I think there are 4 main things that define this grade.
1. Marks (usually including at least one pretty noticeable one)
2. Surfaces/luster. Lots of dipped-out coins with ms64 level marks and impaired surfaces end up as ms62.
3. Wear. There are more than a few AU58 supersliders in 62 holders. But there are also some 64s with cabinet friction or field friction.
4. Misgraded 63 coins! (A fair few in this thread)
My rule with 62 is that it should have gotten that grade for marks, not surfaces, luster or wear. Many of the coins in this thread seem to follow that rule.
Also, more recently: look for 62+ grades! They are often very nice.
I own and have owned quite a few MS-62s in both NGC and PCGS holders. The ones in my primary collection I still own are mostly quite nice and all nice for the series.
The ones I find least attractive are where the coin design makes any imperfections more visible, such as large coins including the OP's coin. I've sold most of those.
@humanssuck said:
This is a 62. Also, id like to submit this in the competition for worst true view ever.
That's not a TrueView. It is from a digital scan, circa 2010, when PCGS introduced the SecurePlus fingerprinting device.
For some strange reason many of these fingerprint scans began appearing alongside the coins. Caused an uproar because they were all terrible photographic representations.
I had those for my coins removed by Phil Arnold (PCGS's photographer). Not sure if he is still the guy to turn to. You might PM him at @PCGSPhoto.
Lance.
@humanssuck said:
This is a 62. Also, id like to submit this in the competition for worst true view ever.
That's not a TrueView. It is from a digital scan, circa 2010, when PCGS introduced the SecurePlus fingerprinting device.
For some strange reason many of these fingerprint scans began appearing alongside the coins. Caused an uproar because they were all terrible photographic representations.
I had those for my coins removed by Phil Arnold (PCGS's photographer). Not sure if he is still the guy to turn to. You might PM him at @PCGSPhoto.
Lance.
Thanks for the info. I was still playing in the raw coin kiddie pool back in 2010, I'd never seen a picture like that on any other the other PCGS coins I've checked the certs on before. Nice to know.
Interesting thread! 62 is a grade that seems to feature wider variety in eye appeal than most. I think I have three slabbed 62's in my collection. Here's one of them.
I think this coin is pretty OK. CAC thought so too. I bought it off another forum member on the BST eight years ago. [whoops, just realizing this one is an NGC 62, but still ...]
The other two are gold tens in PCGS 62 that I bought sight-unseen as basically an enhanced bullion play around the same time, so it should surprise nobody that they are borderline repulsive. It was still a good move as it would be easy to part ways with them for way over what I paid, and their price movement has been considerably beyond what mere bullion has done in the same interval, but they aren't nice coins.
Comments
I have a couple 62s. These have some pics handy.
Unless there are hairlines I am not seeing, MS62?!
peacockcoins
I usually don't get toned Morgans below a 63. But if they look like this, I'll buy them all day long.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
How could I forget one of my favorite coins!
1751 Crown... 62 seems just a tad harsh.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
1826 2/6... I would not call it unwanted and the same can be written about the prior coin I posted.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Seems like 62 is not an unwanted grade after all!
I think there are 4 main things that define this grade.
1. Marks (usually including at least one pretty noticeable one)
2. Surfaces/luster. Lots of dipped-out coins with ms64 level marks and impaired surfaces end up as ms62.
3. Wear. There are more than a few AU58 supersliders in 62 holders. But there are also some 64s with cabinet friction or field friction.
4. Misgraded 63 coins! (A fair few in this thread)
My rule with 62 is that it should have gotten that grade for marks, not surfaces, luster or wear. Many of the coins in this thread seem to follow that rule.
Also, more recently: look for 62+ grades! They are often very nice.
12 star variety
Ex. Doug Bird (RIP)
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
** Seems like 62 is not an unwanted grade after all!**
That’s what I was thinking…it looks like many forum members really do buy the coin, not the holder.
