@tradedollarnut said:
I think the coin is amazing and that the tic on the sun is overwhelmed by the quality of the remaining surfaces. The bigger the coin, the more disturbances allowed at the 68 grade. My 1875-S trade dollar in 68 had multiple ticks. The 1876 in 67 was downright chattery but had an amazing look. I think that’s the case with this coin - the luster is off the charts and the toning just drips with originality- reminds me of the proof tissue toning but without the haze
I'm beginning to wonder why anyone here waste money submitting coins. Here's a coin in a 68 holder with CAC verification and they are all questioning the grade based on one photo. Why pay for an opinion you don't respect?
@tradedollarnut said:
I think the coin is amazing and that the tic on the sun is overwhelmed by the quality of the remaining surfaces. The bigger the coin, the more disturbances allowed at the 68 grade. My 1875-S trade dollar in 68 had multiple ticks. The 1876 in 67 was downright chattery but had an amazing look. I think that’s the case with this coin - the luster is off the charts and the toning just drips with originality- reminds me of the proof tissue toning but without the haze
I'm beginning to wonder why anyone here waste money submitting coins. Here's a coin in a 68 holder with CAC verification and they are all questioning the grade based on one photo. Why pay for an opinion you don't respect?
Actually, I'm questioning the photo based on the grade. The coin wasn't given the respect it's apparently due when photographed and listed on GC.
@tradedollarnut said:
I think the coin is amazing and that the tic on the sun is overwhelmed by the quality of the remaining surfaces. The bigger the coin, the more disturbances allowed at the 68 grade. My 1875-S trade dollar in 68 had multiple ticks. The 1876 in 67 was downright chattery but had an amazing look. I think that’s the case with this coin - the luster is off the charts and the toning just drips with originality- reminds me of the proof tissue toning but without the haze
I'm beginning to wonder why anyone here waste money submitting coins. Here's a coin in a 68 holder with CAC verification and they are all questioning the grade based on one photo. Why pay for an opinion you don't respect?
Actually, I'm questioning the photo based on the grade. The coin wasn't given the respect it's apparently due when photographed and listed on GC.
@tradedollarnut said:
I think the coin is amazing and that the tic on the sun is overwhelmed by the quality of the remaining surfaces. The bigger the coin, the more disturbances allowed at the 68 grade. My 1875-S trade dollar in 68 had multiple ticks. The 1876 in 67 was downright chattery but had an amazing look. I think that’s the case with this coin - the luster is off the charts and the toning just drips with originality- reminds me of the proof tissue toning but without the haze
I'm beginning to wonder why anyone here waste money submitting coins. Here's a coin in a 68 holder with CAC verification and they are all questioning the grade based on one photo. Why pay for an opinion you don't respect?
It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback. When the rubber meets the road many “experts” are walking.
Q: When does a collector become a numismatist?
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
@gumby1234 said:
I think bidder 3 had it right. They stopped bidding at $3000.
You don’t have to like the coin or agree with the assigned grade, but your value assessment isn’t based on reality. A number of MS67+ examples, which don’t begin to compare to the coin in this thread, have sold for multiples of that $3000 figure.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@gumby1234 said:
I think bidder 3 had it right. They stopped bidding at $3000.
You don’t have to like the coin or agree with the assigned grade, but your value assessment isn’t based on reality. A number of MS67+ examples, which don’t begin to compare to the coin in this thread, have sold for multiples of that $3000 figure.
It is a very nice coin. I meant $3k would be where I stopped bidding. Mostly because I don't have $50k or more to spend on 1 coin. It looks like this coin may top $100k before all is said and done.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
Not that anybody cares, but I have a taste for superior coins although in the British series. This coin is pleasant enough, but as for value for value, rarity, aesthetics, there are many coins that blow this one out.
It is pleasant but not at that money, given the alternatives.
Love that Milled British (1830-1960) Well, just Love coins, period.
@Elcontador said:
As Jeremy indicated, I'd need to see that coin in hand. The eye appeal in the pic knocks your socks off. That said, the yellow toning looks like silver sulfide, which is removable by dipping a coin properly. The coin was indeed dipped as you can see some dip rinse spots at 12:00 and 9:00 near the I in In God We Trust. There is also a hit on the sun.
