@keets said: Part of the issue is it’s ngc with no CAC. For market value, it’s hard to get a worse combination
Bruce, that's a sobering assessment.
But true. It is what it is
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Look at the online photos of ANY high grade 1795 Half-Dime, split the screen, and put up alongside the photos of THIS coin.
It is, by comparison, better. It has greater detail. There is of course no wear - it is MS, not AU, and the surfaces are, as the cataloguer wrote, those of a higher grade.
Focus on comparing it and it becomes easier to agree with me.
The LM-10 is an R-3 rarity, (scarce, not rare) so there is no rarity premium, and most have the cud. The OP coin has an excellent strike, and this variety tends to strike well. In my 30+ years of collecting early US coins, I have not seen a difference in value from an average strike to an excellent strike. Extremely poor strikes from this period can be graded slightly lower from TPG's (maybe they should not be, but that's another debate).
It is a nice NGC MS61, but not worth a premium for strike or rarity. Premium for eye appeal? Bidders will decide.
The coin does display Robert Scot's engraving talent early in his tenure as chief engraver.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
The LM-10 is an R-3 rarity, (scarce, not rare) so there is no rarity premium, and most have the cud. The OP coin has an excellent strike, and this variety tends to strike well. In my 30+ years of collecting early US coins, I have not seen a difference in value from an average strike to an excellent strike. Extremely poor strikes from this period can be graded slightly lower from TPG's (maybe they should not be, but that's another debate).
It is a nice NGC MS61, but not worth a premium for strike or rarity. Premium for eye appeal? Bidders will decide.
The coin does display Robert Scot's engraving talent early in his tenure as chief engraver.
As I posted, this coin will be upgraded eventually.
@grivennik said:
I was missing all the acerbic little jibes, such as these.
This is FUN!!
Don't waste time with the point.
You fail to realize you came on here and expecting whatever you did, but you should have realized this is a really knowledgeable bunch here, and many will say it like it is.
You think we want to bash your fine lot? We don't.
You had to have known that when you started this thread that you'd get unvarnished comments. You talking about some that truly specialize in this field or/and the series...not just a bunch of wannabe dreck purveyors.
What kind of responses would I get if I posted a rebuilt 1966 corvette with mismatched numbers, bondo and an unoriginal interior on a car forum....but kept harping about how nice the tires were and that it’s worth far more than the appraisal because of them?
@grivennik said:
I was missing all the acerbic little jibes, such as these.
This is FUN!!
Don't waste time with the point.
We got the point. Will you?
It's a solid market 61 with a good strike. No one had ever said anything else.
Technical 58, market 61/62.
NGC agrees. CAC presumably agrees. Every professional on this site agrees. I'm really not sure how you've made it seem like there is some controversy here.
If you really think that is a 65 masquerading as a 61, you better pull it before the auction and get it in the right holder.
If under graded, perhaps PCGS98? Just Kidding. (I think!)
When the OP joined 3/12 the coin must have already been consigned. Is the OP a prior well known forum member with new moniker?
Thank you, Bryce M.
Yes, I know. It has excellent surface preservation. I thought the cataloguer dealt with that by saying
"Both sides are well centered in strike, the borders near-fully denticulated and the design elements boldly to sharply defined in a product of the fledgling United States Mint. Satiny in texture with an uncommonly smooth appearance for the assigned grade". MS = Mint State. '61' means to me, from looking at other MS 61s, surface disturbances aplenty.
So I took for granted that the issue of surface preservation had been made clear.
What was not made clear was the remarkably sharp detail of the reverse. The catalog photo fails to show it, so I did.
No other reason.
What point is there in getting it regraded? If NGC give it an MS61 grade, why would they change it?
And would PCGS disagree? If so, they would be saying NGC were wrong.
Insider2 wrote:
"PS For the sake of you being more correct than all of us here, I hope it sells for MS-60 money and we see it graded MS-63 several months from now!"
If that is it possible, it suggests that under-grading occurs, and presents opportunities for gain to the buyer.
@grivennik said:
Thank you, Bryce M.
Yes, I know. It
If that is it possible, it suggests that under-grading occurs, and presents opportunities for gain to the buyer.
If you crack it out neither NGC nor PCGS would know it graded 61.
