| Author |
 Replies: 19 / Views: 3,106 |
|
New Member
United States
37 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
887 Posts |
My only guess as to an explanation (as I agree with your sentiments), is that the grade is based on the amount of wear. Bag marks may not be considered something that falls into the realm of 'wear'? There is another 66* (no +) that also has a pretty beat up cheek - https://coins.ha.com/itm/commemorat...tion-071515#It'll be interesting to hear what others say. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Surprises me as well, but I'm not a commem collector.  to the CCF! Edited by Coinfrog
03/18/2018 1:39 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Could be die burn. Regardless not a 66 to Me, or a 65 either.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
562 Posts |
Edited by Chopped Triumphs
03/18/2018 4:30 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
887 Posts |
Yes, the Sesqui is a condition rarity, but that still doesn't explain the grade for the OP's, or for the one I found.
I'd love to hear from commems, or nickelsearcher, or others on this.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7618 Posts |
I'm in a conspiracy mood.
If common smucks like us send it in we'll get the 63/64 it probably deserves.
If big auction company sends it in big auction company gets the special treatment. That special treatment includes a conversation with a senior grader, a "friendly reminder" that the big auction house sends in lots of coins and helps promote said grading company's market reputation and that the big auction company helps pay the bills. Grader feels intimidated and rewards auction house with high grades.
Nothing would surprise me.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Australia
21786 Posts |
It doesn't. Numerous dents on the cheek, for starters. I think that most of us here in the CCF can grade more accurately than this coin has been. Perhaps we should re title our grading threads: not "You vs TPG" but " TPG vs us"!  Edited by sel_69l
03/19/2018 03:06 am
|
|
Moderator
 United States
15419 Posts |
I'm unable to explain the grade on this example. Bag marks do count for judging technical grade ... strike quality does not until you get into the truly elevated grades.
I'm of the opinion this deserves an MS64 grade.
Take a look at my other hobby ... http://www.jk-dk.art |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
Quote:
My only guess as to an explanation (as I agree with your sentiments), is that the grade is based on the amount of wear. A completely incorrect statement. Any coin graded Uncirculated/MS (60 and above) should have NO wear. Only bag marks affect the grade of an Uncirculated coin. Strike only counts if the coin is a very high grade. (65/66 and above) In this case, the coin appears overgraded. I would grade this MS-64. |
|
New Member
 United States
37 Posts |
So it seems everyone agrees here that the coin is over-graded. Alright, but this coin is not only a 66, but has a star and a CAC sticker! (I don't see anything exceptional to merit a star at all.) What do you think NGC or CAC would say in defense of this coin? I would think that perhaps they would say that the luster is at a very full 66 level, and perhaps the marks on the cheek are as made and don't break that luster and thus are not counted? I'm not saying I would say this, but is that what their reasoning might be? I haven seen modern Washington quarters in NGC 68 holders with all kinds of chatter on the cheek as well. Yet, people still pay 1000+ for a coin worth a quarter out of the holder. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
I could understand it if the coin was graded MS-66. I would think "it's just slightly overgraded." However I can't understand why it was graded 66+, with CAC approval!
Edited by SilverDollar2017
03/19/2018 2:11 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3469 Posts |
The green bean seems to indicate it's properly graded.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
.The green bean seems to indicate it's properly graded. In theory Yes, in practice no. One thing almost everyone seems to forget is that the graders at PCGS, NGC, CAC etcetc aren't super computers who are programmed to get everything right everytime, they're just people who can occasionally get things wrong just like most people. This is why I think its SOOO important to learn to grade coins for Yourself and to buy the coin not the holder. Also the probability that someone is going to buy this coin for MS-66+* money and that person may come to the conclusion that they could have gotten a much better deal if they got one that was accurately graded, or better yet, they ignore the TPG grade and graded it themselves to see if they agreed with the grade. However this coin disappointment will probably continue, but at the very least You can avoid being that disappointed Collector quite easily. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
887 Posts |
Quote:
A completely incorrect statement. Any coin graded Uncirculated/MS (60 and above) should have NO wear. Only bag marks affect the grade of an Uncirculated coin. Strike only counts if the coin is a very high grade. (65/66 and above)
In this case, the coin appears overgraded. I would grade this MS-64.
Silverdollar2017, I totally agree, but was trying to figure out what the grader could have been thinking at the time. One thing that bugs me, is the other coin I linked to. Also a 66, and a load of bag marks on the cheek, (although not as many as on the OP's coin) and also should have been a 64/5. There must be some reason for this, and I'd actually love to hear PCGS or CAC's reasoning behind the grades of these two. Edited by Beefer518
03/19/2018 4:29 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
683 Posts |
Quote:
.There must be some reason for this, and I'd actually love to hear PCGS or CAC's reasoning behind the grades of these two. As would I, but from what I have been told the big tpgs (PCGS/NGC) have a loophole by classifying their style of grading as "an art".  |
| |
Replies: 19 / Views: 3,106 |
Posted 03/18/2018 1:38 pm
NumisMedia in the collector category has a ms65 listed at 1690.
