NEW PHOTOS OF COIN IN HAND. IS THE COIN MARKET GRADED? GTG NEWP 1917 SLQ AND YOUR FEEDBACK

Walkerlover

Just purchased this SlQ and I am posting the sellers photos as I have not received the coin yet. Please give me your thoughts on the quality and eye appeal of the coin, either positive or negative. I do have a full return privilege. Thanks for your participation.

I am posting new pictures of the coin in hand. My impressions are the coin looks less toned in hand than in the sellers photos. Do you think the coin is market or net graded and not a true uncirculated coin? Please advise.

erwindoc

I think it is nice!

Ill guess MS63

1Mike1

I'll guess 64. It has nice luster but I think it could use a quick dip to remove the haze.

Walkerlover

@1Mike1 said:
I'll guess 64. It has nice luster but I think it could use a quick dip to remove the haze.

Just wondering where do you see haze on the coin I didn’t notice it, just see regular toning?

Smudge

64 FH. Nice coin.

MFeld

If that’s not haze on Liberty’s thighs and midsection, the coin looks AU58 to me.

pursuitofliberty

Nice strike, nice luster ... looks good for a 17 ty2 ... looks near FH as well (maybe, can't quite tell)

I'm thinking she has a good shot at 64

Walkerlover

@MFeld said:
If that’s not haze on Liberty’s thighs and midsection, the coin looks AU58 to me.

I can tell you the coin is graded as MS by PCGS.

MFeld

@Walkerlover said:

@MFeld said:
If that’s not haze on Liberty’s thighs and midsection, the coin looks AU58 to me.

I can tell you the coin is graded as MS by PCGS.

I can only go by the images provided. And much of the area below Liberty’s waist is slightly discolored, much like rub would appear.

Manifest_Destiny

I thought 58 from the pics as well

TomB

I also thought AU58, but see that you state it is graded as MS.

Project Numismatics

Looks 58 to me so will go with market grade of 62.

ricko

Looks like an MS63 to me.... Cheers, RickO

privatecoin

63

BuffaloIronTail

I also noticed the rub but I didn't say anything because I ain't that good at the nuances of the issue.

Pete

1946Hamm

64

jclovescoins

58

Walkerlover

There seems to be a divisive line of opinions between MS and AU 58. I will update the thread with new pictures I will take when I receive the coin in hand which should probably be in the next 2 days, with my own imperfect impressions of the haze issue.

spyglassdesign

I'd say high au shot ms63 depending if the fuzziness is rub or not. Near fh if not full fh it seems.

Walkerlover

Will post photos of coin soon when in hand to try and determine if truly uncirculated. As an aside I am wondering why the knee which is a high point on the coin seems to not have the haze/rub.

Walkerlover

New photos taken in hand of the coin. Do you think this coin is market or net graded as a MS 63 and not truly uncirculated.

coinbuf

Your new photos seem to indicate rub, especially at the upper thigh hip on the left leg (viewers left). Perhaps that is just an area of strike weakness maybe not.

winesteven

I like the coin, but I’m weak at grading, especially from photos. It seems to be very sharply struck, with a great head, great details on the shield (especially with the rivets and the “inner” shield), and the feathers of the Eagle. The apparent luster seems real nice too. Here’s mine, graded at least MS63, and from the photos, I like yours at least as much as mine. Around noon Eastern time today I’ll reveal my grade. No need to guess mine on this thread. (There’s another SLQ post right near this one, where I posted my DATE set near the bottom of that thread. Don’t bother looking for this coin, as it’s not part of that set.)

Steve
Edit: MS65FH

Walkerlover

@winesteven said:
I like the coin, but I’m weak at grading, especially from photos. It seems to be very sharply struck, with a great head, great details on the shield (especially with the rivets and the “inner” shield), and the feathers of the Eagle. The apparent luster seems real nice too. Here’s mine, graded at least MS63, and from the photos, I like yours at least as much as mine. Around noon Eastern time today I’ll reveal my grade. No need to guess mine on this thread. (There’s another SLQ post right near this one, where I posted my DATE set near the bottom of that thread. Don’t bother looking for this coin, as it’s not part of that set.)

Steve

Thanks for the compliment Steve. I am going to try and show the coin to a local CAC authorized dealer to screen. The way I see it this coin is either a gold CAC because it looks too clean for a 63, or has high point rub or friction which will preclude a sticker. No inbetween I think. Like you I am far from a grading expert when it involves more sophisticated issues.

