| Author |
 Replies: 24 / Views: 2,045 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
8137 Posts |
No one is even close  |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
17900 Posts |
Well then 45. If we are going to be off we might as well be off in the direction. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5029 Posts |
Well not even close so since I was wrong before I will go with a flyer at Genuine AT  Now I am wondering how "poorly" your pics are representing this coin  Edited by scopru
12/14/2017 5:14 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Stumped, but now guessing a low-MS BN grade. Running out of options!  Edited by Coinfrog
12/14/2017 5:52 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
7234 Posts |
Well now it's a guessing game - we can only grade the coin from the pictures that are shown. How can you say "grade this coin from the pictures provided" - then say pictures are not very good? Makes ya feel like -  |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
7234 Posts |
Quote:Here's a possible clue to how seriously PCGS's standards for Indian cents have fallen Wow! I always thought they gave a rarer coin the benefit of the doubt but that's pretty bad (and not "BAD" as in "GOOD") but is an 87 with almost 4 Million considered rare? |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
The 1871 is considered scarce in high grades, but my point is, whatever the date, this AU-55 grade is just dead wrong by any standard - no diamonds, no luster, no nothing. I only bring it up as an indication of lax PCGS standards and what the grade might be on the 1887 subject coin. No intent to hijack the thread.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
11922 Posts |
Even if the pictures are not the greatest, I am not seeing any wear. I would think MS-64 BN.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
Quote:
but my point is, whatever the date, this AU-55 grade is just dead wrong by any standard - no diamonds, no luster, no nothing. I only bring it up as an indication of lax PCGS I would have given that 1871 VF-35 . PCGS fell asleep at the wheel on that one .  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2125 Posts |
The pic is difficult to tell what the fields look like but I'll post my first thought/grade Proof-64.
Edited by bandsdean
12/16/2017 6:11 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8137 Posts |
PCGS graded this coin PR-64.
In hand it is very obvious that this coin is a proof. It's my first 19th century coin and I'm very happy with it.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
The 1871 is considered scarce in high grades, but my point is, whatever the date, this AU-55 grade is just dead wrong by any standard - no diamonds, no luster, no nothing. I only bring it up as an indication of lax PCGS standards and what the grade might be on the 1887 subject coin. No intent to hijack the thread.
Now that the grade reveal has happened, I can extend the hijack.  Study the "look" of those images very carefully. That coin was photographed using fluorescent lighting, with the camera's White Balance improperly set (probably not capable of correcting for fluorescent). The color is skewed heavily towards the blue, and another artifact of such a broad fluorescent light source is the obscuration of detail. Under that technical regimen, no accurate opinion of the coin's true condition can be drawn; indeed, the only assumption on the viewer's part is that they're being deceived as to the true look of the coin. Doesn't mean that the coin deserves the grade, just that the images aren't capable of proving it one way or the other. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
Congrats bandsdean .  |
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 24 / Views: 2,045 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 12/14/2017 4:55 pm
