Newp No Drapery Dime - my first GTG - grade revealed in OP

coindeuce

Had a reasonably successful show today in Syracuse, with sales picking up month over month, but buying here has been very dry for a while. Just could not walk away from this one however. The images were cropped and sharpened for practical scale, but no tweaking otherwise.

indeetlib

Pretty coin...MS62

Boosibri

ill agree with indeetlib

lasvegasteddy

ms 61 crowd for me

stunning example...i bet way more sexier then this image portrays

DRUNNER

Dayum . . nice.

MS63.


Drunner

ajaan

MS64

LotsoLuck

I'm bumping it to 64

Walkerguy21D

Technical 58 that got bumped to MS62 for the great eye appeal.

DIMEMAN

ngc 62-64

PCGS 58

me 58

steveben

nice coin! 61

TopographicOceans

62

Unknown

This content has been removed.

lostincoins

Nice and I would guess 63-64

valente151

61. a technical au coin that was given a bump for the eye appealing secondary toning.

messydesk

AU62

410a

Nice coin AU58 congrats

Cam40

ya AU63, MS58 same thing
:-)

AnkurJ

Gorgeous! Looks MS64 to me.

roadrunner

<< <i>ngc 62-64

PCGS 58

me 58 >>




Pretty close to what I would think. I'd give it a 61-63 NGC range. A coin like this was always a 58 back in the old days. These days it's anything from 58 to 63. I think the lack of full field luster on this keeps it out of the 64 class. PCGS might even 61/62 this. There's a not huge difference in price these days between an attractive AU58 coin and a 61/62.

NumisOxide

MS62
Pretty dime

coindeuce

Thanks for all of the responses. I have to take issue with those who consider it a technical AU58 with a bump for eye appeal. Unfortunately the photo editing function of photobucket has diminished over time, so the images are far from optimal for judging the surfaces. The surfaces are not the least bit grainy, as they appear here. I can't seem to retain resolution after cropping and resizing smaller coins. I believe the coin in hand has the requisite strike and luster of choice unc. (MS63), and was netted for a number of subtle contact marks on the obverse that are well concealed, except the depression adjacent to the pole and just below the cap. The color does have some impact on the aesthetic value, but I considered it secondary to the strike and luster present. This is a coin that I'm certain a number of dealers would crack out and do their utmost to promote raw as a 63. I'm fine with it just the way it is; I've witnessed dipped out white 63's that did not draw the eye as this one does.

Walkerguy21D

<< <i>I have to take issue with those who consider it a technical AU58 with a bump for eye appeal. Unfortunately the photo editing function of photobucket has diminished over time, so the images are far from optimal for judging the surfaces. The surfaces are not the least bit grainy, as they appear here >>


You can take issue with my judgment all you want, but given the photos provided, that's how I saw it, sorry. Frankly I'd take issue with those calling it a 64 - do they
think NGC is that loose now, or does eye appeal trump contact marks that much?

coindeuce

Taking the position that the coin is a technical AU-58 without giving specific details which would justify the claim is about what I asked for - a guess.

CuKevin

The obverse has some obvious points of wear. The reverse photo is harder to determine, but I could definitely see how technical 58 could be an option. Personally, I think 61 is a good grade for this coin. 63 and 64 are just out of the question to me with that much metal moved (not just surface friction). At least that's what I see in the photos provided.

valente151

I'm not one to be critical of others coins on this forum, but I'm making an exception to address the OPs reply, and respectfully justify the grade opinion.



<< <i>I have to take issue with those who consider it a technical AU58 with a bump for eye appeal. Unfortunately the photo editing function of photobucket has diminished over time, so the images are far from optimal for judging the surfaces. >>



Beyond what appears like grainy surfaces, the fields have the friction of an AU coin, there is no luster (as seen in the photos) in the obverse fields, but does appear to show decent luster in the protected areas (stars, near design elements, etc.) The surfaces also look hairlined, though that could be the image. Send the coin in to PC a dozen times, and (going off the pics) I'd be willing to bet it'd come back with a 58 grade more times than an UNC grade. At the end of the day though, the market price difference is only 50-75 bucks for a decent 58 compared to a 61, so its not a big deal. In all honesty, I take issue with assigning this a 63 or 64 grade as some have suggested. A rubby, dipped coin, lacking field luster in a 64 holder? NGC isn't that blind. Doesn't mean its a bad coin, its just not a near gem.



<< <i>This is a coin that I'm certain a number of dealers would crack out and do their utmost to promote raw as a 63. I'm fine with it just the way it is; I've witnessed dipped out white 63's that did not draw the eye as this one does. >>



Theres several dealers who would slap a 63 grade on this coin raw, but are there informed collectors who would pay 63 money for it raw? I think not, rather the dealer would be looking for someone who didn't know better. That doesn't mean its a 63, or even a market 63.

Hopefully this doesn't come off as rude, just a justification for a grade from a photo.

MFH

The coin is very attractive, and I would love to have it in my type set Dansco.
After reading all the responses, their opinions coincided with my gut feeling.
I immediately thought the coin was a top tier AU 58 - even deserving of a 58+.
The rub is quite evident on her lap and leading leg. There needs to be unbroken
luster, and I see a large swarth of luster missing.

I also hate to grade by images alone... most have been played with to the point
that it's almost impossible to be "right on the money" grade-wise.

I agree with my friend Walkerman21D and the others who have been forthright
with their AU 58 opinions. ( ie: Valente151 ).

Regardless, as I mentioned - I love the coin and would buy it to crack it out for
my Type Set. Really pretty coin. Thanks for sharing it.

roadrunner

There's no doubt the coin has significant rub and is missing considerable original field luster. As far as what it "market grades" is a completely different issue.

Coins like this were rarely graded mint state in the first 10-15 years of the TPG's. "Mint state" no longer means technically uncirculated (ie no rub and full luster). A more accurate term should be "Market State 61."

It's still a nice coin and worth the grade assigned. Odds highly favor that this coin at one time lived in an AU holder. Today it lives in a 61 holder. This is how our market works and is perfectly normal.