@jedm said:
Even after my guess of 65 I will try to answer your question as to the reason why this example may have been graded as 63. Because we are only viewing a facsimile, and not the item in hand, is it possible that the contact marks are distractive enough and noticeable enough (for instance the fields, the cheek, and the neck) to limit the higher grade?
Good guess. Images can be deceiving but I would describe the marks on this coin (seen and any unseen) as very few." Marks are only one of the things to look for but they are important. There is one characteristic that is the major reason (99%) that beautiful coins as this have an obviously STUPID looking grade. Can you guess what it is?
I think the grade was accurate for when it was graded. Based on the True Views I posted above, it would give many of today's "gems" a run for their money despite the deep hits shown in the blow up posted by Lance.
Continuous Hairlines or a patch in the prime focal areas is the major reason coins that look "gem" are downgraded. I see nothing like that on this coin and thanks to the magnified image, I agree the coin was correctly graded at the time. Today, I think we all agree it is at least a 64.
@morgansforever said: "Straight forward, what grade did a top TPG slab this as?"
I'd like to make a suggestion...nevermind. There is no way to express my thought without coming across as a jerk. I appreciate the trouble any OP goes through to provide these GTG games as they are fun.
I just wish there was a better way to teach us grading than to post an obviously under-graded coin. Perhaps, a question such as "Why do you think this coin is graded MS-63? Oops, I guess I just made a suggestion. Ok, I'm a jerk.
Let's keep this thread alive... I can only think of two reasons the OP's coin is in a 63 holder, if we eliminate the old holder and "gradeflation" that leaves one reason. Care to respond?
Why did you think this coin should grade MS-65. Care to respond?
For the others, Why did you think this coin should grade MS-66. Care to respond?
I think this coin was graded MS63 due to the pull-back in pricing in the late 80's-early 90's, and the TPGs were trying to cover their butts after overgrazing to make customers happy. I remember that in the early 90's generic MS65 Morgan Dollars were selling for $500! Something had to give, and the TPGs were being blamed for pushing the prices higher.
@morgansforever said: "Straight forward, what grade did a top TPG slab this as?"
I'd like to make a suggestion...nevermind. There is no way to express my thought without coming across as a jerk. I appreciate the trouble any OP goes through to provide these GTG games as they are fun.
I just wish there was a better way to teach us grading than to post an obviously under-graded coin. Perhaps, a question such as "Why do you think this coin is graded MS-63? Oops, I guess I just made a suggestion. Ok, I'm a jerk.
Let's keep this thread alive... I can only think of two reasons the OP's coin is in a 63 holder, if we eliminate the old holder and "gradeflation" that leaves one reason. Care to respond?
Why did you think this coin should grade MS-65. Care to respond?
For the others, Why did you think this coin should grade MS-66. Care to respond?
I think this coin was graded MS63 due to the pull-back in pricing in the late 80's-early 90's, and the TPGs were trying to cover their butts after overgrazing to make customers happy. I remember that in the early 90's generic MS65 Morgan Dollars were selling for $500! Something had to give, and the TPGs were being blamed for pushing the prices higher.
Interesting, I never paid attention to the market ups and downs. My personal standards have never changed. My professional standards may have loosened a little (especially with regard to the AU/UNC line) but I've been told to grade coins as I see them and let others worry about how they are to be commercially graded. I point out the rub and any problems I see. Typical entries: MS-62 w/rub, hairlines, and rim nicks. MS-64, not original surface.
PS IMO, the OP's coin has the typical outstanding luster of a CC dollar.
@morgansforever said: "Straight forward, what grade did a top TPG slab this as?"
I'd like to make a suggestion...nevermind. There is no way to express my thought without coming across as a jerk. I appreciate the trouble any OP goes through to provide these GTG games as they are fun.
I just wish there was a better way to teach us grading than to post an obviously under-graded coin. Perhaps, a question such as "Why do you think this coin is graded MS-63? Oops, I guess I just made a suggestion. Ok, I'm a jerk.
Let's keep this thread alive... I can only think of two reasons the OP's coin is in a 63 holder, if we eliminate the old holder and "gradeflation" that leaves one reason. Care to respond?
Why did you think this coin should grade MS-65. Care to respond?
For the others, Why did you think this coin should grade MS-66. Care to respond?
