice 63.
Good guesses everyone! NGC called this a 64. The only reason I can think is because of the minor tickmarks inside the angles of the obverse star. The luster is incredible. Eye appeal here is natural, original, and attractive. I'm trying to figure out why they didn't give this a 65.
Its the slight marks on obverse which were the only reason I held back with the 65. Regardless, pretty coin!
Yeah, I get that. The problem is, I see things like the BTW in this thread get a 66. It makes me question how reliable these TPG's really are: https://www.cointalk.com/threads/added-another-coin-to-my-us-early-commemorative-set.307876/
That’s a beauty. I was at 65 before I saw the grade, and I’m still there now. 64 seems a little tough in it considering the huge luster.
I might have been a little high with MS 66, but I do think 64 is a bit harsh. MS 65 would be the ideal grade on this. In terms of the Booker, I do think that the Graders sometimes just have a really bad or really good day. Plus it benefits the TPGs to encourage resubmissions as it keeps them in business.
That BTW must be a 'mechanical error'...or someone had a migraine in the grading room. I also graded as 'what I thought NGC would say' which is why I went 63. I thought they would be harsh on the ticks. Going by how a few of my crossover experiments have gone I have been under the impression that NGC gives less of a bump for eye appeal and more credence to the hits. My crossover attempt numbers are not high and I realize it's not enough to generalize, but I've had multiple high eye appeal PCGS coins drop a grade at NGC based on what I consider a more 'technical' approach to the ticks/marks. OTH some have upgraded, one in particular I'm sure PCGS downed to 58 due to adjustment marks/weaker strike on a late 1700s coin (not as eye appealing) but NGC put up to 62. Of course, most stay the same...but the overall balance is losing a grade going PCGS to NGC. So my gut is PCGS takes eye appeal into more consideration and NGC is a bit more technical, at least on my darkside/world coins. NO IDEA on how they do on US material.
Interesting. I actually guessed a 64 before I saw your post. It should be higher but since I saw it was NGC I went under.. LOL if that was a Morgan Dollar it would be MS68!
