Home› U.S. Coin Forum

So, which of these beauties didn't upgrade...

LakesammmanLakesammman Posts: 17,380 ✭✭✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum
Here are 2 PCGS coins. One is a 66R, the other a 65R rejected for upgrade last week. Let's test your grading skills - which is which??



image

image
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.

Comments

  • TheNumishTheNumish Posts: 1,628 ✭✭
    Both coins look awesome. Would love to own either one. Very tough decision but I would have to guess the 1902 didn't upgrade because of the carbon spot. If it wasn't for that I would have picked the 1902 as the upgrade.
  • FC57CoinsFC57Coins Posts: 9,140 ✭
    the 1884 looks like the better strike - so I'll guess that one - either way - beautiful coins! image

    Frank
  • clackamasclackamas Posts: 5,615 ✭
    The 1902 can't be a 66 with the carbon spot on the cheek so it must be the 65. They both look pretty clean but 66 and 67 would be tough but worth a shot.
  • keithdagenkeithdagen Posts: 2,025 ✭
    I say the 1902 upgraded. The 1884 appears to have a little chatter on the right side of the wreath on the reverse.
    Keith ™

  • cascadecascade Posts: 151 ✭✭
    I'd have to say the '02 for overall eye appeal.
  • PushkinPushkin Posts: 2,029 ✭✭✭

    I'd be very happy owning either of those beauties. The 84 didn't make it - weak strike. But what do I know?image
  • mr1931Smr1931S Posts: 6,242 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The '84 is the 66...better obverse strike

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein

  • its4realits4real Posts: 451 ✭✭
    the '02 has 3 spots, lacks luster and color, and is a little weaker strike on the reverse. It probably got upgraded image
    "spare change? Nahhhhh...never have any...sold it all on E-bay..."
    see? My Auctions "Got any 1800's gold?"
  • relayerrelayer Posts: 10,570 ✭

    I'll say the 1884 because of the mark on the cheek below the ear
    image
    My posts viewed image times
    since 8/1/6
  • DCAMFranklinDCAMFranklin Posts: 2,862 ✭✭
    The '02 is the 65. Super nice coins. Thank you for sharing them with us.
  • tjkilliantjkillian Posts: 5,578 ✭✭✭
    I love both coins, but I think that the '02 did not upgrade, even though the luster and color are fantastic. Do you want to part with either one?

    Tom
    Tom

  • Dog97Dog97 Posts: 7,874 ✭✭✭
    The 02 didn't upgrade because it's the lesser coin.
    Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
  • LakesammmanLakesammman Posts: 17,380 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The 1902 is in a older MS66R holder and is a great coin. The 1884 failed to upgrade, along with this 1881....guess I'll be saving my money for coins and not spending it with PCGS anytime soonimage

    This 1881 is the "mate" to the coin Shylock sent to Japan (earlier posting last week). Both the 1881 and 1884 are no-brainer 66's. The 1902 is courtesy of Shylock, the 1884 from Dr. T-1794, the 1881 from Schweitz.

    image

    "My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
  • DCAMFranklinDCAMFranklin Posts: 2,862 ✭✭
    Lakesammman-
    In direct comparison, it sure seemed the 1884 was clearly superior to the '02. Perhaps there is something hidden by the lighting? The grading of those 2 coins sure doesn't seem consistent! Fantastic coins! Thanks for all the great photos.
  • BigEBigE Posts: 6,949 ✭✭✭
    It could be exactly the point that Lake makes here, that over the internet lighting has a lot to do with the way a coin looks-----------BigE
    I'm glad I am a Tree
  • darktonedarktone Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭
    The 1902 is a super looking coin! image mike
  • shylockshylock Posts: 4,288 ✭✭✭
    Examples like this make you appreciate the silly side of certification. Take that gorgeous 1884, slap a PCGS 66RD label on it, and collectors who know these coins will step over each other to pay 3X more than they would in a 65RD holder.

    For IHs, it seems like the only way to get a 66RD for a worthy coin these days is to pair dates together for upgrade. One an average 65RD (like this green label), the other an example like Lakesammman's. This gives them a small smack in the side of the head to bring them back to reality. "See, this one you justly graded 65RD. Now tell me with a straight face this other one is the same grade. Or, pay me for having overgraded the first one."

    I've learned more from Lakesammman about being finicky in this series than anyone, and trust his eye. Selling to him can be a wakeup call for your own standards (another way of saying he's a royal pain in the butt). Almost every 65RD IH you see has obvious reasons, without magnification, why they didn't go higher. With a few rare PQ examples you need a glass to see well concealed problems. And a faint strike weakness or small flecs do not, by themselves, keep a coin from being 66RD if all its other qualities are superb gem. There are many that would otherwise grade 67. Below are images of mine of the same 1902 (it has great lustre & color), and a similar 1903 PCGS MS66RD with a spot right in the middle of the shield. Both are solid 66s, with only the spots keeping them from being total monsters and perhaps a higher grade.

    To me, that bright & clean 1884 is an amazing example of a much tougher date, nicer than at least a couple 1884 MS66s I saw in the Showdown with darker toning.

    imageimage
    imageimage




    Paul <> altered surfaces <> CoinGallery.org
  • LakesammmanLakesammman Posts: 17,380 ✭✭✭✭✭
    A royal pain in the butt, am I.....I resemble that remark!image

    At the risk of sounding like a mutual admiration society, I've learned just as much (if not more) from Shylock!

    Will let you all know WHEN they upgrade.
    "My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose.
  • IrishMikeIrishMike Posts: 7,737 ✭✭✭
    Now you guys see why I love raw Indians, less headaches. There is no way that 84 isn't a 66.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...