People make money all the time by cracking out and resubmitting.
Of course you're the only one who thinks that it could go higher than 62. And it could go lower.
"If you crack it out neither NGC nor PCGS would know it graded 61.
People make money all the time by cracking out and resubmitting."
NGC would know - they wouldn't forget an MS 1795 Half-Dime like this!
So it is common for a coin to be under-graded initially, which restricts the amount it fetches, and resubmitted by the purchaser in the likelihood that it will be graded higher?
And PCGS might do the same?
Doesn't say much for graders.
If you can examine my coin at Baltimore, do that. My photos are lousy, and the lovely surfaces don't show; but the details do.
They don't show properly on the reverse photo in the catalog. Lighting has to be angled to do that.
And I am the only one here who has examined and taken photos of the coin itself; so - whether biased or not - I have the advantage over all who comment here.
edwardjulio Posts: 93 ✭✭✭ April 29, 2019 2:31PM
Then why are you here?
I was wondering that, myself! I thought I would be showing a photo of the coin as it really is, to a serious group of numismatists.
Instead, I was insulted and subjected to howls of derision.
It goes on and on, but I am hardened to it now.
I was told you were being 'scammed by a newbie', and that I should have expected a rough ride.
As a Newbie, I was not acquainted with how some of you do things.
Nysoto made his points in a serious, constructive, way; and that is what I liked, whatever he said.
1) your pictures (with the exception of the last obverse shot) were cartoonish
2) it’s considered poor taste to hype one’s coin for sale in this forum
3) this is a PCGS chatroom and ngc isn’t held in particularly high regard here
4) we have decades of experience with ownership adding a point
5) you seem to have a strike fetish and are ignoring the other factors that predominantly determine the grade
The OP keeps going on and on about how well detailed the coin is. Yes! We agree!
However, according to PCGS, strike is 15% of the coin’s grade.
The FAR greater issue is with surface preservation and here (and with luster) there are some issues.
If you think it’s so under-graded why sell it like that?? Getting it regraded prior to auction is simple. Surely there must be some reason.
Perhaps the image you posted needs updating....
Eye appeal "10%." Strike 15% Nonsense! Do as I do, NOT AS I Post!
Anyone notice coins that are not typically found fully struck are now graded MS-65 and higher? What about the color bump? 10% seems very low when all I read/see is "Eye Appeal" trumps everything including friction wear from circulation, mishandling, damage, altered surfaces, and anything else.
PS Original luster is what indicates "surface preservation" from a minimum of XF up. I would substitute something like "amount of design detail remaining" as this is a completely different measurement from luster. Perhaps just dropping "luster" from the chart completely and leave "Surface Preservation" would work. Unfortunately, "luster" (affecting eye-appeal) is the first thing that many graders look for.
I guess all this shows that assigning percentages to the characteristics of a coin is only an academic guide! In any case, IMO, this "guide" needs some tweaking.
I agree the coin looks like a 58 from the recent photos and it looks like it had a light cleaning, at least on the reverse from the toning on the earlier photos. 61 seems reasonable.
A couple of years ago I purchased a fully original circulated 89-cc Morgan from a dealer who found it in a half-bag he purchased. He graded it 45 and I hoped it would 50. PCGS liked it and graded it 53, but JA would not CAC it. He said it looked "xfey." He said that most dealers would dip this coin to brighten it for resale (which, I believe, would not have violated PNG's coin doctoring definition). Disappointed, I reviewed most auction sales of AU 89-ccs and was surprised to find as few as 1 in 20 that looked original and undipped. I sold it shortly thereafter, but I was still disappointed that JA wold not CAC it, even if it was an old timer's choice xf.
It was an XF coin that you "hoped it would 50". Then when it 53's, you are disappointed that JA wouldn't CAC it??? By your own assessment, YOU wouldn't CAC it at 53.
I think I would have given it a CAC as a 53. However, my original grade was 50. I'm not an expert grader, but I am a pretty good grader. The more I looked at it, the more I saw the underlying luster and agreed with the 53 even though it had an xfey look, which many collectors dislike. Rather, many collectors prefer scrubbed white coins. PCGS obviously rewarded my coin for its originality. JA rewards originality also, so I thought he would CAC this one as well. I once sent in what I thought was a slightly over-graded old-holdered PCGS seated dollar in AU-50 hoping, but not believing, it would CAC. JA gave it a gold CAC. My sense of JA's standards, having submitted most of my collection to him, is that he looks for originality first. If he sees a coin as not fully original, it will not CAC no matter what. If it is fully original, he is inclined to CAC it, without tremendous focus on the slab grade, I believed it should have received a CAC sticker as a 53.
