Question about 1933 PCGS ms64 on Ebay......

DoubleEagle59 · September 16, 2007 12:16AM

I was just browsing Ebay and saw this 1933 $10 Indian on Ebay. It's an ms64 PCGS graded coin.

My question is this: Just by looking at the gouges on the face, wouldn't you think it would be BB'd for marks??

ttown · September 16, 2007 12:18AM

I wouldn't pay 64 money for it, its hits are far to distracting to me.

oldwestgold · September 16, 2007 12:55AM

I would say not BB'd, but the marks would bump it all the way down to MS62 in my book. Probably a highly appealing 62 since the rest of the coin is very clean and original looking. So that being said, this coin should sell for no more than 63 money, but I bet it sells for more due to rarity.

DennisH · September 16, 2007 1:40AM

The lustre and color must be astoundingly beautiful for that coin to get a grade of 64. I agree that MS62 seems more appropriate.

SilverBaron · September 16, 2007 2:06AM

I believe that this is a CLASSIC case of A) The rarity of the piece swayed the grade or

The owner has/had influence.

Anyone who has been into numismatics for very long has seen it before.

tradedollarnut · September 16, 2007 2:09AM

Almost every single 1933 in existance has heavy bagmarks in one area or another. Getting an MS64 with significant bagmarks is not unusual - gold is simply graded differently than copper or silver.

I've often said that collectors tend to focus too much on marks and not enough on original surfaces and luster in the grading process. This is one such example.

ozzyfan269 · September 16, 2007 2:11AM

Nasty bag marks. I wouldn't buy it unless i paid MS62 money for it.

ttown · September 16, 2007 2:12AM

That might be true but if it were a common date it would never get a 64 IMO. Rare dates tend to bump the grade at the grading services IMO.

roadrunner · September 16, 2007 2:13AM

On a pure marks basis MS gold is graded 1 or more pts easier than say silver, nickel, copper. It used to amaze me how many hits were allowed on MS65 $20 Libs for example. Big hits on $10's and $20's is not uncommon on choice gold coins. I remember seeing a group of rare date 1929 $20's with massive hits on them and all were graded MS64. That's how they typically come.

What TDN says is true. Marks aren't everything. Just like luster is not everything either. It's a balance.

roadrunner

Paleodale · September 16, 2007 2:29AM

Gold is softer than copper or silver.. just in the minting process alone they can get pretty beat up... If you want to complain about grading coins with bag marks,, Check out today's NGC grading standards,, they absolutely stink on modern coinage... It appears they have a sub standard grading scale for moderns... I have never ever seen so many modern coins graded ms69 that had bag marks... I seen a Platinum 1 ouncer that had a small bag mark on the obverse and NGC graded it MS69... How in the HeII can they do that,????????... Come On !!!!!!!!!.... I have never seen PCGS grade a coin MS 69 and have even one bag mark.. I mean,, MS69 is like as close the perfect as you can get on the grading scale... Somebody needs to remind NGC to reread the standard book again.. anything above 67 or 68 should have no distracting visible bag marks..........

Paleodale · September 16, 2007 3:01AM

Was That Off Topic,??????????.... Sorry..

saintguru · September 16, 2007 3:10AM

Look at the "Fab Five" Saints...1929-1932 as well. Many of them are absolute gems but many have "cuts" like that one. As TDN said, if a coin has all the attributes of a true gem certain dates that are known to have existed only in mint bags would get the grade.

That coin looks like it has great lustre and very original skin. It's a MS64 IMO. No hiits and you could have had the best 1933.

CaptHenway · September 16, 2007 7:53AM

They're called "Rarity Points." The rarer the coin, the more points it gets.
I'm sure that the 1849 $20 would get a PROOF-69 despite the damage in the left field.
MOO
TD

Earendil · September 16, 2007 7:59AM

How much is a coin like this worth?

PerryHall · September 16, 2007 8:01AM

If that coin was a 1932, it would have gotten a 62 from PCGS. I guess better dates get better grades.

GrumpyEd · September 16, 2007 8:15AM

I don't think that should body bag it but it wouldn't get a sticker.