OK lets just say if 52 of us picked 65 (besides the others like 64/25 and 66/14) versus only 6 that chose 63, is pot luck imho and quite telling, and no need to compare and post others for comparison. This is and would carry a 65 on any day as is, the eye appeal is really all overall the surfaces are 65. Ye, it has a few minor chatters, so its not a + maybe, or a 66, but crack it, and send it in again, preferably to our hosts and lets place our bets again - I too stand by my 65 in this case.
63
6% 6 votes
64
25% 25 votes
65
53% 52 votes
66
14% 14 votes
Hide Results
In the OP the coin looked like a 65 -66 range. In the magnified cheek image, it looks like a 64 Max. The luster on CC's generally gives them a jump. I can see 64+ right now but I don't think it would 65.
@DennisH said:
I said 64.
I'd buy 63s that look like that all day.
Oh wait, I never see 63s that look like that. At least not in 63 holders.
NICE coin!
I would be happy if I could buy 64's like that coin all day!
I always enjoy the GTG exercises, but I think that more often than not the coin is posted because it does not have what the majority would consider to have the "correct" grade. This should raise the question: "why would so many experienced coin evaluators agree on a grade that is 2 points different than the actual grade?" I agree with @Insider2 that I also hope that the thread will continue and that now opinions can be shared as to why each "guessor" believes that the coin is graded 63 instead of the majority selected 65, and the fun can become educational. Impart your grading experience to us newer collectors by giving your opinions as to why the coin has the grade it does and what factors might contribute to the grade being 63 instead of 65.
Is it because of which TPGS it is? Is it because of when it was graded? Is it because of a lack of luster that can't be accurately evaluated from the photos? Is it because the toning is considered unattractive and detracts from the eye appeal? Does the year and mint location factor into how you would grade a Morgan...Do you believe that it does in reality factor into the grade that the TPGs give to Morgans? If yes, should it? (If this were an 1880S would you give it the same grade?)
Lots of questions, but I would hope to stimulate some thought and get some helpful, educational responses from the incredible resource that exists in all of the members of this forum.
As a newer collector of Morgans who is intent on using every resource possible to become an educated coin evaluator, (I'm no expert, but I believe that I'm not bad either), let me throw in my opinion: Based on my current experience, I graded the coin MS65 considering the marks on the cheek and neck to be the most significant detracting factors, followed by the opinion that the obverse toning is not attractive but would not cause me to deduct a grade point. The obverse fields are relatively clear and consistent with an MS65 Morgan, some hairlines are evident, but consistent with a 65 grade. I would grade the reverse 66 as there are few significant marks in the fields or devices and the toning is a wash as to modifying the grade up or down. With a 65/66 grade, I would give the coin an overall grade of MS65.
I do believe that CC Morgans are graded with a greater allowance for number and severity of marks and hairlines and given a higher grade than would be given to the same coin if it were a non-CC Morgan... especially for PL and DMPL CCs (if the coin were an 1880S, I would grade it 64...just my opinion, what's yours?)
Lastly, I believe that in "past years", Morgans were graded more... strictly, harshly, in line with ANA guidelines... however you want to put it... MS63 "X" number of years ago, MS65 today.
Now please throw in your opinion!
Thanks... Paul
After seeing lkeigwin's crop of my image, the hit on the cheek is distracting. Probably the same feeling you would get with a loupe. If the hit wasn't there we're are talking 66 maybe more, the reverse is pretty clean. Ultimately I believe it's only a 4 maybe a plus but a dang nice one.
please, Insider, don't refer to yourself as a jerk because it denies us that pleasure when you actually are one. such is not the case now.
I thought MS64 because I have learned how these guess the grade things go. if I guessed MS64 for them all I think I would be closer than most everyone who truly believes that they can accurately grade a coin from a digital picture. that technology has improved greatly over the years but is still not reliable. past that and assessing what I see in the image, there is too much rub and too much chatter on the cheek and neck of Miss Liberty. otherwise, the coin has a smooth, silky appearance with clean fields and non-distracting tone, pleasant to most eyes, but I tend to grade more strictly from a technical perspective. absent the neck chatter I would have been at MS65.
BTW, I find it interesting that the NKOB, shinywhite, nailed it!!!
@FadeToBlack said: "Speaking of CC's and luster, do graders give any preferential treatment, grade-wise, to types of luster? IE this coin exhibits that later die state creamy luster, as opposed to other coins that exhibit that flashy, semi-PL luster."
IMO:
Short answer: Yes. Luster can increase a coin's commercial grade.
