Is this coin worthy of a "plus" grade?

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 12:48AM

I saw this coin yesterday and in-hand the STATES is actually so weak it blends into the surrounding fields. It is graded MS65+RB. PCGS has promoted the Plus grades as premium quality. In fact bidders on CCE are required to buy them sign unseen.

If they are already starting to cheapen the plus service by letting coins like this in their holders, then it is already a dead service.

This is not a 65.7 coin, its a 63.0 at best, due to weak, weak strike.

FilthyBroke · January 31, 2011 12:51AM

<< Is this coin worthy of a "plus" grade?
>>

From the picture, I wouldn't think so. Looks 64 tops to me.

metalmeister · January 31, 2011 1:01AM

Too weak of a strike for 65 money IMHO

crypto79 · January 31, 2011 1:03AM

<< 
This is not a 65.7 coin, its a 63.0 at best, due to weak, weak strike. >>

The old technical merits of grading have gone the way of the Dinosaur, I see strike being considered less and less when impacting grades on classic coins and creeping away from anything other than moderns. By taking the total coin theory of grading I see a pristine coin that is 95% red in a RB holder. They net graded from a 66 and bumped it back up to a + for its color and I can see a popular semi key like that 64L bringing Gem money esp since it is more of misaligned dies then a weak strike and soooo close to a 150 year old red coin & it would fit very well into a choice-gem red set. IMO

It should also being noted that grades are opinions, even yours and you wouldn't be the first Copper purist/ expert to fundamentally disagree with the TPGs core standards for copper coins.

Longacre · January 31, 2011 1:04AM

64, no Plus, no sticker, no Sniff.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 1:05AM

So, you'd buy this sight-unseen as a MS65RB?

Prethen · January 31, 2011 1:06AM

Looks like a possible 64 to me.

Broadstruck · January 31, 2011 1:11AM

<< So, you'd buy this sight-unseen as a MS65RB? >>

crypto79 · January 31, 2011 1:13AM

<< So, you'd buy this sight-unseen as a MS65RB? >>

I don't collect copper as color purity scares me and if my profit margins depended on PQ vs AVG then I would grade a little harder than my earlier statement but that would be because I would be looking for a 66 in a 65+ holder as it would be an easier sell. I always try to remember there is something wrong with every coin not in a 70 holder (and even some of those). What would it grade with a razor strike and that color and level of marks? Higher than 65??

19Lyds · January 31, 2011 1:13AM

<< So, you'd buy this sight-unseen as a MS65RB? >>

Yep!

But I'd return it once it was seen.

coinguy1 · January 31, 2011 1:16AM

<<This is not a 65.7 coin, its a 63.0 at best, due to weak, weak strike>>

I am as surprised by your conservative "it's 63 at best" as you apparently are at PCGS's 65+.

And you would have gotten much less biased replies/opinions, had you not posted the assigned grade and stated your strongly dissenting opinion.

dragon · January 31, 2011 1:19AM

IMO that coin has no other exceptional characteristics or eye appeal to compensate for the weak strike. Not a chance I would call that coin a gem +

crypto79 · January 31, 2011 1:22AM

Should have added to my last post but I believe that all coins don't need to be in conservative holder to be PQ even if that would help dealers. A correct Grade with no room to up sell is fine by me and while I agree that coin would sell all day as a 63 it would become one of the (if not the) nicest 63's for the date out there which is kind of the point of a higher grade is it not.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 1:26AM

I am as surprised by your conservative "it's 63 at best" as you apparently are at PCGS's 65+.

A weak strike is one thing, but this is so weak, that I think it is a problem coin. And, I don't expect anyone to think this is properly graded.

coinguy1 · January 31, 2011 1:34AM

<< I am as surprised by your conservative "it's 63 at best" as you apparently are at PCGS's 65+.