If this is really how the coin looks, it's no MS 68 to me. If it looks better than this, the pic does it a disservice.
What would cause the dark marks on the eagles left wing (right side on the reverse)?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@messydesk said:
Not a good photo of an MS68 Walker if you're interested in selling it for top dollar, frankly. Cover up the label and start this thread over again and you'd get a lot of indifferent reactions, comments about needing to see it in hand, and GTGs that are all over the place.
GC should have at least waited for the True Views to post.
I guess my concerns about some of the negative comments on here about the grade are 3 fold. First, one of the golden rules of coins is the importance of seeing the coin "in hand". As far as I know, no one on here has. Second, we know our hosts have seen it in hand and their graders gave it a Ms-68 grade. When you get to that lofty level I am sure there is a bit more attention paid to it. Finally, we know JA saw it in hand and certified it as solid for the the MS 68 grade. The man has seen alot of coins. Given the above, I would be hesitant to question the grade based upon a picture.
@Gazes said:
I guess my concerns about some of the negative comments on here about the grade are 3 fold. First, one of the golden rules of coins is the importance of seeing the coin "in hand". As far as I know, no one on here has. Second, we know our hosts have seen it in hand and their graders gave it a Ms-68 grade. When you get to that lofty level I am sure there is a bit more attention paid to it. Finally, we know JA saw it in hand and certified it as solid for the the MS 68 grade. The man has seen alot of coins. Given the above, I would be hesitant to question the grade based upon a picture.
Many of those that have questioned the grade have qualified their remarks with “I would need to see the coin in hand”.
Coin grading in general is somewhat subjective. One criterion for the MS-68 grade is no contact or spots in a prime focal area. Is that contact mark in the sun and /or dark spots around the “IN” considered a prime focal area? I’m also interested in the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse. Are those actually on the coin or some issue with the way it was photographed?
The graders at PCGS and NGC have seen a lot of coins. That fact only takes you so far when it comes to settling on a grade, especially in a situation where the judgement of a spot or two means a 10x difference in the perceived value of a coin. The only opinions that counts are the buyers as this coin goes from one caretaker to the next.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@skier07 said:
My biggest concern, forgetting about whether it belongs in a 68 holder or not, would be how many more 68’s will there be in a few years.
I don’t collect them so I don’t know the answer but I wonder how many gem coins could still exist 70+ years after the last coins were minted? Are there still unsearched rolls of mint state coins out there? Where do I find them
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@skier07 said:
My biggest concern, forgetting about whether it belongs in a 68 holder or not, would be how many more 68’s will there be in a few years.
I don’t collect them so I don’t know the answer but I wonder how many gem coins could still exist 70+ years after the last coins were minted? Are there still unsearched rolls of mint state coins out there? Where do I find them
As we have seen in the past many are found in current MS67 holders.
@gumby1234 said:
It is a very nice coin. I meant $3k would be where I stopped bidding. Mostly because I don't have $50k or more to spend on 1 coin. It looks like this coin may top $100k before all is said and done.
It ‘s already bringing more than the Proof 64 CAC 1836 gobrecht dollar I bought at GC.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
The coin is out of this world from a quality and eye appear standard. No dip residue or anything like that. Toning is from being stored in a roll for decades.
When imaging, our focus was to show the toning and luster, and appearance of the coin in-hand. We don't enhance images. The luster is a 10 out of 10 in my opinion.
I am confident, whoever wins this coin today will be very happy.
PS. From a memorable coin standpoint, and I've handled a bunch of big Walkers over the past 20 years, this ranks as the #1 (hard to believe I'm saying this about a Walker from the 1940s, as opposed from the teens). And I thought it from the moment it arrived at our office, before we sent it to CAC.
@ianrussell said:
The coin is out of this world from a quality and eye appear standard. No dip residue or anything like that. Toning is from being stored in a roll for decades.
When imaging, our focus was to show the toning and luster, and appearance of the coin in-hand. We don't enhance images. The luster is a 10 out of 10 in my opinion.
