I think this 1972 (P) IKE has a shot at MS65...

USMC_6115 · December 18, 2003 6:24AM

...or at least a very strong 64!

Once again with my picture taking, it looks better in hand.

dorkkarl · December 18, 2003 6:25AM

<< <i>has a shot at MS65 >>

i disagree!

K S

kieferscoins · December 18, 2003 6:26AM

The cheek looks rough and may make it a MS62 or AU-58. The only way to know is to send it in to the grading service.

Cameron Kiefer

cladking · December 18, 2003 6:34AM

Looks like it may have great surfaces especially for a '72, but looks a little too rough for a shot at MS-65.

XpipedreamR · December 18, 2003 6:36AM

I can't ever tell anything from a photo of an Ike.

FC57Coins · December 18, 2003 6:46AM

I agree with the tall skinny guy - 65's can't have anything visible to the naked eye on the face. They will allow a few minute dings or rubs that can only be detected under bright light, and for some of us - with some magnification.

USMC_6115 · December 18, 2003 7:08AM

FC57Coins,

<< <i>65's can't have anything visible to the naked eye on the face >>

I've never heard that said before. I just went and checked all of my 65 IKEs and you're very close to correct. Some do have a few minor scratches/dings, but for the most part the face is the cleanest.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. It will certainly help me to grade these things in the future...

I stand corrected, it may grade a 64 as the fields are very clean for a 72....

My next pic (don't have it yet) will meet that criteria...

Thanks again

LAWMAN · December 18, 2003 8:17AM

Ike's cheek is way too rough for a 65.

Dollars · December 18, 2003 9:09AM

Thanks for the grading help folks. I like it most when you are direct with why you give a coin a certain grade.

Makes me understand.

Thanks, 1000 Thanks

DHeath · December 18, 2003 10:07AM

Masscrew,

There are no hard fast rules. I guess it's just how any one coin compares in terms of relative quality to the population the graders have seen. Generally, I agree with Frank, but take a good close look at the 71 I've linked and you'll see how much latitude a nice full luster good strike 71-P can be given.

71-P PCGS MS66

USMC_6115 · December 18, 2003 11:44AM

DHealth,

Now that's confusing to me. I would grade that 64/65 all day long. I have no idea how that got into a 66 holder. It certainly has some marks on it, including the face. It does have some exceptional luster for the 71 however that jumps right out at you and screams EYE APPEAL...

I'm learning a lot fast thanks to all you people on these boards. When I look at all my 65s (about forty of them), I can get a good baseline of what they're looking for even though the quality of the coin is way up and down the scale within that grade. I have a few 65 IKEs that look as though they belong in a 64 holder (soon to be replaced). I also have a few 65 IKEs that look as though they could easily upgrade to 66.

One thing I've learned is that they tend to grade certain years differently than others. In other words, I think they would grade a LITTLE more leniently on a 1972 (P) IKE over a more common 76-d Type II for example. Especially towards luster as far as certain IKEs like the 71 (P) and 72 (P) which ALMOST always appear more gunmetal gray than lustrous. As I said earlier, that 71 has unbelievable luster for that year!

If the above mess didn't confuse you, I don't know what will.....

jcping · December 18, 2003 12:26PM

DHealth,

That was before. The 71-P was slabbed during 1997 to 1999 (or early 2000). If you crack it out, it won't go back into an MS66 holder.

If PCGS grading is very consistent, then there won't be so many complains about over-grade nor under-grade.

If you buy the plastic, $975 + juice, it is a bargain for you to move up in the set registry. If you buy the coin, it is well over priced. I passed the coin since I disagreed with the grade.

DHeath · December 18, 2003 12:31PM

jcping,

I fully agree.

jcping · December 18, 2003 3:55PM

Thx

I think this 1972 (P) IKE has a shot at MS65...

Comments

Leave a Comment