Would you agree this is an MS64?

Morgan13

I am taking a shot at grading this coin for myself. The luster is all there. The devices look good. I see some nicks on the arm and cheek and a pretty good zing on the eagles breast.
If the images aren't good enough I will try to take better.
Please go easy on me. This is a learning thread. I'm open to hearing what you have to say but my grade is not something that is etched in stone.
I am calling it an ms64

cameonut2011

The surfaces look hazy and off. We need better pictures.

Morgan13

I suck at pictures but maybe this will help..when I try to use a light I get to much reflection. These are taken in sunlight.
If it's not going to work out because of bad pictures please just let the thread die off.
I totally understand.


![]

Walkerfan

AU 58. It’s been dipped and those hairlines in the right facing field really bother me.

Morgan13

@Walkerfan said:
AU 58. It’s been dipped and those hairlines in the right facing field really bother me.

Good to know!
Thank you for your opinion. I appreciate it!

slider23

On the first set of photo.s it shows rub on Liberty's breast, stomach and leg, and on the eagle's breast and leg. Based on those photos, I would be at AU58. On the photos with with haze there is no cartwheel luster, so the coin looks dipped. If the coin has a haze, you may want to consider a rinse in Acetone to try and remove the haze. In the last two photos it is showing some cartwheel luster, so it looks more like it could be MS, but maybe cleaned because of the hairlines in the field.

If you are having trouble getting the correct indoor light on the coin, you may want to try a Ottlite Desk lamp 25.5 in., White Natural Daylight LED Flex Lamp. With this flex lamp you can position the LED Natural Daylight light on the coin with three light settings of low, med, or high.

Morgan13

I made a mistake.
When I did bring out a light and went back to my album to pull out the 38D I took out the wrong coin so that mistake is on me. It was not done intentionally so I will leave them up for now but please ignore them. The 38D does have cartwheel lustre. It's just that my pictures are terrible today.

Walkerguy21D

Two different coins….I’m at 58 on the 43D, 64 on the 38D; I’m assuming that the haze and lighting on the 38D is obscuring the luster bands.

cladking

The '38 looks about right but needs a soak. The '43 might not be wear but rather a strike effect but it's hard to tell from the picture.

Walkerfan

@Walkerguy21D said:
Two different coins….I’m at 58 on the 43D, 64 on the 38D; I’m assuming that the haze and lighting on the 38D is obscuring the luster bands.

I just realized they were different lol. My comment pertains to the 43D.

davewesen

above the motto are perpendicular parallel lines which make me suspect the surfaces may have been messed with

a possiblity of a details coin (too bad on key date) - can you take a picture showing luster like your last one of the 43?

Walkerguy21D

@davewesen said:

above the motto are perpendicular parallel lines which make me suspect the surfaces may have been messed with

a possiblity of a details coin (too bad on key date) - can you take a picture showing luster like your last one of the 43?

Many 38D walkers have die polish lines in the right obverse field. I’ve been searching for one in the ms64 range that doesn’t, for years!
I can’t tell if that’s the case here, but I suspect so.

Morgan13

I will be totally honest and tell you the coin has great luster and what your seeing is polish lines as they are not Incuse.
The 38D also has a good cartwheel for sure.
I know it's next to impossible to show a coin for GTG with my crappy images.
I probably shouldn't post because I can't take good images of coins.
Again that's on me.

cladking

@Morgan13 said:
I will be totally honest and tell you the coin has great luster and what your seeing is polish lines as they are not Incuse.
The 38D also has a good cartwheel for sure.
I know it's next to impossible to show a coin for GTG with my crappy images.
I probably shouldn't post because I can't take good images of coins.
Again that's on me.

The pictures aren't that bAd.

It's impossible to capture everything about a coin from a single picture so much has to be inferred from very little information no matter how good and realistic the picture.

Morgan13

Morgan13

Double post sorry.

Walkerguy21D

@cladking said:

@Morgan13 said:
I will be totally honest and tell you the coin has great luster and what your seeing is polish lines as they are not Incuse.
The 38D also has a good cartwheel for sure.
I know it's next to impossible to show a coin for GTG with my crappy images.
I probably shouldn't post because I can't take good images of coins.
Again that's on me.

The pictures aren't that bAd.

It's impossible to capture everything about a coin from a single picture so much has to be inferred from very little information no matter how good and realistic the picture.

Agree.
And even when perfect pictures are posted, opinions are all over the map anyway.

ifthevamzarockin

These are your 2 best images.
I don't know what lighting you used for them vs the others but you should use this lighting for your photos.
Also look how much clearer these are than your others.
It's because you had the coin sitting on something rather than holding it in your hand.
When you hold the coin and hold the camera there is more chance for movement that blurs your photos.
Always place your coins on a surface to take photos, you can't hold both hands perfectly still.

Edited to add: I see a couple of your other photos you were not holding the coin but the lighting was off.

slider23

On the 38D can you do the photo with the same background and same light with phone/camera at same distance and position that you used on the 43?

jmlanzaf

@Morgan13 said:

This picture makes it look puttied.

Morgan13

@ifthevamzarockin said:
These are your 2 best images.
I don't know what lighting you used for them vs the others but you should use this lighting for your photos.
Also look how much clearer these are than your others.
It's because you had the coin sitting on something rather than holding it in your hand.
When you hold the coin and hold the camera there is more chance for movement that blurs your photos.
Always place your coins on a surface to take photos, you can't hold both hands perfectly still.

Edited to add: I see a couple of your other photos you were not holding the coin but the lighting was off.

