Do you agree with these ANACS grades?

Comments

• greghansen Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 5:40AM

  I agree with the 83-CC @ 62. The 92 I can see as 61 or 62. Personally I wouldn't buy a 62 with that big of a dig in the prime focal area, but I'm O.K. with the technical grade.

  Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum

  0
• cheezhed Posts: 5,991 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 5:46AM

  It may be the photo but the "92 looks a little "off" for whatever reason.

  Many happy BST transactions

  0
• morgansforever Posts: 8,472 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 5:50AM

  <<It may be the photo but the "92 looks a little "off" for whatever reason.>>
  
  Off as in cleaned, made it into the holder, then toned?
  The more I look at it, the more I don't like it.
  

  World coins FSHO Hundreds of successful BST transactions U.S. coins FSHO

  0
• Windycity Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 6:04AM

  Likely properly graded but definitely lacking luster which is often the reason for the 62 grade.

  <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.mullencoins.com">Mullen Coins Website - Windycity Coin website

  0
• commoncents05 Posts: 10,096 ✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 6:08AM

  
  
  << <i>It may be the photo but the "92 looks a little "off" for whatever reason. >>
  
  
  
  Likely over dipped as the luster seems almost non-existant.
  
  -Paul

  Many Quality coins for sale at http://www.CommonCentsRareCoins.com

  0
• robkool Posts: 5,934 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 6:33AM

  These appear to be graded very accurately.

  Ebay items for sale Current BIN's / The Kingdom Collection

  0
• LeeBone Posts: 4,595 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 7:02AM

  
  
  << <i>These appear to be graded very accurately. >>
  
  
  
  

  0
• PerryHall Posts: 46,817 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 7:07AM

  
  
  << <i>
  
  << <i>These appear to be graded very accurately. >>
  
  
  
  >>
  
  
  
  Ditto. Claiming it was over-dipped and then retoned based on those pics is a bit of a stretch.

  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

  0
• GrumpyEd Posts: 4,749 ✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 7:09AM

  I think they're graded right.
  
  I don't love the look of either but they're ok as 62s. Sort of what I'd expect for the grade.
  

  Ed

  0
• coinbuf Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 7:11AM

  I'm in aggrement that thay are graded correct but I suspect that the 92 would be market adjusted downward for negative eye appeal if sent in.

  My Lincoln Registry
  My Collection of Old Holders
  
  Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.

  0
• Unknown

  October 17, 2012 8:46AM

  This content has been removed.
• roadrunner Posts: 28,313 ✭✭✭✭✭

  October 17, 2012 10:24AM

  I like the 83cc much better than the 92. The 92 has weakness in the luster and at least in these photos, "seems" to have some features of an AU58 coin.
  The 83-cc is a solid looking 62 with "63" quality fields. The 83cc could be technically called MS62/64 or 62+/64. I'm surprised they share the same assigned grade.

  Barbarous Relic No More, LSCC -GoldSeek--shadow stats--SafeHaven--321gold

  0
• magikbilly Posts: 6,780 ✭

  October 17, 2012 10:32AM

  "The 92 has weakness in the luster and at least in these photos, "seems" to have some features of an AU58 coin." - RR
  
  
  
  Eric

  0
• IrishMikey Posts: 1,561 ✭✭✭

  October 19, 2012 4:26AM

  I agree with the others. I think both are accurately graded as MS-62, but the CC is
  definitely the more attractive coin. Many 1892 P mint Morgan dollars tend to be a bit
  drab, especially when compared to a CC.

  0