I had a high grade toned Walker short set with 68's and lots of 67/67+'s and I've looked at what seemed like a 100,000 coins over a 10 year period. I found the 46-P the most elusive in high grade in the short set with eye appeal and or color. I was never fully satisfied with mine. If you look at enough Walker you can tell a 68 from a 67 usually in an instant. 68's have the look
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Also consider that eye appeal and "market grading" are starting to influence the numerical grades more than ever. Coins are no longer graded just on technical merit. A small hit or luster break is easily forgiven then the coin has overall mind-blowing eye appeal.
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
We can agree to disagree. But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions. So, respectfully, I still think you should consider why that coin is a 68 and how that might improve your understanding of what constitutes a 68 in the marketplace.
Again you’re missing the point. I’m talking about the coin AS PHOTOGRAPHED. That image has flaws that prevent it from being classified as MS-68. If those flaws are actually on the coin I don’t care what PCGS or CAC called it doesn’t meet the standards of an MS-68 coin. If you don’t agree and the buyer doesn’t agree that’s your prerogative. Either those flaws are on the coin (as soon in the photographs) or they’re not. I can read the standards for a 68 coin. It doesn’t matter what other coins were graded 68 prior that had similar flaws. Either the coin meets the standards or it doesn’t. Referring to the pictures. Do you see the contact make in the sun? Do you see the spots around the word “IN”? Do you see the milky haze around the coin? Do you see the darkened surface on the reverse of the coin? Either these things don’t exist on the actual coin OR by definition, the definition of a 68 coin, you have to ignore some of them to give this a coin a 68 grade.
Rant over.
I'm not missing anything. Yes you're talking about the picture.
But here's the thing: if what you see actually is in the coin, it is still a 68. The two most respected voices are that it is a68 and per CAC a solid 68.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Thanks for clarifying, again.
ad nau·se·am
/ad ˈnôzēəm/
adverb
referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.
@CoinscratchFever said:
Last time I checked MS70 was perfect and NOT MS68. If that coin was graded 67 you'd be hearing a different kind of rant.
Eye appeal is a major part of the grade and this one is the definition.
MS-68 is not perfect but those imperfections are spelled out in the grading standards. The spots and contact marks are in prime focal areas. The darkened areas on the reverse wing are in a prime focal area. The hazy on the coin detracts from the original mint luster.
A 70 would have no contact marks seen under magnification (I think 10x might be the max). Full original mint luster. The standards for a 68 are lower and the discussion has been does this coin even meet those standards. The photograph would say not. My sentiment is either those photographs are not a true representation of the coin and the flaws seen in them or PCGS and CAC got it wrong. Either the photographs are showing things that are not on the actual coin or PCGS and CAC over graded this coin.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
It's possible the coin doesn't line up with NGC specifications, either. But seeing as how it was graded by PCGS, it's PCGS's specifications that you need to be looking at.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
We can agree to disagree. But, again, the coin is a 68 based on all evidence and two respected opinions. So, respectfully, I still think you should consider why that coin is a 68 and how that might improve your understanding of what constitutes a 68 in the marketplace.
Again you’re missing the point. I’m talking about the coin AS PHOTOGRAPHED. That image has flaws that prevent it from being classified as MS-68. If those flaws are actually on the coin I don’t care what PCGS or CAC called it doesn’t meet the standards of an MS-68 coin. If you don’t agree and the buyer doesn’t agree that’s your prerogative. Either those flaws are on the coin (as soon in the photographs) or they’re not. I can read the standards for a 68 coin. It doesn’t matter what other coins were graded 68 prior that had similar flaws. Either the coin meets the standards or it doesn’t. Referring to the pictures. Do you see the contact make in the sun? Do you see the spots around the word “IN”? Do you see the milky haze around the coin? Do you see the darkened surface on the reverse of the coin? Either these things don’t exist on the actual coin OR by definition, the definition of a 68 coin, you have to ignore some of them to give this a coin a 68 grade.
Rant over.
I'm not missing anything. Yes you're talking about the picture.
But here's the thing: if what you see actually is in the coin, it is still a 68. The two most respected voices are that it is a68 and per CAC a solid 68.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Ian Russell saw it and commented earlier in the thread and also agreed.
ANA specifications are less important than PCGS specifications in the marketplace.
@Elcontador said:
The above coin appears to have used a totally different set of camera equipment, lighting, and probably meta-data, filters, and other items, than the 1946 coin under discussion.
