Home World & Ancient Coins Forum

Grades Posted, guess the grade result of this crossover

Grades posting now at PCGS. All were attempted to cross at grade. Which crossed and which didn't? Did any upgrade? Guess the results!

1760-G P Ferdinand 8 Reales - Was N61

1763-G P 8 Reales - Was N58

1764-G P 8 Reales - Was N63

1769-G P 8 Reales - Was N50

Comments

  • bidaskbidask Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭✭

    62
    58
    63
    55

    I manage money. I earn money. I save money .
    I give away money. I collect money.
    I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.




  • TwoKopeikiTwoKopeiki Posts: 9,528 ✭✭✭✭✭

    PCGS has been strict with crossovers lately and that line-up is tough since luster is treated differently between NGC and PCGS with the latter putting a lot more importance on it. And you can't really tell luster from those images.

    I'd guess 1764 crossed. If luster is all there on the 63 and 69 - they probably did, as well, DNC on 60.

    Just a wag.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,719 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Nice coins

    1760 upgraded to 62
    1763 crossed
    1764 crossed
    1769 did not cross

    I would obviously rather see in hand because surfaces are critical in my analysis. Grading from an image may not capture the strengths/weaknesses. The 1769 is weakly struck but the image does not help the cause based on the obverse image. It might just be the way it looks on screen.

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • AbueloAbuelo Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Crossed at grade...

  • EuclidEuclid Posts: 98 ✭✭✭

    Going out on a limb I would also guess that the first coin upgraded and the last one did not cross. The middle two are hard for me to evaluate from the pics.

  • BoosibriBoosibri Posts: 11,839 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 17, 2020 5:29AM

    @Abuelo nailed it. All crossed at grade. This was my bet with a small hope the 1760 would upgrade and a small risk the 1769 wouldn’t cross for all of the reasons noted.

    Good submission! 4/4 on this one and 7/7 this month

  • WCCWCC Posts: 2,349 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Even if all hadn't crossed, still very nice. From the images, the 1760 looks nicer than the higher grade 1764 due to the luster. Die polishing lines?

  • BoosibriBoosibri Posts: 11,839 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 17, 2020 5:30AM

    @MrEureka said:
    Obviously, PCGS knows a sexy group of coins when they see it!

    They apparently refused to put the ex. Lustig pedigree on the holder. Perhaps after you swap all of your CAR pieces to PCGS I can have them relabeled as well.

    In all seriousness, they did add ex. Calberto as requested to the 1764, they did not include ex. Patterson or Stuart to the pedigree line in the certification database but may have put it on the label still as requested, similar to what they did with the 1765. Prior to submitting I worked through customer service to pre-validate that they would add all of those pedigree's so we will see if they came through for all.

  • BoosibriBoosibri Posts: 11,839 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 17, 2020 5:28AM

    @WCC said:
    Even if all hadn't crossed, still very nice. From the images, the 1760 looks nicer than the higher grade 1764 due to the luster. Die polishing lines?

    I think the 1760 is a future upgrade candidate and yes those are die polishing lines. The luster is very pronounced on the 1764, more so than the 1760. The key difference is the 1760 is photographed raw by NGC and featured in their image for the price guide and the 1764 is my shot through plastic.

  • coinkatcoinkat Posts: 22,719 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Good to read that others feel the 1760 is a possible upgrade. That coin has such a bold strike with terrific detail and I never had a doubt that what was present were die polish lines. My bigger concern was about appears to be a dark appearance which might easily be the image and how it looks on the monitor.

    At the moment, it sounds as if you are satisfied with the end result pending provenance

    Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.

  • BoosibriBoosibri Posts: 11,839 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coinkat said:
    Good to read that others feel the 1760 is a possible upgrade. That coin has such a bold strike with terrific detail and I never had a doubt that what was present were die polish lines. My bigger concern was about appears to be a dark appearance which might easily be the image and how it looks on the monitor.

    At the moment, it sounds as if you are satisfied with the end result pending provenance

    Very satisfied. The 1760 is quite bright. I will post a trueview as soon as it loads.

  • WCCWCC Posts: 2,349 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @coinkat said:
    Good to read that others feel the 1760 is a possible upgrade. That coin has such a bold strike with terrific detail and I never had a doubt that what was present were die polish lines. My bigger concern was about appears to be a dark appearance which might easily be the image and how it looks on the monitor.

    At the moment, it sounds as if you are satisfied with the end result pending provenance

    Yes, it's a coin that appears to be (close to) fully detailed which a lot of "fully struck" coins lack. This is most noticeable on the globes where there are many different variations.

Sign In or Register to comment.