| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 341 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
67 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2220 Posts |
I agree; I have seen MS-62/63 worse-looking than this.  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
74925 Posts |
I don't agree with the MS-61 grade. Looks a bit nicer than what they graded it at.
Errers and Varietys.
|
|
Moderator
United States
97925 Posts |
I agree, it should have gotten a much higher grade.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
53 Posts |
Is it possible the coin has a minor problem which led the grading service to net it down? It looks like it could pass in a 64 holder, so I am left to wonder if the coin's strong eye appeal saved it from getting a details grade. All that being said, I don't see any problems at first glance.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
899 Posts |
I see a lot of marks in the obverse fields and in the 3rd photo reveals many more hits on the jaw and cheek. They all look minor, but a lot of them. I don't see this beyond 62.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
18706 Posts |
the full coin photos have too much glare from overhead light. the remaining photos seem to show what the coin actually looks like in hand. i'd like to see a full straight on shot, no overhead light to see the surfaces.
i'd say PCGS messed up again. imo w/o better full shot photos, i'd call her MS62
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
36878 Posts |
Dull luster, lots of surface hairlines and rub spots, MS-61 seems correct.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
18706 Posts |
taking another look at the later photos I agree with IGE that those photos are showing a lack of luster. there is also a palm or finger print on the obv at K9 which doesn't really affect grade but it does for value.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1521 Posts |
I think IGE is exactly right. The luster and hairlines hold it back.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
67 Posts |
I upload this picture to address the comment about too much light.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3667 Posts |
The mantra I keep repeating for contact marks on UNC coins is the number, location, and depth of contacts. Where applicable, the recency of contacts may also be an issue. These affect details designations as well as numerical grades. IMHO, this coin is direct graded at 61 rather than net graded. The reverse has significant issues, and may be what PCGS focused on for the grade. There are scratches all over the reverse. The letters in AMERICA and DOLLAR, the rim and dentils at 3:00-4:00, the right star, wreath, the eagle's left wing (our visual right) and the fields beneath that wing have multiple light scratches, several deeper gouges, and sharp but smaller contact marks. There are some longer vertical scratches beneath the eagle's right wing (our visual left) and one longer scratch to the the left of the eagle's head. The obverse is better, but there are still deeper contacts between PLU and the hair and NW-SE from the eye across the ear lobe. The area beneath the eagle's left wing is the area of greatest concern, and I think that's what PCGS focused on. I view the TPG MS grades as a bracket, rather than a pinpoint. In other words, the TPG is saying that the coin is the designated grade +/- one step. That would make this coin in the MS 60-61-62 range, with MS-61 the most likely grade. I know this isn't the answer anyone wants, but IMHO they got this one right. It's still a fantastic Top 100 VAM and any MS example is in demand. Any straight graded 61 is far better than a detailed coin. Edited by fortcollins
06/25/2026 5:11 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
189767 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3239 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 341 |
|
***
'nt
Posted 06/20/2026 9:08 pm