I'm sure. [Not so sure about the meta-data????] The OP is a GC image, the 1939 coin is a PCGS image.
Meta data relates to the specs of a particular photo. Shutter speed, aperture (f stop used), ISO (light sensitivity), lense opening (ie., 28 mm, 105 mm). It's camera geek speak so if you're not into it, don't feel slighted.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
@Elcontador said:
The above coin appears to have used a totally different set of camera equipment, lighting, and probably meta-data, filters, and other items, than the 1946 coin under discussion.
I'm sure. [Not so sure about the meta-data????] The OP is a GC image, the 1939 coin is a PCGS image.
Meta data relates to the specs of a particular photo. Shutter speed, aperture (f stop used), ISO (light sensitivity), lense opening (ie., 28 mm, 105 mm). It's camera geek speak so if you're not into it, don't feel slighted.
Actually that's a specific example of camera settings. Metadata is a more general term which means something different which is why I was confused as to which data you were referring.
@Baley said:
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
@Baley said:
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
Go find another, cheaper. Lol
Multiple bidders. Open auction. It is the correct market price.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
True. Just as true is just because someone thinks a coin is over graded doesn’t mean they don’t like the coin.
What I’ve tried to do is point out technological aspects seen in the photographs that in my opinion would prevent the coin from getting the 68 grade. The contact mark in the sun, the spots around the word “IN”, the milky appears of some of the toning and the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse disqualify the coin from receiving that grade.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
One of a number of things I’ve preached more than a few times😉 - Just because, for whatever reason, someone doesn’t like a particular coin, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s over-graded.
True. Just as true is just because someone thinks a coin is over graded doesn’t mean they don’t like the coin.
What I’ve tried to do is point out technological aspects seen in the photographs that in my opinion would prevent the coin from getting the 68 grade. The contact mark in the sun, the spots around the word “IN”, the milky appears of some of the toning and the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse disqualify the coin from receiving that grade.
The mistake you are making with the sun contact mark, is coin photography often picks up a very tiny mark and make it seem a lot worse than when viewed in hand. I own a beautiful ms 65 walker with a minimal tiny cut on libertys arm when viewed in hand, but when I photographed it with my camera it looks like a gouge that is unattractive!. But in reality it is close to a 66 or maybe it’s undergraded.
Now that I’ve read the entire thread it’s nice to know I am in agreement with the higher ups.
The whole you can’t grade a coin based on a pic applies more to the hidden negatives, hairlines etc. and not as much the positives.
When I first looked at the pic I did not look straight to the sun or anywhere else. Instead my eyes just glazed up and the first things I noticed was the darker colors of the luster shadows indicating deep luster, the exceptional toning natural and balanced. And then the way the light reflects off the higher and glassy looking points especially on the reverse.
I honestly didn’t see anything else until I went back and read the thread.
All that being said, if I had the means I would’ve nuked this one.
@Justacommeman said:
I had a high grade toned Walker short set with 68's and lots of 67/67+'s and I've looked at what seemed like a 100,000 coins over a 10 year period. I found the 46-P the most elusive in high grade in the short set with eye appeal and or color. I was never fully satisfied with mine. If you look at enough Walker you can tell a 68 from a 67 usually in an instant. 68's have the look
m
It is commendable that you have the expertise to know in an instant the difference from a 67 to a 68 walker. As well as do the experts of PCGS and CAC. Most collectors even seasoned ones I am pretty sure mostly cannot, and don’t value the distinction the same as you do. What are the real parameters to decide between an amazing 67 or 68. Do you need a microscope or 30x power magnifying glass to tell. Does super amazing look with very tiny distracting marks make it or very amazing with almost no contact marks make the grade? In my personal opinion the price paid for such a very minuscule distinction is hard to justify. 10-50x more for a 68 over a 67 doesn’t present real value for me. But to each his own. I respect that people with huge money can make their own decisions on how to spend it.
@braddick said:
Ah, I felt scared!
More times than not, I'm ready to write an opinion, whereas I see you have voiced it for me.
Well, for the love of all that is Holy, lend some support! I'm getting killed in here.
