Ms Morgan is looking right at the biggest issue. If the chatter were behind the head, then maybe a little better than MS 64. That ax wound on the reverse only hurts the grade.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
Thankyou all for your input. I was thinking because it's a better date, the graders might loosen the reigns and be generous. I've seen 5's that aren't much cleaner.
My grade would be MS-64, and not the best representative example for the grade. There is no way that coin should be graded MS-65.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I'm afraid I'm in the 63 camp. Of course, we all know that we should ONLY grade coins when they are online with over-sized pictures ....
That planchet defect on the reverse, while not a grading factor, in all likelihood, bothers me......
I Like the coin quite a bit and it's what I call gemmy. However, I would grade it as low as a gemmy coin can grade; MS-63+. The surfaces and strike are nice and the die was in good condition. I'd rather have this coin than some MS-65's.
Comments
just a 4
63+ could go 64.To much going on in the obverse fields.
64, and not a particularly strong one at that.
I don't see this as any better than a 64, that mark on the reverse limits the grade IMO.
Ditto.
I'm seeing a 4. No 5
64, no sticker.
Agree with above. Strike and (apparent) Luster aren't good enough to overcome marks, either.
4+
Looks nice, but just a 64.
Ms Morgan is looking right at the biggest issue. If the chatter were behind the head, then maybe a little better than MS 64. That ax wound on the reverse only hurts the grade.
64
63 is the absolute best it could grade if I sent it in
I concur with @10000Lakes following quoted post.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Don't like the hit near the beak. Probably not that bad in hand. I am in the tepid 64 camp.
I'm saying 4. The obverse marks might squeak a 5 with a very nice reverse, but that reverse mark is a nail in the coffin for a 5.
Shot 4
Maybe 64.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
If by "5" you mean "MS-65" then no, it is not even close to MS-65 or MS-64..... makes it to MS-63 (especially with that nasty slice on the reverse).
4 here at PCGS
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Did you notice its appears to be a VAM 15? (Doubled liberty) 1 sale of a ms64, at $2500
Old school 63 but would likely 64 by today’s standards.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Actually it's a VAM-17. Which is one of the most common 8TF varieties.
Thankyou all for your input. I was thinking because it's a better date, the graders might loosen the reigns and be generous. I've seen 5's that aren't much cleaner.
I agree with folks saying 64, but it is a good looker none the less.
If it ever garnered a MS-65 status, there would be a thread, "How did this one ever get to a 65?"
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
My grade would be MS-64, and not the best representative example for the grade. There is no way that coin should be graded MS-65.
64 for me
I'm afraid I'm in the 63 camp. Of course, we all know that we should ONLY grade coins when they are online with over-sized pictures ....
That planchet defect on the reverse, while not a grading factor, in all likelihood, bothers me......
MS63.... maybe without the magnification a low end 64..... Cheers, RickO
64 here.
63 would be my guess.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
Should not be a 65.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
My guess would be 63+.
If this guy is a 65, yours can be too...live the dream...
Don't quote me on that.
63, shot at 64.
Could easily grade as a 64 coin. I've seen worse in 65 holders....and certainly as good or better in 63 holders.
Acceptable with a 64 grade imo.
yup!
Not a gem, an average choice.
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
Luster seems somewhat subdued and chatter on the cheek and in the prime focal area, nice coin but a strong 63 or weak 64 in my opinion.
Pete
Louis Armstrong
63 ... maybe a 63+
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Does a 66 even exist in this date?
I Like the coin quite a bit and it's what I call gemmy. However, I would grade it as low as a gemmy coin can grade; MS-63+. The surfaces and strike are nice and the die was in good condition. I'd rather have this coin than some MS-65's.