I am confident, whoever wins this coin today will be very happy.
PS. From a memorable coin standpoint, and I've handled a bunch of big Walkers over the past 20 years, this ranks as the #1 (hard to believe I'm saying this about a Walker from the 1940s, as opposed from the teens). And I thought it from the moment it arrived at our office, before we sent it to CAC.
Ian
Glad to hear from someone who has seen it in hand. Thank you
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
This coin is breathtakingly beautiful imo. I don't believe the "hit" on the sun is a mark or ding, either, but a break in the luster. I'd agree with both the PCGS and CAC assessments who have seen the coin in hand over anyone grading the coin based on pixels on a screen.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I guess my question to you is does the coin as you see it represented in the photographs worthy of the MS-68 grade? I see what I consider a significant ding in the sun, two dark spots and milky toning on the obverse in addition to darkened areas on the reverse (left wing) that in my opinion would prevent the coin as shown in the photographs from begin a 68.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I guess my question to you is does the coin as you see it represented in the photographs worthy of the MS-68 grade? I see what I consider a significant ding in the sun, two dark spots and milky toning on the obverse in addition to darkened areas on the reverse (left wing) that in my opinion would prevent the coin as shown in the photographs from begin a 68.
I see no ding in the sun. It's a luster break. 2 dark spots do not preclude a 68. The toning is natural and does not preclude a 68. And I see a luster bomb. That is a 68 and my assessment matches the two respected groups (plus Ian Russel) who have seen it in hand.
I see no ding in the sun. It's a luster break. 2 dark spots do not preclude a 68. The toning is natural and does not preclude a 68. And I see a luster bomb. That is a 68, and my assessment matches the two respected groups (plus Ian Russel) who have seen it in hand.
I don’t know or really care what the grade is. I learned a long time ago don’t argue grade, argue price if needed.
I don’t know if it’s a luster graze, on the sun grease mark or scrape. The bidders are voting with their wallets. Great.
Now for those interested. Years ago I bought a lowly 66 walker from a dealer I respect. The coin was beautifully toned and met 66 easily. Except, half of liberty’s head. Was whacked off. The dealer said it was ok as did PCGS and CAC. Stman said this can’t be right.
I offered the coin to Cac. Accepted the price but asked if JA could take a look and see if he likes his name on it. Of course to his credit he made me whole and paid for my shipping.
This coin I have no idea. The GC guy didn’t address the sun that bothers folks.
One more thing I usually don’t comment on these expensive coin threads. To be honest I always see folks slamming the high dollar coins. Sometimes the same posters. There, all done now.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
I see no ding in the sun. It's a luster break. 2 dark spots do not preclude a 68. The toning is natural and does not preclude a 68. And I see a luster bomb. That is a 68, and my assessment matches the two respected groups (plus Ian Russel) who have seen it in hand.
Slowhand: Why is this statement laughable to you?
He hits LOL on every post I make. It has nothing to do with the content.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I guess my question to you is does the coin as you see it represented in the photographs worthy of the MS-68 grade? I see what I consider a significant ding in the sun, two dark spots and milky toning on the obverse in addition to darkened areas on the reverse (left wing) that in my opinion would prevent the coin as shown in the photographs from begin a 68.
I see no ding in the sun. It's a luster break. 2 dark spots do not preclude a 68. The toning is natural and does not preclude a 68. And I see a luster bomb. That is a 68 and my assessment matches the two respected groups (plus Ian Russel) who have seen it in hand.
The lusted break is caused by the ding. The spots on the obverse are in a prime focal area. Some of the toning is a milky white appearance. The coins grade is based on the obverse and reverse. The reverse has a significant amount of darkening on the left wing. I'd be interested in knowing if that's actually on the coin or some issue with the photograph. Again, I'm basing my comments on what I see in the photographs. The coin as seen in the photographs, with flaws mention, isn't a 68 in my opinion.
Beyond that, what are the flaws in the existing 67's? Does the absence of what must be minor flaws in a 67 command a 10x or 20x premium? I've never understood the rational behind that but it's not my money being spent.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I guess my question to you is does the coin as you see it represented in the photographs worthy of the MS-68 grade? I see what I consider a significant ding in the sun, two dark spots and milky toning on the obverse in addition to darkened areas on the reverse (left wing) that in my opinion would prevent the coin as shown in the photographs from begin a 68.