But my point was (1) the OPs coin was likely cleaned at one time and would not CAC and (2) addressing the Colonel's comment about cleaned 89-cc dollars ... and that there are just original ones left.
My point was that strike is an important, but minor component of a coin's grade. Period.
As for "amount of design detail remaining".... that should be a point of discussion for circulated coins, not mint state grading which this chart represents.
In my understanding, "Surface Preservation" includes a bunch of stuff including hits, abrasions, rim bumps, cleaning, reed strikes, "cabinet friction - whatever that is", mild hairlines..... basically bad stuff that happened to the coin after minting, or sometimes even during minting.
As you imply, luster breaks are a huge clue to high-point wear or un-original surfaces..... but even if the entire coin shows original mint luster there are qualitative differences between "booming, flashy luster" and "subdued, satiny" luster. In my mind the first pertains to surfaces and the second is the 15% of the grade attributable to "luster".
But, I COMPLETELY agree that eye appeal has become the tail that wags the dog in many instances. The "technical grade" may again become more important someday. We'll see.
I, for one, don't have an issue with giving nice original mint luster strong consideration. There are many, many things that will destroy nice original luster and an old coin that still has it is a coin I'm likely to want to own.
"If you crack it out neither NGC nor PCGS would know it graded 61.
People make money all the time by cracking out and resubmitting."
NGC would know - they wouldn't forget an MS 1795 Half-Dime like this!
So it is common for a coin to be under-graded initially, which restricts the amount it fetches, and resubmitted by the purchaser in the likelihood that it will be graded higher?
And PCGS might do the same?
Doesn't say much for graders.
If you can examine my coin at Baltimore, do that. My photos are lousy, and the lovely surfaces don't show; but the details do.
They don't show properly on the reverse photo in the catalog. Lighting has to be angled to do that.
And I am the only one here who has examined and taken photos of the coin itself; so - whether biased or not - I have the advantage over all who comment here.
I think you underestimate the number of coins a grader looks at and how many different graders there are.
It's not any more common, I think, for a coin to be undergraded than overgraded. The graders are not perfect. The graders are far more accurate than you will be given your subjectivity and strike obsession.
And yet we all agree with NGC who also looked at the coin and are objective experts.
I'd also point out that the people on this site who prefer PCGS think NGC OVERgrades coins not undergrads. Your coin might cross-over to PCGS as a 58.
Wow this one is becoming a must click thread for the play by play.
Can someone please post there findings when this lot is being viewed - I am really> @grivennik said:
edwardjulio Posts: 93 ✭✭✭ April 29, 2019 2:31PM
Then why are you here?
I was wondering that, myself! I thought I would be showing a photo of the coin as it really is, to a serious group of numismatists.
Instead, I was insulted and subjected to howls of derision.
It goes on and on, but I am hardened to it now.
I was told you were being 'scammed by a newbie', and that I should have expected a rough ride.
As a Newbie, I was not acquainted with how some of you do things.
Nysoto made his points in a serious, constructive, way; and that is what I liked, whatever he said.
Some of us have patiently pointed out the obvious but you don't seem to want to hear it.
I don't see howls of derision nor insults.
Why don't we just wait now for some of us who will surely view this lot up close and personal.
I am positive you'll know at that point, and so will all of us.
Just relax and enjoy the ride, I promise you no one is trying to insult you.
I really think it's D'Antonio. LOL. I don't know why else he would be mad at me for agreeing with NGC. Heck, I even bid on the coin. I was still the high bidder, last I looked.
"My point was that strike is an important, but minor component of a coin's grade. Period."
Agree, and you are educating the OP who keeps bringing "strike" up.
"As for "amount of design detail remaining".... that should be a point of discussion for circulated coins, not mint state grading which this chart represents."
Very true. However, now that for years AU's have been graded as MS....
