EF-45? Canadian 5c

ajaan

The coin doesn't even have a full rim.

1926 Far 6

lordmarcovan

Looks like full rims to me. Nice coin.

ajaan

The obverse rim at 12:00 doesn't look full to me.

lordmarcovan

Whoop-de-doo.

It would be one thing if the rim were worn away. Lack of full rims due to strike does not preclude the EF grade.

Besides, you can't really tell from a picture, anyway.

shirohniichan

Atleast ajaan wasn't being pessimistic by saying the rims are half empty.

canadiancoinguy

Looks like a shadow to me. Picture is poor.

rottnrog

Don't think I have ever seen an ICCS coin that was graded wrong!!!

MyWorldCoinTypeSet

Don't think I have ever seen an ICCS coin that was graded wrong!!!

They certainly do exist, no TPG is perfect. Go to the Discussions on Canadian Coin Reference Site and do a search on 1927, and look at the threads with MS-64.




Edited to add more specific info.

ajaan

But Paul, NGC can't grade Canadian coins at all. All of them are overgraded.

coinkat

ALL Canadian NCG coins are overgraded?ALL OF THEM? They have yet to get one right? Well, then at least they are consistent...

ajaan

'kat, I was making a reference to a thread on the CCRS where most of the members there were very critical of NGC graded Canadian coins in general, and my 1859 Large Cent in particular. I'll let sleeping dogs lie.

MyWorldCoinTypeSet

But Paul, NGC can't grade Canadian coins at all. All of them are overgraded.

Ya, CCRS does go somewhat overboard in judging coins from scans.

In my opinion, the 1927 5c has some definite hits and rim problems that would preclude it from being a MS-64. They were obvious from the scans.

The critique of your 1859 cent was based more on lusture, which I cannot determine from a scan. I saw nothing wrong with your coin, and would have bought it if cents were my thing.

The bashing of your cent was based on a few items:
(1) There is a line in Charlton's that states MS-65 or higher cents must be red. I'm not sure if anyone really beleives this.
(2) There is a lemming mentality over there - especially when it comes to TPG's. A couple years ago, ICCS was #1, and all others were a waste of time. A couple of the main contributors changed their tune, and now ICCS is #1 and PCGS is a close #2. All other holders are bashed at will (IMHO, ICCS and PCGS and NGC are good, I own coins graded by all three)
(3) NGC is getting a bad reputation for Canadian coins due to the emergence of one particular dealer in the Canadian market. I think we all know who he is.

docday2003

<< <i>But Paul, NGC can't grade Canadian coins at all. All of them are overgraded.

Ya, CCRS does go somewhat overboard in judging coins from scans.

In my opinion, the 1927 5c has some definite hits and rim problems that would preclude it from being a MS-64. They were obvious from the scans.

The critique of your 1859 cent was based more on lusture, which I cannot determine from a scan. I saw nothing wrong with your coin, and would have bought it if cents were my thing.

The bashing of your cent was based on a few items:
(1) There is a line in Charlton's that states MS-65 or higher cents must be red. I'm not sure if anyone really beleives this.
(2) There is a lemming mentality over there - especially when it comes to TPG's. A couple years ago, ICCS was #1, and all others were a waste of time. A couple of the main contributors changed their tune, and now ICCS is #1 and PCGS is a close #2. All other holders are bashed at will (IMHO, ICCS and PCGS and NGC are good, I own coins graded by all three)
(3) NGC is getting a bad reputation for Canadian coins due to the emergence of one particular dealer in the Canadian market. I think we all know who he is. >>



I agree with your assessment of the CCRS site. I think they do get a little carried away at times. With regards to ICCS, I have definitely seen ugly/overgraded coins in ICCS holders - and in every other type of holder too!

ajaan

The Canadian buyer of the 1859 1c NGC MS65BN is very satisfied with the coin. docday2003 what's your handle on the CCRS. You can PM me it if you wish to answer.