True, mostly relevant story:
I've wanted a nice Fugio cent for quite a while. I'm also...er...frugal. And somewhat fussy. So many Fugios have planchet defects and the like. It seems like every time I find one with a nice planchet it is worn down or weakly struck and every time I find a nicely struck one it has a distracting planchet flaw. As a result, I have been unable to pull the trigger on one even though I've looked at maybe a couple hundred over the last two years. None of them seemed worth the expense TO ME. All of them sold for fair market value in open auctions. I would not quibble with the price that any of them achieved. But none of them were the right coin for me.
I think that's the issue here. People don't like the "milky toning" or the "dark spots" or some minor flaw. But rather than just say, nice coin but not for me, they are trying to prove the coin somehow unworthy.
Actually I think that’s one of the purpose of these thread, discussing why or why not is worthy of a grade. I don’t think the purpose is supposed to be a fanboy pile on but an objective discussion of grading. None of the criticism is personal. It’s technical aspects of what are perceived flaws that would prohibit a coin from receiving a particular grade.
Well, if you want that to be a valuable exercise, you would be better served trying to see why that coin is a 68. Quite frankly, The Market is PCGS/CAC not any individual on this forum. Applying your own standard does nothing to advance your understanding of the slabbed coin market.
For the record, here's the PCGS photograde plate coins for MS68
Straw man argument. I never claimed my opinion made the market. My opinion is based on my knowledge of grading standards. If the grading stands say “no contact marks” in a prime focal area it means no contact marks. The spots around the word “IN” are in a prime focal area. Beyond that you have the milky toning and dark areas on the left wing. These issues aren’t my subjective opinion. They are shown in the photographs of the coin. You don’t minimize them by trying to ridicule me. As for who pays what for a coin that’s a total different conversation.
When did I ever "ridicule" you. I simply feel you are starting with the wrong bias. You feel you should be trying to figure out why the CAC 68 isn't really a 68. I simply said (and repeat) that the exercise should be to figure out why two very respected independent evaluators both feel it is a solid 68.
Is there the occasional miss? Sure. But the number of PCGS/CAC coins that are in the wrong holder is a tiny percentage of the number that are in the right holder. Everyone who has seen the coin in hand is convinced that it is a 68. You have to dismiss all those opinions in favor of one picture which may not be representative.
I’m not trying to figure out anything. I’m stating what I see in the PHOTOGRAPHS of the coins and comparing that to MY UNDERSTANDING of what constitutes an MS-68 coin. My understanding of the grading indicates no contact marks in a prime focal area. I’d extend that to any distracting mark (spots would qualify) in a prime focal area. The darkened areas on the reverse would qualify. By definition an MS-68 coin should have blazing luster. Those marks don’t get counted out based on the luster of the coin. The milky hazy that shows through in the PICTURES of the coin would also merit as a distraction.
As for value, the current buyer announced his/her opinion of the value. Everyone else that didn’t agree with that opinion bowed out of the bidding. In my opinion the differences between any properly grade 67 and 68 coins are not worth a 10x or 20x premium but that’s just me. By definition those differences are minor, usually relegated to a few contact marks or a lighter strike.
I think it ls fine that you have your own opinion. But it is exactly that---yours. I dont know about your grading ability, your expertise, your numismatic experience, etc. However, I do know relying on photos of a coin can lead to bad decisions. I also know that pcgs is the leading TPG and gave it a Ms-68 grade. I also know that JA at CAC is one of the elite graders in the country and confirmed it is solid for the grade. I also know Ian at GC has always been a straight shooter with me and has seen more coins than I will ever see. I value his comments.
Based on all this, I am confident that MS 68 is the correct grade. Again, you can have your own opinion but I wouldnt expect many people to trust your grade over the pcgs/cac grade.
@Baley said:
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
Go find another, cheaper. Lol
**Multiple bidders. Open auction. It is the correct market price. **
@Baley said:
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
Go find another, cheaper. Lol
**Multiple bidders. Open auction. It is the correct market price. **
So very true.
Maybe it is. Or a bidding war of over enthusiastic bidders. Will that price be even closely replicated 6 months or 1 year down the road
@Baley said:
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
Go find another, cheaper. Lol
Who would want to? Literally couldn't give it to me.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@Baley said:
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
Go find another, cheaper. Lol
Who would want to? Literally couldn't give it to me.
Why wouldn’t you accept a gift that you could sell for six figures if you didn’t care to keep it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Baley said:
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
Go find another, cheaper. Lol
Who would want to? Literally couldn't give it to me.
