1923 Standing Liberty 25c Vs. NGC, @childofthewheat :)

Well I guess I am the Eyore here. She has a mark that runs from her instep all the way up her leg. I can go no higher than 63, and on a BAD day that is an AU.

Would I buy it? Yes for MS 63 money I would jump at it

MS63

okay I will try...

n her leading leg at the break or fold of her garment- just above the break there are two marks in the garment folow just slightly to the right a rim of another coin hit and dragged down toward the knee leaving 'chatter' marks. At the top of her knee is a spot that is slightly mis color like a small rub mark.
The chatter continues just below the knee stopping with four small hit marks then fadding almost away. It starts again at her shin with a hit mark and a a dragging line of chatter that ends about half way through her instep.

Best that I can explain it

yep. But it is too much in my thinking for some of the high grades others were giving. Told you I was the Eyore.

Got it, Kid. You da man, er, young man!

Sticking with my original 64 - this is a super coin.

I'm not sure that's actually a mark. Look at some other high-grade SLQ's under differing lighting - I saw a couple at Heritage which hinted that it's an appropriate contour for that area and maybe suffering from a lighting articact.

NGC MS-66. CCF says 65 on average, ranging 63 to 66.

On the PCGS Photograde example of a PCGS MS-66, the leg looks the same, and also has the same type of minor but noticeable abrasions on the leg, in approximately similar areas; it also shows a similar "line" effect on that leg. NGC allows a few "minor but noticeable without magnification" marks at 66, but at 67 they add the proviso "under magnification." I think this coin makes the grade.

When you look at a -67 you can see that the legs have to be near to perfect, i.e. no visible marks without magnification. I will look at it under 10x and 60x once I get it here.

FWIW, I also spent an hour today at lunch poring over every decent photo I could find online of PCGS, ANACS and NGC MS-65 and MS-66 Type 2a SLQ's, and this one beats a good majority of the MS-65's on strike, luster and fields, and about average to very slightly below average MS-66 due to the excellent strike on the shield outlines and riveting (a slightly better way to diagnose SLQ's, in my opinion, than the head, since some coins, even in MS67, simply did not have fully detailed heads, and a coin with a full head AND a full shield is a beautiful thing if you find one.) The main difference between the 65's and the 66's seems to be the number of marks, and their location, although luster and strike come into the picture as well as the general surfaces.

I'm going to say I agree with NGC that the coin is a full MS-66, or at the worst a 65*. Perhaps I'll CAC it and see what happens.

I paid slightly back of 66 at current FMV, and well back of a PCGS or NGC "price guide" 66. Recent auction activity has been all over the place from $540 (presumably VERY low eye appeal) to a ridiculous $1292.50 (someone was in a bidding war, or the coin was insanely undergraded, or both.)

Regardless of technical grade, I love it. It's not going anywhere anytime soon, except into my "really pretty coin" display hutch with a couple of my other nice-but-not-too-expensive coins.

Thank you for all of the grading insight and educational responses so far, I appreciate your time! I'm currently working on winning a lower-VF grade 1787 Fugio, and hopefully I win (because it would be nice to have one that doesn't look like it got beat on with a sledgehammer and dipped in acid then cut with a hacksaw) and also picked up a rather lower grade but not ugly Vermont copper struck over a C Nova for not too much money, so I'll post those (assuming I win the Fugio) or at least the Vermont.