1929-S SLQ You Vs. PCGS

with hesgut. Also, interesting tones on the obverse. I like it!

Moral of the story - Buy the coin not the slab. I don't know what the rationale for the higher grade was.

Crazy!

The details in the picture look good enough to make a judgment, but you're the only one that has the coin in hand, so I ask, that is wear we are seeing correct?

If so, this is one of the worst graded examples I have ever seen from PCGS. Even if that isn't wear all up her leg and gown, there are way too many minor hits to deserve a 64.

If I were you, I'd sell this coin. Right now you have an AU somebody is gonna pay a lot of money for. You could get paid, buy a coin that looks better than this one, and still have money left over.

Too late for an unbiased opinion, but I agree with MS. Luster in the fields is unbroken and the spots on leg and shield that look like wear are "luster grazes" such as you see on the cheek of an MS63 Morgan dollar. Surfaces appear original. The 64 grade might be a tad too high. The FH designation I think is correct since Liberty shows all required features: earhole, three leaf sprigs, and full edge of hairline from brow down to neck.

Probably not a PQ coin for the grade but not drastically overgraded IMO.

I had thought MS too, and agree wholeheartedly with the 64 FH grade. The coin doesn't have chatter to warrant anything less and non of the typical circulation hairlines/marks.

I still don't think this is an over-graded coin and I made my judgment without looking down. My logic is that if it were an AU, there would be circulation marks in the fields and the color would be a little different; also if it were only MS-62 or 63 it would have more significant bagmarks in the fields/on liberty. The marks on this piece look reasonably light and are typical of 64 slabbed coins and I'm assuming they do not show up much in hand. It's not a MS-66 or 67 which should be virtually flawless, especially the latter. I had a slabbed 65 FH that had a minimal amount of chatter and it wasn't that far off from this; you couldn't see any of it without a magnifying glass except one small hit rotated under the light.

With the dramatic differences in strike/toning from coin to coin, I find that looking for the subtle color differences from the devices to the fields is a more reliable way to determine whether a coin is Uncirculated or AU-58 rather than looking at specific areas for detail/lack of detail. On a coin with mild wear, the luster will be slightly muted and its almost always distinguishable from a coin without this characteristic. Especially grading from photos. Note the following as a clear example (I believe it to be correctly graded, but everyone said unc):

https://goccf.com/t/101479

Same happened with an 1839 Half Dime I sold someone here; I graded it AU-58 with a mild wipe on the obverse; otherwise the coin was at least a solid 63 due to nice toning on the reverse and lack of chatter but the obverse was a bit lifeless....it got netted out at NGC as a MS-62. Everyone said it was a 62 or 63 when posted.

That being said, TPG grading is really hit or miss....they put a clearly AU bust half in an XF details holder without any hairlines or major dipping and then graded my Charlotte half eagle as XF-45 when it was about VF-30 with dulled out surfaces. I wasn't complaining because the C was worth a lot of money, but still....the CBH was not a cheap one either. If there are significant hairline scratches on the reverse in 'AMERICA' that show up easily along with a lot of 'obvious' chatter, the coin isn't a 64 though. I just don't get what looks so 'bad' about this...none of the bagmarks look like the heavy or distracting kind that irk you when you're looking at the coin face to face, which is usually the factor in limiting a coin below 64. I was under the impression that scattered small hits that don't show up much in hand are okay on a 64, but that once you get into more obvious hits/hairlines (particularly distracting ones), you drop the grade a lot. all just my opinion of course...sorry for the essay but I do like this one and wouldn't be unhappy with it.

@hesgut - I gave my opinions on the coin after having seen the grade posted.. I didnt see this posting until that point. Did that play a role in my grade? Perhaps. But my first impression was that the TPG did okay with this one.

One of the reasons why I didnt necessarily assume it was wear though is because for the amount of wear that would have been on the leg, I surely would have expected to see wear on the eagle's breast or on the center of the shield. I didnt see any though. And a coin with so much luster left.. seems unlikely to be a low AU coin. At the very least, you would expect the fields to lack some luster if the coin had seen a bit of circulation.

I dont think it's the most PQ example (weak/missing rivet, denticles, okay toning), but I have no problem with the 64FH.

BTW - I dont think calling ShadowCreator and Jaobler out is warranted. Me, sure, I'm still newer. But both of them have a wealth of knowledge to share and I was enlightened to read their posts saying why they thought it was a 64.

I didn't realize I was calling anybody out. I believe the tone of my post came off worse than was intended. I just like to debate such things, there was never any offense intended. Furthermore, if I did call somebody out, it would be less appropriate to call out someone new, not more. If I disagree with someone more experienced a debate can be more justified. Someone new could just be offering a simple opinion or guess.

Just to nit pick your post, I never said it was low end AU, I called it a AU-58FH...and nice coin. As far as further debate on the coin, I cannot justify the grade to myself despite any contrary argument I have seen. I'm guessing those with dissenting opinions feel the same towards it not being MS.