"In my understanding, "Surface Preservation" includes a bunch of stuff including hits, abrasions, rim bumps, cleaning, reed strikes, "cabinet friction - whatever that is", mild hairlines..... basically bad stuff that happened to the coin after minting, or sometimes even during minting."
Makes sense but 60% when deeply scratched coins and chemically altered coins are found straight graded? IMO, there should have never been a need for any sticker service to "grade" TPGS opinions. That's what a second opinion from a different TPGS was to provide!
As you imply, luster breaks are a huge clue to high-point wear or un-original surfaces..... but even if the entire coin shows original mint luster there are qualitative differences between "booming, flashy luster" and "subdued, satiny" luster. In my mind the first pertains to surfaces and the second is the 15% of the grade attributable to "luster".
Sorry, I must disagree with this. While original mint luster can take many forms (INCLUDING the original luster on the FLAT surface of a coin that NEVER TOUCHED THE DIE) this original luster is strongly linked to the surface quality and eye appeal (the big catch all that HAS BECOME more important that virtually anything on a coin except for a HOLE!). So I guess my point is the chart that was posted needs some work to make it reflect actual percentages for grading MS coins.
@ColonelJessup said:
This coin sells late next month?
Mother Superior Jump the gun! Talk about tripping over your own schmeckle
Someone PM me 20 minutes before it hammers
Laura has promised to look at it. Her opinion here will either help raise or lower the bid but that is not news to anyone.
To clarify, in case what @Insider2 said is confusing,...... “flat surfaces that never touched the die” might be interpreted as either:
The flat fields of the coin OR
Areas of certain coins that never touched the die because they weren’t fully struck (the centers of many 1921 Peace dollars come to mind).
The second is correct, since the lowest parts of a coin (the fields) are the most raised part of the die. This area of a coin obviously touches the die as it makes contact first.
@ColonelJessup said:
This coin sells late next month?
Mother Superior Jump the gun! Talk about tripping over your own schmeckle
Someone PM me 20 minutes before it hammers
Laura has promised to look at it. Her opinion here will either help raise or lower the bid but that is not news to anyone.
Laurie can't grade from pictures. Her input comes way too late for me. 25 days till the hammer drops and you want us to wait????? I'm betting on the Arnold Schwarzenegger-style Legend twin. He, at least, once won a grading contest
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
To clarify, for those following along who don’t know....... “flat surfaces that never touched the die” refers to either:
The flat fields of the coin OR
Areas of certain coins that never touched the die because they weren’t fully struck (the centers of many 1921 Peace dollars come to mind).
I’m assuming you mean the second, because the lowest parts of a finished coin (the fields) are the first areas to contact the die.
First, thanks but don't assume.
Second. @BryceM please edit your post.
“flat surfaces that never touched the die” refers to...The flat fields of the coin. And then: **"... (the fields) are the first areas to contact the die."
It will be helpful when Laura views it in hand - or anyone else attending the showing. The OP probably won't feel any better about it, but he knows best.
It will be helpful when Laura views it in hand - or anyone else attending the showing. The OP probably won't feel any better about it, but he knows best. He knows the surfaces are smooth and beautifully toned, from first-hand experience; and has demonstrated the outstanding quality of the strike.
Good on him for putting up with the blind and unkind remarks made here!
Comments
But true. It is what it is
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
the ground shifts and then settles over time. I have sensed what Bruce said and it is reassuring to hear guys like him say it plainly.
me either.
I rescind any previous compliments
Look at the online photos of ANY high grade 1795 Half-Dime, split the screen, and put up alongside the photos of THIS coin.
It is, by comparison, better. It has greater detail. There is of course no wear - it is MS, not AU, and the surfaces are, as the cataloguer wrote, those of a higher grade.
Focus on comparing it and it becomes easier to agree with me.
Sigh
Just think, we only have to see this thread bumped to the top with old, inadequate images and false arguments until May 23!
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The latest obverse image is at least passable. Looks like Liberty had a run in with Dracula
I was missing all the acerbic little jibes, such as these.
This is FUN!!
Don't waste time with the point.
Good. We'll all keep it consistent.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Tough crowd here. Nice coin for the assigned grade, with obvious rub and luster breaks.
