UPDATED-Question: Would this MS64 Saint never see an MS64 holder again if submitted raw? (holder/sma

Prethen

There's a fellow board member who basically gave this coin a very negative review that I acquired (quite reasonable, so it's a keeper). He noted that PCGS would never put this in a 64 holder today, maybe a 61 or 62 (market grade). I realize this is a bit academic due to the variance in value is small, but I think it would be very educational to see what others say. My friend said that the rub all over the high points, indicative of being in a bag rubbing around other coins for awhile. It has full luster, especially in the fields with only the breaks on the high points, flat nose, flattened knee, eagle's upper wing, etc.

LindeDad

Ans. Yes or No depending on the question.

Edit since we now have a question Yes that looks like a beat up 61 or 62 to me too.

JamesMurray

42

Prethen

I hit the return way to fast when creating this topic!

TheBigB

I assume this piece looks better in hand based on your description, so MS61 is probably too harsh.

It doesn't look nearly as clean as my 64s, so I will go with MS62.

nwcoast

I too have a 64 in an old green label and mine is much cleaner than this one.
Also, there's some flatness to the nose and face that are a bit disturbing...You recognize these faults and they would certainly weigh on grading.
It does have nice lustre and is a beautiful coin and one of my favorite all time designs.
Sorry to be giving more bad news.....

lsica

Aren't $20 SG's often "Market Graded" because of their weight, and because even MS ones show "rubbing" because of how they were stored?

123cents

Those are large photos and really bring out all the little ticks and dings. I'm thinking MS-63.

Spkrmakr

Easy 63 IMHO. Remember, these images are GIANT.

scotty1419

I'm thinking 63.

golden

Does not look like a 64 to me.

relicsncoins

The dinner plate sized photos are not helping matters. I would like to see a bit smaller photos, either that or another 64 Saint with dinner plate sized photos for comparision.

Prethen

I forgot to note that it's in a green tag holder (not that that should mean anything). Here are smaller versions of the coin. I think in hand, the coin is a liner 64, ignoring the contact points (shelf/bag wear); maybe today's 63+? If I were to buy a coin with similar marks, sight seen (this was acquired sight unseen), I wouldn't pay more than 63 money.

tightbudget

To me, I could see it in a 64 holder again but I'm thinking more like 63 if submitted raw again.

Sonorandesertrat

I wouldn't pay 64 money for that---there are too many of them available.
It looks like a liner 63-64.

Prethen

The real question is: Would the run that's all over the high points kill the grade regardless? Would PCGS market grade this (much) harsher today due to that roll/bag rub? Or, does that rub really not factor into the grade?

magikbilly

"My friend said that the rub all over the high points, indicative of being in a bag rubbing around other coins for awhile."

Goodness what did they do when making these coins? It is a large coin with large scan. It is now (or has it ever been) a 63? Still in OGH so what did I expect? Or is it a "C" coin? A VERY LOW END "B" or is this what it should look like with no jellybean? All that is changed is our understanding (1-70 and $), the coin and insert remain the same - some ideas and money have changed hands tho.

Eric

Edited for spelling and to add "or is it good that it has demonstrated stability in that OGH?" If it were cracked out and a bunch of putty were removed, could it still be a 6...? Never mind.

roadrunner

It doesn't matter. The spreads between 63's and 64's or even 62's and 64's is so close these days that the holder is all that matters.
And I don't this will change in the coming years. If anything the spreads will narrow further. While it may be low end for the grade,
and could easily come back 63 or even 62 if resubmitted....it's in the holder and an ogh one at that....and no copper spots. This kind of
coin will sell no problem for sight-unseen 64 money regardless of the price of gold. It would also come back 64 at times if resubmitted 10X.

Most NM 1908's look AU because of a flat design/striking quality. It's actually rather difficult to find one that has killer luster and no obvious
rubbing. In other words don't expect these to look like 1924-1928 Philly saints.

fc

The pics make it really hard to examine the knee and breast area on the obv...
In both obv shots they are exceptionally dark and I cannot see what is going on.

Prethen

<< <i>The pics make it really hard to examine the knee and breast area on the obv...
In both obv shots they are exceptionally dark and I cannot see what is going on. >>


I'm not trying to be "cute", but there's really not much more to see, especially if you look at that first very large picture. That's pretty much what you'll see in hand. In fact, a grader will likely see it not as well unless they use like 10X which I don't think they do. If you look at that first picture, it's fairly clear that the area is simply just dark with "rub"...nothing else going on...that is, no damage or anything like that...probably a little flatter.

fc

<< <i>

<< <i>The pics make it really hard to examine the knee and breast area on the obv...
In both obv shots they are exceptionally dark and I cannot see what is going on. >>


I'm not trying to be "cute", but there's really not much more to see, especially if you look at that first very large picture. That's pretty much what you'll see in hand. In fact, a grader will likely see it not as well unless they use like 10X which I don't think they do. If you look at that first picture, it's fairly clear that the area is simply just dark with "rub"...nothing else going on...that is, no damage or anything like that...probably a little flatter. >>



I wonder what a dip would do to remove any foreign material that is making those
two areas so dark? Not that I would do it.. just curious for conversation's sake.

Prethen

That's a great question! What is making those areas so dark...just dirt? I won't break the coin out of its holder but I wonder, too, if a light dip might remove that.

pmac

With the dings on her left chest area and under her left arm in the field, I think it is amazing it was graded 64 in the first place, JMHO.

TheBigB

<< <i>That's a great question! What is making those areas so dark...just dirt? I won't break the coin out of its holder but I wonder, too, if a light dip might remove that. >>


It might be the case that the rub from friction has changed the reflectivity. I suppose there could be some foreign material too, but you might have a bad surprise if it is removed.

Connecticoin

Looks like a 64 to me. Not PQ, but I have seen a lot of 1908 NM Saints look like that in 64.

roadrunner

<< <i>Looks like a 64 to me. Not PQ, but I have seen a lot of 1908 NM Saints look like that in 64. >>



A lot of people try to grade Saint's like they do a Morgan silver dollar or a Walking Liberty half. It just can't be done. The current
grading system was founded on a totally different concept. But I do agree that it would have been much easier to select a Walker or
Morgan as the grading standard and apply everything else to it. It would have made it much easier for anyone to learn to grade.
But then again we'd have 99% less mint state bust halves and a lot fewer mint state Saints.