1969-S (Lmc) DDO-001 The Big One.

The graders don't consider MD as a minus. I just discovered something else that doesn't lower a grade on a graded coin:

Note the grade PF-70 perfect coin. What else do the graders not knock the grade down for?

Split plating on a perfect coin? I'd be upset if I bought this coin that should be perfect, when it would be to me.

That is interesting Coop. I'm in that category too; if the coin had splits I'd expect it to grade lower. MD on a coin...I would feel the same but maybe a click less so.

If the grading is done with only a 5x magnification, would they be able to discern "minor" split plating as pictured on the above "perfect" coin? I'm with you though, it SHOULD be perfect.

T-BOP:



I get on that soon. (Glad to have my photoshop program going again. Got the old computer working again. New one, its collecting dust right now.)

Here is a side by side of 4 of the 1969-S DDO-001 showing Machine Doubling:


Here is an example of extreme Machine Doubling on a DDO:


Here is a side by side of a normal and machine doubled cent:


Here is a side by side of a normal cent, a machine doubled example, an over polished normal cent and a machine doubled DDO.

This is why I used to cringe every time someone would tell a newbie (that hadn't posted a picture) "If both the date and the mintmark show doubling then it isn't the doubled die." Because I knew that 69 S DDO DID come with MD on mintmark.

Yeah -- I have a bit of a problem with that '86-S being graded PF-70 too, as to me it's an arbitrary judgement call by the grader under the 15% 'eye appeal' portion of a coin's grade..

Are there any PF-70s out there with carbon spots..? If not, why not..? Shouldn't the mints be able to control carbon spotting on freshly struck coins the same as they should be able to control split plating on new strikes..?

The same should go for rinse spots, especially on MS grades (or is this talk about proofs only..?) What about dropped die rim intrusion..? Or bubbling..?

"They" can try to say split plating is "prettier" than bubbling, but to me they are equally weighted problems.. Ditto for the rinse issue, as they've now had how many years to work that out..?

I'm not sure what to say about carbon spotting.. I used to believe that didn't happen until the coins aged a bit.. Then I opened two rolls of 2018-D cents last month and every coin had both carbon as well as rinse spots.. Disappointed I was..

So no, this coin should not have been given a PF-70 IMHO.. Thoughts..?

Swamp

I'm guessing you meant MS-62, Coop..?

I find that grade a bit troubling.. It's like the owner of the coin is being punished because the mint did a lousy job..

Visually it looks like a 62 -- if the coin is being graded based on "curb appeal.." But since that's only supposed to be 15% of the grade I have to say it's been undergraded.. I see one bag ding and one small scratch.. Almost everything else is bubbling and spotting..

I feel this coin was not properly graded, regardless its looks.. The grade feels biased; improperly standards weighted..

EDIT: This coming from a person who tends to undergrade, btw..

Swamp

I figured that was the scenario..

And funny, because the first thing I thought when I saw your reply was: "Do they really have a Mechanical Doubling grading scale?" after seeing it is a nice DDR..

Discounting all that though, do you think / believe this coin is undergraded given the standards for grading..? To me it's no MS-65, but neither is it an MS-62.. It isn't the coin's fault the plating temp wasn't quite right..

Swamp