I have found that the axiom Ownership tends to add one point to a coin's grade is pretty accurate. with that in my and referencing the above cut/paste your coin is really an MS67. since PCGS graded it MS66+ it seems to be right.
-----a coin that's 1-1/2" in diameter shown the size of a dinner plate. -----unstruck planchet flaws seen as "contact" marks. -----opinions of members who don't collect the series or particularly care for Modern issues.
Having specalized in collecting Kennedy Halfs for the past 35 years, I formed my comments based on the smaller image from the Heritage site. When I uploaded it thru photobucket I had no idea the photo would be so large. Any one specalizing in this series would have spotted the obvious. I have searched thousands of 68, 69, and 70 mint sets in my life and there is NO way this coin should have been given the MS67 grade. I have the highest regards for our host but this one just does not make the grade in my eyes.
my simple point would be this: have you had the coin in-hand?? absent that, making a judgement vs. your memory of " thousands of 68, 69, and 70 mint sets" seen would be questionable to me. I would presume that the graders at PCGS have seen many more 1968-D Kennedy Half Dollars than you and they also have the advantage of having seen the best coins.
the coin may be a dog and it may have "pop" that knocks your socks off. my hunch is that it falls somewhere in the middle towards the ankle area and was graded as such, but only seeing it can provide an answer. why does the coin trouble you enough to start a thread over it??
I have been trying to build the very best MS and PR Kennedy collection I can possibly find for the past 35 years. I did not start this to be a coin bashing dogpile thread. I was looking for comments from other Kennedy collectors comments. Looking for the very best thru any venue I can find. Maybe I am to picky for my own good. But I strive to find the best coins I can find. When I spotted this coin at the Heritage site I instantly spotted the the contact marks I mentioned. I honestly can not understand how it was given the 67 grade. That is why I started the thread. Anyone looking for high grade MS Kennedy Halfs whould have to question this coin. Luster and strike are very high requirements for any coin I purchase but the number and location of the obvious contact marks is equally important. Based on my requirements this coin does not meet the standards for a MS67 1968D Kennedy Half. And if I had purchased this coin based on the PCGS sight unseen grade from a dealer the coin would have been returned very quickly.
1. If it is agreed that one can not "grade a coin from a scan", then showing ANY picture here for the purpose of displaying a beautiful (or horrible) coin is not appropriate. When one posts a superb coin for the grade, the comments back should be "it's a scan and so no one can be sure your coin is actually lovely". Using this approach, no pic can be relied upon for anything and we might as well just stopping talking about coins. But, since that ain't going happen, we will continue to talk about the pics and can only be 98% certain that what appears to be the case with out own two eyes is actually the case.
2. Coins are getting "overgraded" and "undergraded" every day by the grading services (while most are getting properly graded). I have seen it in my specialty series of Washington Quarters as well as Mint State Kennedy Half Dollars (where I have been searching for high grade specimens for the past 30 years). I have recently passed on the opportunity to add a "pop 1" coin to my Wash. quarter set, because my current coin in the undergrade is far nicer.. no ifs, and, or buts about it. Likewise, I just bought a Kennedy Half Dollar in MS67 that I personally grade strong MS68+ and shot MS69 and is already cracked out of the holder and sitting in a safeflip awaiting to be resubmitted.
So, how offensive is it really to the grading services to respectfully question a single coin's grade? The dealers talk about it all the time ... perhaps the #1 topic of discussion among coin dealers?
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
Well, so much for the hernia operation. A customer came in the shop today talking about this thread. I believe we agreed that we cannot grade or value a coin without it being in a 3 dimensional state. The coin in this thread is very one dimensional. Opinions may sway the mind or vice versa, but the coin remains the same: and to my best recollection, that is "not here". In essensce, to answer as generically as possible; the coin graded MS 67 because it went through the process to get there. That's how. And that's the long and short of it.
<< <i>Well, so much for the hernia operation. A customer came in the shop today talking about this thread. I believe we agreed that we cannot grade or value a coin without it being in a 3 dimensional state. The coin in this thread is very one dimensional. Opinions may sway the mind or vice versa, but the coin remains the same: and to my best recollection, that is "not here". In essensce, to answer as generically as possible; the coin graded MS 67 because it went through the process to get there. That's how. And that's the long and short of it. >>
Actually the pic of the coin being discussed is two dimensional.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I would presume that the graders at PCGS have seen many more 1968-D Kennedy Half Dollars than you and they also have the advantage of having seen the best coins.
