Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Small Size, post: 2618416, member: 77924"]Never been a fan of paying the difference between an MS-64 and an MS-65. First, I can't really tell the difference, although I can on a particular coin if an "expert" shows me. Usually it's something like "The 64 has a tiny little blemish near the center of the obverse, while 65 has a tiny little blemish on the obverse too, but it's up near the edge, nearly lost among denticles. Yeah, that explains the 50% higher price.I consider a coin that served the function, and shows it, to be in someways more authentic that one which was always locked away someplace. Sure an 1809 half dollar graded MS-63 that looks like it was just struck is impressive and beautiful. But it was never a half dollar, really. Not in a "I work for a living" kind of way. The same date in XF-45, with a little bit of dark toning highlighting the design elements, did its job for a little while, and is just as beautiful for having done so.My favorite grades are in the AU category. I've seen many AU-58 coins that visually beat the pants off a baggy, MS-60 or 61 with ugly toning, despite it being supposedly of higher quality.An AU-58 with few blemishes, lightly toned in a way that highlights its features, or for 20% more, a dead-looking MS-60 that looks like it came from a bag a giant used as a hacky sack. I'll take the "lesser" coin, please.[/QUOTE]