@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).
Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.
For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.
These are planchet rolling marks?
In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.
Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).
Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.
For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.
These are planchet rolling marks?
In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.
Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
That's just not really how it works. Die polish lines are not considered an element of eye appeal when grading. In the entire history of grading I'm sure there have been grading choices made that are outliers, just as there have been coins massively misgraded and fake coins put in holders, but that doesn't make it a standard. There are many 70s with die polish, in fact.
@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).
Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.
For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.
These are planchet rolling marks?
In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.
Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
That's just not really how it works. Die polish lines are not considered an element of eye appeal when grading. In the entire history of grading I'm sure there have been grading choices made that are outliers, just as there have been coins massively misgraded and fake coins put in holders, but that doesn't make it a standard. There are many 70s with die polish, in fact.
I don’t think you are correct. Heavy die polishing should affect the grade as it can be certainly construed as negative eye appeal. Something I would never like on a high grade coin. If given a choice between die polish lines that are distracting and no polish lines why would the collector choose the polish lines unless they like that look on a coin.
@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).
Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.
For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.
These are planchet rolling marks?
In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.
Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
That's just not really how it works. Die polish lines are not considered an element of eye appeal when grading. In the entire history of grading I'm sure there have been grading choices made that are outliers, just as there have been coins massively misgraded and fake coins put in holders, but that doesn't make it a standard. There are many 70s with die polish, in fact.
I don’t think you are correct. Heavy die polishing should affect the grade as it can be certainly construed as negative eye appeal. Something I would never like on a high grade coin. If given a choice between die polish lines that are distracting and no polish lines why would the collector choose the polish lines unless they like that look on a coin.
Should doesn't mean does. And I disagree that it should; in my opinion any characteristic that is an as-made impression from the dies (not a planchet issue) should be permissible on a 70 - and such is the case, whether you feel it should be or not.
One is free to choose the coins one likes or dislikes within the grade assigned, for whatever personal reasons or preferences one may have. One's like or dislike of a coin does not necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the grade assigned.
Here is an MS69 with not only heavy die polish but also heavy die clashing, both which may be seen as imperfections to some collectors (and not as imperfections to many others). They do not affect the grade. This was simply the first coin that came to mind.
@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).
Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.
For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.
These are planchet rolling marks?
In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.
Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
That's just not really how it works. Die polish lines are not considered an element of eye appeal when grading. In the entire history of grading I'm sure there have been grading choices made that are outliers, just as there have been coins massively misgraded and fake coins put in holders, but that doesn't make it a standard. There are many 70s with die polish, in fact.
I don’t think you are correct. Heavy die polishing should affect the grade as it can be certainly construed as negative eye appeal. Something I would never like on a high grade coin. If given a choice between die polish lines that are distracting and no polish lines why would the collector choose the polish lines unless they like that look on a coin.
Should doesn't mean does. And I disagree that it should; in my opinion any characteristic that is an as-made impression from the dies (not a planchet issue) should be permissible on a 70 - and such is the case, whether you feel it should be or not.
One is free to choose the coins one likes or dislikes within the grade assigned, for whatever personal reasons or preferences one may have. One's like or dislike of a coin does not necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the grade assigned.
Why do you exclude planchet issues?
And if it is the case as you say on a 70 coin why should any distractions be permitted. Isn’t a 70 the epitome of perfection. I would think no die polishing, die cracks strike throughs spots blemishes etc should be on a 70 coin.
@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).
Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.
For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.
These are planchet rolling marks?
In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.
Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
That's just not really how it works. Die polish lines are not considered an element of eye appeal when grading. In the entire history of grading I'm sure there have been grading choices made that are outliers, just as there have been coins massively misgraded and fake coins put in holders, but that doesn't make it a standard. There are many 70s with die polish, in fact.
I don’t think you are correct. Heavy die polishing should affect the grade as it can be certainly construed as negative eye appeal. Something I would never like on a high grade coin. If given a choice between die polish lines that are distracting and no polish lines why would the collector choose the polish lines unless they like that look on a coin.
Should doesn't mean does. And I disagree that it should; in my opinion any characteristic that is an as-made impression from the dies (not a planchet issue) should be permissible on a 70 - and such is the case, whether you feel it should be or not.
One is free to choose the coins one likes or dislikes within the grade assigned, for whatever personal reasons or preferences one may have. One's like or dislike of a coin does not necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the grade assigned.
Why do you exclude planchet issues?
And if it is the case as you say on a 70 coin why should any distractions be permitted. Isn’t a 70 the epitome of perfection. I would think no die polishing, die cracks strike throughs spots blemishes etc should be on a 70 coin.
