...showing the PCGS
values for a half dollar, and not the quarter.
I'm glad you caught that since I didn't do my proofreading well but the concept would remain the same for the 1852 25C. https://www.PCGS.com/coinfacts/coin/1852/5419
For example, by using the PCGS
full retail price of $1250 @ MS61 less the $ 775 @ AU50, the differential between these is still a significant $ 475.
I just consulted with PCGS
today and they suggested that I write 'any' & 'detail' together under the
1965 TO DATE
column. By doing it this way the coin will cross over 'no matter what' to a more valuable PCGS
holder with or without a 'details' grade depending on the grader...
However, if I decide to leave out 'detail' and write only 'any' under this column a different scenario occurs. PCGS
would not cross the coin but would send the original ANACS holder back to me untouched because they found a 'detail' defect.
In either situation I would still be responsible for a $ 35 grading fee assuming that the coin's value does not exceed $ 3,000.
Shipping/handling, insurance & the 1% of final value fees still apply as expected for the crossover coin.
But only shipping/handling, insurance & apply as expected for the returned ANACS holder: NO 1% of final value fees.
As previously opined it's worth the gamble to write 'any' & 'detail' and take the chance that a details grade would not occur (based upon of results of this grading thread). And in the unlikely event I end up with a details grade with an MS (non-numerical) designation, the difference between this class and the current ANACS-AU50 class would probably be at least a $ 300 - $ 400 gain less some expenses.
Now, after receiving all of our members no-detail grading input with some PCGS
clarification a crossover done as described above seems give me the most warm and fuzzy feeling of less risk with enough upside potential to devote some time to make it happen.