It appears they've seen about 1700 of these, with one-third less than gem. It is likely that those 1700 were viewed by different sets of graders/finalizers over the last 25 years. If we were to assume each grading team had seen one-third of the coins, each would have likely seen less than 600 68-D halves. One of the things that is different about some modern collectors is that they've likely seen MANY more coins for a specific date/mm than the graders. I think you were making just that point with your original post. PCGS has graded less than 1000 69-D halves. I think Marty and I split a mint sealed box of 500 69 mint sets one day.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
"PCGS has graded less than 1000 69-D halves. I think Marty and I split a mint sealed box of 500 69 mint sets one day."
And, they only have selected -4- of the 69-D coins to meet their standard of MS67 in the past 27 years. I sent them (2) of those MS67 coins, including one last week (pop just went from 3 to 4). Those ultra high grade coins did not fall off trees. The are the furthest thing from "low handing fruit". Thousands and thousands of fresh coins need to be screened to obtain a specimen claiming a shot at a true MS67 grade for these pre-1971 Kennedy Half Dollars. Nowadays, it is becoming nearly impossible to even locate thousands of fresh coins to screen from the 1960's.
That is what TRUE MS67 Mint State Kennedy Half Dollars are made of. Ditto for clad quarters.
When you have a business strike clad coin from the 1960's or 1970's that is pop 1 or 2 for the past 10 or 20 years (or very low pop) and 3 or 6 or 7 coins more get added to the "top pop" in a single week or month ... proceed with extreme caution.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
<< <i>Well, so much for the hernia operation. A customer came in the shop today talking about this thread. I believe we agreed that we cannot grade or value a coin without it being in a 3 dimensional state. The coin in this thread is very one dimensional. Opinions may sway the mind or vice versa, but the coin remains the same: and to my best recollection, that is "not here". In essensce, to answer as generically as possible; the coin graded MS 67 because it went through the process to get there. That's how. And that's the long and short of it. >>
Actually the pic of the coin being discussed is two dimensional. >>
That pretty much sums up the fact that there is NO COIN involved.
Mitch, the problem occurs when we have a comparison based at least in part on photographs of coins. in the end we really just "grade" each others skill at taking a picture. also, I have said before that with most of the GTG threads that everyone likes so much the twist is that a guess of MS64 will almost always be within a point or two. is that helping improve our skill or bolstering the case that grading from a picture is accurate??
Don, I assume that the graders at PCGS have seen more Kennedy Half-Dollars than what is shown in a pop report. they have "real world" experience as well. my point was meant to illustrate that they have seen what collectors/dealers seem to feel are the best coins. I'm sure it happens, but submitters just don't tend to submit unattractive MS63 coins, though it happens. without a pop report I could be dead wrong, maybe they submit lots of them. in the end a grade is based on way more than what a photograph can show us.
perhaps the best illustration of a picture's limitations was done by Russ several years ago with a Proof Kennedy-----shot straight on it looked very nice but tilted slightly it was a hairlined POS, the contrast was dramatic. I suspect, as others have posted earlier, that the OP's coin has qualities we just aren't seeing in a picture and that if the picture was manipulated to show them it would obscure the very minor marks we are able to see in the current picture.
Keets: I understand, but I believe things may be different when we are looking at pics on Coinfacts. There, the pics are much easier to rely on, especially when one can assume a consistency factor. Even more so for brilliant coins. I agree this is not an absolute though ... I had to recently pass on a purportedly super toned coin I needed for my set when the coin in person looked very different than the pic.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
When you have a business strike clad coin from the 1960's or 1970's that is pop 1 or 2 for the past 10 or 20 years (or very low pop) and 3 or 6 or 7 coins more get added to the "top pop" in a single week or month ... proceed with extreme caution.
Amen. This should be a t-shirt.