Funny how some say completely untrue things to try to get their view across
@Rubicon said:
Will that price be even closely replicated 6 months or 1 year down the road
Doesn't matter what happens down the road. It's the correct market price for that time and place.
That is not the first $100k Walker to sell this year. You can speculate that they are ALL overpriced. Or you can acknowledge that the market is what it is, even if you don't share the same passion for the coin.
It is one thing to express your opinion about a coin or its value. It takes a bit more arrogance to state that the collective wisdom of the market is wrong and that you are correct.
There are a lot of $100,000 coins that I would not personally pay $10,000 to acquire for my collection. [Flipping it is different.] Why? Either it is not of interest to me or it is simply too much money to tie up in a coin based on my personal financial situation. But that doesn't mean the coin isn't worth $100,000.
@Rubicon said:
Will that price be even closely replicated 6 months or 1 year down the road
Doesn't matter what happens down the road. It's the correct market price for that time and place.
True but an investor paying such a huge dollar amount needs to consider future price potential wether positive or negative, unless they don’t care
Investors shouldn't buy coins. Collectors should buy coins.
Anyone who tells you they know the price of ANY coin 5 years from now is lying.
I thought any spending 50-150k is an investor not purely collector in my book.
That's not true. Anyone spending $50k-$150k is wealthy. Beyond that you are assuming a lot about their motivations.
Anyone who tries to put together a competitive registry set is more likely to be a collector than an investor.
I agree but not necessarily so wealthy that they would feel comfortable talking a huge price hit
It doesn't matter how comfortable they are. If they make a bad decision, they make a bad decision. There's a thread here about the sale of a registry set where the collector sold a coin he paid $130,000 for for less than half that number only 2 years later. He was clearly a set collector.
@Rubicon said:
Will that price be even closely replicated 6 months or 1 year down the road
Doesn't matter what happens down the road. It's the correct market price for that time and place.
True but an investor paying such a huge dollar amount needs to consider future price potential wether positive or negative, unless they don’t care
Investors shouldn't buy coins. Collectors should buy coins.
Anyone who tells you they know the price of ANY coin 5 years from now is lying.
I thought any spending 50-150k is an investor not purely collector in my book.
That's not true. Anyone spending $50k-$150k is wealthy. Beyond that you are assuming a lot about their motivations.
Anyone who tries to put together a competitive registry set is more likely to be a collector than an investor.
I agree but not necessarily so wealthy that they would feel comfortable talking a huge price hit
It doesn't matter how comfortable they are. If they make a bad decision, they make a bad decision. There's a thread here about the sale of a registry set where the collector sold a coin he paid $130,000 for for less than half that number only 2 years later. He was clearly a set collector.
@Rubicon said:
Will that price be even closely replicated 6 months or 1 year down the road
Doesn't matter what happens down the road. It's the correct market price for that time and place.
True but an investor paying such a huge dollar amount needs to consider future price potential wether positive or negative, unless they don’t care
Investors shouldn't buy coins. Collectors should buy coins.
Anyone who tells you they know the price of ANY coin 5 years from now is lying.
I thought any spending 50-150k is an investor not purely collector in my book.
That's not true. Anyone spending $50k-$150k is wealthy. Beyond that you are assuming a lot about their motivations.
Anyone who tries to put together a competitive registry set is more likely to be a collector than an investor.
I agree but not necessarily so wealthy that they would feel comfortable talking a huge price hit
It doesn't matter how comfortable they are. If they make a bad decision, they make a bad decision. There's a thread here about the sale of a registry set where the collector sold a coin he paid $130,000 for for less than half that number only 2 years later. He was clearly a set collector.
That 1958 Franklin Legend coin? Why did he sell?
He sold the whole set. You'd have to ask him. But he was a long time collector.
I don’t know, remind me who said it was the best looking walker they’ve ever seen???
Obviously I’m a proponent but that’s the best looking coin I’ve ever seen.
I can’t say enough about it...
And don’t get me wrong I can appreciate all of the differing Views surrounding this piece. It is entertaining, educational, and somewhat thought-provoking.
But this piece man, it doesn’t have to be perfect to be exquisite.
Nor did she CD
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I can see why Mark. she’s a beaut too.
Don’t worry there’s plenty more fish in the sea.