As you posted, it comes in several forms and depends on the coin type, size, mint, coinage metal, planchet condition, the method of manufacture, bla, bla, bla, bla ,bla. It is complicated when we think about it; yet with experience, you'll know all these things and know what the original luster for the coins you collect should look like.
Since original mint luster is right up there with contact marks as the two most important factors that influence a coin's eye appeal, it is extremely important. The luster is the first thing you see (from a distance), even before any trivial marks are noticed. Luster also points to a coin's originality and indicates it's condition of preservation - especially at the critical line of AU (trace of wear) and BU (no trace of wear) which is much less important these days.
@keets said: "...past that and assessing what I see in the image, there is TOO MUCH RUB and too much chatter on the cheek and neck of Miss Liberty."
I disagree with this part of your post. There is ABSOLUTELY NO TRACE OF RUB or friction wear ANYWHERE on that coin! It has full mint luster. The ONLY breaks in the original mint luster are caused by the bright, shiny, fresh, contact marks.
Perhaps you could view the image again and if you agree with my comments you could edit the rub part out of your post so as not to confuse folks below your level of expertise. Blow up the image - it is extremely detailed.
there are areas on the lower cheek, central eagle's breast and scattered elsewhere from coming into contact(rubbing) with other coins while in the coin bag. maybe it's just terminology for you or your need to always be right, but that's what I see. no need to go back and forth, if it makes you feel better I will concede the point and say you are always right and that now, yes, you are being a jerk. have a nice day and please continue telling everyone that work you for so-and-so, started such-and-such and are an expert on all things Numismatic. god darn do you ever get tired of loving yourself??
@Insider2 will you be so kind as to answer this question?
To quote @FadeToBlack "Speaking of CC's and luster, do graders give any preferential treatment, grade-wise, to types of luster? IE this coin exhibits that later die state creamy luster, as opposed to other coins that exhibit that flashy, semi-PL luster."
So, the question was asked "do graders give any preferential treatment … to TYPES of luster? That is an interesting question and I dare to say that I am not the only one waiting to hear your answer.
Concerning original mint luster which type is preferential? The creamy satiny type or the flashy or semi-proof like?
I said 64... the reverse of this coin is incredible. I see just one, maybe two hits. The obverse is what held me back from assigning a higher grade... but 63? True, there are hits on the cheek that are in a major focal area... maybe this is what prevented a higher grade.
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
there are areas on the lower cheek, central eagle's breast and scattered elsewhere from coming into contact(rubbing) with other coins while in the coin bag. maybe it's just terminology for you or your need to always be right, but that's what I see. no need to go back and forth, if it makes you feel better I will concede the point and say you are always right and that now, yes, you are being a jerk. have a nice day and please continue telling everyone that work you for so-and-so, started such-and-such and are an expert on all things Numismatic. god darn do you ever get tired of loving yourself??
While I'm not a numismatic "expert," I've been very fortunate to be able to examine the surfaces of coins closer than the magnified image of the OP's coin. I can say with 100% certainty that there is NOTHING even close to resembling "rub" ANYWHERE on that coin.
This is an open forum. Folks are free to believe as they wish. However, I'll continue to disagree with anything from anyone that I consider being detrimental to the less knowledgeable here just as I learn things from those more knowledgeable than I.
So, let's continue the thread. Why don't YOU put the teaching hat on for all of us and point out the places on this coin where YOU see the rub. In fact, let's all find the RUB.
@jedm said: @Insider2 will you be so kind as to answer this question?
To quote @FadeToBlack "Speaking of CC's and luster, do graders give any preferential treatment, grade-wise, to types of luster? IE this coin exhibits that later die state creamy luster, as opposed to other coins that exhibit that flashy, semi-PL luster."
So, the question was asked "do graders give any preferential treatment … to TYPES of luster? That is an interesting question and I dare to say that I am not the only one waiting to hear your answer.
Concerning original mint luster which type is preferential? The creamy satiny type or the flashy or semi-proof like?
To each their own. My favorite is Carson City luster.
you seem to have a penchant for thinking you are charge of what members think post and express. you just need to back off, dude. you are in charge of nothing.
Now do you care to tell us where you see the rub on that coin? I'll understand when you don't reply so perhaps someone who agrees that the coin is not FULL MINT STATE can continue this discussion.
As another suggestion (as I'm not in charge around here ), perhaps someone can tell us the two main causes of loss of original surface on the high points of a coin that is still 100% original (not cleaned, not circulated, not bagmarked as is the OP's). Weak strike is not one of them.