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
hey Don, do you remember what happened with the 1973 Proof Jefferson Nickel in PCGS PR69DCAM??? after trying for awhile I finally made two off of one submission, added what I thought was the best to my set and sold the other at the then staggering price of $175. shortly thereafter a single bulk submission increased the number by about 100-200 coins IIRC and the price plummeted overnight!! talk about good timing.
I see the point but it isn't restricted to Moderns and I believe that there are shrewd collectors/dealers who focus on certain issues and inadvertently inflate the numbers with bulk submissions or repeated small submissions. heck, Russ and MM killed the top on AH Kennedys but the demand is still strong.
Some observations: I agree with the "be careful" sentiment above as far as paying large money for a top pop of this ilk, especially with so many as yet unopened proof/mint sets around...plus it seems that with modern-ish pieces like what's being discussed here, most people who are diehard fans of these issues would much rather "make" and sell a high end piece than buy one already "made".
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if there was such a huge potential market in these, someone would have been gang-cracking and slabbing (and strongly promoting) them long before now. The fact that it's not being done (proven by relatively low numbers submitted) tells me that at least for the time being, the market isn't as robust as some (generally either those trying to make a market in such items, or a few end-user collectors who paid strong numbers for top pops) would like to think ...thus any statements of X number having made a certain grade over Y number of years are essentially junk statistics imo... the numbers obviously won't rise if very few are being submitted. That doesn't make top pops rare; it just means that only x have been sent in so far. Bottom line, I wouldn't pay all the money for a top pop of something where a few now could turn into dozens or more later.
For some reason this thread reminded me of a discussion I was having on a scarcer note with another dealer...he said, "It's rare, about 6 known in this grade... but the problem is, that's about how many people collect them."
Edit to add: Keets' remark about 2 people essentially killing the high end market for accented hair JFKs tends to illustrate my point.
"Edit to add: Keets' remark about 2 people essentially killing the high end market for accented hair JFKs tends to illustrate my point."
It would be an interesting analogy ... if it ever happened, which it didn't.
Look, it is becoming readily apparent that there are at least two "camps" here ... folks that understand their moderns and are having a discussion on that level and folks that have no clue what they are talking about because they truly have not logged in the man hours necessary to understand these particular modern coins. DHeath / Bossman88, etc ... give up trying to debate with the other camp ... it is useless. No disrespect intended to anyone here, especially Keets who I have always enjoyed reading his posts.
Wondercoin
Please visit my website at www.wondercoins.com and my ebay auctions under my user name www.wondercoin.com.
what Russ and Marty did was raise the number of available Deep Cameo and higher grade AH Kennedys while simultaneously raising awareness of the Accented Hair variety which many here were unaware of prior to around 2003-4. prices, or the top, certainly leveled off as more coins became available and have remained steady over the years, but I'd have to think that they would have gone higher without the exposure.
also, as far as top pop coins not being submitted or the numbers not growing over the years, I tend to believe that the reason for that is simply because the coins don't exist in numbers some would like to believe they should. my primary area of collecting is Proof Jefferson Nickels and I can tell you that high grade Cameo coins and any Deep Cameo coins from the 1950's are prohibitively rare. I have done a few threads on the numbers and anyone can search the auction archives at different sites to see that the prices are strong. if the coins existed they would be submitted. some are held by collectors raw, but not many.
"Look, it is becoming readily apparent that there are at least two "camps" here ... folks that understand their moderns and are having a discussion on that level and folks that have no clue what they are talking about because they truly have not logged in the man hours necessary to understand these particular modern coins. DHeath / Bossman88, etc ... give up trying to debate with the other camp ... it is useless. No disrespect intended to anyone here, especially Keets who I have always enjoyed reading his posts..."
Interesting how some folks think that by throwing the phrase "no disrespect" or "no offense" after an insult, it somehow makes the insult palatable. "I don't think you know as much about this as we do thus you will be ignored. No offense!" And here I thought this was a discussion board. Guess we'll have to remember to stand and salute whenever one of the modern "experts" gives their opinion henceforth.
<< <i>Shouldn't make any difference how tough the date is in high grade. It should be graded no different than a 1964 or 1970-D Kennedy and all Buffalo Nickels, regardless of date, should be graded the same. RR, I'm actually surprised to see you post such a thing........................ >>
Yeah, I was surprised too but it's how I feel. But frankly with modern minting techniques there's not the variation of post 1960 coinage as there was in the 1920's and especially the 19th century. Comparing the huge variations of striking buffs and walkers from the teens and twenties to Kennedy's in the 1960's is about as apples vs. oranges as you can get.
