Is anyone else thinking 65s are getting pretty bad?
topstuf
Posts: 14,803 ✭✭✭✭✭
In my time wasting searches, I'm seeing fewer and fewer 65 graded coins (mostly pre 1900) where the 64 is far more eye appealing.
???
3
Comments
“Market grading”
It's a widget wonderland out there.
If you want a nice 65, you have to buy an OK looking 66 or look for a 65-Bean (about the same price)
I've been lucky this last year but I'm like a cat on a mouse hole.
My Saint Set
What grading company are you referring to?
All.
I have a lovely 63 that was in an old holder 65 CAC.
Some of the NGC 67 dollars are barely gem.
The number on the label is just a number.... I judge the coin... it may or may not be represented by the typed opinion. I collect coins that I like... and the label is just decoration. Cheers, RickO
I don't see this happening. With standards tightening up, as they have been; I've been seeing more true gems.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I'd like to see this one.
My YouTube Channel
The one thing I have noticed after a longish hiatus collecting US coins, is the disappointing condition of many of the big coins in 65, especially gold. I remember a "gem" as being less baggy as a rule.
Todays 65s are certainly yesterdays 63s, in the world of Morgan and Peace anyway. Another decade and those 63s may just make 66+.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
Very hard to get all the positives, strike luster eye appeal minimal marks thick skin in gems these days unless you don't mind toned coins. Was looking at some MS63 $20 Saints new and old holders today, some had merits of higher grade but other things holding them back.
Still some nice ones out there if you're patient:
Like the old saying goes, buy the coin, not the slab.
Makes one wonder about the usefulness of numbers for grades.
How many would-be new collectors are being "confused away" from coin collecting because of the number problem?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
PCGS too.
pic?
IMO, None who have a brain, a computer and can read.
From what I've seen, the problem is mostly due to attractive toning. Strip it away, and I like your point.
Logger7 brings up a good point.
Overgraded coins are just going to be there to see...For sale forever.
Most of the saints I see pictured on this forum are overgrazed so when people complain about it I just scratch my head.
You want to see some monster 63's, check out renman's set.
Ask him how long he has to look to find one & I think he will tell you it isn't easy.
The cherries are about gone...You have to worry about road apples now.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/20-gold-major-sets/st-gaudens-20-gold-date-set-circulation-strikes-1907-1932/publishedset/112241
My Saint Set
I prefer 64, even 63. Very often they look nicer and they ALWAYS cost a lot less.
I love this saying. With enough gradeflation and enough coins in holders, you won't ever be able to buy the coin.
IMO, None who have a brain, a computer and can read.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Not just yet, I have a plan.
Someone here should start a TPG wall of shame of ridiculously under graded and over graded coins. I find it hard to believe that both PCGS and CAC were originally in error by that much.
Someone here should start a TPG wall of shame of ridiculously under graded and over graded coins. I find it hard to believe that both PCGS and CAC were originally in error by that much.
I wouldn't be any help in contributing example images for the wall of shame but I like the idea of it as a learning experience for those collectors with a brain, a computer and who can read.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
It's the 67-68+ range newer graded coins that I keep scratching my head about?!?
It may be hard to believe, but it is true. I don't make things up. Fatty 65 CAC became a PCGS 63. Many other examples, but hopefully the new guy will get this stuff fixed. Grade-Deflation is killing me.
I'm not questioning the veracity of what you say.
Still some nice ones out there if you're patient:
That 1923 Peace Dollar is an original superb gem. There is nothing phony about its toning.
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Haven't shopped for a coin in 65 for many years... my want list is in grades like VG and Fine details net AG.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Not really.
Collector, occasional seller
CAC gold and then a trip to Heritage?
64 in "MS" and PF holders offer the best value.
Just my opinion...
(But it's true...
You might have to sift through a few before you find the kind you're looking for. But is worth it.
I have noticed the premiums for a '+' 67+, especially, in Washington quarters and Walkers, is astronomical formany-registry points?-I side with CAC on these. I can not see paying 3 or four times the money for something that ten people are likely to give ten opinions.
Thanks. In an NGC "Fatty" holder.
Yeah, you gotta kiss a lot of frogs before you find a princess. Just the other day I was approached by a frog who asked me to kiss her and she'd be my princess. I said; the hell with that! I'd rather have a talking frog.
Methinks anything graded 64 on up should never by ugly!
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets