Clearly an AU coin

gumby1234

How does this get into a PCGS MS64 holder?

Coinscratch

And you're not talking about the white streaks all over the slab?

gumby1234

@Coinscratch said:
And you're not talking about the white streaks all over the slab?

White streaks aside. The coin has wear on the gown, legs, shield, breast and stars. Pretty much slight wear all over.

gumby1234

Here's what an MS64 looks like.

MFeld

I'd want to see all of each side before reaching any conclusions.

gumby1234

@MFeld said:
I'd want to see all of each side before reaching any conclusions.

@MFeld its a screenshot of a GTG on MyCollect. I can't go back to get images. You can see the wear in my screenshot thou. There was also some wear on the eagle.

BustHalfBrian

I don’t see any wear. Then again, I don’t see most of the coin either.

coinbuf

In today's market grading you just call it stacking friction and presto it is no longer wear and can now be called mint state, it is a brave new world.

MFeld

@gumby1234 said:

@Coinscratch said:
And you're not talking about the white streaks all over the slab?

White streaks aside. The coin has wear on the gown, legs, shield, breast and stars. Pretty much slight wear all over.

There look to be a lot of cloudy/scuffed areas on the holder, as well as splotchy patina on the coin. Currently, I'm not at all convinced that it should have graded AU.

Davidk7

Looks accurately graded to me. Since this coin was sold on GC, you can search for it on there and find it.

Coinscratch

@gumby1234 said:
Here's what an MS64 looks like.

but what does it look like enlarged and captioned like the first one?
The luster is hidden #1.

lilolme

@gumby1234 said:
Here's what an MS64 looks like.

I did a screen shot from the below pcgs 'luster' video link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9l7Uzz-TY
.

sellitstore

I'm not seeing any flatness on the knee (which is were I look first to determine an MS coin on these) but I see the continuous lighter line along the high point of the leg from the knee down to the ankle. I'm just not sure that's wear and would like to have the coin in hand to see if the luster is broken on the higher points. Also, the reverse would provide more information.

Coinscratch

Here is an MS62 from coin facts possibly the same grader. The very next in line a 63 looks much better (at least as a whole).

Coinscratch

Here is an MS67 graded coin.

I know because it's my screen saver at work : )

Rexford

It probably made it into an MS64 holder because there is no wear on the coin.

124Spider

One of the imponderables, to me, about coin grading is that a coin can be, e.g., MS64 while appearing to be quite worn. I inquired on this forum a while back about a buffalo nickel like that, and was told that a very poor strike can still get a fairly high grade.

To me, it makes no sense to give a coin with a terrible strike a grade above MS60. The principal purpose of professional grading services, IMO, should be to make one more trusting that one is getting a certain type of coin, given the grade. Also to me, an MS64 coin should be quite attractive. Heck, a gentle cleaning that takes an expert to detect gets a coin consigned to "details" purgatory, while a deeply-flawed coin like this gets an attractive (to me) grade. That's illogical (thank you, Mr. Spock).

Mark

spyglassdesign

@124Spider said:
One of the imponderables, to me, about coin grading is that a coin can be, e.g., MS64 while appearing to be quite worn. I inquired on this forum a while back about a buffalo nickel like that, and was told that a very poor strike can still get a fairly high grade.

To me, it makes no sense to give a coin with a terrible strike a grade above MS60. The principal purpose of professional grading services, IMO, should be to make one more trusting that one is getting a certain type of coin, given the grade. Also to me, an MS64 coin should be quite attractive. Heck, a gentle cleaning that takes an expert to detect gets a coin consigned to "details" purgatory, while a deeply-flawed coin like this gets an attractive (to me) grade. That's illogical (thank you, Mr. Spock).

Mark

Many coins I the early 1900s and particularly in the 1800s have years that have weak strikes that can sometimes come off as wear. I'm pretty sure they take into account the strike of the year of the coin and the mint when grading.

A great example of this is the weakness of the New Orleans struck Morgan's of old... They are famously weak but that was as-struck. An ms from New Orleans may look like an au from Philly.

MFeld

It appears that’s w> @124Spider said:

One of the imponderables, to me, about coin grading is that a coin can be, e.g., MS64 while appearing to be quite worn. I inquired on this forum a while back about a buffalo nickel like that, and was told that a very poor strike can still get a fairly high grade.

To me, it makes no sense to give a coin with a terrible strike a grade above MS60. The principal purpose of professional grading services, IMO, should be to make one more trusting that one is getting a certain type of coin, given the grade. Also to me, an MS64 coin should be quite attractive. Heck, a gentle cleaning that takes an expert to detect gets a coin consigned to "details" purgatory, while a deeply-flawed coin like this gets an attractive (to me) grade. That's illogical (thank you, Mr. Spock).

