Undergraded! Show us a coin you think deserves a higher grade
deefree49
Posts: 282 ✭✭✭
I'm thinking we all probably have coins that seem undergraded. Show us an example from your collection.
If anyone agrees, say so!
If you feel it is properly graded, maybe give your reasons why it is.
Thanks!
Here is one of mine that I feel deserves better: It is graded 63RB and I believe it should be a 64RB
https://images.pcgs.com/TrueView/81346271_800x600.jpg
This one is even crazier. It is graded 61BN!
I won't even say what it should be because it could be anything from 63BN to even 65BN
https://caimages.collectors.com/coinimages/50297/21504943/1c1916D-2143.jpg
Lincoln coin lover, especially Matte Proofs
5
Comments
Just about every owner of a coin thinks his or her coins are undergraded. Ownership adds a point or a designation
I usually agree with how PCGS grades, there are a few that have a shot at upgrades but there is usually something holding them back. Strike, luster, eye appeal, marks, rims, toning (or lack thereof), relative condition for coins of that date and mm.
Id totally send in the 14 D Lincoln cent back in.
I have several...here's a Kentucky Token of mine that currently resides in a PCGS AU-58 holder...
Technically speaking, there's just a tiny bit of rub on the highest points, so it's technically in the right holder, but it seems like you see this amount of rub on a lot of these on up to 63. In fact, here's where it used to reside...
So technically, the Kentucky doesn't 'deserve' a higher grade, but here are a couple I feel do...
MS63
http://www.ebay.com/sch/rs8199/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
All kidding aside, and I know this is darkside... this was NGC 62 (if I recall, and looked undergraded, with PL obverse), cracked it out to send with a raw order to PCGS, and they graded it AU55?? It was so off I thought it might be a mechanical error...
1804 half cent I guessed AU 53(Needs regrade) 1868 $1 guessed AU50 before seeing grade(I wouldn't send in for a possible 53)
I have to say all of these are reasonable cases. msch1man, your 1804 1/2c really seems unfair to me. Definitely shorted on that one.
The dollar looks really nice. I don't have experience with that series but it looks like 60-62 to me.
The token at AU58 is tough because it doesn't have a lot of details to make a determination from but the "wear" such as it is seems less than some 63 and 64 Lincoln cents I've seen. Quite a drop on a crossover. Might be worth a resubmission.
In any case, it is a very cool looking piece!
This is in a 65RB holder. I think it should be in a 66RB holder.
This is in an older MS65 holder. I think it is a 66.
bolivarshagnasty - nice 1919! Agree with you.
Yeah, It would be a 100 buck upgrade for 35/40 bucks. Just not monetarily worthwhile.
I hear you on that score. That's why I haven't sent in the 1916-D 61BN in the OP. The gain is too minimal. Funny though how it nags at me anyway.
Yeah, I think all coin collectors are a touch OCD. LOL
OGH MS-63
This one....and JA thinks it's undergraded too
drddm - well in any case, that is a beautiful coin and a keeper no matter what any TPG says!
old holder as XF45
There is a single MS68 in this date (and only one other in 1924). Our hosts "made" an MS67+ about a year ago. The pop report on 1925 coins at MS67 is 113 (with a few crackouts, sure). If any deserve to be in a 67+ holder, this one does:
I thought that VF30 was low for this one.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
Minimal rub, obverse is a full 58, weakness of strike on reverse eagle is confused with wear. If resubmitted I would expect a 58 not the 55 it is in.
Latin American Collection
This is in an AU-55 holder and I think it is undergraded by at least 7-8 points. I have some other T$'s grading 55-58 and they have obvious signs of circulation, but there aren't really any friction in the fields or high points on this so I don't understand the 55 grade. I will eventually send it in raw for regrading.
@TennesseeDave...I certainly agree with you on that Trade Dollar.... Cheers, RickO
Bought this one raw and thought it might go a 45 or low AU.
Came back a 40!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
nwcoast - always a bit of a challenge to tell from an image but your coin looks like a "split" grade to me. The obverse looks very nice, could be a solid AU. The reverse is what might be holding it back a little because of the wear on the right side wheat stalk. They may have averaged the two?
Of course given an option of having a better obverse or reverse, I'll take the obverse every time! Nice looking S-VDB absolutely.
TennesseeDave, Very nice Trade Dollar. I always liked those!
Your strategy of sending it in raw sounds like a good idea. While they are not supposed to be influenced by an existing grade, everyone I've talked to thinks it does influence them...a lot. Usually they will only bump 1 point, 2 at most. Yours is totally undergraded IMHO. I really agree with you sending it in raw and my gut feeling is that it will go up beyond 60.
ownership probably adds a point that and I am overly impressed with the color
PCGS PR64 (1989 green holder)
MS64 BN - I think the luster and eye appeal makes it a 65BN.
This half dime doesn't look XF to me?
I don't understand why this dime is in a 58+ holder. It looks like a 62-63 all day!
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
This 1841-o half dime is PCGS AU50 (not undergraded)
.... and this 1840-o No Drapery is PCGS VF35 (photographed raw). Is it really 15 points weaker? There are no lurking problems, like a wipe or cleaning.
the 01-s quarter is not undergraded any longer. its in a pc53 cac holder now, cause I own it
Pr64? This has better eye appeal than a few pr67 I have.
https://www.autismforums.com/media/albums/acrylic-colors-by-rocco.291/
SWEET
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
Now that I like.
hold on... i am photographing my entire collection.. haha.
I don't think either of these would be out of place in the next higher grade holder:
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I think this one is a bit better than a 40:
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Rattler MS63 that I've owned for almost 30 years. I was enthused by David Hall's response when he saw it at an, "Ask the expert", session at Long Beach a couple of years ago. Basically he went, "OH", and then said it was easily under graded by a point, probably by two. The scratch on the reverse over the 0 is on the slab.
U.S. Type Set
My first impression on the 1829 half is "65+", unless something is not showing in the photos.
I was thinking this a tad better than an XF45. Still has decent luster- maybe at least AU50?
IMO, MS65 based on today's grading standard. Bought this coin the day it came back from PCGS.
MS65 BN!
Fun post...thanks all.
This 1855-D gold dollar is currently in an EF-45 holder. I think that it makes AU-50 or 53 given the amount of luster. This is one of those coins that will probably be "enhanced" someday for the higher grade, but it won't happen while I own it.
Straight on shot:
Angle shot showing more luster.
Sweet coins in this thread!
My YouTube Channel
agree!
Here is a 1914 PR65BN that seems to have no flaws and the eye appeal of a 66:
https://caimages.collectors.com/coinimages/50297/31328899/1c1914PF65BN.jpg
Very nice!
My YouTube Channel