| Author |
 Replies: 21 / Views: 3,542 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5404 Posts |
I would not even pay 63 money. You could look through dealers stock and cherry pick better for about 17 to 18 dollars CAD.
@Priorpence the hair bun weakness is a very common occurrence in the 1965 through 1967 Large bead bust. Probably a result of too high of a relief. The striking difficulties continued with 1968 nickel dollars as well.
Full strike 1965 through 1967 are very hard to find .
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
One of the reasons why I like to examine every coin in hand before deciding to buy.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2495 Posts |
MS63 to MS65, ICCS basically grades the fields only of the obverse only.
Remember 'only' this and you'll start understanding their grades.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4883 Posts |
Quote:
MS-63 $29, MS-64 $60, MS-65 $650 Thus an instance of overgrading becomes a very expensive mistake for somebody else.... If I'm going to spend that kind of money, I want a coin to dazzle me. I'm hard pressed to see any dazzle factor in this case. Colligo ergo sum
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1192 Posts |
Playing devil's advocate..
The coin could have an outstanding strike and lustre, enough to make up for that focal point mark, and still be a "true" MS-65. Impossible to tell by that scan though.
|
|
Valued Member
 Canada
148 Posts |
Thanks Pacificoin for the info it is one of those anomalies that helps broaden my knowledge base.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3546 Posts |
The 63 limiting factor area:  I would never pay 64 money on this one. IMO |
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
10743 Posts |
Quote:
I would never pay 64 money on this one. I agree, let alone 65 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
It's impossible to judge these fields from a dulled out picture. Undoubtedly the eye appeal is poor and PCGS would penalize this coin because of its methodology of larger emphasis on effigy but it doesn't necessarily mean this coin is over-graded based on current criteria ICCS uses. Not paying the price on eye appeal is one thing, graded is another. Last but not least, later year common dollars in MS65 are currently selling in the 40% range at retail (even lower for 50 cent pieces. $300 would only be starting price for a good coin in this market and eye appeal would decide how much below that it would go.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1051 Posts |
Based on the fields, it's a 65 by the ICCS grading method. Certainly not the first 65 I've seen with a nasty mark on the effigy or hidden in the legend.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
Edited by TheCoinHunter
08/13/2016 5:25 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5253 Posts |
Such unattractive toning (tarnish would be a better word) on the 1966. I would not care much for it. Better a nice PL set from the same year.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1461 Posts |
So in this case I would probably agree on the lack of eye appeal but mostly because of the obverse on the 66. I personally much prefer toned (or tarnished) coins. To me, they posses much more "character" and tend to be far more interesting than a blast white example. I have over 100 66 PL sets on hand...The all look the same to me...
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21788 Posts |
"How Can This Be an MS65?"
clearly,
it's not.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
That bottom coin looks like it would struggle to make MS62 let alone MS65  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 21 / Views: 3,542 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 07/18/2016 7:57 pm