A coin that exhibits die lines but no visible surface damage is perfect. Die lines are not imperfections, they are just an element of the texture and production process of the dies. If one is going to argue that die lines are imperfections, then what about die flow and other forms of die erosion? Should any coin in Superb Gem grades be the first few coins struck from the dies, so that there is no die erosion yet? And sometimes the first coin struck will have some die polish, and only once there is some die erosion will the polish lines flatten out, so maybe then a lack of die polish would be an imperfection due to the die erosion? What is a "perfect" die by your definition? Who decides what that means? Can there only be a few coins struck as 70s from one pair of dies? It's much simpler to just grade the physical preservation of the coin (technical grading).
You note spots and blemishes - those would not be acceptable on 70s as they are not from the dies. Strikethroughs may be acceptable if small. You generally won't find die cracks on 70-quality coins because that grade is essentially reserved for modern bullion and proofs and the like, but I would imagine there are some out there.
Planchet issues are excluded because that implies an imperfect rendition of the dies, either due to a flawed planchet (in various possible ways) or to an imperfect strike that leaves some visible unstruck planchet texture. Basically, in those instances the planchet or the striking process failed to live up to its job. Those are characteristics individual to that particular coin. Die polish lines are not individual to particular coins, they are on the dies, and they're a normal feature of the die production process. They don't need to live up to anything.
But sure, if the TPGs wanted to they could grade even more technically and ignore planchet issues and weak strikes entirely, and start calling Jefferson nickels and Ikes with heavy unstruck planchet roughness or coins with planchet cracks MS69. But I don't think anyone would like that very much, including the "technical grading" crowd.
It’s been an educational thread. Beyond that I plan be careful not acquire anything with roller marks. Don’t believe ever had any that material anyway.
Furthermore, considering he downgraded it 2 points would be last time send there. Can’t make any money that way lol.
@SurfinxHI said:
It's fair if they say it's fair. Its their sticker. That tells you JA doesn't like roller marks (and downwardly grades the coin).
Yes that goes without saying. I'm looking for the opinions of the collectors here.
For example, to my knowledge, you would not reduce a coin's grade due to excessive die polishing marks or die breaks.
These are planchet rolling marks?
In higher grades, anything that affects eye appeal, including die polish, could affect the grade.
Die polish doesn’t affect grade. There are many coins in 68 and 69 with heavy die polish. Many would not consider it to affect eye appeal, and sometimes to contribute to it.
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
That's just not really how it works. Die polish lines are not considered an element of eye appeal when grading. In the entire history of grading I'm sure there have been grading choices made that are outliers, just as there have been coins massively misgraded and fake coins put in holders, but that doesn't make it a standard. There are many 70s with die polish, in fact.
I don’t think you are correct. Heavy die polishing should affect the grade as it can be certainly construed as negative eye appeal. Something I would never like on a high grade coin. If given a choice between die polish lines that are distracting and no polish lines why would the collector choose the polish lines unless they like that look on a coin.
Should doesn't mean does. And I disagree that it should; in my opinion any characteristic that is an as-made impression from the dies (not a planchet issue) should be permissible on a 70 - and such is the case, whether you feel it should be or not.
One is free to choose the coins one likes or dislikes within the grade assigned, for whatever personal reasons or preferences one may have. One's like or dislike of a coin does not necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the grade assigned.
Why do you exclude planchet issues?
And if it is the case as you say on a 70 coin why should any distractions be permitted. Isn’t a 70 the epitome of perfection. I would think no die polishing, die cracks strike throughs spots blemishes etc should be on a 70 coin.
A coin that exhibits die lines but no visible surface damage is perfect. Die lines are not imperfections, they are just an element of the texture and production process of the dies. If one is going to argue that die lines are imperfections, then what about die flow and other forms of die erosion? Should any coin in Superb Gem grades be the first few coins struck from the dies, so that there is no die erosion yet? And sometimes the first coin struck will have some die polish, and only once there is some die erosion will the polish lines flatten out, so maybe then a lack of die polish would be an imperfection due to the die erosion? What is a "perfect" die by your definition? Who decides what that means? Can there only be a few coins struck as 70s from one pair of dies? It's much simpler to just grade the physical preservation of the coin (technical grading).
You note spots and blemishes - those would not be acceptable on 70s as they are not from the dies. Strikethroughs may be acceptable if small. You generally won't find die cracks on 70-quality coins because that grade is essentially reserved for modern bullion and proofs and the like, but I would imagine there are some out there.
Planchet issues are excluded because that implies an imperfect rendition of the dies, either due to a flawed planchet (in various possible ways) or to an imperfect strike that leaves some visible unstruck planchet texture. Basically, in those instances the planchet or the striking process failed to live up to its job. Those are characteristics individual to that particular coin. Die polish lines are not individual to particular coins, they are on the dies, and they're a normal feature of the die production process. They don't need to live up to anything.
