Your opinion of this Saint, please

dan1ecu

Below are links to the obverse and reverse of an NGC MS65 1923-D Saint Gaudens $20 gold piece. I’m interested in others’ opinions as to whether it is solid for the grade, high end, or low end. The obverse has a relatively large contact mark in the right field. Surprisingly, this is hardly noticeable - unless under magnification - and not too distracting in person. The reverse is very clean (it is comparable to some MS66's I’ve seen). I think that what shows on the lower reverse are die cracks. I’ve seen both better and worse in an MS65 holder. I’d appreciate your evaluation.

Thanks,

Dan

1923-D O

1923-D R

michael

this coin IS NOT A 65 it is a very nice 64 and wiithout the two huge hits in the right fields and the two on lady liberties leg well this coin would be a very nice 65

it is too bad about those huge hits but it is a tough coin i would not like to own this coin at even a low end 65 price as many will always comment about the huge hits they will say oh very nice but..........................................................

sincerely michael

dan1ecu

Hi, Michael – I see what you mean about the blemishes, although I have seen some others (in NGC and PCGS holders) that aren’t as nice. I wonder if the services grade coins on a relative scale to some extent; i.e., based on how the coin compares to others of that particular date and mint mark. Maybe there are coins graded 65 that would only make a 64 if they had a different date on them. Do you think that they do this?

Dan

darktone

I agree this coin is pretty beat up for a 65 it has nice luster but just too many deep marks. I give it a 64. mike

stman

I collected these for a while and have seen a bunch in person. Not trying to knock your coin but I don't like it for 65. It looks to have the right color, but too many hits and too deep. I agree I've seen better and worse in 65 holders but the marks are much lighter. Sometimes I've seen them grade 65 for the deep rich gold color.

Stman

michael

dan i see what you mean and this is a coin that has problems i mean even in a 64 holder to me it is a problem 64 the thing is the surfaces other than those huge hits overall the surfaces
are 65 plus but with those hits they to me brind mthe coin down to 64 but i am sure there are other 65 saints that do not look as nice overall as this coin but they might be nicer because they have many smaller hits and blemishes the problem with the coin you posted is the huge hits!!!!!!!!!!!!

for me i would not like to own this coin even in a 64 holder with a reduced greatly price as every time i would look at the coin the hits get msagnifyed and then when you sell the coin everyone looks at it
and say oh a super nice clean eye appealling and beautiful colorful and fantastic surfaces if only for those huge scratches.................

for me yes there are other rarer dates especially the eaelier mintmarked pieces that might be graded differently as say comsapired to a 1927 or 28 saint but would still have to be all there to make a 65 and of course the earlier mintmarked dates in 65 that are graxded by lets say pcgs would not have as much overall eye appeal as say a high end 27 or 28 but both the early ms 65 piece and the 28 would still be all there so toi speak

i guess i have to see the coin to let you know

i am sure there are many better dated saints in holders thaT ARE IN 65 THAT MAYBE A 65 BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE FOR ME AS I WOULD NOT LIKE THE EYE APPEAL

ALWAYS REMEMBEER THIS DAN your first consideration the most important thying weith any coin is eye appeal exceptional to monster eye appeal i

and with the saint you posted a pioc of with the scratches gouges it might be a 65 some say yesa others say no just think of it in terms of eye appeal this coin with the gouges has very little eye appeal

so a pass for me

sincerely michael and again this is waht i think and this gives you morte information to think about and make your own decsison as ones mans trash is anothers treasure that is not good or bad that is juat a market

dorkkarl

agree w/ 64. 65 is just plain silly.

K S