A weak strike is one thing, but this is so weak, that I think it is a problem coin. And, I don't expect anyone to think this is properly graded. >>

It looks like a 64 to me, which means my opinion is just about square in the middle, between yours and PCGS'.

dragon · January 31, 2011 1:36AM

EagleEye, is there any striking weakness on the rev? Just curious.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 1:38AM

It's weak strike, not a strike-through.

edited to add: It could be a tapered planchet, which should get a "mint error" designation.

BaronVonBaugh · January 31, 2011 1:39AM

Would you like it better in an error holder with a designation of grease filled die?

Teva · January 31, 2011 1:40AM

Its not a 65 in my book or anyones.
Something tells me if our hosts had another crack at it
it wouldn't be. This could very well be a clerical mistake?
I almost think it would have to be. I am in no rush to
throw the concept under the bus because of a misprint.

crypto79 · January 31, 2011 1:43AM

<< Would you like it better in an error holder with a designation of grease filled die? >>

IMO it is a mis-aligned die not grease filled as you can see corresponding weakness and the angular fading nature of the strike

Rick, Do you know the die pair with the die crack on the rev? is this typicial or a one off?

DonWillis · January 31, 2011 1:45AM

Rick, we would be happy to have you send the coin in for a review. If the coin does not warrant the assigned grade we will buy it back. One thing we should all know is that you can't grade a coin from a photograph. If you don't have the coin then send me the information on it so I can track it down. Don

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 1:46AM

When you have a sight-unseen market, it is very important to maintain very consistent standards. Only one example of a problem or overgraded coin will have the effect of lowering the high sight unseen bid or removing any competitive bids. So, you might say the one bad apple will spoil the whole market.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 1:48AM

Don, you can buy it here in about 1 hour.

I saw it yesterday and it was the big joke of the lot-viewing room.

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2011 1:48AM

Strike means nothing these days - it's just one more thing to net grade for - heck, it's not even in the prime focal area. The coin has what appear to be 66 surfaces, great luster andnear full red color and a weak strike. Give the grade, or give the designation but not both.

dsessom · January 31, 2011 1:50AM

<< IMO it is a mis-aligned die not grease filled as you can see corresponding weakness and the angular fading nature of the strike.

>>

I would agree. Also late die state, judging from the crack on the reverse. I believe that's one of the weakest struck IHCs I have ever seen. From the photos, the surfaces looks MS64-ish but the strike severely detracts from the coin over all, IMHO. I would have to say 65+ is way off. But then again, many coins look different in hand.

Edited to add: Rick, that's a MS64+RB which is still slightly off, but not as much as a MS65+RB would be...

BaronVonBaugh · January 31, 2011 1:51AM

<< 

<< Would you like it better in an error holder with a designation of grease filled die? >>

IMO it is a mis-aligned die not grease filled as you can see corresponding weakness and the angular fading nature of the strike

Rick, Do you know the die pair with the die crack on the rev? is this typicial or a one off? >>

Still better off in an error holder.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 1:53AM

Give the grade, or give the designation but not both.

Definitely not a "Plus", though.

IrishMikey · January 31, 2011 1:54AM

With the weak areas on both the obverse and the reverse directly opposite each other, it is
most likely a tapered planchet. Typically these will be underweight by about 5% for this amount
of weakness, which would put it at around 2.95 grams.

This type of Mint error on a Mint State 1864 With L will most likely reduce its value, IMO.

crypto79 · January 31, 2011 1:58AM

<< With the weak areas on both the obverse and the reverse directly opposite each other, it is
most likely a tapered planchet. Typically these will be underweight by about 5% for this amount
of weakness, which would put it at around 2.95 grams.