Market Grading" takes place in many series. Compare a 81S in 63 to a 83CC in 63.
I would agree in principle. But the example of 81s vs. 83cc is not one of them. Those 2 coins would have very little, if any variation in MS63. CC dollars are typically nicely struck and resh looking coins. That may not come PL as often as the 81-s but they are outstanding looking coins. After the 79-s, 80-s, 81-s, and 82-s....I'd place the CC dollars as the best struck and eye appealing dollars out there. A better comparison might be a 81o dollar vs the 81s. In any case Morgan dollars have large strike variations....Kennedy halves or Ike dollars really don't. If we want to debate Kennedy halves that probably come 95-100% struck vs Morgans where the variation is 85-100% I guess we could. It's night vs. day though. I don't think I've ever seen a poorly struck Kennedy, SBA, or Ike. We've all flatly struck Buffs, Walkers and even Morgans. But this discussion was about 1968-d halves, not 1920-s buffaloes.
Comments
I have found that the axiom Ownership tends to add one point to a coin's grade is pretty accurate. with that in my and referencing the above cut/paste your coin is really an MS67. since PCGS graded it MS66+ it seems to be right.
-----unstruck planchet flaws seen as "contact" marks.
-----opinions of members who don't collect the series or particularly care for Modern issues.
Having specalized in collecting Kennedy Halfs for the past 35 years, I formed my comments based on the smaller image from the Heritage site.
When I uploaded it thru photobucket I had no idea the photo would be so large.
Any one specalizing in this series would have spotted the obvious.
I have searched thousands of 68, 69, and 70 mint sets in my life and there is NO way this coin should have been given the MS67 grade.
I have the highest regards for our host but this one just does not make the grade in my eyes.
Regards, Larry
have you had the coin in-hand?? absent that, making a judgement vs. your memory of " thousands of 68, 69, and 70 mint sets" seen would be questionable to me. I would presume that the graders at PCGS have seen many more 1968-D Kennedy Half Dollars than you and they also have the advantage of having seen the best coins.
the coin may be a dog and it may have "pop" that knocks your socks off. my hunch is that it falls somewhere in the middle towards the ankle area and was graded as such, but only seeing it can provide an answer. why does the coin trouble you enough to start a thread over it??
I did not start this to be a coin bashing dogpile thread. I was looking for comments from other Kennedy collectors comments.
Looking for the very best thru any venue I can find. Maybe I am to picky for my own good. But I strive to find the best coins I can find.
When I spotted this coin at the Heritage site I instantly spotted the the contact marks I mentioned.
I honestly can not understand how it was given the 67 grade. That is why I started the thread.
Anyone looking for high grade MS Kennedy Halfs whould have to question this coin.
Luster and strike are very high requirements for any coin I purchase but the number and location of the obvious contact marks is equally important.
Based on my requirements this coin does not meet the standards for a MS67 1968D Kennedy Half. And if I had purchased this coin based on the PCGS sight unseen grade from a dealer the coin would have been returned very quickly.
Regards Larry
1. If it is agreed that one can not "grade a coin from a scan", then showing ANY picture here for the purpose of displaying a beautiful (or horrible) coin is not appropriate. When one posts a superb coin for the grade, the comments back should be "it's a scan and so no one can be sure your coin is actually lovely". Using this approach, no pic can be relied upon for anything and we might as well just stopping talking about coins. But, since that ain't going happen, we will continue to talk about the pics and can only be 98% certain that what appears to be the case with out own two eyes is actually the case.
2. Coins are getting "overgraded" and "undergraded" every day by the grading services (while most are getting properly graded). I have seen it in my specialty series of Washington Quarters as well as Mint State Kennedy Half Dollars (where I have been searching for high grade specimens for the past 30 years). I have recently passed on the opportunity to add a "pop 1" coin to my Wash. quarter set, because my current coin in the undergrade is far nicer.. no ifs, and, or buts about it. Likewise, I just bought a Kennedy Half Dollar in MS67 that I personally grade strong MS68+ and shot MS69 and is already cracked out of the holder and sitting in a safeflip awaiting to be resubmitted.
