I think I know the coin so won't guess. If it's the coin I think it is then it's definitely in a baffling holder but also think most of the guesses here are far too low for how they grade large gold coins.
Not one person got it right? Please! NGC didn’t come close to getting it right.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Eh- @MrEureka can guess why I posted this coin and therefor new what the written grade is. I havent had a chance to see this coin in hand and hope that people at the baltimore show can see it and give a better idea. I just cant imagine how in person it could grade above ms64... and that is being generous
Late to the party. My guess is someone posted this GTG to make that service look bad. IMO, any guess between 60 and 62 got it right and the 67 guess was made in jest.
If that coin got an MS67 then I can think of three professional graders that should be fired. Actually, I suspect that someone making the label typed in 67 when they should have typed in 62.
@BillJones said:
Not one person got it right? Please! NGC didn’t come close to getting it right.
Clearly, PCGS got "it right" when they graded THIS one MS-67:
No. I do not support any grading service when I think they missed the mark. That includes NGC, PCGS and the CAC sticker.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
OMG. Tell me anyone who would pay 65 money, much less 67 money for that burial job.
If there ever was an advertisement for "buy the coin, not the holder", this is it.
Sold $11,400
Lot Description
Exceptional 1901 Liberty Head $10
1901 Liberty Head Eagle. MS-67 (NGC).
One of the absolute finest graded of this date and type and amazing quality for the specialist. The eye is greeted with blazing mint luster and rich orange-gold color when examined, and the surfaces defy the imagination. Liberty Head gold eagles were issued in large numbers, shipped about in bags and jostled with little notice during commercial use. Unlike Morgan dollars of this era which exist in superb grades for many issues, these early gold coins do not. Their soft gold composition is easy to mark up through bag handling, and even through gentle wiping with a cloth to produce hairlines. This example somehow missed virtually all signs of contact and even close scrutiny will note only a few shallow scuffs that are easily overlooked, and just as easily forgiven. Indeed, the overall quality is amazing. Rare and desirable, as such, with just a handful graded this high by NGC and none seen finer at either of the two major third party certification services.
NGC Census: 27; 0 finer. There are also no examples certified finer than MS-67 at PCGS.
I don't like to put anyone's coins down but this is to the extreme. How can this be a 67?
I'm still learning to grade but this one has me scratching my head for sure.
Here's PCGS's grade of 67 and also a grade of 62.
Both look better. As I said though I'm still learning to grade and I know gold has alot more to ascertain to grade.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
@Morgan13 said:
I don't like to put anyone's coins down but this is to the extreme. How can this be a 67?
I'm still learning to grade but this one has me scratching my head for sure.
Here's PCGS's grade of 67 and also a grade of 62.
Both look better. As I said though I'm still learning to grade and I know gold has alot more to ascertain to grade.
The top coin here appears in picture to be a "dead" coin with zero life/minimal luster. If it looks in hand how I suspect then I think it belongs in an AU holder personally.
In general when you see a gold coin with clean looking surfaces in a low MS holder it's a big red flag. An MS62 gold coin SHOULD have a lot of contact marks that would make it an honest 62. I learned this lesson early on with a contact free MS64 $5 that I was shocked didn't sticker. A quick phone call with John Albanese about it taught me more about grading coins in 2 minutes than I had learned in total up to that point. Pretty awesome service in my opinion.
The coin in the OP of this thread is horribly overgraded and the coin you posted is what a true MS67 should look like (it actually looks even better in that picture to me) but I also believe the OP coin would be a million times nicer in hand than the 62 you posted here. I wouldn't want to own either personally even if the OP coin was in the correct holder.
"I'm still learning to grade but this one has me scratching my head for sure."
I've heard people refer to them as Head Scratchers."
"A quick phone call with John Albanese about it taught me more about grading coins in 2 minutes than I had learned in total up to that point. Pretty awesome service in my opinion."
A very valuable service, that I too have benefited from and sincerely appreciate.
In supposedly overgraded coins I'd keep in mind that the graders rarely use magnification on the larger coins unless they're looking for a specific defect, etc.. Also without the marks the coin would grade higher with all the eye appeal of the supposedly overgraded coins.
@dhikewhitney said:
I find it incredulous that someone could guess that posted grade without prior knowledge of the grade.
“Gotcha” guess threads are not very useful.
An “it” can not be incredulous.
Sigh ...
How to use "incredulous" in a sentence
WordHippo https://www.wordhippo.com › sentences-with-the-word
**I find it incredulous that **the hon. member would stand in the House and ask that question. Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his speech, but I find ...
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Can incredulous mean 'incredible'?: Usage Guide
Sense 3 was revived in the 20th century after a couple of centuries of disuse. Although it is a sense with good literary precedent—among others Shakespeare used it—it is widely regarded as an error resulting from confusion with incredible, and its occurrence in published writing is rare.
Comments
63, no bean is my guess too.
I think I know the coin so won't guess. If it's the coin I think it is then it's definitely in a baffling holder but also think most of the guesses here are far too low for how they grade large gold coins.
Looks like a 61 to me.
Still a very cool coin.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
UPDATED with slab photos.
there was a 67 guess!
is this a hallucination coin?
NGC 67 - my grade 61 - I really don't care how the grading services grades the coins because I dont rely on TPG without me looking at the coin.
score!
Not one person got it right? Please! NGC didn’t come close to getting it right.
