The Official CoinTalk Grading Experiment 8

This is where I differ in why I say 65. The marks are sufficiently hidden and the fields are very clean. The luster just doesn't seem frosty enough for a higher grade. Take a look at some white 66s (most are toned) and they have more "punch", even in the assembly line photos, than this one. This 77-S in 66 (no CAC sticker) actually has more contact marks than the subject coin, but makes the 75 look "tired" in comparison, despite having fewer marks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think we have to agree to disagree until you can put the OP coin in front of me. Having not bought an MS66 coin from Heritage, I'm kind of flying blind when it comes to luster, but I still think it's good enough for a 66.

 

I thought 64 actually. I saw a few marks but I can be rather conservative and didn’t see great luster or pop on this coin. Cool die clash though

 

Enough so-called 'hidden' marks together amount to enough to bring the grade down. They're called "hidden" because the average untrained eye doesn't see them. To the trained eye, they are definitely not hidden.

I would argue that anything in her gown is a "secondary" focal area, and should count for more than marks on the rim, or something like that.

The "spots" I reference are particularly on the reverse, between the left eagle's wing and its body. These spots are unattractive, and a clear evidence of the dip this poor coin received. The negative eye appeal from the dip, and the impact of the luster on this coin, are in itself enough to limit it to 65.

These are subtle points. Nobody will argue that. Plenty will argue the outcome, and as I said, I wouldn't be surprised to see this in a 66 slab. But I like it best at 65.