Your right. That was taken with a light facing in the direction of the coin. I'll work on it myself and see what I can do.

cladking

I think it's just a nice gemmy coin that was dinged for the haze and mark on the eagle.

privatecoin

CACG, only way to go on these.

dcarr

@Morgan13 said:

@Walkerfan said:
AU 58. It’s been dipped and those hairlines in the right facing field really bother me.

Good to know!
Thank you for your opinion. I appreciate it!

I do not see what I would classify as "hairlines" or "rub" on the 1938-D.
MS-64 appears reasonable.

clarkbar04

The "best photos" are of a 1943 so not even the topic of discussion.
I do see what looks like PVC haze on the obverse (which means its probably on the rev as well), so an acetone bath would probably make it pop even more.
Natural sunlight is the absolute best at making your coins look horrible.

Walkerfan

@dcarr said:

@Morgan13 said:

@Walkerfan said:
AU 58. It’s been dipped and those hairlines in the right facing field really bother me.

Good to know!
Thank you for your opinion. I appreciate it!

I do not see what I would classify as "hairlines" or "rub" on the 1938-D.
MS-64 appears reasonable.

I was talking about the 43D. I thought they were just different photographs, when I commented. I didn’t realize that they were actually different Coins.

DoubleEagle59

I think the 38-d has a shot at a 65.

64 is the minimum.

MFeld

@DoubleEagle59 said:
I think the 38-d has a shot at a 65.

64 is the minimum.

I think the 1938-D has as good as, if not a better shot at a details grade. That said, I’m not confident that we have a good idea what it actually looks like.

DoubleEagle59

@MFeld said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
I think the 38-d has a shot at a 65.

64 is the minimum.

I think the 1938-D has as good as, if not a better shot at a details grade. That said, I’m not confident that we have a good idea what it actually looks like.

True.....whenever I give a grade opinion, I can only go on the picture provided.

I've seen some pictures look like a 65 and when I get the coin, the grade is more like an au55.

metalmeister

Any 38d is nice. Probably came from here.

JBN

Hard to tell, but your half looks MS. Hard to tell.
Assuming the coin is decent MS - I agree with your 64 GTG.

Cougar1978

No - not even close

cameonut2011

AU details shot UNC details

Morgan13

@MFeld said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
I think the 38-d has a shot at a 65.

64 is the minimum.

I think the 1938-D has as good as, if not a better shot at a details grade. That said, I’m not confident that we have a good idea what it actually looks like.

I agree with you. The images stink. I don't think it's a details coin. I think images make it look that way. Like I said it's on me for posting crappy images.
I will refrain until I get it figured out.

BuffaloIronTail

At the very least the coin doesn't have the strike for a 65

I make this decision without adding all the other comments into the mix.

Peter

DisneyFan

PCGS has graded 902+24 in MS64. CAC has only stickered 82 and CACG graded only one.. The CAC values range from $780 in AU58 to $1,240 in MS64. Your biggest risk is the coin having PVC.

Morgan13

I'm only into the whole set for $1650 so I think I did good.
1936-1947 all mints so I can't complain.
That's $51.50 per coin. It's a set of 32 and I do believe they are uncirculated. That's just my opinion. I think you can see overall they look good.

DisneyFan

Do you have any PCGS graded coins to compare them to?

Morgan13

@DisneyFan said:
Do you have any PCGS graded coins to compare them to?

Not WLH.
I'm going to put them away in the safe. They are really for me to enjoy. I'm not out to impress anyone. I'm just sharing my collection.
Sorry I take such lousy pictures.

Walkerfan

@Morgan13 said:

@DisneyFan said:
Do you have any PCGS graded coins to compare them to?

Not WLH.
I'm going to put them away in the safe. They are really for me to enjoy. I'm not out to impress anyone. I'm just sharing my collection.
Sorry I take such lousy pictures.

It's a beautiful BU album set. At just over $51 a coin; you did well.

bagofnickels

@DisneyFan said:
Do you have any PCGS graded coins to compare them to?

You should find a couple examples of PCGS coins to compare them too. It's helpful in learning to spot wear. Ultimately this made me realize how easy it was to be taken by very nice AU examples. I have a couple PCGS 58s that look gem.

Your albums looks fantastic in my opinion. All the coins look lusterous and well matched. Dansco is such a wonderful way to display a set like this. Congrats.

Morgan13

Thank you
I do enjoy them. In not a dealer. I'm a collector and I think they are beautiful.
I might take them to a local show and get some opinions or do some comparisons with other coins that have been slabbed.
They came to me in this-

johnny010

Good idea
Take them to a show

Walkerguy21D

@Morgan13 said:

@MFeld said:

@DoubleEagle59 said:
I think the 38-d has a shot at a 65.

64 is the minimum.

I think the 1938-D has as good as, if not a better shot at a details grade. That said, I’m not confident that we have a good idea what it actually looks like.

I agree with you. The images stink. I don't think it's a details coin. I think images make it look that way. Like I said it's on me for posting crappy images.
I will refrain until I get it figured out.

I for one at least appreciate that you are making an effort. Even with perfect photos, even the presumed experts are only going to provide ballpark grade estimates. And some probably couldn’t get close if they had the coins in hand.

Walkerfan

My previous comments were about the 43D. I never commented on the 38D so I will, now:

I really like it and I think that it is, AT LEAST, a 64. The surfaces are very clean and I like the strike. Luster looks just a bit muted, but I would really have to see it in hand to make a determination. Overall, it is a very nice Coin!