I see no ding in the sun. It's a luster break. 2 dark spots do not preclude a 68. The toning is natural and does not preclude a 68. And I see a luster bomb. That is a 68 and my assessment matches the two respected groups (plus Ian Russel) who have seen it in hand.
The lusted break is caused by the ding. The spots on the obverse are in a prime focal area. Some of the toning is a milky white appearance. The coins grade is based on the obverse and reverse. The reverse has a significant amount of darkening on the left wing. I'd be interested in knowing if that's actually on the coin or some issue with the photograph. Again, I'm basing my comments on what I see in the photographs. The coin as seen in the photographs, with flaws mention, isn't a 68 in my opinion.
Beyond that, what are the flaws in the existing 67's? Does the absence of what must be minor flaws in a 67 command a 10x or 20x premium? I've never understood the rational behind that but it's not my money being spent.
Just what I expected from a thread like this, lots of MS-60 comments from more than a chunk of armchair wannabe 10x "loupers". Nobody says you have to want the coin for your own collection or bid on it. So many of these comments come across as the equivalent of criticizing the color and texture of one toenail on a Miss Universe contestant, while viewing it on an old tube TV.
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......
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
Just what I expected from a thread like this, lots of MS-60 comments from more than a chunk of armchair wannabe 10x "loupers". Nobody says you have to want the coin for your own collection or bid on it. So many of these comments come across as the equivalent of criticizing the color and texture of one toenail on a Miss Universe contestant, while viewing it on an old tube TV.
Your comment is a total distraction. You throw out a statement like "armchair wannabe 10x "loupers" like that adds anything to the validity of your statement in general. When you're discussing the differences between 67 and 68 coins it comes down to what are relatively minor issues that are overlooked when discussing 63's and 64's. That's the nature of grading when discussing gem coins and where huge premiums are made lost or made based on those differences.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
What’s even more distracting is an ad naueam rebuttal of your point when there are now 3 people who have seen the coin in hand and don’t agree with you, yet you continue to insist they are all incorrect.
Is that a new price record for a Walker short set issue?
I think the coin looks like a true monster from the GC images, and while I obviously haven’t seen it in hand, and everyone’s taste is different, Ian’s comments seem right to this armchair quarterback/lover of this series.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
PCGS and CAC guaranty, back, and stand behind the grade. It's their opinion and no one is forced to agree.
But are, if course, not necessarily obligated to verify the price of any particular sale.
@AUandAG said:
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
I saw an 1892 Nickel six or seven years ago that I didn't agree with the grade or the sticker. The grading service and CAC see more coins in a week than I've seen in my lifetime. But people do the grading and issue the opinions, and sometimes, the best make mistakes. I buy the coin, not the opinion of someone else.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Comments
I'm beginning to wonder why anyone here waste money submitting coins. Here's a coin in a 68 holder with CAC verification and they are all questioning the grade based on one photo. Why pay for an opinion you don't respect?
Wonder if Del Loy Hansen needs that coin for his registry?
Actually, I'm questioning the photo based on the grade. The coin wasn't given the respect it's apparently due when photographed and listed on GC.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Thank you!
I’d crack i> @jmlanzaf said:
It’s easy to be an armchair quarterback. When the rubber meets the road many “experts” are walking.
A: The year they spend more on their library than their coin collection.
A numismatist is judged more on the content of their library than the content of their cabinet.
Here's the coinfacts image, whenever its processed and posted.
"It's like God, Family, Country, except Sticker, Plastic, Coin."
I think bidder 3 had it right. They stopped bidding at $3000.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
You don’t have to like the coin or agree with the assigned grade, but your value assessment isn’t based on reality. A number of MS67+ examples, which don’t begin to compare to the coin in this thread, have sold for multiples of that $3000 figure.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Not to mention they might come back in...
