The Coin That Started A Raging Internet Debate: 1924 Peace Dollar, You Versus NGC

When first looking at the images I thought MS 65, max.

But after reading all the comments I will say the grade on the holder is MS 66. (I wonder if this coin is better looking in hand than on our screens?)

Although it has some color in the toning, I don't see it as particularly attractive and, technically anyway, think it should have been a max of MS65.
Small E-W nicks on the cheek, hair, and field in front of the eye are what stand out to my eye. In hand, the fingerprint may have been overlooked with the dark smudged toning going on.

Remember graders generally look at the coin in hand, without a scope or loop at first, to determine a grade. It isn't mandatory to even put it under a loop. We have the benefit of an image that can be magnified.

I'm not attracted to toned coins, have none in my collection. To each their own. MS62

A very non-expert guess of MS64. Could be higher but I think there's too much scratches for that.

I agree, the "toning" absolutely kills any eye appeal it must have had. And the camouflaged reverse lettering is almost unbelievable; it took me a while to figure out where UNUM was, it's so well hidden among the splotches.

TBH the overall vibe is "this probably wasn't cleaned but the way those surfaces look it might have been less ugly if it was". To borrow some terminology, strike 4/5, surfaces 1/5.
(...Probably actually surfaces 2/5 but it depends on what the real lower end of the scale looks like. And on whether 0/5 is a valid grade, for that matter.)

MS63 for me. Attractively toned Peace dollars are few and far between and this is not one of them in my opinion.

65 but I don't like the toning much and seems to be a fingerprint on the obverse too. Probably a "buy the coin not the holder" situation here.

The aesthetics of the coin (and the others in the hoard) were not relevant to the debate. Lots of people think toned coins are ugly. And there are a lot of ugly toned coins. That is not the issue.

NGC MS 65

CAC agrees with NGC.

In-the-hand, the coin appears much better than the NGC images.




The above coin was part of a hoard of attractively toned Peace dollars (about 7) was discovered in a leather pouch in 2008/2009. Subsequently, they were all certified from MS64 to MS66 by NGC and auctioned by Heritage. (Some have been re-auctioned by HA multiple times.)

The controversy that erupted over these Peace dollars was because David Hall - referring to this hoard - said categorically "Any Peace dollar with rainbow toning is artificially toned." This angered a lot of people out there because it is a nonsensical statement. Also, people that supported NGC took it as David Hall taking the opportunity to make a low-brow attack on NGC.

I remember arguments at coin shows about the originality of these Peace dollars - as well as the notion that Peace dollars cannot be vividly toned. Then, of course, people that collect toned Peace dollars were also offended. There certainly was a lot of online heated debate.

Some of the online debates were absurd. There were people that had never set foot in a coin show with limited experience, claiming they could tell that the maroon\auburn areas were active corrosion. Typical internet stuff.

Had David Hall not been a prominent force behind PCGS, then his post would have meant nothing and no debate would have happened.

https://www.PCGS.com/News/Coinfacts...cially-Toned

As far as I'm concerned, this is not even slightly rainbow toned, there's no rainbow, it's basically all brown except for the greenish-blue bit at the edge. This coin has no relevance on whether rainbow toning is artificial because it does not have rainbow toning.
I am legitimately surprised that anyone thought it did; does the term have a different definition in silver dollar collecting that I wasn't aware of?

If it was cupronickel (or copper) I'd have called it rusted. I'm pretty sure I've seen badly tarnished coins with very similar coloring (to the slab pics), and AFAIK they were significantly oxidized. Of course silver doesn't really oxidize like that, so it's probably a different tarnishing process.
Doesn't look artificial to me (tarnish happens), but I understand the people who thought it was corroded; as I already mentioned, AFAIK corrosion on cupronickel can be pretty much the same greenish shade.

On the OP photos there's a lot of distracting lines everywhere; metal flow, contact marks, fingerprint splotches, it all comes together to a fairly ugly view. (Especially on Liberty's cheek, poor lady.)
The slab pics make the surfaces look much cleaner (especially on the obverse), but also make the greenish area look a lot more like oxidized copper. (And the UNUM part is even more lost than on the OP pics.)
Not a coin I'd buy even if I had the money, but I know there are people who think tarnished silver is awesome.