Guess the grade: 1887 Liberty Nickel: grade revealed

rhedden

It's in a PCGS slab. Just got it from Alpine Numismatics. Neat die crack through "STATES OF"






Answer:

It's PCGS 64. I can only guess that the mark on the cheek, which is actually quite tiny, caused the downgrade from 65. Most MS-64 Lib nickels (and especially PR 64) have hazy, unattractive toning that limits the eye appeal. This coin is very flashy and looks 65 to me, even with the little cheek mark. I get a kick out of this coin because it's a $300 coin in this grade, but if it upgrades by one lousy point, it's in the vicinity of $1,400. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Either the 64's are undervalued, or the 65's are overvalued, but there should not be so much of a difference.

RKKay

MS 65?

kieferscoins

MS-64

Cameron Kiefer

mgoodm3

I'll go 64 for the big cheek ding, maybe 65.

coinguy1

<< <i>MS-66 >>

Cameron, the odds are heavily against you, based on the 1887's very low population in that grade, as well as how this one looks in the images - see the cheek and neck on Ms. Liberty, the "V" and surrounding area on reverse and the areas of weakness in strike.

Cam40

63 ,though it looks 64 or 5 to me.

ziggy29

Very nice one. But I think the hits, primarily on the cheek, limit this to 64.

kieferscoins

You are right coinguy. I thought I was grading for NTC and not PCGS.

Cameron Kiefer

Barry

64

coinfreak499

64

prooflike

I'll try 63... those cheek hits look deeper than what a 64 should have

paigowjohnny

64...love those Liberty nickels

wam98

MS-65

Cam40

64.....hmmm
i guess it is every bit a 4 ..Technically, but look at the whole picture for a second.
a 120 year old nickel and it looks like that?
Its a gem, cmon. Whatever happened to good old market grading.
If it was in a 66 holder would you really disagree with that grade then?
How about a 7......
okay, 7 is as far as i see this one going, but it doesnt seem out of the range of
possibility to me, depending on who owns it and what the demand was for it.
I guess thats it. Its a 4 because of the lack-luster demand.
I think that coin has great upgrade potential provided the interest for type coins
continues to grow.

ziggy29

This is nicer than a lot of 65s I've seen, but technically, I think it is a 64 based on those hits on the cheek (small or not, hits there detract more than elsewhere) and PCGS made the right call. It's up to the collectors and dealers who look at it to decide that it's worth a premium over typical 64 money.