MS-65? Really?
Outhaul
Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭✭✭
And a gold bean to boot? What say all of you?
I've seen much nicer in MS-63 holders. Reverse not quite as bad.
(Not my coin)
4
Outhaul
Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭✭✭
Outhaul
Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭✭✭
Outhaul
Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Looks like BTW got into a fight with his razor...lots of chatter...MS63 at best for me...no bean.
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
I agree. Some of the marks on Booker T. Washington’s jaw were on the planchet and not flattened when the piece was made. The other marks on the face are post mint damage, and I think that they are a bit to numerous for the grade.
I agree with you about MS-63 or 64 graded pieces. Fifteen or 20 years ago, if you looked at a lot of the common dates for the Booker T. Washington and Washington-Carver half dollars, you could find some really attractive pieces. I don’t know how it is today.
This coin REALLY deserves a...
I agree...63 based on the obverse... way too much chatter/dings on the face....focal point for the coin. Cheers, RickO
Some of the roughness on the cheek is typical for this issue due to the incomplete strike but I agree, way too many contact marks to be graded better than 63
Commems and Early Type
I think everything on the face of BTW is due to a weak strike and that the coin probably is quite clean otherwise with very good luster.
Pretty rough looking... Second coin I've seen on this board in the past few days that looks to be way over graded by PCGS and CAC.
CCGGG, that could be true. I would say, though, that there aren't really any contact marks on the obverse aside from the head. the lettering at the rim and the fields are all clean, the deepest part of the die is the central portrait which is where there are marks. with sufficient metal flow those would be gone.
Need to see in hand.
All those marks where done after he was "booked".......J/K
If I were looking for a 65 I would pass on that coin.
hosts or ats?
In hand perhaps it's super frosty and original looking and this could have bumped up the grade a bit.
I can't figure the gold bean though.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
Sure, it looks worse really large on our computer screens and I bet the coin is pretty flashy, even though it's tough to tell from the photos. Those saying MS63 tops might be a little too tough. So could it be an MS65 then... maybe, maybe not. But to say it's a lock for at least the next grade higher (66 or better) as a CAC gold sticker would suggest, I can't see it from those photos.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
I think the coin is possibly technically graded correctly, the marks are due to incomplete strike, and it's still not one I'd want to own. It's trivially easy to find a better one.
Host's
I don't have a problem with the grade. Fields are really nice. Too many only focus on a cheek. If someone sends a $50 coin to CAC, shame on you! If someone sends this coin in for grading in the first place, double shame on you!!
Buy PCGS/CAC only... Why bother with anything else?
P.S. The like is for the last two sentences.
On a serious note, this is one of what I have described in other threads as CAC errors. CAC makes errors just like the grading services. Buy the coin and not the sticker or the holder.
.
Every coin stands on it's own merit.
Crack and try again.
I wouldn't crack this one ever.
65, and a gold bean that says it's good as a 66? Don't know what I'm missing here; but that one tops out as a 63+ for me. I guess the clear fields may be the determining quality, but the whole face is seriously marked up.
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't an optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me....
Another example of how random grading(and the bean company) can be IMO
Looks terrible to me. I agree that it should not be a gem.😊
The "too many only focus on a cheek" part is spot on. Not that it's not important as of course focal areas are, but some just ignore every other part of the coin.
As for the coin in the OP like others have said it's probably technically a 65 or better as a lot of the marks are as struck but definitely not one I'd buy. I owned a 67 Morgan like that once, the cheek/chin wasn't fully struck up and she had a small beard patch that completely ruined an otherwise near flawless coin for me. It was honestly probably close to a 68+ if that area was struck up all the way but I couldn't get past it and sold it.
Where are the full images? Slab and reverse?
Start at 3:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytcLuf-hI0k
My Saint Set
Perhaps its a tester item for how many times it exchanges hands and gets sent up for that expected bumper grade?
