| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 2,413 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
I'll go 58 here - super coin.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18717 Posts |
I'm one notch higher than the consensus also. AU58 nice luster
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
282 Posts |
Now here is part 2. NGC's photos from the certification page. Doesn't look so nice here. Who do I believe?   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2125 Posts |
Pics from NGC look rather ugly. First pics I'd say MS-62. Above pics from NGC I'd say AU-58.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
282 Posts |
Amazing how different coins look in different pics. Illustrates perfectly the difficulties in evaluating a coin online. I generally discount NGC a little as I don't think they take good photos unless you pay for the special photo services.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
12057 Posts |
NGC takes cheap, low-res terribly pixelated pictures & then charges an arm and a leg for the privilege on submission.
Even their so called premium "hi res" photos are a joke.
Member ANA - EAC - TNA - SSDC - CCT #890 "Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossible before they were done." -- Louis D. Brandeis |
|
New Member
United States
46 Posts |
The key in these photos is the white holder. See how its pure white in the NGC photo? Its darker and golden in the sellers photos. thats Post-editing to the photo. I tried to fix the white balance so you can see the photo in a more unaltered state.  I still like the purple hues!!  Edited by jyelton12
05/19/2016 2:39 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
282 Posts |
So you think the seller played around with the photo to make the coin look better (or worse depending on how you like it)? And I still think (from the photos alone) that this is a good 58, even though NGC has it as 55!  Edited by syeb
05/19/2016 4:21 pm
|
|
New Member
United States
46 Posts |
the seller didn't photo shop the coin by any means, but may have bumped the contrast or raised the color temperature to give it a deeper detailed and higher toned finish.
I agree the NGC pics dont do it justice either. ultimately any coin I buy online look different when I receive it as far as luster goes. You can bet the coin is better than the NGC photo but probably not as glamorous as the Seller's photos.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
282 Posts |
Based on the pics is it worth attempting either an NGC regrade or a crossover to PCGS? It certainly looks better than many 55s that I have seen. I haven't seen many 58's though.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
Quote:
Based on the pics is it worth attempting either an NGC regrade or a crossover to PCGS? It certainly looks better than many 55s that I have seen. I haven't seen many 58's though. I wouldn't attempt a regrade, and I would not crossover to PCGS. PCGS is grading very harshly as of late, and this coin could fall victim to that. |
|
Valued Member
United States
282 Posts |
EDITED for clarity
A regrade with NGC has no risk other than the cost of the grading. There seems to be a distinct possibility of a 58 or even 60 with this one, so I'm pondering if it is worth the investment to pay for the resubmission. If it grades 58 or 60, that would indicate quite a significant jump in market value.
A crossover with PCGS likewise carries no risk other than the grading fees as I can specify a minimum grade for the crossover.
Not that I'm selling it but still it would be good to know.
Edited by syeb
05/19/2016 5:51 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
I've been studying the photos, and I think that AU-55 is accurate. There are a lot of luster breaks that the seller is hiding in his pictures. I doubt that it would upgrade to a 58. 60 is out of the question as there is a very noticable amount of wear.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4963 Posts |
 I doubt this coin could make 58. |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 25 / Views: 2,413 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 05/17/2016 5:41 pm
