You might want to compare this situation to that of the 1855-S Seated Half. I have yet to see an 1855-S that does not have near or full good-4 details on the reverse but is slabbed AG-3.. They use the lowest sides grade as the determine grade with slab companies. i say, just be happy with the free extra details. james
@OAKSTAR said:
I'm not a grader but doesn't this have a little to much meat on the bone to be a P01?
Reverse is a slick, but the obv looks AG-3 quality. Take the average and you get 1.5, round down to a PO-01, and everyone's happy.
God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️
As long as non-lowball coins are graded based on their weakest side, it only makes sense for lowball coins to be barred from grading PO1 if either side is Fair or better. I would grade the coin in question a 2.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
@OAKSTAR said:
I'm not a grader but doesn't this have a little to much meat on the bone to be a P01?
Reverse is a slick, but the obv looks AG-3 quality. Take the average and you get 1.5, round down to a PO-01, and everyone's happy.
Aren't you supposed to round 5 up?
God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️
Comments
Agreed, but I think the slick reverse likely influenced them. Cool dime, regardless.
Dave
I don’t see any meat on the reverse.
I've seen straight graded P01's with no visible dates. That doesn't sound right to me.
I agree with the grade due to the slick reverse, but I'd personally call the obverse FR02 or even AG03.
CAC is not PCGS or even NGC. You should break it out and send it to PCGS to compare.😁😁😁😁😁😁😁
Ya did good on the grade, jmo
It's not mine but an interesting concept. It seems many of these TPG'ers standards for P01's are all over the map.
You might want to compare this situation to that of the 1855-S Seated Half. I have yet to see an 1855-S that does not have near or full good-4 details on the reverse but is slabbed AG-3.. They use the lowest sides grade as the determine grade with slab companies. i say, just be happy with the free extra details. james
I would say AG-3
Why not just dispense with the number goofiness and say "slick" on the holder?
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
What else could they call it? You can’t have a FR-2 with a completely slick reverse.
Since the “O” mm coin of this date had no stars, no need to see the reverse.
I like it, but I like a little more meat on mine, 65 points or so would help!
Reverse is a slick, but the obv looks AG-3 quality. Take the average and you get 1.5, round down to a PO-01, and everyone's happy.
God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️
It is really a mixed grade coin with an AG 3 obverse and a Poor 1 reverse. I don't see it as a coin that would appeal to low ball collectors.
As long as non-lowball coins are graded based on their weakest side, it only makes sense for lowball coins to be barred from grading PO1 if either side is Fair or better. I would grade the coin in question a 2.
Young Numismatist • My Toned Coins
Life is roadblocks. Don't let nothing stop you, 'cause we ain't stopping. - DJ Khaled
Aren't you supposed to round 5 up?
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a real consensus here. I guess it's still subjective or personal preference.
God comes first in everything I do. I’m dedicated to serving Him with my whole life. Coin collecting is just a hobby—but even in that, I seek to honor Him. ✝️