Grades are in.......Latest submission.
relicsncoins
Posts: 8,114 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here are the coins I sent in. This was also the coins I had a guess the grade contest on which I will figure out when I get back into town.
I'll give the grades and my coments.
1891S dime. Genuine 91 Questionable Color. I would've never guessed in a million years, this coin would get in a questionable color holder. The coin has the "toning shadow" on the digits in the date. I also have photos of this coin from the early 80's shows this exact toning. PCGS made a mistake on this coin. In effect, they are encouraging dipping of this coin from a lightly toned original coin to a dipped white coin just to get it in a slab.
1917 dime. This coin came back as MS66FB. I was expecting a 65FB, so am quite pleased with the results.
1934 Quarter. This coin came back as MS67. I was expecting 66, and am very pleased with the results.
1879S Morgan. Coin came back as MS64PL. I was expeting 65PL, the toning made it difficult to grade. This is the only coin in the submission that I thought had any chance of a genie 91 holder.
What are your thoughts?
I'll give the grades and my coments.
1891S dime. Genuine 91 Questionable Color. I would've never guessed in a million years, this coin would get in a questionable color holder. The coin has the "toning shadow" on the digits in the date. I also have photos of this coin from the early 80's shows this exact toning. PCGS made a mistake on this coin. In effect, they are encouraging dipping of this coin from a lightly toned original coin to a dipped white coin just to get it in a slab.
1917 dime. This coin came back as MS66FB. I was expecting a 65FB, so am quite pleased with the results.
1934 Quarter. This coin came back as MS67. I was expecting 66, and am very pleased with the results.
1879S Morgan. Coin came back as MS64PL. I was expeting 65PL, the toning made it difficult to grade. This is the only coin in the submission that I thought had any chance of a genie 91 holder.
What are your thoughts?
Need a Barber Half with ANACS photo certificate. If you have one for sale please PM me. Current Ebay auctions
0
Comments
<< <i>The 34-p washie looks 67 to me all day long. What makes you say 66? >>
My lack of experience with this series, and the fact that I'm never lucky enough to get anything into a 67 holder.
Said a bit more directly (and only going from photos), the dime looks good and the morgan doesn't.
1917 dime: I'm surprised it graded that high with the almost matte-like surfaces (usually these get 64/65 grades).
1934 Quarter: The way the eagle feathers blend into the field, I thought would be viewed as a weak strike and would limit it to a 64.
1879S Morgan: I think 64 is correct for a coin with this much toning.
<< <i>1891S dime: I'm shocked this one, with such muted toning, got the "Questionable Color" genuine slab.
1917 dime: I'm surprised it graded that high with the almost matte-like surfaces (usually these get 64/65 grades).
1934 Quarter: The way the eagle feathers blend into the field, I thought would be viewed as a weak strike and would limit it to a 64.
1879S Morgan: I think 64 is correct for a coin with this much toning. >>
In the case of the 1917 dime and 1934 quarter, that is the way they are made. Both look to be exceptional coins. As for the dollar, there are many MS66 and MS67 examples with that amount of toning or more.
<< <i>
<< <i>1891S dime: I'm shocked this one, with such muted toning, got the "Questionable Color" genuine slab.
1917 dime: I'm surprised it graded that high with the almost matte-like surfaces (usually these get 64/65 grades).
1934 Quarter: The way the eagle feathers blend into the field, I thought would be viewed as a weak strike and would limit it to a 64.
1879S Morgan: I think 64 is correct for a coin with this much toning. >>
In the case of the 1917 dime and 1934 quarter, that is the way they are made. Both look to be exceptional coins. As for the dollar, there are many MS66 and MS67 examples with that amount of toning or more. >>
+1
<< <i>I like the seated dime, but I have to say now that I know what PCGS thought of it that maybe they though that the toning was AT because the color and lightness of it is a bit odd. Like it has a quick and fast and recent toning for some reason ie dipped and newly retoned with an odd hue. But I would still crack it out and send it in again if you like the coin. I sent a cbhd into ngc 3x where it bbed for QT and 3x to pcgs where it bbed 2x and au55 ont he last go around. I thought it was an au58 or low ms. >>
Why send in a coin 6 times to a TPG and then it finally gets through. Just the odds on it getting slabbed out of 6 times doesn't mean that it is a Naturally Toned Coin. Maybe they messed up on the last go around. Now you have paid nearly as much as the coin is worth in just grading fees.