This type of Mint error on a Mint State 1864 With L will most likely reduce its value, IMO. >>

That is a good point didn't think about that although would that not affect the rims more?

crypto79 · January 31, 2011 1:59AM

<< Strike means nothing these days - it's just one more thing to net grade for - heck, it's not even in the prime focal area. The coin has what appear to be 66 surfaces, great luster andnear full red color and a weak strike. Give the grade, or give the designation but not both. >>

More matter-of-fact way to put what I was trying to say, I agree with him

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2011 2:05AM

PCGS Priceguide:

64 RD $3,000
65+ RB $2,750

6 of one, half dozen of the other.

crypto79 · January 31, 2011 2:06AM

I would like to add they have it listed as a MS64+ not at the GEM level

illini420 · January 31, 2011 2:07AM

<< Don, you can buy it here in about 1 hour.

I saw it yesterday and it was the big joke of the lot-viewing room. >>

I saw it too and didn't like it as a + graded coin either and I also heard a few folks commenting on the plus grading.

I also saw Lot 1179 pictured below, which is a PCGS 1909-S Lincoln in 65+RD that I also think didn't warrant the + grade and may not even warrant the 65 grade based on some muted luster and spotting (I've seen plenty of 64RD coins that look nicer). Definitely not a borderline 66 coin. I was disappointed to see that in a + holder too, but it wasn't as obvious as the IHC posted by Rick.

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2011 2:09AM

<< I would like to add they have it listed as a MS64+ not at the GEM level >>

Freudian slip?

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2011 2:12AM

I have a question: when attempting to price ... er ... grade copper, doesn't the color overwhelm the other technical aspects of the coin? As already shown above, a 64 in full red is valued higher than a 66 in RB. Soooo - if a coin is ohhhh sooooo cloooose to red, it would seem to me that would automatically make it eligible for a plus designation.

If we're pricing when we're grading...

Rick - what would you have said if the coin was a 64 RD?

dragon · January 31, 2011 2:16AM

<< PCGS Priceguide:

64 RD $3,000
65+ RB $2,750

6 of one, half dozen of the other. >>

So are you saying that coin was really "priced" and an appropriate grade assigned, or something close?

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2011 2:22AM

<< 

<< PCGS Priceguide:

64 RD $3,000
65+ RB $2,750

6 of one, half dozen of the other. >>

So are you saying that coin was really "priced" and an appropriate grade assigned, or something close? >>

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 2:32AM

They can grade it 63RB, 63RD, 64RB or 64RD or even over-grade it as a MS65RB, but at any grade that includes a "plus" is wrong. Any overgraded coin is not a problem. What is a problem is forcing bidders to bid sight unseen with coins like this out there. It lowers the whole market.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 2:40AM

Here is a coin that is essentially full red, fully struck and a real beauty, yet they didn't give it a "Plus".

Here is a fully struck, prooflike example. It didn't get a "Plus" either.

golden · January 31, 2011 2:48AM

That is the weakest Indian that I have ever seen.I would not want it no matter what it is graded!

coinguy1 · January 31, 2011 3:54AM

<<

Here is a coin that is essentially full red, fully struck and a real beauty, yet they didn't give it a "Plus". >>

It's got multiple marks on the Indian's face/the focal point. I'm glad they didn't give it a plus.

<< They can grade it 63RB, 63RD, 64RB or 64RD or even over-grade it as a MS65RB, but at any grade that includes a "plus" is wrong. Any overgraded coin is not a problem. What is a problem is forcing bidders to bid sight unseen with coins like this out there. It lowers the whole market. >>

I don't understand why a 64RB or 65RB would be OK, but not a 63+RB or 64+RB - that makes no sense to me.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 4:25AM

I don't understand why a 64RB or 65RB would be OK, but not a 63+RB or 64+RB - that makes no sense to me.

It's a basic grade vs. market relation. No weakly struck coin should ever get a plus designation.

"plus" not only calls a coin PQ, but CCE dealers are required to bid sight unseen for them. This coin corrupts the sight-unseen bids for that grade.

Take away the sight unseen for "Plus" coins rule and as far as I am concerned, PCGS and you can call it whatever you want.

