Not trying to start bash here......BUT

DIMEMAN · February 13, 2015 9:55AM

Is it just me or is there a lot of action on the cheek of this dime to be 66+ CAC.

It's a beautiful coin but......your thoughts.

link

BryceM · February 13, 2015 9:58AM

Looks like toning variations, not hits/chatter to me, but it's hard to tell much from the small photos.

Unknown · February 13, 2015 9:59AM

This content has been removed.

sawyerjosh · February 13, 2015 9:59AM

Agreed! You'd never see a 66+ Roosevelt Dime with that much chatter.

crazyhounddog · February 13, 2015 10:00AM

I think so especially for a dinky dime.

Moldnut · February 13, 2015 10:01AM

Judging by the picture, I agree with you.

DIMEMAN · February 13, 2015 10:03AM

Those are definitely hits/chatter.

SeattleSlammer · February 13, 2015 10:05AM

I once bought a 64+ Barber quarter and when it arrived it looked beat to heck on the cheek.
Perhaps PCGS liked the color/luster a lot on this 66+.
Hard to tell for sure if those are hits or shallow grazes with toning.

Goldbully · February 13, 2015 10:08AM

<< Is it just me or is there a lot of action on the cheek of this dime to be 66+ CAC.

It's a beautiful coin but......your thoughts.

link >>

Pictified.......

coinguy1989 · February 13, 2015 10:12AM

<< Looks like toning variations, not hits/chatter to me, but it's hard to tell much from the small photos. >>

This.

golden · February 13, 2015 10:13AM

<< Is it just me or is there a lot of action on the cheek of this dime to be 66+ CAC.

410a · February 13, 2015 10:13AM

The grader went "gah-gah" over the color and it's a 65+ in my minds eye. Pretty coin

DIMEMAN · February 13, 2015 10:21AM

>>>The grader went "gah-gah" over the color and it's a 65+ in my minds eye. Pretty coin <<<

I can see this. But maybe just 65. It is a pretty dime.

roadrunner · February 13, 2015 10:29AM

Looks more like neutral type toning with a fairly deeply toned reverse. Not the usual look for a PCGS 66 Barber dime, let alone a 66+.

Looks maxed out to me. Almost doesn't matter if what's on the cheek are marks, toning, or a combo of both. They are somewhat distracting in either case and affect the eye appeal. Barber dimes in 66/67 grades get closely scrutinized for cheek and necks hits. Maybe that's because the coin is small enough where a glass gets pulled out....while the quarters and halves can often fly by the naked eye.

keyman64 · February 13, 2015 10:32AM

That would not be a coin for me while in that holder.

DollarAfterDollar · February 13, 2015 11:51AM

I know if it were mine it would be in an Ms 64 holder. Not bashing or anything.

DIMEMAN · February 13, 2015 11:54AM

>>>I know if it were mine it would be in an Ms 64 holder. Not bashing or anything. <<<

That's better than what I would get.........questionable color!

Broadstruck · February 13, 2015 12:00PM

Scrutinize all you want...

As mark my words with the Papal sticker blessing a CAC Chimp & his money will soon be separated!

shorecoll · February 13, 2015 12:03PM

I'm certainly not in DIMEMAN's league with dimes, but could that be weakness in the strike, as opposed to hits?

brg5658 · February 13, 2015 12:03PM

<< Scrutinize all you want...

As mark my words with the Papal sticker blessing a CAC Chimp & his money will soon be separated!

>>

Funny because it's true.

TopographicOceans · February 13, 2015 12:17PM

The same kind of effect shows in the obverse field as well.
It's a small photo of a small coin.

Walkerfan · February 13, 2015 12:25PM

Those are hits on the cheek and I don't like them.

ebaybuyer · February 13, 2015 12:58PM

IMHO there isn't enough physical difference in a 65 vs a 66 to warrant the price difference, if that coin is removed from its holder and re-submitted, would it ever get the same grade ?

DIMEMAN · February 13, 2015 1:01PM

There is a pretty big difference in the price guide from 65 to 66 and to 66+.

mr1931S · February 13, 2015 3:13PM

$1900 is a lot of moolah for such a common date.

kaz · February 13, 2015 8:45PM

<< Scrutinize all you want...

As mark my words with the Papal sticker blessing a CAC Chimp & his money will soon be separated!

>>

Almost sprayed my morning coffee over the keyboard,

Brol · February 13, 2015 10:32PM

65 technical grade. 66+ market acceptable grade.

johnny9434 · February 14, 2015 12:43AM

<< 

<< Is it just me or is there a lot of action on the cheek of this dime to be 66+ CAC.

>>

JCMhouston · February 14, 2015 1:03AM

I'm thinking if you look at the actual coin, even with 3-5x magnification it probably looks pretty clean. Looking at a huge image even a nearly perfect coin will show some hits. The hits showing up in the image probably can't even be seen with the naked eye.