After all, it does have that Gold bean.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
BryceM: This issue seems to be plagued by this as are quite a few higher graded IKE clads. While they may have a 'correct' technical grade, I use my own 'standards' and pass on these. It all gets back to looking at the coin, and using TPS opinion and, or CAC as tools than use the opinion which really counts-your own as the finalizer when purchasing.
Yup!
ms71: I agree the fields are immaculate, and it seems like a little extra beard is common on these, but there are just too many pockmarks that I couldn't ignore and would pass on this one even at a discount. There are a lot of these out there to choose from.
no ms 65 or bean anything there.
This. 65 grade seems OK to me - the dinner plate size of the image is likely misleading versus an in-hand inspection. Sending a $50 to $60 coin to CAC seems silly, unless the submitter really thought it was a lock 66 or better. Assuming the submitter can get 66 money for the coin, I guess it paid off.
this is a good coin and a good thread to remind members of two things:
1). we can't accurately grade from an online picture.
2). some members can't really grade as good as they think and don't understand some aspects of coin grading.
in short, many members have strong opinions and nothing can change that.
Are strike and eye appeal not components of mint state grading anymore? It doesn't have gem eye appeal or strike (if that is a striking irregularity rather than post strike hits). The services really have come to overlook strike much more than they once did. I remember when certain issues were almost nonexistent as Gem because of striking irregularities (e.g. many New Orleans better date Morgans) that kept many pieces at MS64.
Double post
This has to be better in hand.
There is more to the story here.
Lets see both sides, the holder, the whole shebang....
Chinese Bean?
Anyone who knows BTW'S knows that all those tiny marks are even on ms67's.
The razor marks look large but the fields are super clean.
I would not be surprised at the 65 level for this one. Would love to see slab photos
Well said. Today, collectors can virtually forget anything regarding a coin's strike and its grade. For example, at one time a Morgan dollar could grade no higher than MS-64 (no matter its date or mint) without full hairlines over the ear. Those days are OVER! Check out some MS-66's at the next show or online.
@cameonut2011
For the sake of argument, say it’s a 68 with poor strike, graded down to 66 as a result. Even on a good day the TPGs only attribute about 10% of the grade to strike (yet that keeps every 25-S Peace dollar out of MS66 territory).
Personally, I don’t like the coin at all, but I also believe the photo isn’t doing it any favors. I don’t really have a problem with a (presumes) luster bomb coin like this getting a 66, but I also don’t have to buy it.
.> @BryceM said:
I understand where you're coming from. It just seems unfair that coins like this will drag down the prices of other gems. It isn't like the majority or all of BTW coins come like this.
P.S. Giving a coin extra credit for being superior in one category of grading like luster or toning while ignoring others cheapens the grading scale. It isn't unlike the grade inflation practiced in public schools where students are given so much extra credit and bonus points that it obscures faults and meaningful distinctions among peers that are not similarly situated.
These always come beat up. I don't know if I've ever seen one that wasn't on the obverse? I bet it's a poor image and has more lustre than shown
I own a PL Coin that has strike issues:
Hog wash ....... I don't care what caused all of those marks on the face...they are still there! 61 at best to me.
I> @cameonut2011 said:
For a little humor, what does the BTW on label stand for? "By The Way" MS64 PL?
Leo
To add; BTW, a Bing search did turn up better struck examples.....and a few nicely toned ones.
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
The luster on that coins looks superior.
Like it or not, it's a major driver in the grading today.
The fields look impeccable as well. That's 2 big positives. Remember its a 65, not a 66 or 67. The bean is someone else opinion, not PCGS's.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
To my eyes the area around the chin looks like a striking issue. The other marks not so much. Don't know the series but I believe I know an unattractive coin when I see one. JMO but I would go for one of the many toned BTW's available (AT or not) before I bought this. Interesting how many folks rise to the defense of CAC. ("Clean fields", "must have great luster in hand", etc., etc.). Too bad the sticker was disclosed at the outset, would have made an interesting experiment. BTW I'm a CAC fan generally, but what I see I see.