It looks near gem to me, I find nothing significant to find fault with, super strike and toning; but on second analysis, the hits probably drop it down a point or so. How's the luster?
The only flaws of consequence appear to be at the upper central area of Liberty’s cheek. Unless there are hidden problems, I can’t see the coin grading less than MS64 and my guess is 64+.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
MS63 would be my guess......I do not like the tarnish....several hits on the obverse... scratches in the field on the reverse as well as a hit from another coin..... Cheers, RickO
Edited to add:
Regardless of what the assigned grade turns out to be for the coin in this thread, if you graded it 62, you're definitely being too strict and If you graded it 63, you're probably being too strict. If, for example, there's a hidden problem and you happen to have "correctly" guessed MS62, it doesn't mean that you were "right" - it only means that you got lucky.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@logger7 said:
It looks near gem to me, I find nothing significant to find fault with, super strike and toning; but on second analysis, the hits probably drop it down a point or so. How's the luster?
63 by PCGS but the tarnish is a real distraction. Personally, it bothers me to see a coin with that much tarnished get any MS grade from a top tier grading service. As I've said here many times, I'd be okay certifying/slabbing a heavily tarnished coin as "genuine" but it should also be labeled as environmentally damaged.
@MFeld said:
The only flaws of consequence appear to be at the upper central area of Liberty’s cheek. Unless there are hidden problems, I can’t see the coin grading less than MS64 and my guess is 64+.
This is the most correct response - in hand it looks 64+
The eye appeal is really nice - it's got all of it.
It graded 63
Mark , thanks for sharing the comparisons above. (62-64) to compare.
Here is the slab.
Many guessed correctly , and this was a GTG, but not that we always agree
Is that Toneddollars coin? He had a beautiful MS63 toner purchased about 10-15 years ago. Looked very similar to his one. If this were an 1881-s it would grade 64. Being a 94-s the line is tighter.
@roadrunner said:
Is that Toneddollars coin? He had a beautiful MS63 toner purchased about 10-15 years ago. Looked very similar to his one. If this were an 1881-s it would grade 64. Being a 94-s the line is tighter.
Unsure I purchase it about a year ago.
Not sure why if it is a 94-S it grades tighter than a 81-S , that logic is just not OK in my head.
The logic is that the 81-s jumps from $65 to $75 on the PCGS price guide. No one gets hurt for $10...and eye appeal can easily swing the coin from a 63+ to 64. With a price jump from $1400 to $2650 on the 94-s, that coin needs to be all there for a 64 grade. No eye appeal bumps. But any buyer of this coin in 64 grade for 64 money wants it clean and appealing. The logic is even more apparent when it comes to dates like 80-0, 81-0 when jumping from 64 to 65. Gifts are pretty scarce compared to generic common dates. Common dates are often bulk graded....resulting in many more wins to the next grade up. That is not the case these days for a 94-s.
@roadrunner said:
Is that Toneddollars coin? He had a beautiful MS63 toner purchased about 10-15 years ago. Looked very similar to his one. If this were an 1881-s it would grade 64. Being a 94-s the line is tighter.
Unsure I purchase it about a year ago.
Not sure why if it is a 94-S it grades tighter than a 81-S , that logic is just not OK in my head.
EX-ACTLY!! Thank you for saying that.
Never can/could understand the logic of grading different Dates/MM differently because of rareness factor or color/toning.
Just doesn't make sense/compute in my head.
The OP's image looks to have a long vertical scrape on the cheek that does not show well on the TrueView. I would have said 64 but after looking at your image; I agree with 63, if that is the case. it's a very nice coin, in any event. I like the toning, too.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
Comments
It looks near gem to me, I find nothing significant to find fault with, super strike and toning; but on second analysis, the hits probably drop it down a point or so. How's the luster?
MS62
Terrific coin. I don't see a numeric grade that really captures the coin for what it is. 63+ seems most probable with 64 being possible
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
64
63 maybe 64.
The only flaws of consequence appear to be at the upper central area of Liberty’s cheek. Unless there are hidden problems, I can’t see the coin grading less than MS64 and my guess is 64+.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
64 - It reminds me of an 1894-S I sold almost a decade ago (although not the same coin) that was in a 64 holder.
@MFeld beat me to it! 64+
This may be far too harsh, but 63.
MS63
Yup 63 here.
too many small hits on her jaw. Scruff in field at forehead.....might give it a plus for color.
bob
63
zoom in on the tru view and you can see all the hits and reeding marks. 63 at best. but hey, I wouldn't kick it outta bed for eatin' crackers!
I love the look of this coin. I am in the 64 camp because I feel like they are tough on these.
MS63 would be my guess......I do not like the tarnish....several hits on the obverse... scratches in the field on the reverse as well as a hit from another coin..... Cheers, RickO
Ms62
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Here is a PCGS MS62:
Here is an MS63+
Here is a 64+ CAC:
Edited to add:
Regardless of what the assigned grade turns out to be for the coin in this thread, if you graded it 62, you're definitely being too strict and If you graded it 63, you're probably being too strict. If, for example, there's a hidden problem and you happen to have "correctly" guessed MS62, it doesn't mean that you were "right" - it only means that you got lucky.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
62
Luster? It is all there and original.
63 by PCGS but the tarnish is a real distraction. Personally, it bothers me to see a coin with that much tarnished get any MS grade from a top tier grading service. As I've said here many times, I'd be okay certifying/slabbing a heavily tarnished coin as "genuine" but it should also be labeled as environmentally damaged.
MS63 here.
My YouTube Channel
Really nice for a MS63.
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...
This is the most correct response - in hand it looks 64+
The eye appeal is really nice - it's got all of it.
It graded 63
Mark , thanks for sharing the comparisons above. (62-64) to compare.
Here is the slab.
Many guessed correctly , and this was a GTG, but not that we always agree
The 'grade' is "all of the above."
Is that Toneddollars coin? He had a beautiful MS63 toner purchased about 10-15 years ago. Looked very similar to his one. If this were an 1881-s it would grade 64. Being a 94-s the line is tighter.
Looks nicer than 63
Nice coin no doubt!
My YouTube Channel
Unsure I purchase it about a year ago.
Not sure why if it is a 94-S it grades tighter than a 81-S , that logic is just not OK in my head.
The logic is that the 81-s jumps from $65 to $75 on the PCGS price guide. No one gets hurt for $10...and eye appeal can easily swing the coin from a 63+ to 64. With a price jump from $1400 to $2650 on the 94-s, that coin needs to be all there for a 64 grade. No eye appeal bumps. But any buyer of this coin in 64 grade for 64 money wants it clean and appealing. The logic is even more apparent when it comes to dates like 80-0, 81-0 when jumping from 64 to 65. Gifts are pretty scarce compared to generic common dates. Common dates are often bulk graded....resulting in many more wins to the next grade up. That is not the case these days for a 94-s.
Looks about 63/63+. Damn shame it didn't get a dip prior to being slabbed. Congrats!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Late to the party.
Would have said...
MIN 63
Probably 63+
Shot 64
Nice Coin overall though..
EX-ACTLY!! Thank you for saying that.
Never can/could understand the logic of grading different Dates/MM differently because of rareness factor or color/toning.
Just doesn't make sense/compute in my head.
Grade all coins equally...
Period.
Boom.
The OP's image looks to have a long vertical scrape on the cheek that does not show well on the TrueView. I would have said 64 but after looking at your image; I agree with 63, if that is the case. it's a very nice coin, in any event. I like the toning, too.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
MS-63
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"