I can't post here what I'd like to tell you and keep my membership. what i will say is that your self-righteousness is off-putting to me and you have proven before that you don't know as much as you think.
have a nice day, I'll try the best I can to avoid you, perhaps you'll do me the same favor.
@keets said:
I can't post here what I'd like to tell you and keep my membership. what i will say is that your self-righteousness is off-putting to me and you have proven before that you don't know as much as you think.
have a nice day, I'll try the best I can to avoid you, perhaps you'll do me the same favor.
Send me a PM and vent. Your posts would be missed more than mine if you left. Perhaps you can tell me where YOU SEE the rub on the coin while you are ranting. I'll keep it all our secret.
PS The best numismatists I know are willing to debate and if they change their opinion - embrace it and the learning process goes on. I try to imitate them. As you posted, I've been guilty of posting misinformation and each time was extremely embarrassed as I corrected my error. I'm learning not to post if I don't know what I'm writing about so as not to MISLEAD others with my nonsense.
@TheDukeK said:
There's too much on the lower check and neck to hit those numbers. I went 64 but there's a better chance of 63 then 65 IMO
no way, its a 65+ at least if not 66 not withstanding the neck chatter.
To be honest, I tried to hit my monitor few times trying to kill that mini roach, rest is history
the bug gets lots of people lol
And look close at the cheek and the lower neck that's too much for gem 65 even today. But I do like the coin very much.
I'd think I'd get 64 if I sent it in today.
@morgansforever said: "Straight forward, what grade did a top TPG slab this as?"
Let's keep this thread alive... I can only think of two reasons the OP's coin is in a 63 holder, if we eliminate the old holder and "gradeflation" that leaves one reason. Care to respond?
Graded on Monday morning or Friday afternoon . . .
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
@TheDukeK said:
There's too much on the lower check and neck to hit those numbers. I went 64 but there's a better chance of 63 then 65 IMO
no way, its a 65+ at least if not 66 not withstanding the neck chatter.
To be honest, I tried to hit my monitor few times trying to kill that mini roach, rest is history
the bug gets lots of people lol
And look close at the cheek and the lower neck that's too much for gem 65 even today. But I do like the coin very much.
I'd think I'd get 64 if I sent it in today.
I noted that too, just looks like an insignificant smattering of contact marks (to me at least v/s all else) - the rest of this gem obv and rev is immaculate so maybe not a 66 but truly looks 65. Would be interesting what it comes in at indeed.
Comments
Good guess. Images can be deceiving but I would describe the marks on this coin (seen and any unseen) as very few." Marks are only one of the things to look for but they are important. There is one characteristic that is the major reason (99%) that beautiful coins as this have an obviously STUPID looking grade. Can you guess what it is?
Here are some modern PCGS 66s for comparison:
Here are the 65s by today's standards:
I think the grade was accurate for when it was graded. Based on the True Views I posted above, it would give many of today's "gems" a run for their money despite the deep hits shown in the blow up posted by Lance.
Continuous Hairlines or a patch in the prime focal areas is the major reason coins that look "gem" are downgraded. I see nothing like that on this coin and thanks to the magnified image, I agree the coin was correctly graded at the time. Today, I think we all agree it is at least a 64.
Great thread, great images, thanks!
I think this coin was graded MS63 due to the pull-back in pricing in the late 80's-early 90's, and the TPGs were trying to cover their butts after overgrazing to make customers happy. I remember that in the early 90's generic MS65 Morgan Dollars were selling for $500! Something had to give, and the TPGs were being blamed for pushing the prices higher.
Interesting, I never paid attention to the market ups and downs. My personal standards have never changed. My professional standards may have loosened a little (especially with regard to the AU/UNC line) but I've been told to grade coins as I see them and let others worry about how they are to be commercially graded. I point out the rub and any problems I see. Typical entries: MS-62 w/rub, hairlines, and rim nicks. MS-64, not original surface.
PS IMO, the OP's coin has the typical outstanding luster of a CC dollar.
I said 64.
I'd buy 63s that look like that all day.
Oh wait, I never see 63s that look like that. At least not in 63 holders.
NICE coin!
