Grade revealed on a recent Missouri 2x4 pick up, thanks for the participation

dizzyfoxx

From the PCGS Coinfacts website:

"David Hall: The Missouri 2X4 is one of the key issues in the silver commemorative series. (See my narrative for the "plain" Missouri...coin #9330...for the story of the Missouri issue and the controversy over their mintage figures.) Missouri 2X4s range in grade from AU to MS65 on average. The MS65s are rare and Superb Gem MS66 examples are very rare. Missouri 2X4s can be frosty or toned. Frosty, original examples are definitely the exception. And the toned Missouris can often be dull and unattractive. The premium specimens are the frosty white or the attractively toned pieces."

This recent addition to my collection definitely falls under the category of: "Frosty, original examples are definitely the exception."

Frosty, original, and booming luster, in-hand.

What say you, on the given grade?

magikbilly

Hello,

I don't know anything about this coin - my WAG is 62-64 if indeed not 55/58. Fields appear to have a sculptured effect and also die polish and some hits and it is hard to gauge it all. More importantly, I need to eat (and not grade immediately after...). Many guys in my old pool room we treated to lunch before afternoon 4 handed Chicago. I digress.


"...The MS65s are rare and Superb Gem MS66..."

When did 66 start being called Superb Gem - Gem used to be 67 only oh so many years ago, with Choice for 65 (Select was 63). I admit I don't recall the "slipping down" of this adjective though.

Eric

Edit for clarity: It is an honest question. Superb Gem was, once, north of 67 nearing what was called "theoretical 70" (because Gem was once 67, 65 was Choice, 63 was Select, 60 was BU/Basal State etc.) I wonder how many newbies know of this change in terminology.

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>Hello,

I don't know anything about this coin - my WAG is 62-64 if indeed not 55/58. Fields appear to have a sculptured effect and also die polish and some hits and it is hard to gauge it all. More importantly, I need to eat (and not grade immediately after...). Many guys in my old pool room we treated to lunch before afternoon 4 handed Chicago. I digress.


"...The MS65s are rare and Superb Gem MS66..."

When did 66 start being called Superb Gem - Gem used to be 67 only oh so many years ago, with Choice for 65 (Select was 63). I admit I don't recall the "slipping down" of this adjective though.

Eric >>



Hey Eric, thanks, and I appreciate and welcome any & all feedback... but, Anyway, next comment...

LotsoLuck

64 wag

RYK

Nice coin!

Don't know much about these, but it looks gemmy to me. 65

magikbilly

This is a very pretty coin and others agree the grade is decent - perhaps Gem.
With nothing against this particular coin, why do these coins always look dipped and (naturally) retoned to me? Some Mint process?
Is this "frosty" to you, or is this frosty for this coin? When I hear frosty I picture the semi-matte ice ("frost") on the inside of a freezer.

Eric

Constantine

Not my series at all, but mark free and blazing luster, should at least be 65 or higher. Pretty coin.

magikbilly

It looks fairly mark free but there appears to be a lot of tiny overall chatter for a 65 grade IMHO. I'll stick with my guess of 64 max. I don't say this coin is dipped - I was wondering why these coins can have that look. I do not know the original packaging for this one.

Eric

dizzyfoxx

Any more grade guesses or feedback on this Sunday morning?

CoinJunkie

I like the look of that coin quite a bit. Much nicer than the majority of (blotchy) toned ones
I've seen over the years. Would guess 64+ on the grade, shot 65.

sparky64

I'll say 66.
The marks I see are tiny and scattered.
I hope the overall look carries it.
Excellent pic of you most excellent commem.

mozin

I call it MS 65. Nice looking Missouri.

messydesk

63. No heavy marks, but lots of little ones, especially on the reverse. That said, it is an attractive coin, and with the combo of frost, originality, and boom, it's not your run-of-the-mill 63.

ricko

MS63....Cheers, RickO

coinkat

I like it and see as a 64

djdilliodon

58+ what do I win

DorkGirl

It's ok, but I am surprised by the lack of color. You always seem to favor coins with lots of it.

Jcarney

Some micro-grading going on I think. I'm tempted to lean toward 64 myself but then I zoomed out on the rather large photo. I say 66.

291fifth

Based strictly on the posted photos I would say AU58. There appears to be light rubbing on the high points on both the obverse and reverse.

TomB

I'm thinking MS64/65 from the images and write up.

dizzyfoxx

In the past, I've owned a Missouri 2x4 in PCGS MS65 and two different examples in PCGS MS64. This old rattler MS63 is nicer than all three of those.
This coin was slabbed during the era when there was an astronomical difference in price between a MS63 and MS64, not to mention in MS65.

lowcountrycoinut

A neat coin in a really neat holder. I agree that it is nicer than a 63, and would have guessed 64.

JohnMaben

If it looks as good in real life, it's a 2 point upgrade IMO.

John

Kove

Hmm, maybe I should have cracked it instead of selling it....

coinbuf

<< <i>Hmm, maybe I should have cracked it instead of selling it.... >>



Depends on if you sold it for 65 money or not.

Kove

<< <i>

<< <i>Hmm, maybe I should have cracked it instead of selling it.... >>



Depends on if you sold it for 65 money or not. >>




Good point! Actually, a coin like that will always trade for more than 63 money, so all's fair.

sparky64

I always swing for the fence on guess the grade posts.
As usual, I whiffed with 66.

To me the only thing that matters with this coin is that the holder states MS and not AU which some saw as a possibility.

After that, the number seems insignificant. This coin speaks for itself and has a certain swagger to it.

CommemDude

As a point of information, the "gem" Missouris with marked-up or scratched cheek on the obverse should not be graded higher than 64.

This is a really nice coin with a nice clean cheek, an MS64 a few years ago, and a 65+ in the new pronged holder

BillJones

As a comparison, this one grades MS-64 in a plain PCGS holder (slabbed 10 to 12 years ago.). The strike on these coins is such that there are dull spots on Boone's upper back on the reverse and on the cheek on the obverse. These are due to the fact that the metal did not quite flow into the dies completely when the coins were struck. I don't think that it is true wear or a rub.

Staircoins

Nice coin.

Leave it in the holder and go for the gold.

coinkat

omg- leave this one in the holder

Zoins

<< <i>As a point of information, the "gem" Missouris with marked-up or scratched cheek on the obverse should not be graded higher than 64.

This is a really nice coin with a nice clean cheek, an MS64 a few years ago, and a 65+ in the new pronged holder >>



Great looking coin and info. It's nice to see 2x4s and some of the more unusual classic commems.

I wonder if this would do better with in the current holder with a bean or in a 65+ new holder.

shylock

Very nice example dizzyfoxx.

Along same lines with what BillJones said it can be a deceiving coin, the rest of the coin will look fantastic
but the cheek of the obverse and left shoulder & upper arm of reverse will bring the grade down.

Anthony Swiatek has interesting comment in his Encyclopedia of the Commemorative Coins of the US:

Sometimes a seller believes he or she posseses more of a coin than they really do. I know of examples of
both strikings [the 2x2 and 2x4] that have been submitted more than 29 times each, in hopes of an upgrade.
The labels were cast away...I would reduce both population figures [MS64 and MS65] between 26% and 29%.