So, how offensive is it really to the grading services to respectfully question a single coin's grade? The dealers talk about it all the time ... perhaps the #1 topic of discussion among coin dealers?
Wondercoin
In essensce, to answer as generically as possible; the coin graded MS 67 because it went through the process to get there. That's how. And that's the long and short of it.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Well, so much for the hernia operation. A customer came in the shop today talking about this thread. I believe we agreed that we cannot grade or value a coin without it being in a 3 dimensional state. The coin in this thread is very one dimensional. Opinions may sway the mind or vice versa, but the coin remains the same: and to my best recollection, that is "not here".
In essensce, to answer as generically as possible; the coin graded MS 67 because it went through the process to get there. That's how. And that's the long and short of it.
Actually the pic of the coin being discussed is two dimensional.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
It appears they've seen about 1700 of these, with one-third less than gem. It is likely that those 1700 were viewed by different sets of graders/finalizers over the last 25 years. If we were to assume each grading team had seen one-third of the coins, each would have likely seen less than 600 68-D halves. One of the things that is different about some modern collectors is that they've likely seen MANY more coins for a specific date/mm than the graders. I think you were making just that point with your original post. PCGS has graded less than 1000 69-D halves. I think Marty and I split a mint sealed box of 500 69 mint sets one day.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
And, they only have selected -4- of the 69-D coins to meet their standard of MS67 in the past 27 years. I sent them (2) of those MS67 coins, including one last week (pop just went from 3 to 4). Those ultra high grade coins did not fall off trees. The are the furthest thing from "low handing fruit". Thousands and thousands of fresh coins need to be screened to obtain a specimen claiming a shot at a true MS67 grade for these pre-1971 Kennedy Half Dollars. Nowadays, it is becoming nearly impossible to even locate thousands of fresh coins to screen from the 1960's.
That is what TRUE MS67 Mint State Kennedy Half Dollars are made of. Ditto for clad quarters.
When you have a business strike clad coin from the 1960's or 1970's that is pop 1 or 2 for the past 10 or 20 years (or very low pop) and 3 or 6 or 7 coins more get added to the "top pop" in a single week or month ... proceed with extreme caution.
As always, just my 2 cents.
Wondercoin
<< <i>
<< <i>Well, so much for the hernia operation. A customer came in the shop today talking about this thread. I believe we agreed that we cannot grade or value a coin without it being in a 3 dimensional state. The coin in this thread is very one dimensional. Opinions may sway the mind or vice versa, but the coin remains the same: and to my best recollection, that is "not here".
In essensce, to answer as generically as possible; the coin graded MS 67 because it went through the process to get there. That's how. And that's the long and short of it.
Actually the pic of the coin being discussed is two dimensional. >>
That pretty much sums up the fact that there is NO COIN involved.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Don, I assume that the graders at PCGS have seen more Kennedy Half-Dollars than what is shown in a pop report. they have "real world" experience as well. my point was meant to illustrate that they have seen what collectors/dealers seem to feel are the best coins. I'm sure it happens, but submitters just don't tend to submit unattractive MS63 coins, though it happens. without a pop report I could be dead wrong, maybe they submit lots of them. in the end a grade is based on way more than what a photograph can show us.
perhaps the best illustration of a picture's limitations was done by Russ several years ago with a Proof Kennedy-----shot straight on it looked very nice but tilted slightly it was a hairlined POS, the contrast was dramatic. I suspect, as others have posted earlier, that the OP's coin has qualities we just aren't seeing in a picture and that if the picture was manipulated to show them it would obscure the very minor marks we are able to see in the current picture.
Wondercoin
Amen. This should be a t-shirt.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I see the point but it isn't restricted to Moderns and I believe that there are shrewd collectors/dealers who focus on certain issues and inadvertently inflate the numbers with bulk submissions or repeated small submissions. heck, Russ and MM killed the top on AH Kennedys but the demand is still strong.
I agree with the "be careful" sentiment above as far as paying large money for a top pop of this ilk, especially with so many as yet unopened proof/mint sets around...plus it seems that with modern-ish pieces like what's being discussed here, most people who are diehard fans of these issues would much rather "make" and sell a high end piece than buy one already "made".
