New 8 Reales - TrueViews - Guess the Grades

Senator32

Fresh in from @PCGSPhoto here are a few lovely Mo Mint portrait 8 Reales. Curious to see what you all think they graded...no coinfacts cheating

coinkat

I like them in the order they appear starting from top to bottom. The top one looks to have very attractive fields. While appears to be friction at the high points, I still think it has the best shot at MS for the group. If this one looks as good in hand as in the image, it could go 63.

I like the second one too but the fields are just not as good as the first. I think 61-62 seems fair

The last looks like it misses MS and I would be 58 on as a grade.

Wonderful group... Now you can tell me I got them all wrong...LOL

Boosibri

62, 62, 61

The strikes are weak on the first and second coin. The first looks more like a touch of rub on the cheek and bust where on the second the coloration is lighter as suggest more of just striking weakness. Both seems to have nice luster. Could plus.

The third looks like again decent luster but some business in the fields which may hold the grade back.

Edited to change my grade on the 1788 to a 61.

Abuelo

Nice coins.

ksammut

Beautiful coins! I won't even try to guess haha - I know I'd get them wrong

bidask

63, 62, 61

Senator32

@bidask those were my expectations but @Boosibri guessed the correct PCGS grades. I still think that 1819 is better...luster for days

TwoKopeiki

You know how i feel about these. You can talk about softness all you want, but that '19 is a 63 all day long by PCGS standard.

Here are some other PCGS 63's in the series:

Last one is a 64.

Did you notice anything out of place in that list?

Tunis

All are beautiful!

coinkat

Just some quick thoughts... The 1819 in my view looks to be a grade higher than the 1817 based on the images. Perhaps in hand they are much closer in terms of appearance and distinguishing them might be more difficult.

As for the 1788... My issue was not with the chatter in the right side of the fields but with what looks to be hairlines on the viewer's left side that seem to impact the field. Perhaps they are all raised lines and are die polish lines. Some look to be raised... I did not think they all were so 58 seemed reasonable. It is a terrific coin in looking at the portrait.

Senator32

@coinkat said:

Yeah, in hand the 1819 is leaps above the 1817 in terms of luster, strike and original mint frost. At the end of the day, I am not too concerned as it is going into my set....but someday may see if they want to take another look at it.

I don't disagree on the 1788...could have gone either way, but the MS63ish pillar side helps push it into 61 imo (from a market grading perspective I could even see 62...classic slider).

Boosibri

Im in the minority but i like the 1817 better.

Senator32

@Boosibri don't get me wrong...I like it too ....that is a HARD date to find in true UNC and I am happy with the 62 top pop.

realeswatcher

@Boosibri said:
Im in the minority but i like the 1817 better.

It depends on amount of friction on the cheek of the 1819 in hand, I think. The reverse strike is pretty soft on the 1817.

---

Senator32, on the 1788: in hand, if you ONLY looked at the obverse... ignoring the wipemarks in the left field (which really should not impact technical grade TIER - aka, AU detail vs. UNC detail), would you call it uncirculated or strong AU?

Nice group overall.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

U1chicago

@Boosibri said:
Im in the minority but i like the 1817 better.

I'll join you in that group as that was my favorite of the three as well.