Mark

Considering that strike is just one component of grading, why should a very weakly struck mint state coin not grade above MS60? That would be completely ignoring luster, quality of surfaces and eye appeal.

And why does an MS64 coin need to be attractive? What if the coin would otherwise grade MS65, 66 or 67, but is dark/deeply toned and/or exhibits unattractive original toning, so is down graded to MS64?

In your first example above, you want to make grading all about strike and in your second one, you want to make it largely about eye appeal. In each case, you’d either be mostly or completely throwing out all of the other grading criteria.

124Spider

@MFeld said:
It appears that’s w> @124Spider said:

One of the imponderables, to me, about coin grading is that a coin can be, e.g., MS64 while appearing to be quite worn. I inquired on this forum a while back about a buffalo nickel like that, and was told that a very poor strike can still get a fairly high grade.

To me, it makes no sense to give a coin with a terrible strike a grade above MS60. The principal purpose of professional grading services, IMO, should be to make one more trusting that one is getting a certain type of coin, given the grade. Also to me, an MS64 coin should be quite attractive. Heck, a gentle cleaning that takes an expert to detect gets a coin consigned to "details" purgatory, while a deeply-flawed coin like this gets an attractive (to me) grade. That's illogical (thank you, Mr. Spock).

Mark

Considering that strike is just one component of grading, why should a very weakly struck mint state coin not grade above MS60? That would be completely ignoring luster, quality of surfaces and eye appeal.

And why does an MS64 coin need to be attractive? What if the coin would otherwise grade MS65, 66 or 67, but is dark/deeply toned and/or exhibits unattractive original toning, so is down graded to MS64?

In your first example above, you want to make grading all about strike and in your second one, you want to make it largely about eye appeal. In each case, you’d either be mostly or completely throwing out all of the other grading criteria.

Huh, it appears that you do not agree with me! Again. I'm shocked.

I always make it clear that I am giving my Quixotic opinion on matters like this. I feel that strike quality should be a very significant component in a grade; it's nothing short of silly that two examples of the same year/mint mark/denomination of coin can get the same grade, and yet one is a well-struck coin while the other is a poorly struck coin. Likewise it seems silly to me to consign a very attractive coin to "details" purgatory for a "flaw" that only an expert with a microscope can see, while giving a high, straight grade to a very ugly coin.

I don't expect others to agree. Please don't expect me to feel otherwise.

MFeld

I don’t have any expectations one way or another about how you feel. And whether we agree or disagree, I enjoy hearing different viewpoints.

Insider3

@MFeld said:
I'd want to see all of each side before reaching any conclusions.

I'm a different kind of guy. I only need to see one sideof a coin to determine if THAT SIDE IS MINT STATE.
If not, I'll need to determine what caused the "rub." Some types of loss of original surface are "market acceptable."

@BustHalfBrian said:
I don’t see any wear. Then again, I don’t see most of the coin either.

The coin in the OP has friction down the leg. I don't know what the OP is trying to prove by the tone of his post.

@Coinscratch said:
Here is an MS62 from coin facts possibly the same grader. The very next in line a 63 looks much better (at least as a whole).

The surface on this coin is TOTALLY UNORIGINAL.

Insider3

@124Spider said:
One of the imponderables, to me, about coin grading is that a coin can be, e.g., MS64 while appearing to be quite worn. I inquired on this forum a while back about a buffalo nickel like that, and was told that a very poor strike can still get a fairly high grade.

To me, it makes no sense to give a coin with a terrible strike a grade above MS60. The principal purpose of professional grading services, IMO, should be to make one more trusting that one is getting a certain type of coin, given the grade. Also to me, an MS64 coin should be quite attractive. Heck, a gentle cleaning that takes an expert to detect gets a coin consigned to "details" purgatory, while a deeply-flawed coin like this gets an attractive (to me) grade. That's illogical (thank you, Mr. Spock).

Mark

You may be confusing value and grade. Some coins are totally original as struck with no trace of wear yet missing much of their design. This is common on Buffalo nickels. Do you think a FLASWLESS 1941-S 50c with a very flat strike should be graded MS-60? If you do, that's OK because all of us have our PERSONAL GRADING STANDARDS/OPINIONS.

Bikergeek

Here it is: it's in a live auction right now. Full Head and CAC stickered. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1556086/1917-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-Type-1-PCGS-MS-64-FH-CAC-Green-Toned

Insider3

@Bikergeek said:
Here it is: it's in a live auction right now. Full Head and CAC stickered. https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/1556086/1917-Standing-Liberty-Quarter-Type-1-PCGS-MS-64-FH-CAC-Green-Toned

Originality trumps a touch of friction!

