| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 2,498 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
I'd kind-of surprised if that came back as AG-03.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
11922 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5417 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4409 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9796 Posts |
Looks like a minimum of MS64 maybe even with a * star designation. I could see this hitting a MS65, luster looks great, lack of any real hits (from the small photos posted), why I do see looks more like luster breaks than anything.
"Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2¢ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8521 Posts |
MS65
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
This is a tough date above MS63 and a rarity in 65. I would have guessed MS64 based on the images alone and not withstanding the Pop Reports. Based on what you and others have posted my guess is they went conservative and graded it 63+.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
1874 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3453 Posts |
Edited by CoinsKelly
06/04/2014 9:55 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
MS-64 with a good shot at a 65.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
364 Posts |
And NGC says...........MS 63. When I sent this in I thought for sure a 64, maybe a shot at a 65 (which would make it a 20k coin) It has great luster and what marks it has are light merely breaking the luster. No major gouges at all. Well struck with all the stars full and bold lines in them. When I compare it to other 64's of this date on Heritage it compares very favorably, even better than some. When compared to some 63's on heritage it is waaaaay better. I sent this in with 5 other coins that I feel were all harshly graded. -- An 1819 Half that has really nice luster that I felt was a 55-58----given a 53. An 1875 half that I talk about in another forum that everyone agrees was undergraded A 1837 Half Dime that should have been au 50 but was XF 45 and two others that I thought were spot on. So did I catch them on a bad day? Are they harder on small time collectors than on big dealers? I understand with the 1896 S above that they need to be conservative because of the price jump, but I really feel this coin deserves a 64. And apparently the forum agrees. I guess I will just resend in my next submission ray and see what happens (or maybe to PCGS to experiment a little) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1531 Posts |
I don't see that making a MS65, IMO. Too many scuffs on the cheek and fields in front of her face.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10982 Posts |
Quote:
So did I catch them on a bad day? Maybe you did. Your coin has the strike, surface preservation, and eye appeal to make 64 IMO. The question mark is luster which weighs heavily on gold and is tough to interpret from images. Because of this, your coin would need strong luster through-out to earn a 64 grade. P.S. In images it is almost impossible to differentiate a 63 from a 64 $20 Lib when it comes down to luster. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36883 Posts |
They must have graded it on a Friday afternoon and wanted to get out of there. Looks like an easy MS64.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
364 Posts |
Funny you should mention the Friday thing....it actually was a Friday when the status of my submission when from "In grading" to "quality control"
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 19 / Views: 2,498 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 06/03/2014 9:25 pm