I'll take Drew's and my guess as correct. The exact number is irrelevant; the grading "situation" that occurred is noteworthy.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Eh- @MrEureka can guess why I posted this coin and therefor new what the written grade is. I havent had a chance to see this coin in hand and hope that people at the baltimore show can see it and give a better idea. I just cant imagine how in person it could grade above ms64... and that is being generous
Why am I not surprised!
Late to the party. My guess is someone posted this GTG to make that service look bad. IMO, any guess between 60 and 62 got it right and the 67 guess was made in jest.
I don't think we are done yet. The fourth grader has not given his judgement. Will it CAC?
If that coin got an MS67 then I can think of three professional graders that should be fired. Actually, I suspect that someone making the label typed in 67 when they should have typed in 62.
Clearly, PCGS got "it right" when they graded THIS one MS-67:
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
No. I do not support any grading service when I think they missed the mark. That includes NGC, PCGS and the CAC sticker.
I am not surprised given the op's remarks, but I think this could be a case of mechanical error.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Very high probability that it's a mechanical error. I was thinking NGC MS-63.
See this previous thread:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1106374/i-think-maybe-i-ve-been-selling-my-raw-coins-too-cheaply/p1
Both coins are from the same 100+ coin submission that yielded a ton of 67s and 66s with most appearing significantly overgraded.
.
.
That one shows as MS-66 on PCGS CoinFacts photos for 1899-S. Must have been upgraded since then.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
OMG. Tell me anyone who would pay 65 money, much less 67 money for that burial job.
If there ever was an advertisement for "buy the coin, not the holder", this is it.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
That doesn’t look like a 67 to me. It doesn’t even look like a 65.
So far off it's laughable. I'm guessing a labelling error.
I think I'll stick with my example if given the opportunity of this upgrade
As the politicians like to say, "Who you going to believe, the graders or your lying eyes?"
Commems and Early Type
No CAC. Not purchase worthy.
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
I find it incredulous that someone could guess that posted grade without prior knowledge of the grade.
“Gotcha” guess threads are not very useful.
It has to be a labeling error.
Or a systemic error...
https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3-1B9CDX/1901-liberty-head-eagle-ms-67-ngc
Sold $11,400
Stacks Bowers Lot Description for 5835028-078:
Sold $11,400
Lot Description
Exceptional 1901 Liberty Head $10
1901 Liberty Head Eagle. MS-67 (NGC).
One of the absolute finest graded of this date and type and amazing quality for the specialist. The eye is greeted with blazing mint luster and rich orange-gold color when examined, and the surfaces defy the imagination. Liberty Head gold eagles were issued in large numbers, shipped about in bags and jostled with little notice during commercial use. Unlike Morgan dollars of this era which exist in superb grades for many issues, these early gold coins do not. Their soft gold composition is easy to mark up through bag handling, and even through gentle wiping with a cloth to produce hairlines. This example somehow missed virtually all signs of contact and even close scrutiny will note only a few shallow scuffs that are easily overlooked, and just as easily forgiven. Indeed, the overall quality is amazing. Rare and desirable, as such, with just a handful graded this high by NGC and none seen finer at either of the two major third party certification services.
NGC Census: 27; 0 finer. There are also no examples certified finer than MS-67 at PCGS.
I don't like to put anyone's coins down but this is to the extreme. How can this be a 67?
I'm still learning to grade but this one has me scratching my head for sure.
Here's PCGS's grade of 67 and also a grade of 62.
Both look better. As I said though I'm still learning to grade and I know gold has alot more to ascertain to grade.
Student of numismatics and collector of Morgan dollars
Successful BST transactions with: Namvet Justindan Mattniss RWW olah_in_MA
Dantheman984 Toyz4geo SurfinxHI greencopper RWW bigjpst bretsan MWallace logger7
An “it” can not be incredulous.
The top coin here appears in picture to be a "dead" coin with zero life/minimal luster. If it looks in hand how I suspect then I think it belongs in an AU holder personally.
In general when you see a gold coin with clean looking surfaces in a low MS holder it's a big red flag. An MS62 gold coin SHOULD have a lot of contact marks that would make it an honest 62. I learned this lesson early on with a contact free MS64 $5 that I was shocked didn't sticker. A quick phone call with John Albanese about it taught me more about grading coins in 2 minutes than I had learned in total up to that point. Pretty awesome service in my opinion.
The coin in the OP of this thread is horribly overgraded and the coin you posted is what a true MS67 should look like (it actually looks even better in that picture to me) but I also believe the OP coin would be a million times nicer in hand than the 62 you posted here. I wouldn't want to own either personally even if the OP coin was in the correct holder.
"I'm still learning to grade but this one has me scratching my head for sure."
I've heard people refer to them as Head Scratchers."
"A quick phone call with John Albanese about it taught me more about grading coins in 2 minutes than I had learned in total up to that point. Pretty awesome service in my opinion."
A very valuable service, that I too have benefited from and sincerely appreciate.
Where’s the putty when you need it ?
In supposedly overgraded coins I'd keep in mind that the graders rarely use magnification on the larger coins unless they're looking for a specific defect, etc.. Also without the marks the coin would grade higher with all the eye appeal of the supposedly overgraded coins.
Sigh ...
How to use "incredulous" in a sentence
WordHippo
https://www.wordhippo.com › sentences-with-the-word
**I find it incredulous that **the hon. member would stand in the House and ask that question. Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his speech, but I find ...
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Can incredulous mean 'incredible'?: Usage Guide
Sense 3 was revived in the 20th century after a couple of centuries of disuse. Although it is a sense with good literary precedent—among others Shakespeare used it—it is widely regarded as an error resulting from confusion with incredible, and its occurrence in published writing is rare.