124Spider

@Insider3 said:

@124Spider said:
One of the imponderables, to me, about coin grading is that a coin can be, e.g., MS64 while appearing to be quite worn. I inquired on this forum a while back about a buffalo nickel like that, and was told that a very poor strike can still get a fairly high grade.

To me, it makes no sense to give a coin with a terrible strike a grade above MS60. The principal purpose of professional grading services, IMO, should be to make one more trusting that one is getting a certain type of coin, given the grade. Also to me, an MS64 coin should be quite attractive. Heck, a gentle cleaning that takes an expert to detect gets a coin consigned to "details" purgatory, while a deeply-flawed coin like this gets an attractive (to me) grade. That's illogical (thank you, Mr. Spock).

Mark

You may be confusing value and grade. Some coins are totally original as struck with no trace of wear yet missing much of >their design. This is common on Buffalo nickels. Do you think a FLASWLESS 1941-S 50c with a very flat strike should be >graded MS-60? If you do, that's OK because all of us have our PERSONAL GRADING STANDARDS/OPINIONS.

I'm not "confusing" anything. But I feel constrained to point out that you probably meant "conflating," not "confusing" (but I'm not "conflating" anything, either).

In either case, it is nothing short of silly to give two copies of the same coin, each with radically different details than the other, the same grade. IMO, of course.

Moparmonster

@gumby1234 said:

How does this get into a PCGS MS64 holder?

Seems like you’re just whining because you can’t make it on the top 50 leaderboard. The coin looks like a solid 64 FH to me and PCGS and CAC agree. It is even an A or B coin for a 64.

dcarr

@gumby1234 said:

@Coinscratch said:
And you're not talking about the white streaks all over the slab?

White streaks aside. The coin has wear on the gown, legs, shield, breast and stars. Pretty much slight wear all over.

High points on the coin lack toning.
That is not the same thing as wear or "friction" or "rub".

MFeld

Based on the additional images that have been posted, the coin looks accurately graded and highly original to me.

gumby1234

@Moparmonster I'm not whining and I will never be on the top 50. I am doing pretty well on the grading except for the gold. I'm over 55 percent accuracy with over 3300 coins graded. I dont give a pass to coin with rub or stacking friction or whatever you want to call it. I grade technically not market grading.

Insider3

@124Spider said:

@Insider3 said:

@124Spider said:
One of the imponderables, to me, about coin grading is that a coin can be, e.g., MS64 while appearing to be quite worn. I inquired on this forum a while back about a buffalo nickel like that, and was told that a very poor strike can still get a fairly high grade.

To me, it makes no sense to give a coin with a terrible strike a grade above MS60. The principal purpose of professional grading services, IMO, should be to make one more trusting that one is getting a certain type of coin, given the grade. Also to me, an MS64 coin should be quite attractive. Heck, a gentle cleaning that takes an expert to detect gets a coin consigned to "details" purgatory, while a deeply-flawed coin like this gets an attractive (to me) grade. That's illogical (thank you, Mr. Spock).

Mark

You may be confusing value and grade. Some coins are totally original as struck with no trace of wear yet missing much of >their design. This is common on Buffalo nickels. Do you think a FLASWLESS 1941-S 50c with a very flat strike should be >graded MS-60? If you do, that's OK because all of us have our PERSONAL GRADING STANDARDS/OPINIONS.

I'm not "confusing" anything. But I feel constrained to point out that you probably meant "conflating," not "confusing" (but I'm not "conflating" anything, either).

Mark,

You probably should have gone with your "feelings" and restrained yourself from correcting my English. I'm not taking an SAT in English here so I try to write for the common man and not for any "English Twits!"

In either case, it is nothing short of silly to give two copies of the same coin, each with radically different details than the other, the same grade. IMO, of course.

For such an educated numismatist, I'm surprised that you have not observed what you consider to be silly happens a lot. I think it may be due to subjectivity and VALUE!

Regards, Skip

Insider3

@dcarr said:

@gumby1234 said:

@Coinscratch said:
And you're not talking about the white streaks all over the slab?

White streaks aside. The coin has wear on the gown, legs, shield, breast and stars. Pretty much slight wear all over.

High points on the coin lack toning.
That is not the same thing as wear or "friction" or "rub".

The high points also lack the original surface that was under the toning when it was rubbed off.
I call coins as this "Unc Enough" or "Unc w/rub" in my grading notes to others.

PS I sent you a PM on another subject.