It is a very nice coin. I meant $3k would be where I stopped bidding. Mostly because I don't have $50k or more to spend on 1 coin. It looks like this coin may top $100k before all is said and done.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
My eyes went right to the sun.
Not that anybody cares, but I have a taste for superior coins although in the British series. This coin is pleasant enough, but as for value for value, rarity, aesthetics, there are many coins that blow this one out.
It is pleasant but not at that money, given the alternatives.
Well, just Love coins, period.
What would cause the dark marks on the eagles left wing (right side on the reverse)?
It does look like a superb WLH but my eye went right to the sun.
Or an odd patch of toning?
GC should have at least waited for the True Views to post.
Be interesting to hear @ianrussell 's comments!
Bidder at 3K could very well be using that bid as a placemark.
peacockcoins
I guess my concerns about some of the negative comments on here about the grade are 3 fold. First, one of the golden rules of coins is the importance of seeing the coin "in hand". As far as I know, no one on here has. Second, we know our hosts have seen it in hand and their graders gave it a Ms-68 grade. When you get to that lofty level I am sure there is a bit more attention paid to it. Finally, we know JA saw it in hand and certified it as solid for the the MS 68 grade. The man has seen alot of coins. Given the above, I would be hesitant to question the grade based upon a picture.
Many of those that have questioned the grade have qualified their remarks with “I would need to see the coin in hand”.
Coin grading in general is somewhat subjective. One criterion for the MS-68 grade is no contact or spots in a prime focal area. Is that contact mark in the sun and /or dark spots around the “IN” considered a prime focal area? I’m also interested in the dark areas on the left wing on the reverse. Are those actually on the coin or some issue with the way it was photographed?
The graders at PCGS and NGC have seen a lot of coins. That fact only takes you so far when it comes to settling on a grade, especially in a situation where the judgement of a spot or two means a 10x difference in the perceived value of a coin. The only opinions that counts are the buyers as this coin goes from one caretaker to the next.
My biggest concern, forgetting about whether it belongs in a 68 holder or not, would be how many more 68’s will there be in a few years.
I don’t collect them so I don’t know the answer but I wonder how many gem coins could still exist 70+ years after the last coins were minted? Are there still unsearched rolls of mint state coins out there? Where do I find them
As we have seen in the past many are found in current MS67 holders.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Worthy of the grade.......outstanding example. One or two little ticks does not prevent a 68.
bob
The coin looks gorgeous and original based on photo.
When I opened this thread I was expecting an Iowa commem.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
It ‘s already bringing more than the Proof 64 CAC 1836 gobrecht dollar I bought at GC.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Unfortunately there are more than one or two ticks or other issues on the obverse and reverse of the coin as shown in the photographs. Some of them are in focal areas. Those don't get a pass because the rest of the coin meets 68 standards. As a 68 the coin is suppose to have great luster that is fully original. The issue isn't whether or not it's a beautiful but whether or not it meets the standards for a 68 coin.
The coin is out of this world from a quality and eye appear standard. No dip residue or anything like that. Toning is from being stored in a roll for decades.
When imaging, our focus was to show the toning and luster, and appearance of the coin in-hand. We don't enhance images. The luster is a 10 out of 10 in my opinion.
I am confident, whoever wins this coin today will be very happy.
PS. From a memorable coin standpoint, and I've handled a bunch of big Walkers over the past 20 years, this ranks as the #1 (hard to believe I'm saying this about a Walker from the 1940s, as opposed from the teens). And I thought it from the moment it arrived at our office, before we sent it to CAC.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
Glad to hear from someone who has seen it in hand. Thank you
It's really not an issue. PCGS says "yes". CAC agrees.
And PCGS and CAC are ALWAYS correct? Are you telling me you have never seen a coin graded by these companies that you didn't agree with?
That is TWO different respected opinion. Second-guessing BOTH of them based on a single picture is not reasonable.
I've seen coins with CAC approval that I don't like the look of. I've seen PCGS coins I thought were a little off on the grade. However, I've never seen a PCGS/CAC whose grade I believed to be flawed.
Remember, CAC approval means JA (very respected eyes) put it in the top 2/3 of coins for the grade. So he didn't even think it was a close call.