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2011 4:30AM

<< I don't understand why a 64RB or 65RB would be OK, but not a 63+RB or 64+RB - that makes no sense to me.

It's a basic grade vs. market relation. No weakly struck coin should ever get a plus designation.

"plus" not only calls a coin PQ, but CCE dealers are required to bid sight unseen for them. This coin corrupts the sight-unseen bids for that grade.

Take away the sight unseen for "Plus" coins rule and as far as I am concerned, PCGS and you can call it whatever you want. >>

ok, I can understand not wanting to bid sight unseen for a coin that has a negative attribute in your eyes, but to say that this coin ... which certainly is at least a 64 and arguably 90% red ... should in no event EVER be in a 62+ RB or 63+ RB holder is just silly. The market is moving away from strike limitations and toward strike net grading. Allllll aboarddddd!

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 4:39AM

MY way or grading calls a XF45 as a choice XF - Choice means well struck, full diamonds for Indian Cents. An AU-50 is a Typical AU and may not have a full strike, but a AU58 is also a choice AU, so I would expect a great strike.

Taking it to any grade higher, a choice, gem or PQ ("plus") designation denotes a better coin than average for the grade. A poorly struck coin cannot be "PQ" ever, no matter what grade, no matter how red, no matter how beautiful the toning is.

coinguy1 · January 31, 2011 4:40AM

<< I don't understand why a 64RB or 65RB would be OK, but not a 63+RB or 64+RB - that makes no sense to me.

It's a basic grade vs. market relation. No weakly struck coin should ever get a plus designation.

"plus" not only calls a coin PQ, but CCE dealers are required to bid sight unseen for them. This coin corrupts the sight-unseen bids for that grade.

Take away the sight unseen for "Plus" coins rule and as far as I am concerned, PCGS and you can call it whatever you want. >>

Sight unseen bids or not, if a 63/64 liner coin can legitimately deserve a 64 grade, it sure as heck can deserve a 63+ grade, and not have to be graded down to a 63, if not 64.

kurtdog · January 31, 2011 4:43AM

IMHO that subject coin is every bit in the technical MS-65 class, and may even be at the top of that class, justifying the little + designation. However, I do think Rick has a point, they do seem to have blown the market grade on this one, given that severely-impaired strike.

tradedollarnut · January 31, 2011 4:44AM

<< MY way or grading calls a XF45 as a choice XF - Choice means well struck, full diamonds for Indian Cents. An AU-50 is a Typical AU and may not have a full strike, but a AU58 is also a choice AU, so I would expect a great strike.

Taking it to any grade higher, a choice, gem or PQ ("plus") designation denotes a better coin than average for the grade. A poorly struck coin cannot be "PQ" ever, no matter what grade, no matter how red, no matter how beautiful the toning is. >>

It matters NOT your way of grading, but how PCGS grades. From what I have seen over the decades, they don't care as much about strike as you do. That doesn't make them wrong - YOU need to adjust to them. [paraphrased from all the advice given to me over the years about grading]

Broadstruck · January 31, 2011 4:52AM

Beyond the peripheral weakness on the 1864...

Based on the images supplied I like it's obverse centers better then the MS66RB 1892.

JoeV · January 31, 2011 4:54AM

I think it would be nice if PCGS would upgrade their photograde site with pictures of "+" graded coins. This would give collectors some insight on what a "+" coin actually looks like.

EagleEye · January 31, 2011 4:55AM

I'll adjust my grading when the EAC adjusts theirs.

kurtdog · January 31, 2011 5:11AM

Tradedollarnut, while the ANA is still a little ambivalent, perhaps, on precisely how strike should figure into the market grade, the TPGs do seem to have resolved that question in favor of it warranting a strong impact, especially at the higher grades. At least, that appears to be their track record. And, that's why Rick has a valid point, IMHO.

Is this coin worthy of a &quot;plus&quot; grade?

Comments

Is this coin worthy of a "plus" grade?