Damn this hobby, you work so hard to find the best looking girl then somebody else comes along and snatches her up from you
Don’t worry she was no good for you anyway, you deserve better than that.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
@Kove look who the cat drug in! Good to see you post.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Comments
I had a high grade toned Walker short set with 68's and lots of 67/67+'s and I've looked at what seemed like a 100,000 coins over a 10 year period. I found the 46-P the most elusive in high grade in the short set with eye appeal and or color. I was never fully satisfied with mine. If you look at enough Walker you can tell a 68 from a 67 usually in an instant. 68's have the look
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Also consider that eye appeal and "market grading" are starting to influence the numerical grades more than ever. Coins are no longer graded just on technical merit. A small hit or luster break is easily forgiven then the coin has overall mind-blowing eye appeal.
Unless I’m mistaken all of the comments made in this tread have been made by people that haven’t seen the coin. The photographs are all we have to comment on. As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
Thanks for clarifying, again.
ad nau·se·am
/ad ˈnôzēəm/
adverb
referring to something that has been done or repeated so often that it has become annoying or tiresome.
MS-68 is not perfect but those imperfections are spelled out in the grading standards. The spots and contact marks are in prime focal areas. The darkened areas on the reverse wing are in a prime focal area. The hazy on the coin detracts from the original mint luster.
A 70 would have no contact marks seen under magnification (I think 10x might be the max). Full original mint luster. The standards for a 68 are lower and the discussion has been does this coin even meet those standards. The photograph would say not. My sentiment is either those photographs are not a true representation of the coin and the flaws seen in them or PCGS and CAC got it wrong. Either the photographs are showing things that are not on the actual coin or PCGS and CAC over graded this coin.
As for PCGS and CAC, while I respect their expertise if they graded the coin with the flaws AS SEEN IN THE PHOTOGRAPH as a 68 in my opinion that grade doesn’t line up with the ANA specifications for that grade.
It's possible the coin doesn't line up with NGC specifications, either. But seeing as how it was graded by PCGS, it's PCGS's specifications that you need to be looking at.
Ian Russell saw it and commented earlier in the thread and also agreed.
ANA specifications are less important than PCGS specifications in the marketplace.
Meta data relates to the specs of a particular photo. Shutter speed, aperture (f stop used), ISO (light sensitivity), lense opening (ie., 28 mm, 105 mm). It's camera geek speak so if you're not into it, don't feel slighted.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
The PCGS, CAC, market, and forum consensus is that the booming luster, symmetrical toning (that probably has remarkable colors when tilted in light) and extraordinary eye appeal of this coin more than compensate for the technical flaws of the small marks on the sun and other places. Not everyone need agree. It's very clear that at least one poster vehemently disagrees.
Despite how overall nice the coin is, Very very few of us agree with the final price.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Actually that's a specific example of camera settings. Metadata is a more general term which means something different which is why I was confused as to which data you were referring.
Go find another, cheaper. Lol
Not me!
I collect rare coins in common grades, rather than common coins in rare grades.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
The market spoke.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Multiple bidders. Open auction. It is the correct market price.
“The most beautiful women in the world look near flawless until you're two inches away with a magnifying glass.”
You might want to get your eyes checked!
Wondercoin
Now that I’ve read the entire thread it’s nice to know I am in agreement with the higher ups.
The whole you can’t grade a coin based on a pic applies more to the hidden negatives, hairlines etc. and not as much the positives.
When I first looked at the pic I did not look straight to the sun or anywhere else. Instead my eyes just glazed up and the first things I noticed was the darker colors of the luster shadows indicating deep luster, the exceptional toning natural and balanced. And then the way the light reflects off the higher and glassy looking points especially on the reverse.
I honestly didn’t see anything else until I went back and read the thread.
All that being said, if I had the means I would’ve nuked this one.
It is commendable that you have the expertise to know in an instant the difference from a 67 to a 68 walker. As well as do the experts of PCGS and CAC. Most collectors even seasoned ones I am pretty sure mostly cannot, and don’t value the distinction the same as you do. What are the real parameters to decide between an amazing 67 or 68. Do you need a microscope or 30x power magnifying glass to tell. Does super amazing look with very tiny distracting marks make it or very amazing with almost no contact marks make the grade? In my personal opinion the price paid for such a very minuscule distinction is hard to justify. 10-50x more for a 68 over a 67 doesn’t present real value for me. But to each his own. I respect that people with huge money can make their own decisions on how to spend it.