Here is a link to a 1795 LM-10 PCGS MS64+, differences in friction are subtle but apparent https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-GPZI4
The LM-10 is an R-3 rarity, (scarce, not rare) so there is no rarity premium, and most have the cud. The OP coin has an excellent strike, and this variety tends to strike well. In my 30+ years of collecting early US coins, I have not seen a difference in value from an average strike to an excellent strike. Extremely poor strikes from this period can be graded slightly lower from TPG's (maybe they should not be, but that's another debate).
It is a nice NGC MS61, but not worth a premium for strike or rarity. Premium for eye appeal? Bidders will decide.
The coin does display Robert Scot's engraving talent early in his tenure as chief engraver.
Thank you, Nysoto, for a helpful reply.
As I posted, this coin will be upgraded eventually.
You fail to realize you came on here and expecting whatever you did, but you should have realized this is a really knowledgeable bunch here, and many will say it like it is.
You think we want to bash your fine lot? We don't.
You had to have known that when you started this thread that you'd get unvarnished comments. You talking about some that truly specialize in this field or/and the series...not just a bunch of wannabe dreck purveyors.
What kind of responses would I get if I posted a rebuilt 1966 corvette with mismatched numbers, bondo and an unoriginal interior on a car forum....but kept harping about how nice the tires were and that it’s worth far more than the appraisal because of them?
He really doesn't listen. @nysoto says it's a 61 and not worth a premium for strike and he THANKS him.
The rest of us tell him it's a run of the mill 61 and he tells us we're missing the point.
Smh...
We got the point. Will you?
It's a solid market 61 with a good strike. No one had ever said anything else.
Technical 58, market 61/62.
NGC agrees. CAC presumably agrees. Every professional on this site agrees. I'm really not sure how you've made it seem like there is some controversy here.
If you really think that is a 65 masquerading as a 61, you better pull it before the auction and get it in the right holder.
Well, at least you'll get a "thank you". LOL.
Be sure and bid it up to 64 CAC money. I'm out at 63 money. Still a lot to be made from 64 to 66...
If under graded, perhaps PCGS98? Just Kidding. (I think!)
When the OP joined 3/12 the coin must have already been consigned. Is the OP a prior well known forum member with new moniker?
The OP keeps going on and on about how well detailed the coin is. Yes! We agree!
However, according to PCGS, strike is 15% of the coin’s grade.
The FAR greater issue is with surface preservation and here (and with luster) there are some issues.
If you think it’s so under-graded why sell it like that?? Getting it regraded prior to auction is simple. Surely there must be some reason.
Thank you, Bryce M.
Yes, I know. It has excellent surface preservation. I thought the cataloguer dealt with that by saying
"Both sides are well centered in strike, the borders near-fully denticulated and the design elements boldly to sharply defined in a product of the fledgling United States Mint. Satiny in texture with an uncommonly smooth appearance for the assigned grade". MS = Mint State. '61' means to me, from looking at other MS 61s, surface disturbances aplenty.
So I took for granted that the issue of surface preservation had been made clear.
What was not made clear was the remarkably sharp detail of the reverse. The catalog photo fails to show it, so I did.
No other reason.
What point is there in getting it regraded? If NGC give it an MS61 grade, why would they change it?
And would PCGS disagree? If so, they would be saying NGC were wrong.
Insider2 wrote:
"PS For the sake of you being more correct than all of us here, I hope it sells for MS-60 money and we see it graded MS-63 several months from now!"
If that is it possible, it suggests that under-grading occurs, and presents opportunities for gain to the buyer.
"So I took for granted that the issue of surface preservation had been made clear." By the cataloguer's comment on that.
If you crack it out neither NGC nor PCGS would know it graded 61.
People make money all the time by cracking out and resubmitting.
Of course you're the only one who thinks that it could go higher than 62. And it could go lower.
jmlanzaf -
"If you crack it out neither NGC nor PCGS would know it graded 61.
People make money all the time by cracking out and resubmitting."
NGC would know - they wouldn't forget an MS 1795 Half-Dime like this!
So it is common for a coin to be under-graded initially, which restricts the amount it fetches, and resubmitted by the purchaser in the likelihood that it will be graded higher?
And PCGS might do the same?
Doesn't say much for graders.
If you can examine my coin at Baltimore, do that. My photos are lousy, and the lovely surfaces don't show; but the details do.
