Do you agree it's easier to upgrade from MS65 to MS66 than MS64 to MS65?

39Special

In general, I've found that upgrading on crackouts from MS65's to MS66's is easier than going from MS64 to MS65. It just seems that the MS64's have something holding them back in most cases, regardless of when/who graded the coin, whereas MS65's are certified gems and therefore tend to have a better chance of being viewed as gem +1. Agree/disagree/comments?

GoldenEyeNumismatics

64 to 65 is easier, IMO. Exceptions are Morgans and Saints.

Rollerman

Since there are more coins that can go from 64 to 65, than coins that can go from 65 to 66, I'd say the 64's to 65's might be easier. I haven't enough first hand information to say that for sure however.
Pete.

messydesk

I'll say that both are easier than 64 to 66. I'll bet it depends on pricing structure more than anything else.

Or does the pricing structure depend on where the easier upgrade lies? (Spoken in a soft, low voice while putting on sunglasses, then hands to hips. Cue The Who "YYYEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!")

roadrunner

If gold coins are representative the answer is MS64 to MS65. In comparing pop reports from April 2005 to July 2007 it was quite clear that MS65 saints were the clear winner. Here are the % changes in each grade on the PCGS pops. The NGC report would probably give similar numbers.

MS with motto Saints:

60 -2%
61 +0%
62 +4%
63 +11% (toed the line)
64 +33%
65 +79% (kaboom)
66 +66% (kaboom)
67 +11% (toed the line)

Obviously the 65 saints win with the 66's not far behind. It's pretty apparent now why 64 saints are now worth around 80% of MS65 money. A few years ago the ratio was 60%. With so many new 65's being made the price differential plummeted. If you have a tightly graded MS65 Saint they are underpriced compared to the generic quality Saints. These increases were likely due to upgrade attempts rather than fresh coins being added to supplies. The lower grade saints are pretty constant and one can assume that the bulk of their increases are from new submissions.

$20 Libs follow a similar path with a +60% increase in 65's. But here the 64's are in 2nd place with +38% while the 66's were at +27%. The other gold type coins checked also tended to favor the 65's. $1 type 3 gold pieces were interesting in that their numbers were very small across the board averaging about +8% (ie few new coins and few resubmissions). The standards were kept tighter here. The MS68's were the big gainer at +28%.

I'd bet that MS Morgans and Walkers for example followed similar trends of the MS Saint.

roadrunner

MikeInFL

RR,

That's fascinating info, but how does it apply to the question posed by the OP?

Said another way, why would net increase in populations predict upgrade potential between grades? I don't see the link and am curious as to your perspective on the causality between (what I see as) relatively discrete events.

Said slightly differently, couldn't the increase in population be net new coins or crossovers rather than upgrades?

A bit confused by your response...Mike

IGWT

In the Shield 5c series, moving from 64 to 65 is a difficult hurdle to clear; "gem" still means something.

ocon4008

<<It just seems that the MS64's have something holding them back in most cases>>

Isn't that why they are 64's and not 65's in the first place?

lusterlover

In my experience, PCGS is more stingy in giving the gem grade on copper.

JZrarities

I know what you mean.

There tends to be a larger difference in eye appeal from 64 to 65
than 65 to 66, and upgrades to 66 seem easier...(to me too)

but posters above seem to disagree.