This coin is breathtakingly beautiful imo. I don't believe the "hit" on the sun is a mark or ding, either, but a break in the luster. I'd agree with both the PCGS and CAC assessments who have seen the coin in hand over anyone grading the coin based on pixels on a screen.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I guess my question to you is does the coin as you see it represented in the photographs worthy of the MS-68 grade? I see what I consider a significant ding in the sun, two dark spots and milky toning on the obverse in addition to darkened areas on the reverse (left wing) that in my opinion would prevent the coin as shown in the photographs from begin a 68.
I see no ding in the sun. It's a luster break. 2 dark spots do not preclude a 68. The toning is natural and does not preclude a 68. And I see a luster bomb. That is a 68 and my assessment matches the two respected groups (plus Ian Russel) who have seen it in hand.
Slowhand: Why is this statement laughable to you?
peacockcoins
149k wow
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I don’t know or really care what the grade is. I learned a long time ago don’t argue grade, argue price if needed.
I don’t know if it’s a luster graze, on the sun grease mark or scrape. The bidders are voting with their wallets. Great.
Now for those interested. Years ago I bought a lowly 66 walker from a dealer I respect. The coin was beautifully toned and met 66 easily. Except, half of liberty’s head. Was whacked off. The dealer said it was ok as did PCGS and CAC. Stman said this can’t be right.
I offered the coin to Cac. Accepted the price but asked if JA could take a look and see if he likes his name on it. Of course to his credit he made me whole and paid for my shipping.
This coin I have no idea. The GC guy didn’t address the sun that bothers folks.
One more thing I usually don’t comment on these expensive coin threads. To be honest I always see folks slamming the high dollar coins. Sometimes the same posters. There, all done now.
He hits LOL on every post I make. It has nothing to do with the content.
The lusted break is caused by the ding. The spots on the obverse are in a prime focal area. Some of the toning is a milky white appearance. The coins grade is based on the obverse and reverse. The reverse has a significant amount of darkening on the left wing. I'd be interested in knowing if that's actually on the coin or some issue with the photograph. Again, I'm basing my comments on what I see in the photographs. The coin as seen in the photographs, with flaws mention, isn't a 68 in my opinion.
Beyond that, what are the flaws in the existing 67's? Does the absence of what must be minor flaws in a 67 command a 10x or 20x premium? I've never understood the rational behind that but it's not my money being spent.
Relative value is a whole other discussion.
Just what I expected from a thread like this, lots of MS-60 comments from more than a chunk of armchair wannabe 10x "loupers". Nobody says you have to want the coin for your own collection or bid on it. So many of these comments come across as the equivalent of criticizing the color and texture of one toenail on a Miss Universe contestant, while viewing it on an old tube TV.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
If your post is directed at me I will refrain from comment. Only because I don’t feel like getting banned today. Very rude imo.
149k. Not too shabby
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......
Your comment is a total distraction. You throw out a statement like "armchair wannabe 10x "loupers" like that adds anything to the validity of your statement in general. When you're discussing the differences between 67 and 68 coins it comes down to what are relatively minor issues that are overlooked when discussing 63's and 64's. That's the nature of grading when discussing gem coins and where huge premiums are made lost or made based on those differences.
What’s even more distracting is an ad naueam rebuttal of your point when there are now 3 people who have seen the coin in hand and don’t agree with you, yet you continue to insist they are all incorrect.
No doubt! Think the roll that coin came from had any others like that?
Is that a new price record for a Walker short set issue?
I think the coin looks like a true monster from the GC images, and while I obviously haven’t seen it in hand, and everyone’s taste is different, Ian’s comments seem right to this armchair quarterback/lover of this series.
PCGS and CAC guaranty, back, and stand behind the grade. It's their opinion and no one is forced to agree.
But are, if course, not necessarily obligated to verify the price of any particular sale.
Monster toned coins come to mind.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I saw an 1892 Nickel six or seven years ago that I didn't agree with the grade or the sticker. The grading service and CAC see more coins in a week than I've seen in my lifetime. But people do the grading and issue the opinions, and sometimes, the best make mistakes. I buy the coin, not the opinion of someone else.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."