Still a rare coin that looks nice other than the bag marks.

roadrunner · September 16, 2007 9:41AM

If that were a 1932 it most certainly would have graded NO lower than MS63 and would still be considered very choice for the grade, if not MS64. There are many common date 63's (and 64's) that look like they were run over by a train. $10 Indians just seem to get more than their share of cuts. They are heavy coins for their size.
It is not uncommon to see a MS65 or MS66 1932 with a single nice cut or two as long as the coin was fresh and blazing.

roadrunner

saintguru · September 16, 2007 10:59AM

Or a 1931 MS66 Saint. But the surfaces on those late coins are spectacular! They saw the light of day for mere minutes.

Available only to collectors who bought them directly from the mint or exchanged older pieces for new ones at the cashiers cage.

Very, very few ever saw the public's hands, none circulated other than the ones mentioned. Some dates, less than 100 coins.

EagleEye · September 16, 2007 11:04AM

Ebay? Its in Goldbergs auction, geezz. Anyone venture a guess as to what it will bring? $250K is my guess.

darktone · September 16, 2007 11:33AM

<< I've often said that collectors tend to focus too much on marks and not enough on original surfaces and luster in the grading process. This is one such example. >>

I think this once this basic concept is mastered the collector moves to a new level of understanding coin grading.

Shortgapbob · September 16, 2007 11:52AM

<< 

<< I've often said that collectors tend to focus too much on marks and not enough on original surfaces and luster in the grading process. This is one such example. >>

I think this once this basic concept is mastered the collector moves to a new level of understanding coin grading. >>

I agree. The coin has an excellent overall look and great surfaces. But, those marks are very distracting. It will be interesting to see how much money the coin brings.

saintguru · September 16, 2007 12:14PM

This has become a great thread.

If people learn that with certain types of coins, particular "grants" are given, more great coins will be recognized for what they are and less doctoring of them will occur.

The next major misconception with gold coins is the copper spotting that occurs with certain mintages. It's beautiful to me...as real toning is to great silver...and I've seen many coppered coins dipped and ruined IMO, by removing these natural colorful qualities.

SamByrd · September 16, 2007 12:17PM

i think perhaps PCGS is correct in the ms64, first it is bag related contact marks and somewhat the norm for this coin. I am not defending the market grade aspect but it is a ms 64 in the market place.

Paleodale · September 16, 2007 1:25PM

Is the 32 a key date???.... Heres one that ended on ebay... link

Shamika · September 16, 2007 1:50PM

Those hits are distracting, but the coin should still grade.

darktone · September 16, 2007 9:04PM

<< Is the 32 a key date???.... Heres one that ended on ebay... link >>

32 is a common date.

PerryHall · September 16, 2007 11:22PM

<< 

<< Is the 32 a key date???.... Heres one that ended on ebay... link >>

32 is a common date. >>

The 1932 $10 is the most common date Indian eagle but it's also the only affordable US gold coin from the 1930's so it's a neat coin to own.

saintguru · September 16, 2007 11:48PM

<< Is the 32 a key date???.... Heres one that ended on ebay... link >>

I responded before I read the replies.

I'll add this irrelevant comment. The 1932 Saint is a key rarity.

MrEureka · September 17, 2007 12:05AM

IMHO, a 1932 that looks like that 33 would also get graded 64, assuming the reverse is at least a solid 64.

BTW, it's interesting how strongly people feel about the grade of this coin without even seeing its reverse.

saintguru · September 17, 2007 12:22AM

<< IMHO, a 1932 that looks like that 33 would also get graded 64, assuming the reverse is at least a solid 64.

BTW, it's interesting how strongly people feel about the grade of this coin without even seeing its reverse. >>

Oh come on. All I/we am doing is grading the OBVERSE from a picture for the sake of discussion, and it "appears" to be a 64. Do we have to put a disclaimer on every grade guess or answer, Mr. Eureka?

RBinTex · September 17, 2007 12:27AM

(for the immediately above post)

I think it looks like a solid 64 and absent the hits, a 66+.

As TDN said, focus on more than the bagmarks. The surfaces look original and PQ+.

p.s. to answer the OP, NO.

Question about 1933 PCGS ms64 on Ebay......

Comments

Leave a Comment