MFeld

Sorry, but I don’t think there’s any way that coin would receive a gold sticker from CAC and I’d be surprised if it received a green one. There looks to be enough rub on the obverse to preclude either of those outcomes.

TomB

From the images provided thus far, the OP's coin has essentially no chance (in my opinion) for a gold CAC sticker. Just not gonna happen.

winesteven

I needed a "filler" in building my Full Head DATE set, so I picked up a 1926 MS64FH for $500, without a CAC. Once I upgraded that slot, before selling the coin, I figured what the heck, so I sent it to CAC. It failed, and JA indicated it had FOUR rub marks on the thigh, lol.

Steve

Walkerlover

@TomB said:
From the images provided thus far, the OP's coin has essentially no chance (in my opinion) for a gold CAC sticker. Just not gonna happen.

A green sticker? Or do you see rub as well Tom?

TomB

In my first post I thought the coin would be an AU58, but I haven't seen it in-hand so I guess a green sticker is entirely possible. However, in general, the gold sticker coins I have made and have been able to handle typically were rather easy to spot.

DisneyFan

@winesteven said:
I needed a "filler" in building my Full Head DATE set, so I picked up a 1926 MS64FH for $500, without a CAC. Once I upgraded that slot, before selling the coin, I figured what the heck, so I sent it to CAC. It failed, and JA indicated it had FOUR rub marks on the thigh, lol.

It's unfortunate that CAC doesn't automatically indicate why a coin doesn't pass. Even top dealers have difficulty explaining why a coin didn't pass. Granted, it's time consuming.

Hopefully, with the new CAC fee schedule this information will be shared.

Walkerlover

@TomB said:
In my first post I thought the coin would be an AU58, but I haven't seen it in-hand so I guess a green sticker is entirely possible. However, in general, the gold sticker coins I have made and have been able to handle typically were rather easy to spot.

Thanks Tom for your response. I am not that trained in grading that I can easily distinguish rub on a SLQ. But I checked the coin in hand and am not convinced there is rub there, as I compared it to another SLQ that failed CAC due to rub on some of the higher points. So when the $16 tier opens I will test my knowledge to get a cheap education from CAC.

MFeld

@DisneyFan said:

@winesteven said:
I needed a "filler" in building my Full Head DATE set, so I picked up a 1926 MS64FH for $500, without a CAC. Once I upgraded that slot, before selling the coin, I figured what the heck, so I sent it to CAC. It failed, and JA indicated it had FOUR rub marks on the thigh, lol.

It's unfortunate that CAC doesn't automatically indicate why a coin doesn't pass. Even top dealers have difficulty explaining why a coin didn't pass. Granted, it's time consuming.

Hopefully, with the new CAC fee schedule this information will be shared.

Typically, PCGS and NGC don’t indicate why coins don’t cross, either. (And their fees are often higher than CAC’s.) Even top dealers have difficulty explaining why a coin didn't” cross. “Granted, it's time consuming.” 😉

winesteven

@Walkerlover said:

@TomB said:
In my first post I thought the coin would be an AU58, but I haven't seen it in-hand so I guess a green sticker is entirely possible. However, in general, the gold sticker coins I have made and have been able to handle typically were rather easy to spot.

Thanks Tom for your response. I am not that trained in grading that I can easily distinguish rub on a SLQ. But I checked the coin in hand and am not convinced there is rub there, as I compared it to another SLQ that failed CAC due to rub on some of the higher points. So when the $16 tier opens I will test my knowledge to get a cheap education from CAC.

CAC stickering will probably be reopening their lowest priced tier shortly, but it sounds like it will be higher than $16.

A wild guess is they may also be lowering the value threshold on that lowest tier, which I believe had been for coins valued up to $10,000. But this second point is pure speculation on my part.

Steve

DisneyFan

@MFeld said:

@DisneyFan said:

It's unfortunate that CAC doesn't automatically indicate why a coin doesn't pass. Even top dealers have difficulty explaining why a coin didn't pass. Granted, it's time consuming.

Hopefully, with the new CAC fee schedule this information will be shared.

Typically, PCGS and NGC don’t indicate why coins don’t cross, either. (And their fees are often higher than CAC’s.) Even top dealers have difficulty explaining why a coin didn't” cross. “Granted, it's time consuming.” 😉

We are comparing two different business models. PCGS and NGC are for profit, CAC itself is educational.

