Not An ICCS Grade You See Very Often...

You are aware that the seller is also participating in this thread? That is seriously uncool and unnecessary... What happened to giving other collectors the benefit of the doubt?

The whole point of me starting this thread, was to say that you just do not see an ICCS MS-64 Lustrous Brown grade on a Canadian brown (toned) bronze coin... it is something that ICCS generally avoids - MS-63 brown tends to be their ceiling with toned bronze mint state coins.

edit: I find this very uncool, especially when anyone can demonstrate just how variable ICCS when it comes to assigning MS-64 grades on older Canadian coins - now if the seller stated that the coin came from a certain dealer prior to 2004, then we can start to draw conclusions on the security of the slab.

secoinedchance, I may not have mentioned the gouge in the description, but I use highly detailed pictures so bidders can see and make their own judgement. How many sellers use detailed pictures (I'm not talking small, blurry, inaccurately exposed images we see most of the time) that describe the condition of a coin more than words can?

SPP, thanks for chiming in. I'm cool with open debate. Let it roll.

I'm not crazy about the marks either, but I have to say that clicking on the auction link, the first thing I recall thinking was how nice it was to have large, clear photos... nowhere for little problems to hide.

Oh, yes the 'lustrous brown' grade always catches my attention because you don't see it very often.

ICCS doesn't always get it right, whatever "right" means is up to interpretation. It is just an opinion, after all. I think we have consensus the coin here is not a MS64 of the highest order, and based on the hammer price, the buyer doesn't think so either.

jello, I actually think the video idea is the way it will be going eventually with the sale of higher end coins, a much better reflection of the luster as well... As far as the questions to the grading, I agree that doesn't appear to be an amazing MS64, but with that being said, IMO it's not far off- I think its a solid MS63 all day. I've seen a lot worse than that with slabbed coins.

The problem with really good photos, is that they almost show too much... Look at some of the photos of the coins in the PCGS registry sets, the lighting captures absolutely every imperfection on coin, depending on the photographic conditions. When you play with the angle and intensity of the lighting, you can either show too much, or too little.... my own registry set is a perfect example, I used my own photos, with reflected light, and while it removes the blinding lustre of the coins, it shows all the imperfections. In hand, you don't see them the same way.

www.pcgs.com/SetRegistry/alltimeset.aspx?s=82059

I really cannot comment neither on the grade of the coin, nor the lustre, without seeing the coin in hand with favourable lighting conditions.

jdmern, I have no problem with video being used for high-end coins. But if the big boys use this technology on all coins, then the smaller players will get locked out because of the higher cost to play the same game.

DEVLEC, look up axial lighting. Because of the 2 layers of plastic, there's a little tilting of the subject at play to reduce reflection/refraction. Capture of correct light temperature will ensure the coin's true colours become most apparent. Yes, those 2 marks are significant. Are there any MS-65 LRB coins assigned by ICCS?

SPP, I'd rather see too much than not enough. Informed buyers will know what they are looking at, vs. guessing what they might be seeing in a less than ideal picture.