Just doesn't make sense to me. It's like fishing for grades. Just my 2 cents.
Successful BST Transactions!SIconbuster, Meltdown, Mission16, slothman2000, RGjohn, braddick, au58lover, allcoinsrule, commemdude, gerard, lablade, PCcoins, greencopper, kaz, tydye, cucamongacoin, mkman123, SeaEaglecoins, Doh!, AnkurJ, Airplanenut, ArizonaJack, JJM,Tee135,LordMarcovan, Swampboy, piecesofme, Ahrensdad,
the Morgan looks all of 65 to me.........
nice coins ya got there........
Seated- MS64
Mercury- MS66FB
Washington-MS67
Morgan -MS66PL
I got two of them right...and it should have been 3 at least. That dime is not AT.
-Paul
Here is the photo certificate for the dime in question. It is not easy in these photos to see the toning, but it is there. So the coin has had this toning since 1986, which would lead me to believe the coin has never been AT'd. Not to mention the toning shadown under the digits on the date. (I was under the impression this in nearly impossible to relplicate. BTW, I believe the coin is an MS64 by today's standards. I may try it one more time.
<< <i> ...
Here is the photo certificate for the dime in question. It is not easy in these photos to see the toning, but it is there. So the coin has had this toning since 1986, which would lead me to believe the coin has never been AT'd. Not to mention the toning shadown under the digits on the date. (I was under the impression this in nearly impossible to relplicate. BTW, I believe the coin is an MS64 by today's standards. I may try it one more time. >>
While the coin doesn't look AT to me, the fact that it might look the same now as it did in 1986 has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is AT or not. There was plenty of AT'ing going on before that time, as well.
<< <i>
<< <i> ...
Here is the photo certificate for the dime in question. It is not easy in these photos to see the toning, but it is there. So the coin has had this toning since 1986, which would lead me to believe the coin has never been AT'd. Not to mention the toning shadown under the digits on the date. (I was under the impression this in nearly impossible to relplicate. BTW, I believe the coin is an MS64 by today's standards. I may try it one more time. >>
While the coin doesn't look AT to me, the fact that it might look the same now as it did in 1986 has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is AT or not. There was plenty of AT'ing going on before that time, as well. >>
True, but the stabillity of AT coins has been called into question many times. Of course there is no way to say with 100% certainty that some doc from the 80's didn't do some work on the coin, but the evidence would suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, PCGS does not have the luxury of that evidence, and must make the call soley on the coin in front of them.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i> ...
Here is the photo certificate for the dime in question. It is not easy in these photos to see the toning, but it is there. So the coin has had this toning since 1986, which would lead me to believe the coin has never been AT'd. Not to mention the toning shadown under the digits on the date. (I was under the impression this in nearly impossible to relplicate. BTW, I believe the coin is an MS64 by today's standards. I may try it one more time. >>
While the coin doesn't look AT to me, the fact that it might look the same now as it did in 1986 has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is AT or not. There was plenty of AT'ing going on before that time, as well. >>
True, but the stabillity of AT coins has been called into question many times. Of course there is no way to say with 100% certainty that some doc from the 80's didn't do some work on the coin, but the evidence would suggest otherwise. Unfortunately, PCGS does not have the luxury of that evidence, and must make the call soley on the coin in front of them. >>
Fair points. Some AT jobs are stable over long periods of time, while others aren't.
You have raised some very important points in your guess on the seated dime and Morgan dollar. By indicating 64(65), and 65(66) on the 2 coins, the difficulty with grading from images for MS or better grades is apparent. And I assume that if the coins were in hand, you could state a grade without the "or" qualifier, as your opinion.
Everyone on these boards who know your background knows you are an expert grader. Can you explain how the graders at PCGS/NGC can legitimately and consistently grade a coin as in the top 10 to 15% of a whole grade? I understand a liner coin, but how do you get a 65.7? or.8? What will make the difference between a .6 and .7?
If one were to say it is experience, and viewing millions of coins, I tend to have a problem with that course, as the graders have not been doing this for more than several months( a lead in to the announcement of Mar. 25).