MS62, from ATS:
jom
These days, lots of coins with minor wear are showing up in 62 holders. Mostly, these are attractive coins.
In earlier days of TPG grading, it was much harder to find pretty 62s.
@BryceM said: These days, lots of coins with minor wear are showing up in 62 holders.
Call me old-fashioned or stupid, but coins with "minor wear" shouldn't be showing up in MS anything holders.
I have 3 62s. The $10 Gold I bought already slabbed, the other 2 I submitted myself
Mr_Spud
Complete Set of Chopmarked Trade Dollars
Carson City Silver Dollars Complete 1870-1893http://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/showcase.aspx?sc=2722"
I don’t have any 62s, but wouldn’t mind owning any of these. I would be disappointed if I sent these in and got a 62.
I own and have owned quite a few MS-62s in both NGC and PCGS holders. The ones in my primary collection I still own are mostly quite nice and all nice for the series.
The ones I find least attractive are where the coin design makes any imperfections more visible, such as large coins including the OP's coin. I've sold most of those.
MS62 with CAC sticker...
Another MS62...
Here are some 62’s and one 62+ (can you guess which one it is)
Dave
Now, THAT is an MS62 you (or anyone) don't mind having! That's is an outstanding example of a tough key!
Both of these are 62's, but I loved them both enough to stick 'em in my MS V nickel set, the rest of which are 64's.
I know this is a weak strike, but I liked the late die state and die crack.
That's not a TrueView. It is from a digital scan, circa 2010, when PCGS introduced the SecurePlus fingerprinting device.
For some strange reason many of these fingerprint scans began appearing alongside the coins. Caused an uproar because they were all terrible photographic representations.
I had those for my coins removed by Phil Arnold (PCGS's photographer). Not sure if he is still the guy to turn to. You might PM him at @PCGSPhoto.
Lance.
Thanks for the info. I was still playing in the raw coin kiddie pool back in 2010, I'd never seen a picture like that on any other the other PCGS coins I've checked the certs on before. Nice to know.
Some beautiful 62’s posted! Here is one I’m very fond of.
Indian Head $10 Gold Date Set Album
I might have another but I recently got this one (and struggled to get a decent phone pic and gave up).
This is my only coin in a holder in this grade. But I believe the coin itself is a bit better than MS62.
Steve
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
MY avatar. Should be PL also.
I love this 62!
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
This coin is not worthy of being in your collection. It should be sent to me for safekeeping and appreciation!
Ha! But I also have two coins graded even lower, at AU58+.
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Well those 58+ coins could come to me 😃
Successful BST with BustDMs , Pnies20, lkeigwin, pursuitofliberty, Bullsitter, felinfoel, SPalladino (CBH's - 35 Die Marriage's)
$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
Ha! to you too, lol.
My collecting “Pride & Joy” is my PCGS Registry Dansco 7070 Set:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/design-type-sets/complete-dansco-7070-modified-type-set-1796-date/publishedset/213996
Interesting thread! 62 is a grade that seems to feature wider variety in eye appeal than most. I think I have three slabbed 62's in my collection. Here's one of them.
I think this coin is pretty OK. CAC thought so too. I bought it off another forum member on the BST eight years ago. [whoops, just realizing this one is an NGC 62, but still ...]
The other two are gold tens in PCGS 62 that I bought sight-unseen as basically an enhanced bullion play around the same time, so it should surprise nobody that they are borderline repulsive. It was still a good move as it would be easy to part ways with them for way over what I paid, and their price movement has been considerably beyond what mere bullion has done in the same interval, but they aren't nice coins.
I have these.
My YouTube Channel
Sometimes that grade is a good thing.
Agree, sometimes you can find some very nice coins that were conservatively graded at a great price.
Ignore the Saint but the rest of the set looks very pleasing in MS62
There is a problem with this coin. Where is its Gold CAC sticker?
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US Gold Showcase --- World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase