Anyone feel like a round of "Guess the Grade" on a 1936 Lynchburg 50c Commem?
Broadstruck
Posts: 30,497 ✭✭✭✭✭
This was another one of CommemDude's commemorative half dollars that I really liked a LOT and had to image it. 
GuessR's thanks in advance!
GuessR's thanks in advance!
To Err Is Human.... To Collect Err's Is Just Too Much Darn Tootin Fun!
0
Comments
MS 68
I'll say 67. Hard to tell with all the tarnish on the high points
Surfaces look great from what I can see
You better take me with you next time! MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Hoard the keys.
I was gonna say 65 but I have a feeling it is higher. The toning makes it tougher, and its being MS tough enough for me. I was hoping to guess the grade on a dirty circ. The only reason 65 sprung to mind is because I see no obvious marks, and I generally do not grade above 65 myself... I leave the supergrades to the TPGs. The most I'll ever personally call a raw coin is "MS65++", so there's my mentality.
Of course this is NOT a raw coin, which is why I suspect my initial 65 is too low. Plus, the TPGs seem to like toned coins and bump them higher. (I realize this might not be entirely true, but what is true is that most of the MS67-68 commems I have seen in slabs have been toned coins. Often streaky or mottled toned coins.)
Three or four years ago, I would have secretly thought "yuck"- I hate that toning. Now, I have softened a bit. I still don't love it, but the colors aren't bad, and I don't hate it. I guess that's progress.
<< <i>MS 67. I don`t think 65`s and 66`s look like that. >>
I agree with the MS67 grade guess. And I'd add "usually" before "look".
I just saw Marks response, can I change my guess????
<< <i>Specifically I think I see a few marks in front of Carter's ear, and on the reverse on the head and skirt ends. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a beautiful piece. >>
While the coin might have graded less than MS67, even with the marks you noted, I'd expect to see it in an MS67 holder.
We're looking at large images, and chances are that the flaws you saw are fairly inconsequential in-hand. And then there's the tough decision that grader's face in trying to determine the proper/fair deduction of points for a particular flaw or flaws.
I am unable to grade a coin that I do not like... I just keep trying to look at this coin and I find the toning very unattractive... same with the "ugly" dude... I just can't get past that and look at the technical aspects of the coin, without being drawn back to the basic gut reaction of "yuck"...
It certainly does not mean the coin is "bad" in any way... nor the person who owns it... nor those who like it...
It simply means that I should never consider a job as a professional grader... or handle coins that I do not like...
<< <i>MS 65`s usually would have marks, that would be quite noticeable, on large images like the one shown. >>
Here's my 65 as an example, note the hits on the reverse.
<< <i>Here is a MS66 for comparison:
I think the surface of yours here is comparable with the CommemDude piece which is what I was basing my 66 on, isn't this fun??
Here is Millie's 66, with a bean!
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>With no intention of offending... I can share that this thread had made me realize something important... to me, anyway...
I am unable to grade a coin that I do not like... I just keep trying to look at this coin and I find the toning very unattractive... same with the "ugly" dude... I just can't get past that and look at the technical aspects of the coin, without being drawn back to the basic gut reaction of "yuck"...
It certainly does not mean the coin is "bad" in any way... nor the person who owns it... nor those who like it...
It simply means that I should never consider a job as a professional grader... or handle coins that I do not like...
That was probably the hardest thing for me to adjust to when I became a grader - looking at and having to put a grade on coins that, for whatever reason, I didn't like. Gone were the gold old days of seeing a coin, quickly realizing that I didn't like it, not having to grade it and/or justify why I didn't like it and having the luxury of quickly moving on to something else I liked better.
https://www.smallcopperguy.com
<< <i>the famous bank photo session. >>
MS68 @ 2
MS67 @ 7
MS66 @ 3
MS65 @ 4
<< <i>It looks genuine. >>
I admire a man, who really steps out on a limb, in making such a bold and gutsy call.
<< <i>
<< <i>It looks genuine. >>
I admire a man, who really steps out on a limb, in making such a bold and gutsy call.
Easy as this is a very foreign series for dizzyfox... just cause he has a Oregon Trail tattoo doesn't mean he knows this series!
my car art & My Ebay stuff
<< <i>
<< <i>It looks genuine. >>
I admire a man, who really steps out on a limb, in making such a bold and gutsy call.
Who on earth let you back in here???
MS68 @ 2
MS67 @ 9
MS66 @ 3
MS65 @ 4
Genuine @ 1
This Lynchburg has the look of a MS67, it's original as the day is long, and has satiny luster.
On another note I just noticed these are diffused lighting color shots but your full slab shot is not diffused. Do you have a luster shot that we could see as I have a feeling that the lighting is seriously hiding defects....I know when I use that type of lighting I can make a MS64 Ike look MS67 with no problem so I think that's the deal breaker here.
<< <i>From the images I can't see why it got a 64 but as I said I don't believe one can accurately see all of the surface on a coin with toning like that.....in hand I might see some more marks that would lower my grade opinion but for now I would say the coin looks to be undergraded by at least 1 point.
On another note I just noticed these are diffused lighting color shots but your full slab shot is not diffused. Do you have a luster shot that we could see as I have a feeling that the lighting is seriously hiding defects....I know when I use that type of lighting I can make a MS64 Ike look MS67 with no problem so I think that's the deal breaker here. >>
The slab shot was one of the first images I took and the lighting used was a high hat in the banks ceiling as although I had both OTT lamps plugged in I had forgotten to power them on... I'm Blonde and I had a Moment!
<< <i>Thanks everyone for playing along as here is a shot of the slab label and the final guesses.
MS68 @ 2
MS67 @ 9
MS66 @ 3
MS65 @ 4
Genuine @ 1
This Lynchburg has the look of a MS67, it's original as the day is long, and has satiny luster.
Ah HA!!! I was right, it IS genuine!
https://www.smallcopperguy.com
<< <i>Is he gonna go for the CAC gold??? >>
Why bother? With a CDN bid spread of only $110 between an MS64 and an MS65, I think a good number of people would pay 65 money or higher for it, as is.
<< <i>
<< <i>Is he gonna go for the CAC gold??? >>
Why bother? With a CDN bid spread of only $110 between an MS64 and an MS65, I think a good number of people would pay 65 money or higher for it, as is.
Secondly it already has a blue sticker on the slab.
<< <i>With the coin in hand, are there hits that don't show well in the photos? >>
No... as it was one of the duplictaes that CommemDude handed me that triggered momentary terets syndrome.
Hoard the keys.