But sure, if the TPGs wanted to they could grade even more technically and ignore planchet issues and weak strikes entirely, and start calling Jefferson nickels and Ikes with heavy unstruck planchet roughness or coins with planchet cracks MS69. But I don't think anyone would like that very much, including the "technical grading" crowd.
Your opinions are well stated and you make a good case for them. I respect your thought process. Still I feel while die polish lines are part of minting they detract from the eye appeal of the coin.
I think graders should take that into consideration when assigning a final grade. Just as Luster, contact marks, and strike are taken into account. This should especially be true when the die polishing is very heavy and distracting
they are even before minting, they are even "pre-blanking"
a 70 with zero "as made" is sought but not if it's a modern mint one? for everyone thinking a 70 is 100% in every way, even for moderns, you're ruling out "as made" defects in the least. even for moderns that means it's a hit to the number despite not being a hit on the coin.
in the end, I don't think as made imperfections should nuke a coin that's got the right number. think coins that aren't fb or fs. cac can do what they want, but do they deny a sticker to a 66fb if cac thinks it's a 66 that's not fb?
WinLoseWin provided the right link.
The coin is "As Made." However, the manufacturing flaw does make the coin less attractive, IMHO. As such, I completely agree with CAC for not stickering it.
Beauty can be in the eye of the beholder, but a Fourth Party Grading Service has to go with the majority opinion. I just bought a 1922 "No D" (my opinion, confirmed by another former Authenticator) cent graded by a major TPG in a high grade from a die pair never before confirmed to have struck a "No D," and this coin is such an extremely late die state that it is, in all charity, "butt ugly," but to me it is one of the most beautiful coins I own. It will be in the book.
TD
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
@braddick said:
Probably a stand-alone opinion, yet I think this minting imperfection can sometimes turn an otherwise boring coin into an interesting one.
Certainly not a stand-alone opinion!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@braddick said:
Probably a stand-alone opinion, yet I think this minting imperfection can sometimes turn an otherwise boring coin into an interesting one.
Certainly not a stand-alone opinion!
Thanks Mark.
As Tom pointed out in a linked thread above- these are an interesting part of our nation's minting process and shouldn't be discounted and labeled as being defective, IMO.
(With that stated, I do also believe CAC's position on this is labeled with reasoned scrutiny.)
@braddick said:
Probably a stand-alone opinion, yet I think this minting imperfection can sometimes turn an otherwise boring coin into an interesting one.
Certainly not a stand-alone opinion!
Thanks Mark.
As Tom pointed out in a linked thread above- these are an interesting part of our nation's minting process and shouldn't be discounted and labeled as being defective, IMO.
(With that stated, I do also believe CAC's position on this is labeled with reasoned scrutiny.)
Pat, what did NGC grade it and if you were a grading finalizer, how would you grade it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I really did not want to reply further to this thread until I saw the image of the 1892-0 Morgan that was graded 64 by NGC and then crossed to CAC at 63. I like the coin- it landed in a 64 holder which is as good as it gets. Why the obsession over the holder crossing to a different holder ?
Why the obsession over a holder/opinion instead of just acknowledging that roller marks are just an inherent component of the minting process?
WHAT MATTERS IS TO LOOK AT A COIN THROUGH THE CORRECT LENS THAT REPRESENTS WHAT WAS DONE AT THE TIME INSTEAD OF A REVISIONIST LOOK THAT IS CLOUDED BY WHAT EXISTS TODAY INCONTRAST TO WHAT WAS THE NORM AT THE TIME. Sadly this is not rocket science nor should it be.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
That statement can not be made so absolutely. Negative eye appeal is negative eye appeal. Would the 68 with heavy polish be a 69 without it? Just because die polish isn't considered to be a "problem" doesn't mean it isn't sometimes negatively influencing the grade. Eye appeal itself is highly subjective. I find it impossible to believe that a grader is going to see see negative eye appeal from die polish and force himself to ignore it because it's die polish.
Of course, it's quite possible that you never downgraded a coin for that reason.
That's just not really how it works. Die polish lines are not considered an element of eye appeal when grading. In the entire history of grading I'm sure there have been grading choices made that are outliers, just as there have been coins massively misgraded and fake coins put in holders, but that doesn't make it a standard. There are many 70s with die polish, in fact.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I don’t think you are correct. Heavy die polishing should affect the grade as it can be certainly construed as negative eye appeal. Something I would never like on a high grade coin. If given a choice between die polish lines that are distracting and no polish lines why would the collector choose the polish lines unless they like that look on a coin.
Should doesn't mean does. And I disagree that it should; in my opinion any characteristic that is an as-made impression from the dies (not a planchet issue) should be permissible on a 70 - and such is the case, whether you feel it should be or not.