OK lets just say if 52 of us picked 65 (besides the others like 64/25 and 66/14) versus only 6 that chose 63, is pot luck imho and quite telling, and no need to compare and post others for comparison. This is and would carry a 65 on any day as is, the eye appeal is really all overall the surfaces are 65. Ye, it has a few minor chatters, so its not a + maybe, or a 66, but crack it, and send it in again, preferably to our hosts and lets place our bets again - I too stand by my 65 in this case.
63
6% 6 votes
64
25% 25 votes
65
53% 52 votes
66
14% 14 votes
Hide Results
In the OP the coin looked like a 65 -66 range. In the magnified cheek image, it looks like a 64 Max. The luster on CC's generally gives them a jump. I can see 64+ right now but I don't think it would 65.
I would be happy if I could buy 64's like that coin all day!
I always enjoy the GTG exercises, but I think that more often than not the coin is posted because it does not have what the majority would consider to have the "correct" grade. This should raise the question: "why would so many experienced coin evaluators agree on a grade that is 2 points different than the actual grade?" I agree with @Insider2 that I also hope that the thread will continue and that now opinions can be shared as to why each "guessor" believes that the coin is graded 63 instead of the majority selected 65, and the fun can become educational. Impart your grading experience to us newer collectors by giving your opinions as to why the coin has the grade it does and what factors might contribute to the grade being 63 instead of 65.
Is it because of which TPGS it is? Is it because of when it was graded? Is it because of a lack of luster that can't be accurately evaluated from the photos? Is it because the toning is considered unattractive and detracts from the eye appeal? Does the year and mint location factor into how you would grade a Morgan...Do you believe that it does in reality factor into the grade that the TPGs give to Morgans? If yes, should it? (If this were an 1880S would you give it the same grade?)
Lots of questions, but I would hope to stimulate some thought and get some helpful, educational responses from the incredible resource that exists in all of the members of this forum.
As a newer collector of Morgans who is intent on using every resource possible to become an educated coin evaluator, (I'm no expert, but I believe that I'm not bad either), let me throw in my opinion: Based on my current experience, I graded the coin MS65 considering the marks on the cheek and neck to be the most significant detracting factors, followed by the opinion that the obverse toning is not attractive but would not cause me to deduct a grade point. The obverse fields are relatively clear and consistent with an MS65 Morgan, some hairlines are evident, but consistent with a 65 grade. I would grade the reverse 66 as there are few significant marks in the fields or devices and the toning is a wash as to modifying the grade up or down. With a 65/66 grade, I would give the coin an overall grade of MS65.
I do believe that CC Morgans are graded with a greater allowance for number and severity of marks and hairlines and given a higher grade than would be given to the same coin if it were a non-CC Morgan... especially for PL and DMPL CCs (if the coin were an 1880S, I would grade it 64...just my opinion, what's yours?)
Lastly, I believe that in "past years", Morgans were graded more... strictly, harshly, in line with ANA guidelines... however you want to put it... MS63 "X" number of years ago, MS65 today.
Now please throw in your opinion!
Thanks... Paul
After seeing lkeigwin's crop of my image, the hit on the cheek is distracting. Probably the same feeling you would get with a loupe. If the hit wasn't there we're are talking 66 maybe more, the reverse is pretty clean. Ultimately I believe it's only a 4 maybe a plus but a dang nice one.
please, Insider, don't refer to yourself as a jerk because it denies us that pleasure when you actually are one.
such is not the case now.
I thought MS64 because I have learned how these guess the grade things go. if I guessed MS64 for them all I think I would be closer than most everyone who truly believes that they can accurately grade a coin from a digital picture. that technology has improved greatly over the years but is still not reliable. past that and assessing what I see in the image, there is too much rub and too much chatter on the cheek and neck of Miss Liberty. otherwise, the coin has a smooth, silky appearance with clean fields and non-distracting tone, pleasant to most eyes, but I tend to grade more strictly from a technical perspective. absent the neck chatter I would have been at MS65.
BTW, I find it interesting that the NKOB, shinywhite, nailed it!!!
@FadeToBlack said: "Speaking of CC's and luster, do graders give any preferential treatment, grade-wise, to types of luster? IE this coin exhibits that later die state creamy luster, as opposed to other coins that exhibit that flashy, semi-PL luster."
IMO:
Short answer: Yes. Luster can increase a coin's commercial grade.
As you posted, it comes in several forms and depends on the coin type, size, mint, coinage metal, planchet condition, the method of manufacture, bla, bla, bla, bla ,bla. It is complicated when we think about it; yet with experience, you'll know all these things and know what the original luster for the coins you collect should look like.