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if there was such a huge potential market in these, someone would have been gang-cracking and slabbing (and strongly promoting) them long before now. The fact that it's not being done (proven by relatively low numbers submitted) tells me that at least for the time being, the market isn't as robust as some (generally either those trying to make a market in such items, or a few end-user collectors who paid strong numbers for top pops) would like to think ...thus any statements of X number having made a certain grade over Y number of years are essentially junk statistics imo... the numbers obviously won't rise if very few are being submitted. That doesn't make top pops rare; it just means that only x have been sent in so far. Bottom line, I wouldn't pay all the money for a top pop of something where a few now could turn into dozens or more later.
For some reason this thread reminded me of a discussion I was having on a scarcer note with another dealer...he said, "It's rare, about 6 known in this grade... but the problem is, that's about how many people collect them."
Edit to add: Keets' remark about 2 people essentially killing the high end market for accented hair JFKs tends to illustrate my point.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
It would be an interesting analogy ... if it ever happened, which it didn't.
Look, it is becoming readily apparent that there are at least two "camps" here ... folks that understand their moderns and are having a discussion on that level and folks that have no clue what they are talking about because they truly have not logged in the man hours necessary to understand these particular modern coins. DHeath / Bossman88, etc ... give up trying to debate with the other camp ... it is useless. No disrespect intended to anyone here, especially Keets who I have always enjoyed reading his posts.
Wondercoin
What do you really think of the coin
P.S. I still want to photograph your entire Roosie set ... next FUN show?
Wondercoin
what Russ and Marty did was raise the number of available Deep Cameo and higher grade AH Kennedys while simultaneously raising awareness of the Accented Hair variety which many here were unaware of prior to around 2003-4. prices, or the top, certainly leveled off as more coins became available and have remained steady over the years, but I'd have to think that they would have gone higher without the exposure.
also, as far as top pop coins not being submitted or the numbers not growing over the years, I tend to believe that the reason for that is simply because the coins don't exist in numbers some would like to believe they should. my primary area of collecting is Proof Jefferson Nickels and I can tell you that high grade Cameo coins and any Deep Cameo coins from the 1950's are prohibitively rare. I have done a few threads on the numbers and anyone can search the auction archives at different sites to see that the prices are strong. if the coins existed they would be submitted. some are held by collectors raw, but not many.
Interesting how some folks think that by throwing the phrase "no disrespect" or "no offense" after an insult, it somehow makes the insult palatable. "I don't think you know as much about this as we do thus you will be ignored. No offense!"
And here I thought this was a discussion board. Guess we'll have to remember to stand and salute whenever one of the modern "experts" gives their opinion henceforth.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
<< <i>Shouldn't make any difference how tough the date is in high grade. It should be graded no different than a 1964 or 1970-D Kennedy
and all Buffalo Nickels, regardless of date, should be graded the same. RR, I'm actually surprised to see you post such a thing........................ >>
Yeah, I was surprised too but it's how I feel. But frankly with modern minting techniques there's not the variation of post 1960 coinage as there was in the 1920's and especially the 19th century. Comparing the huge variations of striking buffs and walkers from the teens and twenties to Kennedy's in the 1960's is about as apples vs. oranges as you can get.
Market Grading" takes place in many series. Compare a 81S in 63 to a 83CC in 63.
I would agree in principle. But the example of 81s vs. 83cc is not one of them. Those 2 coins would have very little, if any variation in MS63. CC dollars are typically nicely struck and resh looking coins. That may not come PL as often as the 81-s but they are outstanding looking coins. After the 79-s, 80-s, 81-s, and 82-s....I'd place the CC dollars as the best struck and eye appealing dollars out there. A better comparison might be a 81o dollar vs the 81s. In any case Morgan dollars have large strike variations....Kennedy halves or Ike dollars really don't. If we want to debate Kennedy halves that probably come 95-100% struck vs Morgans where the variation is 85-100% I guess we could. It's night vs. day though. I don't think I've ever seen a poorly struck Kennedy, SBA, or Ike. We've all flatly struck Buffs, Walkers and even Morgans. But this discussion was about 1968-d halves, not 1920-s buffaloes.