With PCGS and NGC, it's a question of "What is the grade?" The two do not always agree. : )

With CAC, the question is whether the grade is correct AND whether there are other factors not as noticeable to PCGS and NGC; i.e., rub, toning, luster, PVC, etc....

MFeld

@DisneyFan said:

@MFeld said:

@DisneyFan said:

It's unfortunate that CAC doesn't automatically indicate why a coin doesn't pass. Even top dealers have difficulty explaining why a coin didn't pass. Granted, it's time consuming.

Hopefully, with the new CAC fee schedule this information will be shared.

Typically, PCGS and NGC don’t indicate why coins don’t cross, either. (And their fees are often higher than CAC’s.) Even top dealers have difficulty explaining why a coin didn't” cross. “Granted, it's time consuming.” 😉

We are comparing two different business models. PCGS and NGC are for profit, CAC itself is educational.

With PCGS and NGC, it's a question of "What is the grade?" The two do not always agree. : )

With CAC, the question is whether the grade is correct AND whether there are other factors not as noticeable to PCGS and NGC; i.e., rub, toning, luster, PVC, etc....

I think CAC ‘s great, not to mention, collector-friendly. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care at all about generating a profit (even if it’s not through the stickering part of the business). And even if their business model is different, I think it’s unfair to ask for even more time from them in the form of indications as to why coins don’t sticker.

DisneyFan

@MFeld said:

I think CAC ‘s great, not to mention, collector-friendly. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care at all about generating a profit (even if it’s not through the stickering part of the business). And even if their business model is different, I think it’s unfair to ask for even more time from them in the form of indications as to why coins don’t sticker.

>

I do understand where you are coming from, Mark. However, some people on this board do ask CAC why their coins don't sticker. People also ask you to evaluate coins that Heritage is selling and I understand you are very honest and kind to do it.

All I am trying to say is that if a collector understood why their coin did not pass at CAC, they would be more knowledgeable regarding future purchases rather than being totally frustrated. Grading is a matter of opinion, I'm not so sure that PVC is.

MFeld

@DisneyFan said:

@MFeld said:

I think CAC ‘s great, not to mention, collector-friendly. But that doesn’t mean they don’t care at all about generating a profit (even if it’s not through the stickering part of the business). And even if their business model is different, I think it’s unfair to ask for even more time from them in the form of indications as to why coins don’t sticker.

>

I do understand where you are coming from, Mark. However, some people on this board do ask CAC why their coins don't sticker. People also ask you to evaluate coins that Heritage is selling and I understand you are very honest and kind to do it.

All I am trying to say is that if a collector understood why their coin did not pass at CAC, they would be more knowledgeable regarding future purchases rather than being totally frustrated. Grading is a matter of opinion, I'm not so sure that PVC is.

@ DisneyFan, I can understand and sympathize where you’re coming from, as well. You make fair points.

Walkerlover

I think CAC should include a simple concise note on every coin that fails indicating the reason why. The TPG services should include a note as well as to why a coin didn’t cross. It wouldn’t take as much time as people think in this computerized world to incorporate this. I know I am going to get a lot of resistance to this idea but collectors will be less frustrated and more knowledgeable as a result.
And maybe less coins will be submitted as collectors weed out weak candidates as a result of their new found knowledge, speeding up grading time. A small fee of a few dollars could be charged if necessary to collectors who want to know the reason for a coin’s failure on the submission form.

Catbert

@Walkerlover said:
I think CAC should include a simple concise note on every coin that fails indicating the reason why. The TPG services should include a note as well as to why a coin didn’t cross. It wouldn’t take as much time as people think in this computerized world to incorporate this. I know I am going to get a lot of resistance to this idea but collectors will be less frustrated and more knowledgeable as a result.
And maybe less coins will be submitted as collectors weed out weak candidates as a result of their new found knowledge, speeding up grading time. A small fee of a few dollars could be charged if necessary to collectors who want to know the reason for a coin’s failure on the submission form.

I too would like a routine feedback loop, but I can see the presumed reluctance to do so. An example - Feedback such as "five grades overgraded due to thigh rub" (63 vs 58) would likely inspire anger/irritation and potentially argument back that would result in more unwanted labor time. Not all submitters would express gratitude or silence.

logger7

IT LOOKS PROPERLY GRADED TO ME!!! ALWAYS LOOK AT THE LEG FOR FRICTION!!!

may

I see a fingerprint underneath "IN GOD" and "TRVST" and some rub on the thigh. Unlikely to get the green jelly bean IMO.