Since original mint luster is right up there with contact marks as the two most important factors that influence a coin's eye appeal, it is extremely important. The luster is the first thing you see (from a distance), even before any trivial marks are noticed. Luster also points to a coin's originality and indicates it's condition of preservation - especially at the critical line of AU (trace of wear) and BU (no trace of wear) which is much less important these days.
@keets said: "...past that and assessing what I see in the image, there is TOO MUCH RUB and too much chatter on the cheek and neck of Miss Liberty."
I
disagree with this part of your post. There is ABSOLUTELY NO TRACE OF RUB or friction wear ANYWHERE on that coin! It has full mint luster. The ONLY breaks in the original mint luster are caused by the bright, shiny, fresh, contact marks.
I still think it's a 65 if sent today. And I love the gold foil Fatty!
My YouTube Channel
you could edit the rub part
there are areas on the lower cheek, central eagle's breast and scattered elsewhere from coming into contact(rubbing) with other coins while in the coin bag. maybe it's just terminology for you or your need to always be right, but that's what I see. no need to go back and forth, if it makes you feel better I will concede the point and say you are always right and that now, yes, you are being a jerk. have a nice day and please continue telling everyone that work you for so-and-so, started such-and-such and are an expert on all things Numismatic. god darn do you ever get tired of loving yourself??
@Insider2 will you be so kind as to answer this question?
To quote @FadeToBlack "Speaking of CC's and luster, do graders give any preferential treatment, grade-wise, to types of luster? IE this coin exhibits that later die state creamy luster, as opposed to other coins that exhibit that flashy, semi-PL luster."
So, the question was asked "do graders give any preferential treatment … to TYPES of luster? That is an interesting question and I dare to say that I am not the only one waiting to hear your answer.
Concerning original mint luster which type is preferential? The creamy satiny type or the flashy or semi-proof like?
I said 64... the reverse of this coin is incredible. I see just one, maybe two hits. The obverse is what held me back from assigning a higher grade... but 63? True, there are hits on the cheek that are in a major focal area... maybe this is what prevented a higher grade.
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Nonsense!
@keets
While I'm not a numismatic "expert," I've been very fortunate to be able to examine the surfaces of coins closer than the magnified image of the OP's coin. I can say with 100% certainty that there is NOTHING even close to resembling "rub" ANYWHERE on that coin.
This is an open forum. Folks are free to believe as they wish. However, I'll continue to disagree with anything from anyone that I consider being detrimental to the less knowledgeable here just as I learn things from those more knowledgeable than I.
So, let's continue the thread. Why don't YOU put the teaching hat on for all of us and point out the places on this coin where YOU see the rub. In fact, let's all find the RUB.
To each their own. My favorite is Carson City luster.
you seem to have a penchant for thinking you are charge of what members think post and express. you just need to back off, dude. you are in charge of nothing.
I agree!
Now do you care to tell us where you see the rub on that coin? I'll understand when you don't reply so perhaps someone who agrees that the coin is not FULL MINT STATE can continue this discussion.
As another suggestion (as I'm not in charge around here
), perhaps someone can tell us the two main causes of loss of original surface on the high points of a coin that is still 100% original (not cleaned, not circulated, not bagmarked as is the OP's). Weak strike is not one of them. 
I can't post here what I'd like to tell you and keep my membership. what i will say is that your self-righteousness is off-putting to me and you have proven before that you don't know as much as you think.
have a nice day, I'll try the best I can to avoid you, perhaps you'll do me the same favor.
Send me a PM and vent. Your posts
would be missed more than mine if you left. Perhaps you can tell me where YOU SEE the rub on the coin while you are ranting. I'll keep it all our secret. 
PS The best numismatists I know are willing to debate and if they change their opinion - embrace it and the learning process goes on. I try to imitate them. As you posted, I've been guilty of posting misinformation and each time was extremely embarrassed as I corrected my error. I'm learning not to post if I don't know what I'm writing about so as not to MISLEAD others with my nonsense.
the bug gets lots of people lol
And look close at the cheek and the lower neck that's too much for gem 65 even today. But I do like the coin very much.
I'd think I'd get 64 if I sent it in today.
Graded on Monday morning or Friday afternoon . . .
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
I noted that too, just looks like an insignificant smattering of contact marks (to me at least v/s all else) - the rest of this gem obv and rev is immaculate so maybe not a 66 but truly looks 65. Would be interesting what it comes in at indeed.