I liked my last trip to the dentist more than that coin. I'm still thinking it might look better based on the photos, but not enough to make me want to buy it.
In the ANA Fundamentals of Grading class, Bill Fivaz has taught that there are 4 variables that determine a market grade on a coin.
1. Luster
2. Strength of strike
3. Detractors (scratches or hits, how severe and location)
4. Eye appeal
He then goes on to say 1+2+3=4
If we used this equation with this particular coin, I don't see it as being a weak strike and it looks remarkably free of detractors (although admittedly, they could be hidden under the darkness). The issue here is luster. Not a coin I particularly care for but I believe an accurate grade would be a 64. To me, once you get to a 65 on a coin, it has to have something extraordinary going for it and I just can't get there. Remember though that grading is subjective, hence the fun.
@Dreamcrusher said:
In the ANA Fundamentals of Grading class, Bill Fivaz has taught that there are 4 variables that determine a market grade on a coin.
1. Luster
2. Strength of strike
3. Detractors (scratches or hits, how severe and location)
4. Eye appeal
He then goes on to say 1+2+3=4
If we used this equation with this particular coin, I don't see it as being a weak strike and it looks remarkably free of detractors (although admittedly, they could be hidden under the darkness). The issue here is luster. Not a coin I particularly care for but I believe an accurate grade would be a 64. To me, once you get to a 65 on a coin, it has to have something extraordinary going for it and I just can't get there. Remember though that grading is subjective, hence the fun.
Luster isn't the only issue with the coin. It has highly negative eye-appeal, as well.
And there are countless coins graded 65 and higher, which don't have "something extraordinary" going for them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Dreamcrusher said:
In the ANA Fundamentals of Grading class, Bill Fivaz has taught that there are 4 variables that determine a market grade on a coin.
1. Luster
2. Strength of strike
3. Detractors (scratches or hits, how severe and location)
4. Eye appeal
He then goes on to say 1+2+3=4
If we used this equation with this particular coin, I don't see it as being a weak strike and it looks remarkably free of detractors (although admittedly, they could be hidden under the darkness). The issue here is luster. Not a coin I particularly care for but I believe an accurate grade would be a 64. To me, once you get to a 65 on a coin, it has to have something extraordinary going for it and I just can't get there. Remember though that grading is subjective, hence the fun.
Luster isn't the only issue with the coin. It has highly negative eye-appeal, as well.
And there are countless coins graded 65 and higher, which don't have "something extraordinary" going for them.
Notice I said "To me, once you get to a 65 on a coin . . ." Just because a coin is graded 65 doesn't make it so. If you purchased a bag of 100 of any type coin that were Mint State, most would be considered 63. We teach that 63 is the average Mint State therefore a 65 is better than average by two whole grades. I have no window into your 65 coins so I have no idea what they look like. I hope they are spectacular. I know mine are.
I can't imagine liking that coin, even if that is the worst possible picture that could be taken of it. Of the 75,000 or so 81-S Morgans PCGS has graded 65 and higher, there are probably 75,000 or so nicer than this one.
@Eldorado9 said:
The strike is so weak, it boggles the mind how PCGS could grade it 65? Here is a well struck 81-s
It’s possible that the coin is better struck than it appears - some of the details might be masked by the toning (and if applicable, whatever else has accumulated on the surfaces).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Comments
N.B. I was speaking hypothetically.
No its fugly
Perhaps it would grade higher but the fugliness knocked it down to 65? In any case, I would never buy it under any circumstance.
I liked my last trip to the dentist more than that coin. I'm still thinking it might look better based on the photos, but not enough to make me want to buy it.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
In the ANA Fundamentals of Grading class, Bill Fivaz has taught that there are 4 variables that determine a market grade on a coin.
1. Luster
2. Strength of strike
3. Detractors (scratches or hits, how severe and location)
4. Eye appeal
He then goes on to say 1+2+3=4
If we used this equation with this particular coin, I don't see it as being a weak strike and it looks remarkably free of detractors (although admittedly, they could be hidden under the darkness). The issue here is luster. Not a coin I particularly care for but I believe an accurate grade would be a 64. To me, once you get to a 65 on a coin, it has to have something extraordinary going for it and I just can't get there. Remember though that grading is subjective, hence the fun.
Luster isn't the only issue with the coin. It has highly negative eye-appeal, as well.
And there are countless coins graded 65 and higher, which don't have "something extraordinary" going for them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Notice I said "To me, once you get to a 65 on a coin . . ." Just because a coin is graded 65 doesn't make it so. If you purchased a bag of 100 of any type coin that were Mint State, most would be considered 63. We teach that 63 is the average Mint State therefore a 65 is better than average by two whole grades. I have no window into your 65 coins so I have no idea what they look like. I hope they are spectacular. I know mine are.
I can't imagine liking that coin, even if that is the worst possible picture that could be taken of it. Of the 75,000 or so 81-S Morgans PCGS has graded 65 and higher, there are probably 75,000 or so nicer than this one.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
The strike is so weak, it boggles the mind how PCGS could grade it 65? Here is a well struck 81-s
.
It’s possible that the coin is better struck than it appears - some of the details might be masked by the toning (and if applicable, whatever else has accumulated on the surfaces).
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.