Are These Grades For Real?

So what you're saying is that it was made that way and therefore that doesn't count against the grade? Shouldn't that be indicated on the holder? I mean it's an eye sore because like people say it looks like wear. What I notice the most is the top leaves of the wreath on the back, on the other pic I posted you see every little stem, there's hardly a trace of that detail in the other picture. If that's just due to the bad picture then it's a *really* bad picture. I'm half tempted to buy the thing to find out. Thank you all for your opinions, as you can tell I'm relatively new at this. Well I collected coins as a kid but my dad confiscated my collection when I was a teenager to make up for a large phone bill.

I agree that it's a photograph issue. I think it is most likely because of a poor choice of lighting angle that caused some of the devices to look flat.




Most often, weak strikes are not a one-time thing but common for a certain issue. After a while, you'll probably get a sense of which dates tend to be struck weak or other striking issues. It's just another facet of collecting a certain series.

By definition, mint state means the condition in which a coin left the mint, so in that aspect it doesn't change MS vs AU. However, once you get into the higher mint state grades (65 and over), strike does play a factor in the grade. All things being equal, a coin with a weaker strike may get, say, a 65 while another coin with just stronger strike may get a 66. This coin is on the boarder of when they more consider strike so, if it is weak as opposed to bad photographs, the strike probably was not considered as strongly. Or, another possibility is that this would have qualified for a higher grade if it had a stronger strike but the weak strike might have brought it down to 65 (this is hypothetical, as I don't know if it is a weak strike and I have no idea how to grade Indian Head cents).

Not sure if it's best to necro this topic or start a new one, but I've had the same question. This seller had two walker haves in NGC MS 63 slabs, but this one seems to have a fair bit of wear-- lady Liberty's left hand is nuked, the stripes along the thigh are practically nonexistent, her brow is flatish. What gives? I don't think it's a fake (the coin on the NGC app looks just as bad), so is this just exhibit 456789 in "buy the coin, not the slab"?

On the half dollar, you can go to NGC, and see the photograph there and see that it is the same coin that they graded. I personally think "weak strike" would be an appropriate comment on the holder. But then, it would depress the price, perhaps.

Remember the sage advice: "Buy the coin, not the holder."

Maybe I should start a new thread with this, but it's really the same issue, so I'll leave it unless a Moderator thinks otherwise.

Going back to the photo of the walker, I'd give it a details grade for the small attempt to clean it (improperly, of course) on either side of 12:00.

Anybody else?

And the reason I came to visit this sub-forum today was to ask about the following coin: you vs. PCGS How would you score it?







The reverse is either a very weak strike or struck through something. But what about the coin as a whole? It has been graded by PCGS but what would you give it?

I'll post the entire slab this afternoon but I'm curious to hear some independent opinions.

The 1911s wheat ms 63bn

1911 s ms63 rb