Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jaelus, post: 3881338, member: 46237&quot;]One aspect of how the TPGs grade that I don&#039;t particularly agree with is the grading of prooflike surfaces that are too impaired to get the PL designation. I typically consider prooflikes to have the eye appeal of a matte coin several points higher, so I find the grading to usually be too severe for the appearance.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s my example of the Austro-Hungarian 1848E ducat. Though it did not get the PL designation, the surfaces are fully mirrored. As such, the surfaces show light marks much more than on a matte coin. It is graded NGC MS60 (formerly PCGS MS61), however, this is a coin that takes my breath away on its eye appeal. In hand, the coin appears well struck, the fields are fully mirrored with heavily frosted devices, and the cloudiness is not distracting.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1025220[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1025217[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>This next example is not my coin, but one that I noticed came up on Heritage earlier this year. It is the same as the above issue, but was graded MS64.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1025218[/ATTACH]</p><p>[ATTACH=full]1025219[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>For an alternate view:</p><p><a href="https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4492501-012/64/" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4492501-012/64/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/4492501-012/64/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>Now the 64 is a nice example, but to me, the hits in the obverse fields and the overall bagginess of the bust and weaker strike make the eye appeal <i>worse</i> than my MS60 example, and because of that I passed on this 4 point upgrade.[/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