hi i thank you for your apologize. I apologize for my comments to you ,too. littlejohn aka--littlejohnartifacts on ebay.no coins for sell right now.check back soon.~
You see....Bill Jones' coin is an example of the luster dependence that gold coins have in grading. It has chatter on the chin too. Bill might be "amazed" it received a 65 but it doesn't surprise me too much. Especially if it has great luster....which is something a picture often does NOT show well.
I saw your post, the picture of the $10 Lib in question and I will offer my thoughts for what they are worth. First, I am not an expert, but I have made my share of $10 Lib snags over the years. We are looking at a picture of the coin and not the coin itself. I think you have the advantage there and you just need to trust your instincts. A picture of a coin can be misleading. In this instance, I think that is part of the problem. I am not saying it is a bad picture, what I am saying is the difference between 64 and 65 can be a tough determination from a picture and not the coin.
If the coin upgrades...congrats on a terrific score. If it comes back 64, I still maintain that you come out ahead because of the education. Not that you need an education, its just that grading skills can always be sharpened.
From the picture, I am in the 64 camp but my view may change if I saw the coin in person. The picture is big and some of the nicks are enhanced and look worse than they really are. Best of luck with your decision
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Remember the 1933 Saint that was opinion-graded at MS65? It had perfect fields, but a hit or two on the leg. Same with Bill's coin, perfect fields and a hit or two on the chin. If the $10 lib in question had perfect fields, I could see them overlooking the hits on the cheek [especially if not as prominent in person] but the fields are simply too chattery for that to be the case.
BTW, I completely agree about the comparisons to the dipped MS62 GOLD and not having a clue... yet another example and reason as to the need for an original surfaces designation. Also, I rarely even buy gold anymore for this vary reason... too many harvest original gold, enhance it, and hope to make a killing. This BS has to stop.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Remember the 1933 Saint that was opinion-graded at MS65? It had perfect fields, but a hit or two on the leg. Same with Bill's coin, perfect fields and a hit or two on the chin. If the $10 lib in question had perfect fields, I could see them overlooking the hits on the cheek [especially if not as prominent in person] but the fields are simply too chattery for that to be the case. >>
Bill's picture is not good enough to tell if it's a cleaned AU58 or a pristine MS66. The 1933 saint is out of my league to so I never even looked at it. What I do look at though are common $5 and $10 libs graded MS63-MS66. mike
64?? Looks more like 63 to me. That chin hit is horrible. If I cracked it out and sent that coin in, PCGS would BB it for sure. . .but thats just me. I must be on their "BB-by-default" list.
<< <i>BTW, I completely agree about the comparisons to the dipped MS62 GOLD and not having a clue... yet another example and reason as to the need for an original surfaces designation. Also, I rarely even buy gold anymore for this vary reason... too many harvest original gold, enhance it, and hope to make a killing. This BS has to stop. >>
I agree totally! I put my $5 liberty collection on hold because I got sick and tired of getting cleaned and messed with MS64-MS66 coins. I prefer an original non-messed with bag marked MS62 over a messed with MS66 any day! From the bright NCS dipped gold to the curated shipwreck coins to anything that has been worked on to "improve" it's grade is considered by me to be damaged. mike
Bodybag for the mark on the Chin? Get real- do you guy's really think this coin is this big in real life? Here's a picture of the coin over double it's real size. Now how big does that hit look?
Comments
i thank you for your apologize.
I apologize for my comments to you ,too.
littlejohn
aka--littlejohnartifacts on ebay.no coins for sell right now.check back soon.~
jom
I saw your post, the picture of the $10 Lib in question and I will offer my thoughts for what they are worth. First, I am not an expert, but I have made my share of $10 Lib snags over the years. We are looking at a picture of the coin and not the coin itself. I think you have the advantage there and you just need to trust your instincts. A picture of a coin can be misleading. In this instance, I think that is part of the problem. I am not saying it is a bad picture, what I am saying is the difference between 64 and 65 can be a tough determination from a picture and not the coin.
If the coin upgrades...congrats on a terrific score. If it comes back 64, I still maintain that you come out ahead because of the education. Not that you need an education, its just that grading skills can always be sharpened.
From the picture, I am in the 64 camp but my view may change if I saw the coin in person. The picture is big and some of the nicks are enhanced and look worse than they really are. Best of luck with your decision
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
BTW, I completely agree about the comparisons to the dipped MS62 GOLD and not having a clue... yet another example and reason as to the need for an original surfaces designation. Also, I rarely even buy gold anymore for this vary reason... too many harvest original gold, enhance it, and hope to make a killing. This BS has to stop.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Remember the 1933 Saint that was opinion-graded at MS65? It had perfect fields, but a hit or two on the leg. Same with Bill's coin, perfect fields and a hit or two on the chin. If the $10 lib in question had perfect fields, I could see them overlooking the hits on the cheek [especially if not as prominent in person] but the fields are simply too chattery for that to be the case. >>
Bill's picture is not good enough to tell if it's a cleaned AU58 or a pristine MS66. The 1933 saint is out of my league to so I never even looked at it. What I do look at though are common $5 and $10 libs graded MS63-MS66. mike
<< <i>BTW, I completely agree about the comparisons to the dipped MS62 GOLD and not having a clue... yet another example and reason as to the need for an original surfaces designation. Also, I rarely even buy gold anymore for this vary reason... too many harvest original gold, enhance it, and hope to make a killing. This BS has to stop. >>
I agree totally! I put my $5 liberty collection on hold because I got sick and tired of getting cleaned and messed with MS64-MS66 coins. I prefer an original non-messed with bag marked MS62 over a messed with MS66 any day! From the bright NCS dipped gold to the curated shipwreck coins to anything that has been worked on to "improve" it's grade is considered by me to be damaged. mike
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.