1926 $10.00 Indian GTG-Grade Revealed
Eldorado9
Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭
I like this coin a lot....In the old holder, and with the.... ahem, conservative grade.
6
Eldorado9
Posts: 2,416 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
It looks nice, I'll go with 64. Mostly because it's a common date and the neck marks. But if it is a 65 holder I wouldn't be too surprised.
Clean surfaces and nice luster. I'll guess MS65.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
65
Very nice! I would guess 65
I will guess 64+
Successful BST with drddm, BustDMs, Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino
$5 Type Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/type-sets/half-eagle-type-set-circulation-strikes-1795-1929/album/344192
CBH Set https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/everyman-collections/everyman-half-dollars/everyman-capped-bust-half-dollars-1807-1839/album/345572
Nice 64.
Instagram
65.
63
My YouTube Channel
I was going to say 64 because the obverse is great, but the reverse has softness at the top and that will hold it back….my guess 62.
MS64+
64
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I think that softness is on the holder...It's foggy, and scuffed up...Needs to be polished.
63
63
MS 63
Positive BST as a seller: Namvet69, Lordmarcovan, Bigjpst, Soldi, mustanggt, CoinHoader, moursund, SufinxHi, al410, JWP
63.5
Collector, occasional seller
I would harbor a guess that I want it!!
I like the looks and I don’t care about the grade.
64
I love how you’ve obscured the CAC sticker.
64
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
64
Nice hint that it isn't a 65. I could see it being a 64 with a sticker but don't think it would sticker at 65.
That was a fake- out move on the sticker...Pretty good eh?
Plus grades did not start till 2010 right? And this slab is older than that right?
Anyway, I bet it would upgrade she looks too nice for 63.
I have a 63 of that date and that one is nicer than mine. I still think 64.
I would love to pay 63 money for that one.
Easy 63... nice coin! Looks under-graded to me.
The grading on this date and the 1932 can be inconsistent.
Very nice gold coin.... late to the game... but looks a tad better than 63. Cheers, RickO
Thanks for all the replies guys....Some of you astute OGH graders nailed it at 63! Nice work. I really think in today's grades this looks solid 64 or 64+ It's a common coin and not a huge price jump....I'll probably resubmit it at some point just for fun. Happy collecting.
I suspect some of the 63 opinions were predicated based on the holder and not the coin.
Wonderful example
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Gradeflation! We got Inflation, we got gradeflation!
Here’s my “64”
My YouTube Channel
I do not see this as an example of gradeflation... if you look at other gold from this time frame, the grading was brutal and even nice, original and attractive gold never graded as it should have. There was an unreasonable expectation so much of what was graded in the 1987-1994 time frame has likely been cracked and resubmitted to get the most appropriate grade.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@asheland Very attractive coin, with super luster! Original.
I don't see 64 as unreasonable for the 1932... look at the color and overall original patina on that coin. That compensates for some of the contact marks on the high points along the jaw, neck and hairline as well as the reverse.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Thank you! It's an old holder, too:
My YouTube Channel