I think it ls fine that you have your own opinion. But it is exactly that---yours. I dont know about your grading ability, your expertise, your numismatic experience, etc. However, I do know relying on photos of a coin can lead to bad decisions. I also know that pcgs is the leading TPG and gave it a Ms-68 grade. I also know that JA at CAC is one of the elite graders in the country and confirmed it is solid for the grade. I also know Ian at GC has always been a straight shooter with me and has seen more coins than I will ever see. I value his comments.
Based on all this, I am confident that MS 68 is the correct grade. Again, you can have your own opinion but I wouldnt expect many people to trust your grade over the pcgs/cac grade.
So very true.
Maybe it is. Or a bidding war of over enthusiastic bidders. Will that price be even closely replicated 6 months or 1 year down the road
Who would want to? Literally couldn't give it to me.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Why wouldn’t you accept a gift that you could sell for six figures if you didn’t care to keep it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nope. LOL
I would dump it immediately at that price.
Well, just Love coins, period.
So despite what you said originally, someone could give it to you. Then you could “dump it”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What are yall talking about it didn’t even make the price guide. That coin should’ve fetched 175 and probably will in the future.
@rubicon
“Most collectors even seasoned ones I am pretty sure mostly cannot”
Apparently.
Funny how some say completely untrue things to try to get their view across
Doesn't matter what happens down the road. It's the correct market price for that time and place.
True but an investor paying such a huge dollar amount needs to consider future price potential wether positive or negative, unless they don’t care
Investors shouldn't buy coins. Collectors should buy coins.
Anyone who tells you they know the price of ANY coin 5 years from now is lying.
Beat me to it.
That is not the first $100k Walker to sell this year. You can speculate that they are ALL overpriced. Or you can acknowledge that the market is what it is, even if you don't share the same passion for the coin.
It is one thing to express your opinion about a coin or its value. It takes a bit more arrogance to state that the collective wisdom of the market is wrong and that you are correct.
There are a lot of $100,000 coins that I would not personally pay $10,000 to acquire for my collection. [Flipping it is different.] Why? Either it is not of interest to me or it is simply too much money to tie up in a coin based on my personal financial situation. But that doesn't mean the coin isn't worth $100,000.
I think you can buy all the remaining 1969 Mint sets for $140,000 and become really rich!
I thought any spending 50-150k is an investor not purely collector in my book.
They better be really high grade...
Sold May 16, 2021
1969 WASHINGTON QUARTER PCGS MS65 COIN LIGHTLY TONED IN HIGH GRADE
$7.00
That's not true. Anyone spending $50k-$150k is wealthy. Beyond that you are assuming a lot about their motivations.
Anyone who tries to put together a competitive registry set is more likely to be a collector than an investor.
You've got to wait a couple of years decades generations for your investment to grow.
I agree but not necessarily so wealthy that they would feel comfortable talking a huge price hit
It doesn't matter how comfortable they are. If they make a bad decision, they make a bad decision. There's a thread here about the sale of a registry set where the collector sold a coin he paid $130,000 for for less than half that number only 2 years later. He was clearly a set collector.
That 1958 Franklin Legend coin? Why did he sell?
He sold the whole set. You'd have to ask him. But he was a long time collector.
Actually it is true, a coin like this has so little interest as a coin to me. Money fine, interest not really and that is absolutely true.
Well, just Love coins, period.
Then why open the thread?
I don’t know, remind me who said it was the best looking walker they’ve ever seen???
Obviously I’m a proponent but that’s the best looking coin I’ve ever seen.
I can’t say enough about it...
And don’t get me wrong I can appreciate all of the differing Views surrounding this piece. It is entertaining, educational, and somewhat thought-provoking.
But this piece man, it doesn’t have to be perfect to be exquisite.
Nor did she CD
I miss this lady. It was part of my set
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I can see why Mark. she’s a beaut too.
Don’t worry there’s plenty more fish in the sea.
Damn this hobby, you work so hard to find the best looking girl then somebody else comes along and snatches her up from you
Don’t worry she was no good for you anyway, you deserve better than that.
BAM super superb.
Nowhere does PCGS state they grade to ANA standards. They grade to PCGS standards. Literally.
You can't read an ANA grading guide, count tic marks, and say PCGS and CAC got it wrong.
@Kove look who the cat drug in! Good to see you post.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Not true. I can tell you the price of about 95% of existing coins five years from now: face value.