Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;CircCam, post: 3681744, member: 85675&quot;]Correct, that was posted before the NGC grade came back but the OP coin was way better than the other 64PL I posted. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I graded it 65PL before it got sent out.&nbsp; It’s what I call a chameleon coin though- in some lighting it definitely looks 66PL, in others not so much and the imperfections appear more prominent.&nbsp; It’s a solid PL (moreso than the other I posted for sure) but not DMPL.&nbsp; In my experience DMPL coins have a liquid quality in the fields that is hard to explain but I know it when I see it, and this one isn’t quite there.</p><p><br /></p><p>You could call this particular coin TPG inconsistency, but IMO it’s equally an example of the fact that grading coins is complex right down to what lighting the coins are being viewed under in the grading room having an effect on how the grade is perceived. </p><p><br /></p><p>How PCGS missed calling this one PL is another story though and I have to think that one was just human error. The whole grade could have been a mechanical error for all I know. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]988050[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>I know in my field I always say that anyone who says human errors don’t regularly occur is lying to save face.&nbsp; Just google Medical Error statistics in the US for some scary data on that one.[/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