Home› U.S. Coin Forum

Wash quarter - How did this get into an NGC MS 65 holder?

dlmtortsdlmtorts Posts: 738 ✭✭✭
in U.S. Coin Forum
Wow a 1959 B reverse NGC MS 65. Buy the coin not the holder!


Link

Comments

  • USMoneyloverUSMoneylover Posts: 1,672 ✭✭✭
    Flash grade on a bulk submission...its shiny it has to be a 65!
    Finest Coins and Relics
  • RampageRampage Posts: 9,476 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Solid MS63 coin. I bet they will call it a mechanical error if sent in for review.



  • LeeBoneLeeBone Posts: 4,479 ✭✭✭✭✭
    image

    Just look at the marks!

    MS60/61
  • SamByrdSamByrd Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭✭
    63 is what I see as well. image
  • coinman23885coinman23885 Posts: 1,126


    << <i>Solid MS63 coin. I bet they will call it a mechanical error if sent in for review. >>



    If that is a mechanical error, then I suppose that you could call any other overgraded coin a "mechanical" error as well.

    BTW, I agree with everyone here. The coin should have never made it in a MS65 holder. I bet it was part of a bulk submission. I have seen a lot of sloppiness (with all TPGS) in bulk submissions.
  • docgdocg Posts: 528 ✭✭
    That Quarter is hammered, but not in a good way!
  • crypto79crypto79 Posts: 8,623 ✭
    The picture was taken at a higher mag than the grader used to grade it so it isn't the ideal way to grade/judge the product. That said the coin has a lot going for it with luster and strike and none of the marks seam to be in a focal area. Looks like a nice 64+ to me and there are reasons NGC is number two although you can find questionable grade in all holders.
  • RampageRampage Posts: 9,476 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Solid MS63 coin. I bet they will call it a mechanical error if sent in for review. >>


    If that is a mechanical error, then I suppose that you could call any other overgraded coin a "mechanical" error as well. >>


    If you read the grade guarantees, you will note that a coin is deemed mechanical error if the grade is obviously incorrect. Here is a snipet from the PCGS grade guarantee:

    "A blatantly obvious clerical input mistake with respect to the actual grade of the coin. For example, if you had an 1893-O Morgan dollar and the PCGS holder showed the coin as MS65 (a Gem quality coin), but the coin was so beat up and marked up that it would grade MS60 at best, this coin would not be covered by the PCGS Guarantee as this would be an obvious input error. The rule of thumb here would be a difference of more than two points on the grading scale. "

    I do not know what NGC's guarantee is with respect to grades. I have never used the guarantee at either service. I just happen to know the PCGS guarantee, because that is who I submit 99 percent of my coins to.





  • jedmjedm Posts: 3,043 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sounds like the seller really likes the look of this one....mmmmm I wonder. "A radiant glow defines this exceptionally beautiful gem example. "
  • goldengolden Posts: 9,737 ✭✭✭✭✭
    image
  • LanceNewmanOCCLanceNewmanOCC Posts: 19,999 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>image >>



    image

    <--- look what's behind the mask! - cool link 1/NO ~ 2/NNP ~ 3/NNC ~ 4/CF ~ 5/PG ~ 6/Cert ~ 7/NGC 7a/NGC pop~ 8/NGCF ~ 9/HA archives ~ 10/PM ~ 11/NM ~ 12/ANACS cert ~ 13/ANACS pop - report fakes 1/ACEF ~ report fakes/thefts 1/NCIS - Numi-Classes SS ~ Bass ~ Transcribed Docs NNP - clashed coins - error training - V V mm styles -

  • frnklnlvrfrnklnlvr Posts: 2,750 ✭


    << <i>

    << <i>I bet it was part of a bulk submission. >>



    I know the seller and submit some of my coins through him. He doesn't do bulk submissions.
    FRANKLINLOVER.COM
    Franklin-Lover's Forum
  • shishshish Posts: 1,161 ✭✭✭✭✭
    What's the problem? If you ignore the obverse, the reverse could be a 65. image
    Liberty Seated and Trade Dollar Specialist
  • 1tommy1tommy Posts: 3,019 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Just happened to come across 3 1956 type b pcgs at heritage auction this week, They all look worse than my 63 will try and find the link but I was disappointed after looking at all three of Now I can only find the one. yet i know they were all to be offerened in the beverly hills upcoming auction. Enjoy image1956 type b
    https://youtube.com/watch?v=UayFm2yCHV8
    I used to be famous now I just collect coins.