Do you think that they have been given a list of factors( for the Plus coins), or does the finalizer just look at the grades given( such as 65.5, 65,7, 65.9) and make a decision?
I would like to be able to qualify(at least somewhat) the coins that I might send in for Secure Plus. Other than my own biased opinion.
Perhaps it's not important to assign a precise decimal grade in order to determine plus status. Maybe it's like Justice Stewart said about pornography. Graders may not be able to define plus coins but they know them when they see them?
Lance.
<< <i>Mark,
You have raised some very important points in your guess on the seated dime and Morgan dollar. By indicating 64(65), and 65(66) on the 2 coins, the difficulty with grading from images for MS or better grades is apparent. And I assume that if the coins were in hand, you could state a grade without the "or" qualifier, as your opinion.
Everyone on these boards who know your background knows you are an expert grader. Can you explain how the graders at PCGS/NGC can legitimately and consistently grade a coin as in the top 10 to 15% of a whole grade? I understand a liner coin, but how do you get a 65.7? or.8? What will make the difference between a .6 and .7?
If one were to say it is experience, and viewing millions of coins, I tend to have a problem with that course, as the graders have not been doing this for more than several months( a lead in to the announcement of Mar. 25).
Do you think that they have been given a list of factors( for the Plus coins), or does the finalizer just look at the grades given( such as 65.5, 65,7, 65.9) and make a decision?
I would like to be able to qualify(at least somewhat) the coins that I might send in for Secure Plus. Other than my own biased opinion. >>
Dale, depending upon the coin in question, I might or might not have a single grade (opinion) in mind, without an "or" qualifier. Some coins lend themselves to a single/specific grade opinion, but others do not.
I don't know how NGC and PCGS will be making their "plus" decisions. But I think that if I were back in the grading room, I wouldn't worry about whether a coin was a 65.7, 65.8 or whatever. I believe that making such distinctions on a consistent basis is folly and impossible. So, instead, I would consider in general terms, whether I thought it just (barely) missed a 66 or not. And if so, I would give it a 65+.
I hope that this reply doesn't disappoint you, but either way, it is my honest opinion.
Stupid me, I was sitting here trying to figure out what to say about your coins, I figured well ...you can't just always go along with everyone else all of the time, stand up, say what you think......be yourself.......independence is king,.....
With that said, I pretty much agree with what has been said.....
..........very nice coins btw.
<< <i>I'm curious, but what did the '34 washington grade when it was in the anacs photograde? >>
MS65/65
<< <i>
<< <i>Mark,
You have raised some very important points in your guess on the seated dime and Morgan dollar. By indicating 64(65), and 65(66) on the 2 coins, the difficulty with grading from images for MS or better grades is apparent. And I assume that if the coins were in hand, you could state a grade without the "or" qualifier, as your opinion.
Everyone on these boards who know your background knows you are an expert grader. Can you explain how the graders at PCGS/NGC can legitimately and consistently grade a coin as in the top 10 to 15% of a whole grade? I understand a liner coin, but how do you get a 65.7? or.8? What will make the difference between a .6 and .7?
If one were to say it is experience, and viewing millions of coins, I tend to have a problem with that course, as the graders have not been doing this for more than several months( a lead in to the announcement of Mar. 25).
Do you think that they have been given a list of factors( for the Plus coins), or does the finalizer just look at the grades given( such as 65.5, 65,7, 65.9) and make a decision?
I would like to be able to qualify(at least somewhat) the coins that I might send in for Secure Plus. Other than my own biased opinion. >>
Dale, depending upon the coin in question, I might or might not have a single grade (opinion) in mind, without an "or" qualifier. Some coins lend themselves to a single/specific grade opinion, but others do not.
I don't know how NGC and PCGS will be making their "plus" decisions. But I think that if I were back in the grading room, I wouldn't worry about whether a coin was a 65.7, 65.8 or whatever. I believe that making such distinctions on a consistent basis is folly and impossible. So, instead, I would consider in general terms, whether I thought it just (barely) missed a 66 or not. And if so, I would give it a 65+.
I hope that this reply doesn't disappoint you, but either way, it is my honest opinion. >>
I like that answer.........I think that is about the only way the plus could be applied on a consistent basis. Graders know what a 65 is, and they know what a 66 is, and those coins that are better than a 65, but not quite a 66 get the plus.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."