One is free to choose the coins one likes or dislikes within the grade assigned, for whatever personal reasons or preferences one may have. One's like or dislike of a coin does not necessarily correlate with the accuracy of the grade assigned.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Here is an MS69 with not only heavy die polish but also heavy die clashing, both which may be seen as imperfections to some collectors (and not as imperfections to many others). They do not affect the grade. This was simply the first coin that came to mind.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Why do you exclude planchet issues?
And if it is the case as you say on a 70 coin why should any distractions be permitted. Isn’t a 70 the epitome of perfection. I would think no die polishing, die cracks strike throughs spots blemishes etc should be on a 70 coin.
Or, here is a random 1986 silver eagle graded MS70, with die lines clearly apparent on the reverse:
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
A coin that exhibits die lines but no visible surface damage is perfect. Die lines are not imperfections, they are just an element of the texture and production process of the dies. If one is going to argue that die lines are imperfections, then what about die flow and other forms of die erosion? Should any coin in Superb Gem grades be the first few coins struck from the dies, so that there is no die erosion yet? And sometimes the first coin struck will have some die polish, and only once there is some die erosion will the polish lines flatten out, so maybe then a lack of die polish would be an imperfection due to the die erosion? What is a "perfect" die by your definition? Who decides what that means? Can there only be a few coins struck as 70s from one pair of dies? It's much simpler to just grade the physical preservation of the coin (technical grading).
You note spots and blemishes - those would not be acceptable on 70s as they are not from the dies. Strikethroughs may be acceptable if small. You generally won't find die cracks on 70-quality coins because that grade is essentially reserved for modern bullion and proofs and the like, but I would imagine there are some out there.
Planchet issues are excluded because that implies an imperfect rendition of the dies, either due to a flawed planchet (in various possible ways) or to an imperfect strike that leaves some visible unstruck planchet texture. Basically, in those instances the planchet or the striking process failed to live up to its job. Those are characteristics individual to that particular coin. Die polish lines are not individual to particular coins, they are on the dies, and they're a normal feature of the die production process. They don't need to live up to anything.
But sure, if the TPGs wanted to they could grade even more technically and ignore planchet issues and weak strikes entirely, and start calling Jefferson nickels and Ikes with heavy unstruck planchet roughness or coins with planchet cracks MS69. But I don't think anyone would like that very much, including the "technical grading" crowd.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
It’s been an educational thread. Beyond that I plan be careful not acquire anything with roller marks. Don’t believe ever had any that material anyway.
Furthermore, considering he downgraded it 2 points would be last time send there. Can’t make any money that way lol.
The 1902-S date is notorious for having roller marks.
Your opinions are well stated and you make a good case for them. I respect your thought process. Still I feel while die polish lines are part of minting they detract from the eye appeal of the coin.
I think graders should take that into consideration when assigning a final grade. Just as Luster, contact marks, and strike are taken into account. This should especially be true when the die polishing is very heavy and distracting
WinLoseWin provided the right link.
The coin is "As Made." However, the manufacturing flaw does make the coin less attractive, IMHO. As such, I completely agree with CAC for not stickering it.
Beauty can be in the eye of the beholder, but a Fourth Party Grading Service has to go with the majority opinion. I just bought a 1922 "No D" (my opinion, confirmed by another former Authenticator) cent graded by a major TPG in a high grade from a die pair never before confirmed to have struck a "No D," and this coin is such an extremely late die state that it is, in all charity, "butt ugly," but to me it is one of the most beautiful coins I own. It will be in the book.
TD
Probably a stand-alone opinion, yet I think this minting imperfection can sometimes turn an otherwise boring coin into an interesting one.
peacockcoins
Certainly not a stand-alone opinion!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Thanks Mark.
As Tom pointed out in a linked thread above- these are an interesting part of our nation's minting process and shouldn't be discounted and labeled as being defective, IMO.
(With that stated, I do also believe CAC's position on this is labeled with reasoned scrutiny.)
peacockcoins
Pat, what did NGC grade it and if you were a grading finalizer, how would you grade it?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
NGC graded it "Details Artifical Toning".
peacockcoins
peacockcoins
Thanks. I wonder what it would have graded, but for the toning.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I really did not want to reply further to this thread until I saw the image of the 1892-0 Morgan that was graded 64 by NGC and then crossed to CAC at 63. I like the coin- it landed in a 64 holder which is as good as it gets. Why the obsession over the holder crossing to a different holder ?
Why the obsession over a holder/opinion instead of just acknowledging that roller marks are just an inherent component of the minting process?
WHAT MATTERS IS TO LOOK AT A COIN THROUGH THE CORRECT LENS THAT REPRESENTS WHAT WAS DONE AT THE TIME INSTEAD OF A REVISIONIST LOOK THAT IS CLOUDED BY WHAT EXISTS TODAY INCONTRAST TO WHAT WAS THE NORM AT THE TIME. Sadly this is not rocket science nor should it be.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.