They don't show properly on the reverse photo in the catalog. Lighting has to be angled to do that.
And I am the only one here who has examined and taken photos of the coin itself; so - whether biased or not - I have the advantage over all who comment here.
Then why are you here?
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All of Us
ANA LM, LSCC, EAC, FUN
Yes, only folks that agree with you are helpful.
edwardjulio Posts: 93 ✭✭✭ April 29, 2019 2:31PM
Then why are you here?
I was wondering that, myself! I thought I would be showing a photo of the coin as it really is, to a serious group of numismatists.
Instead, I was insulted and subjected to howls of derision.
It goes on and on, but I am hardened to it now.
I was told you were being 'scammed by a newbie', and that I should have expected a rough ride.
As a Newbie, I was not acquainted with how some of you do things.
Nysoto made his points in a serious, constructive, way; and that is what I liked, whatever he said.
1) your pictures (with the exception of the last obverse shot) were cartoonish
2) it’s considered poor taste to hype one’s coin for sale in this forum
3) this is a PCGS chatroom and ngc isn’t held in particularly high regard here
4) we have decades of experience with ownership adding a point
5) you seem to have a strike fetish and are ignoring the other factors that predominantly determine the grade
Other than that - welcome!
Perhaps the image you posted needs updating....
Eye appeal "10%." Strike 15% Nonsense! Do as I do, NOT AS I Post!
Anyone notice coins that are not typically found fully struck are now graded MS-65 and higher? What about the color bump? 10% seems very low when all I read/see is "Eye Appeal" trumps everything including friction wear from circulation, mishandling, damage, altered surfaces, and anything else.
PS Original luster is what indicates "surface preservation" from a minimum of XF up. I would substitute something like "amount of design detail remaining" as this is a completely different measurement from luster. Perhaps just dropping "luster" from the chart completely and leave "Surface Preservation" would work. Unfortunately, "luster" (affecting eye-appeal) is the first thing that many graders look for.
I guess all this shows that assigning percentages to the characteristics of a coin is only an academic guide! In any case, IMO, this "guide" needs some tweaking.
I think I would have given it a CAC as a 53. However, my original grade was 50. I'm not an expert grader, but I am a pretty good grader. The more I looked at it, the more I saw the underlying luster and agreed with the 53 even though it had an xfey look, which many collectors dislike. Rather, many collectors prefer scrubbed white coins. PCGS obviously rewarded my coin for its originality. JA rewards originality also, so I thought he would CAC this one as well. I once sent in what I thought was a slightly over-graded old-holdered PCGS seated dollar in AU-50 hoping, but not believing, it would CAC. JA gave it a gold CAC. My sense of JA's standards, having submitted most of my collection to him, is that he looks for originality first. If he sees a coin as not fully original, it will not CAC no matter what. If it is fully original, he is inclined to CAC it, without tremendous focus on the slab grade, I believed it should have received a CAC sticker as a 53.
But my point was (1) the OPs coin was likely cleaned at one time and would not CAC and (2) addressing the Colonel's comment about cleaned 89-cc dollars ... and that there are just original ones left.
Tom
@Insider2
My point was that strike is an important, but minor component of a coin's grade. Period.
As for "amount of design detail remaining".... that should be a point of discussion for circulated coins, not mint state grading which this chart represents.
In my understanding, "Surface Preservation" includes a bunch of stuff including hits, abrasions, rim bumps, cleaning, reed strikes, "cabinet friction - whatever that is", mild hairlines..... basically bad stuff that happened to the coin after minting, or sometimes even during minting.
As you imply, luster breaks are a huge clue to high-point wear or un-original surfaces..... but even if the entire coin shows original mint luster there are qualitative differences between "booming, flashy luster" and "subdued, satiny" luster. In my mind the first pertains to surfaces and the second is the 15% of the grade attributable to "luster".
But, I COMPLETELY agree that eye appeal has become the tail that wags the dog in many instances. The "technical grade" may again become more important someday. We'll see.
I, for one, don't have an issue with giving nice original mint luster strong consideration. There are many, many things that will destroy nice original luster and an old coin that still has it is a coin I'm likely to want to own.
I think you underestimate the number of coins a grader looks at and how many different graders there are.