    Link to My Registry Set.

    https://pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-specialty-sets/washington-quarters-complete-variety-set-circulation-strikes-1932-1964/publishedset/78469

    Varieties Are The Spice Of LIFE and Thanks to Those who teach us what to search For.
  • garrynotgarrynot Posts: 1,874 ✭✭✭


    << <i>The picture was taken at a higher mag than the grader used to grade it so it isn't the ideal way to grade/judge the product. That said the coin has a lot going for it with luster and strike and none of the marks seam to be in a focal area. Looks like a nice 64+ to me and there are reasons NGC is number two although you can find questionable grade in all holders. >>




    If you call it the "Washington cut himself shaving" variety, it might be a 65.
  • Bankerbob56Bankerbob56 Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭
    Even more disturbing is that the coin is in a newer type holder (prongs) so one cannot reasonably state that the coin was graded long ago and "They have tightened their grading standards since then!"
    What we've got here is failure to communicate.....

    Successful BST xactions w/PCcoins, Drunner, Manofcoins, Rampage, docg, Poppee, RobKool, and MichealDixon.
  • dlmtortsdlmtorts Posts: 738 ✭✭✭
    "Looks like a nice 64+ to me"

    Crypto, I realize that is a large pic, but there are still lots of marks on the focal points. If that is an MS 65, then I have a lot of raw 67 and 68's that I should send in. Actually, I think mine would do no better than 65 or maybe 66, but I don't think that one is any better than a 62. Not even a 63 IMO, though the luster is good. Just hard to ignore all the breaks in the luster where the huge hits are!
  • shorecollshorecoll Posts: 5,445 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I would guess that, like any other profession, sometimes graders develop drinking problems and that a few coins slip through before managers figure it out. I think it's a really big issue with the graders that work on commems at NGC. image
    ANA-LM, NBS, EAC
  • NotSureNotSure Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Just happened to come across 3 1956 type b pcgs at heritage auction this week, They all look worse than my 63 will try and find the link but I was disappointed after looking at all three of Now I can only find the one. yet i know they were all to be offerened in the beverly hills upcoming auction. Enjoy image1956 type b >>



    Tom, if that '56 you referenced on Heritage is an MS65...I have to send my 65's in for regrade. Would have loved to see the other 2.
    I'll come up with something.
  • NotSureNotSure Posts: 2,978 ✭✭✭


    << <i>Wow a 1959 B reverse NGC MS 65. Buy the coin not the holder!


    Link >>



    Looks like noone wants to buy either, with that coin. (am I grammatically correct with that sentence?)
    I'll come up with something.
  • DoubleEagle59DoubleEagle59 Posts: 8,333 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Super high luster may have bumped a low 64 to a 65 in the grader's mind.

    Shows you what a nicely dipped coin can get you.
    "Gold is money, and nothing else" (JP Morgan, 1912)

    "“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)

    "I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
  • coinman23885coinman23885 Posts: 1,126


    << <i>Even more disturbing is that the coin is in a newer type holder (prongs) so one cannot reasonably state that the coin was graded long ago and "They have tightened their grading standards since then!" >>



    It could be a reholder. I suspect that many are reholdering older, less strict NGC slabs to give them the appearance of being graded to today's standards.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Format
SpoilerCodeQuote
Heading 2Heading 1
Emoji
:):D:(;):/:o:s:p:'(:|B):#:*<3o:)>:)
Url
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Home • U.S. Coin ForumComment As ...