410a · February 14, 2015 1:30AM

......Of course you all know the dispenser of the CAC stickers is the founder of NGC.........just a thought, that I think from time to time.

rhedden · February 14, 2015 1:32AM

Here's my 1897 in PCGS MS64. I declare the OP's coin to be guilty of masquerading as a 66. And mine's going back to PCGS now that I saw this.

DIMEMAN · February 14, 2015 1:36AM

Ron your coin has fewer hits for sure. It should be at least a 65 or 65+.

JMHO

mr1931S · February 14, 2015 2:01AM

Here's my 1897 in PCGS MS64.

This is not a gem but what Choice Uncirculated in these should look like.Don't waste your money by resubmitting it.Those of us who appreciate this series and understand what we are looking at don't need distracting numbers or stickers.

The only number that should matter is how much you want for it when time comes to sell.

brg5658 · February 14, 2015 2:05AM

<< ......Of course you all know the dispenser of the CAC stickers is the founder of NGC.........just a thought, that I think from time to time.

>>

And he's also one of the confounders of PCGS. What's your point?

ricko · February 14, 2015 2:06AM

Wow.....PCGS graded and a CAC sticker......I am amazed at all the bashing in light of the TPG/FPG acceptance....I guess we all know better than those guys who actually had the coin in hand.......

Cheers, RickO

410a · February 14, 2015 3:24AM

HEY BRG5658 THE OBSERVATION IS MY POINT..........WHAT HE GOT NEW EYES?????????? WHAT ARE YOU A WISE ASS?????????? ...........John happens to favor toning and it's a known fact furthermore if that bean was worth anything it would not have found it's way onto the coin in the first place. So, what do you want to do have me give a 40 year history lesson on coin grading everytime I make an observation. Perhaps my point is read the thread from the beginning.

coinguy1989 · February 14, 2015 3:35AM

<< ......Of course you all know the dispenser of the CAC stickers is the founder of NGC.........just a thought, that I think from time to time.

>>

I think JA also had a hand in starting PCGS too.

Wabbit2313 · February 14, 2015 3:57AM

I learned a while back that if you only focus on hits and not overall luster and pop, you are going to pass over some really good coins and deals. Second in line is the condition of the fields. If they are flawless, (they are), bingo. Coin has the pop and the fields.

410a · February 14, 2015 3:58AM

.....I KNOW he had a hand in PCGS. David Hall has commented publicly on John's favoring toned coins. I don't think NGC grading then or now holds even ground with PCGS coin grading. I made an observation on the topic of this coin and noted the "GREEN BEAN" In order to say something around here what does a person have to do? Give a disertation on Coin grading and all aspects of it? An Historical sysnopsis? Inclusive of all parties? The question presented here in the "thread" is the grade of the coin with cheek marks such as shown. I think the BRG5658 remark is that of a "smartass"

messydesk · February 14, 2015 3:58AM

I see more artifacts from oversharpening in the presence of some speckled toning than I see chatter on the cheek. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt that this is a really nice coin in hand, but I wouldn't buy it unless I could confirm that in hand.

puffer · February 14, 2015 4:09AM

It's a 66 not a 67--great toning.

mommam17 · February 14, 2015 4:23AM

I think it's a coin with great eye appeal. The toning has a great look to it. It probably has nice luster. The marks on the enlarged pictures are probably not distracting with coin in hand.

krueger · February 14, 2015 10:46AM

An easy 8 second grading, chatter reduced it to a 66
and toning hides it. color eye appeal for a 66.
That does not mean everyone should like where the chatter is.
or that because it is graded an MS66+ they should not be offended by the marks to their own eye.

Krueger

brg5658 · February 14, 2015 10:16PM

<< .....I KNOW he had a hand in PCGS. David Hall has commented publicly on John's favoring toned coins. I don't think NGC grading then or now holds even ground with PCGS coin grading. I made an observation on the topic of this coin and noted the "GREEN BEAN" In order to say something around here what does a person have to do? Give a disertation on Coin grading and all aspects of it? An Historical sysnopsis? Inclusive of all parties? The question presented here in the "thread" is the grade of the coin with cheek marks such as shown. I think the BRG5658 remark is that of a "smartass"

>>

/yawn/ /eyeroll/

Your ever-so-astute observation has no basis in reality. You brought up the CAC / NGC supposed affiliation, which makes no sense given JA's equal involvement in PCGS. That was my point.

winky · February 14, 2015 11:20PM

I agree with you as it should not be a 66+. I see things I don't like either.

winky · February 14, 2015 11:22PM

I agree this has less hits than the 66+ coin.

telephoto1 · February 18, 2015 1:49AM

Sorry guys but the cheek is the prime focal area on a Barber Dime so with those hits this isn't a 6+ or close; it's a nice coin but IMO with the label covered no one grades this beyond a 5 max. The toning in that area also looks hinky imo. Not convinced it's NT. Again, all jmho.

410a · February 18, 2015 8:49AM

Brg5658...........yeah okay, by the way good after thought.

Not trying to start bash here......BUT

Comments

Leave a Comment