It is hard to believe that this Lincoln Cent graded MS65RD
SanctionII
Posts: 12,093 ✭✭✭✭✭
Your thoughts?
1
SanctionII
Posts: 12,093 ✭✭✭✭✭
Comments
Photo looks better than a 65 IMO, looks cameo as well, but then it’s just a photo.
Lincoln cents are an odd bird to grade, I suppose.
I have the same thoughts as the OP does with the cent he posted as I do with this one:
R/B?
peacockcoins
Noice proofs.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
Is it the 65 that’s suspect, or is it the RD? I haven’t spent enough time with copper to weigh in on color, but based on the pic, it sure looks like it’s at least a 65.
Seen many late date Lincolns in RD in RD 6 with far more ticks than this coin. Is the 1951 P graded differently, than say, a 56 D?
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
It’s the MS part that’s suspect. I’m guessing mechanical error.
I missed the obvious. Not MS.
Without looking it up, my guess is that it graded PR (not MS) 65 RD.
If you’re questioning the color designation, it’s probably just the photos.
If you’re questioning the grade, it’s often impossible to grade Proof coins from images.
And lastly, if you’re questioning the lack of a Cameo designation, that’s also often impossible to judge from images.
How about more specificity regarding what’s hard to believe?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It is hard to believe that the coin graded MS.
The coin was contained in a 1951 Proof Set that I purchased.
Thank you. If I were a betting man, I’d give good odds that it was merely a “mechanical error”.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t give good odds that you actually bought a mint set.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I looked it up. Shows MS. Mechanical error.
As far as Braddick's 1964 PR68RB cent, that is a head scratcher.
It is clearly not RD.
I do not understand why it was determined to be RB (since there is no Red anywhere on the coin).
If it had been determined to be BN I would have a hard time understanding that also (since there is no Brown anywhere on the coin)
His coin is an outlier that does not fit within the accepted structure for grading copper. It is likely that the grader(s)/finalizer(s) that assigned the RB moniker to Braddick's coin did so simply because it is the catchall category that coins clearly not RD and clearly not BN are placed (even if they have no Red or Brown anywhere on the coin).
Mark.
My public persona on the Forums is mostly ............... all things 1936-1970 Proof and SMS coinage.
However outside of the Forums and away from public scrutiny I also play in other areas of the hobby pool, including 1947-1958 double mint sets, early US coinage, post 1964 clad coinage, errors, world coins, ancient coins, medals and currency.
For example:
Agree with PF65 -- it is almost identical to proof 65 examples shown by PCGS.
Believe what you want, but it’s nearly impossible to provide meaningful grade assessments for most Proof coins based on images. Hairlines are usually the most significant factor affecting their grade and they’re not necessarily apparent in images. As an example, a Proof coin graded 65 or 66, due to light hairlines (that don’t show in the pictures) can easily look nearly perfect - as in like a 67, 68 or 69.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Well I’ll be a son of a gun. I had no idea! Those are nice looking coins.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To be fair, the PR65 examples shown by PCGS are similarly impossible to differentiate from other grades, so indeed the OP’s coin does look like them. It just happens that it also looks like all the other grades.
Does anyone know what causes proof cents to tone white like that? I've been trying to find one to buy but I imagine they're very expensive.
Long ago I purchased a 1950 Satin Proof Cent from a dealer as an "MS65" coin. I think it sold for $3. Still one of my favorite coins. But that was a dealer mis-attributing the coin, not a respected TPG. Obvious mistake.
http://macrocoins.com
No argument there, Jeremy!😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I'm going to remember this day as long as I shall live
Looks proof to me
Note i have not read all the responses
Martin
Here is another 1951 cent that graded PF65RD.
Does anyone think it should have graded MS?
I don’t understand why you seem so surprised. Plenty of (other) mechanical errors have been posted here previously.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I am not surprised and agree that the coin displayed in my opening post is a mechanical error, resulting in a label stating a grade of MS65.
The two coins I posted photos of in this thread were graded consecutively. It would have been more of a head scratcher if both coins, via mechanical error, were graded MS65 (in which case I would have mechanical error bookends).
I had no reason to post this thread other than to have a little fun and encourage comments from other forum members