Options
If we want to keep Poking at overgraded coins...
STONE
Posts: 15,275 ✭
...then add your findings for "Clearly overgraded coins" listed in their upcoming auction:
My contribution:
1824 Dime, NGC-61!!!
My contribution:
1824 Dime, NGC-61!!!
0
Comments
clearly put me in tha way over graded crowd on that piece...
1. I do not think it is fair to blame S-B. They did not grade the coin.
2. Presumably, none of us have seen the coin in hand, and we are making a judgment based on a photo that is substantially magnified.
<< <i>Doesn't look out of line for what a 61 should be. It's not a 63 or a 65. My concern would be if there's any wear vs flatness of strike. >>
There is undoubtably wear in the photo. The high points are not only weak struck but show signs of wear.
At best this should be in a 55 holder
<< <i>Two comments:
1. I do not think it is fair to blame S-B. They did not grade the coin.
2. Presumably, none of us have sen the coin in hand, and we are making a judgment based on a photo that is substantially magnified. >>
No it wasn't. And I apologize to S-B for the ill-willed thread title.
I just got caught up in the theme of another thread.
Member ANA, SPMC, SCNA, FUN, CONECA
EAC 6024
<< <i>Who cares.... It still is a nice coin and it will be bid to what people are willing to pay..... plus i'm not sure that what your looking at is....... just a weak strike >>
It isn't just a weak strike. It's a weak strike with wear as noted from the high points, especially the stars and the hair curls.
N G C
Actually, looks ok for the grade to me....
N G C<<<
BINGO!! Typical NGC graded coin.
Personally I wouldn't want it as a 55 with a sratch like that. I would rather have a problem free VF.......wait a minute...I do.
Please visit my website Millcitynumismatics.com
Not even close.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
You buy early Type coins in NGC holders, and this is what happens more often than not. An NGC early Type piece is as good as raw to me. Yes, there are some great coins in their plastic, but they're right alongside pieces like this.
given leeway in this area, but I'd at least like to see 50-70% luster on an "unc" early coin. Is that asking too much?
Reminds me of an AU58 1803 half dime I had back in 2005. It too had only 20% luster remaining & had numerous deep field scrapes similar
to the op's coin. But it was fairly sharply struck. Overall look was that of a cleaned/abused unc where the luster was stripped. Lo and behold just after I sold it to a
major retailer it showed up as a MS62 at auction. Never saw that coming. But I did feel that it was worth 58+ money. Those extra few pts got it a 60% bump
in price. I can only wonder why when it was submitted raw by my local dealer that it only graded AU58 but later when resubmitted went to 62?
The fields were shiny/once cleaned enough to give it a false proof-like look. Sometimes shiny/PL fields can be mistaken for "unc-ness" when luster is missing.
Of course this coin to me is a lot closer to MS61 than the op's example. This coin was also a good example of where the CDN was out to lunch. At the time I bought
it the CDN had this date in unc for something like $6,000....yet I sold it for $9,000 as an AU58. AU money was around $4,000. Fetched $14,375 at auction as a 62.
1803 half dime
I too consider NGC coins to be raw coins when looking to buy.