Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;John Anthony, post: 1918320, member: 42773&quot;]Now let me post another coin graded 66. I chose this coin because you really have to look past the toning to see the hits. The obverse is much cleaner than the obverse of the coin graded 65. It appears there are some small hits on the cheek, but maybe that&#039;s a part of the toning - you would have to examine the coin in hand to say for sure. There are a couple of minor rim dings at 3 o&#039;clock, but other than that the coin is remarkably clean. I don&#039;t see any chatter at the base of the neck at all...</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]329303[/ATTACH]</p><p>But this upper point echelon becomes very subjective in my opinion. Take the reverse of this coin, for instance. There&#039;s a large hit in the right field, above the arrows - more of a gouge than a hit really. Plus, although the coin is fully struck-up, the shield, tail feathers, and field below the tail have significant chatter. Frankly, if you&#039;re talking only about contact marks, the reverse of the coin graded 65 is much cleaner than this one.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]329304[/ATTACH]</p><p>So why should this coin grade 66 and the OP coin not? Perhaps the grader of this coin liked what appears to be the blazing blast-white luster of the reverse, and felt that it outweighed the contact marks, which are not anywhere near as numerous on the OP coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>I agree with Morgandude that regardless of the number grade, a serious collector would pay more than 66 money for the OP coin. It&#039;s a gorgeous example of its type. With all due respect to other posters, it doesn&#039;t do to simply say &quot;...too many hits, 63.&quot; The question is, too many hits compared to what? Compared to a modern proof, yes, absolutely. Compared to other circulating business strike 1964 half dollars, not so much.</p><p><br /></p><p>I take issue often with PCGS grades, but I stand by my original assessment that Osmanli&#039;s coin is correctly graded, at least by the grading standards PCGS claims. In fact, I think they got it <u>more </u>right on the OP coin than the one in this reply.</p><p><br /></p><p>Btw, here are the full images of the last coin...</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]329305[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]329306[/ATTACH][/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