Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;bigjpst, post: 1314327, member: 21015&quot;]I was looking through upcoming auctions and came across this coin</p><p><a href="http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=3183&amp;lot=1655&amp;imagetype=j2" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="http://www.teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=3183&amp;lot=1655&amp;imagetype=j2" rel="nofollow">1883 O ICG MS 65 Morgan</a></p><p>So somewhere near the beginning of the ANA grading standards Ms65 is described as &quot;An attractive high quality of luster and strike for the date and mint. May have small or scattered contact marks, or 2 larger marks. One or two small patches of hairlines. Noticeable light scuff marks on the high points of the design, and here&#039;s the important part. <u><b>Overall quality is above average and eye appeal is very pleasing</b></u></p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;I don&#039;t want to rag on ICG, because I have seen some pretty ugly coins graded as 65 or above by all of the major TPG&#039;s (Actually have a few that I can&#039;t seem to get rid of.)And I really like toned coins, but in my opinion a coin this ugly should never really see a Gem grade. I would think that no matter how nice a coin is and how talented a grader is, how do you call this coin a 65. Thoughts? Or if you have some dark nasty toned coins that made a gem grade feel free to post pics.[/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