It's not any more common, I think, for a coin to be undergraded than overgraded. The graders are not perfect. The graders are far more accurate than you will be given your subjectivity and strike obsession.
And yet we all agree with NGC who also looked at the coin and are objective experts.
I'd also point out that the people on this site who prefer PCGS think NGC OVERgrades coins not undergrads. Your coin might cross-over to PCGS as a 58.
Wow this one is becoming a must click thread for the play by play.
Can someone please post there findings when this lot is being viewed - I am really> @grivennik said:
Some of us have patiently pointed out the obvious but you don't seem to want to hear it.
I don't see howls of derision nor insults.
Why don't we just wait now for some of us who will surely view this lot up close and personal.
I am positive you'll know at that point, and so will all of us.
Just relax and enjoy the ride, I promise you no one is trying to insult you.
I really think it's D'Antonio. LOL. I don't know why else he would be mad at me for agreeing with NGC. Heck, I even bid on the coin. I was still the high bidder, last I looked.
This coin sells late next month?
Talk about tripping over your own schmeckle
Mother Superior Jump the gun!
Someone PM me 20 minutes before it hammers
@BryceM said:
"My point was that strike is an important, but minor component of a coin's grade. Period."
Agree, and you are educating the OP who keeps bringing "strike" up.
"As for "amount of design detail remaining".... that should be a point of discussion for circulated coins, not mint state grading which this chart represents."
Very true. However, now that for years AU's have been graded as MS....
"In my understanding, "Surface Preservation" includes a bunch of stuff including hits, abrasions, rim bumps, cleaning, reed strikes, "cabinet friction - whatever that is", mild hairlines..... basically bad stuff that happened to the coin after minting, or sometimes even during minting."
Makes sense but 60% when deeply scratched coins and chemically altered coins are found straight graded? IMO, there should have never been a need for any sticker service to "grade" TPGS opinions. That's what a second opinion from a different TPGS was to provide!
As you imply, luster breaks are a huge clue to high-point wear or un-original surfaces..... but even if the entire coin shows original mint luster there are qualitative differences between "booming, flashy luster" and "subdued, satiny" luster. In my mind the first pertains to surfaces and the second is the 15% of the grade attributable to "luster".
Sorry, I must disagree with this. While original mint luster can take many forms (INCLUDING the original luster on the FLAT surface of a coin that NEVER TOUCHED THE DIE) this original luster is strongly linked to the surface quality and eye appeal (the big catch all that HAS BECOME more important that virtually anything on a coin except for a HOLE!). So I guess my point is the chart that was posted needs some work to make it reflect actual percentages for grading MS coins.
Posts as this are VERY INFORMATIVE! They are not going to change many opinions and that's OK.
Laura has promised to look at it. Her opinion here will either help raise or lower the bid but that is not news to anyone.
To clarify, in case what @Insider2 said is confusing,...... “flat surfaces that never touched the die” might be interpreted as either:
The second is correct, since the lowest parts of a coin (the fields) are the most raised part of the die. This area of a coin obviously touches the die as it makes contact first.
Laurie can't grade from pictures. Her input comes way too late for me. 25 days till the hammer drops and you want us to wait????? I'm betting on the Arnold Schwarzenegger-style Legend twin. He, at least, once won a grading contest
First, thanks but don't assume.
Second. @BryceM please edit your post.
“flat surfaces that never touched the die” refers to...The flat fields of the coin. And then: **"... (the fields) are the first areas to contact the die."
Is the Horse kicked to death yet?
Neigh...
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
As painful as it appears to be for the OP, this is a good educational thread and should be taken as such.
It will be helpful when Laura views it in hand - or anyone else attending the showing. The OP probably won't feel any better about it, but he knows best.
It will be helpful when Laura views it in hand - or anyone else attending the showing. The OP probably won't feel any better about it, but he knows best. He knows the surfaces are smooth and beautifully toned, from first-hand experience; and has demonstrated the outstanding quality of the strike.
Good on him for putting up with the blind and unkind remarks made here!
lmfao off. The only unkind remarks here have been from the OP who calls anyone who disagrees with him blind or vindictive.
Lord knows what he'll call Laura if she labels it dreck.
Not anyone. Just you, who seem to be obsessed.
Vindictive yes; blind no.
We speak the same language, but use it differently.