Why I gave up drinking (heavily). Result of my quarterly CC submission.

ram1946

This is how I used my free CC quarterly submission.

The strike is very strong, especially on the reverse. The fields are virtually flawless. It drips of luster. It was submitted in the same PCGS65 holder it was purchased in. I can't belive this wouldn't be considered in the top 10-15% of all pieces for the date and mint. Also, I was surprised it didn't upgrade (as requested) although I'm not sure one can ask for a Secure Plus and an upgrade for this quarterly special. The return form made no mention if an upgrade was considered.

The first image is one I posted several weeks ago after I purchased the coin.



The second is TruView's image.



Thanks for any input.

RYK

When you submitted the coin for Secure Plus grading, it was essentially regraded, so upgrades, downgrades, plus grades, no grades, and no change were all within the realm of possibility. It appears that the graders thought the coin was a 65, and that's the grade the coin received.

luckyman

I like your pics more than the true view's....the detail looks washed out and flat in the true view's ... wouldn't think they were the same coin. Especially bad is the obverse where the indian's cheeks are flat, the hair shows little detail, and the feather's tips also look rubbed out.

ClosedLoop

congrats on giving up drinking

and that's a very healthy buff you have there...

Mercury10c

<< <i>congrats on giving up drinking >>



He didn't give up drinking. He gave up drinking heavily.

Walkerguy21D

Helluva coin either way, Dick. It is a little strange that I see a scratch on the back of the indian's neck in the Truview, that I don't see any sign of on your pic.....I certainly hope it didn't occur during the regrading process!

TwoSides2aCoin

It looks like a doubled date in the second photo. I'm drinking a cup of coffee, so maybe I should go de-caf.

ram1946

Thanks walkerguy21D.

There is a slight mark that is exaggerated by the TruView image. If you look closely at my image you can see the same mark but certainly less pronounced. It's not visible to the naked eye. I'm actually holding the coin in hand right now.

There's also a slight mark at 7:00 to the Indian's eye. Again, it's visible only under magnification.

Neither one (or both together) prevent this, IMO coin from being superior to others of the same date and mint, let alone worthy of an upgrade.

I'm not challenging the grader's expertise as much as I'm wondering what would qualify for the + designation for a 1926 Philadelphia mint Buffalo if this didn't meet the criteria. Tough standards!

airplanenut

I could be reading both images incorrectly, but while the coin looks very lustrous, to me it appears to be almost a glossy lustre, where the coin remains bright but isn't really as lustrous as it could be. I find this effect on many dipped/lightly cleaned coins. I'm not saying your coin is either, but the way the lustre appears in your picture, and the way light was able to flood the TrueView, makes me think the lustre isn't really all there.

Monstavet

The TruView reveals hits in the hair, neck, and face that your image does not show and would IMHO clearly keep it out of a 66 holder. I also agree with Jeremy that something is amiss with the luster. Perhaps the TruView photographer was having a bad day? IT's a nice coin and I would be happy to own it any holder.

coinkat

Seems my Icon precludes me from offering an opinion...

Very attractive coin-

ram1946

Airplanenut and monstavet


Luster is all there. Sunglasses required type luster. Truly original. Neither image does the coin justice. Purpose of the post was to exhibit the strike, supplement with my comments and congratulate PCGS on such high standards.

doh

65 looks right

Lakesammman

Ownership is worth a point - now modified to note that ownership is worth a plus.

jmj3esq

You have obviously not spent enough on it yet. Send it in 2 more times and you will get what you want.