| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 2,478 |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Hi Bryan
Being placed where I have to guess about field depth and reflectivity, my guess the second coin is the one that was given the PL designation,, the first coin seems a bit weak on design contrast to make PL ,, of course this is mostly a guess when looking at the pics.
Rick
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
I have to disagree with Rick. I think the first one is PL.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
 United States
14454 Posts |
ok, how bout a guess at the grades
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
I'm thinking both 64, top one PL, although my opinion might change in-hand. Here's a link for helping determine Prooflike status. I believe it's a bit optimistic about reflectivity; the PL and DMPL reflections should be farther out.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
64 was what I was thinking for both as well
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
I think the first one would grade 64 but the second might push MS65.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I will go ahead and show you what NGC said about these coins. Like I said these were crossovers and I think they have a theory that they shouldn't give it a higher grade than another grading company did because it will make them look like their grading skills are ingerior to the other company's. What do you think I should do, send them in for a review and hope for the best or crack them out and send them in for grading again? I really dont think there is any way they could be graded any lower than they are looking at the coins in hand. And if the one deserves the PL designation the other definately does as everyone has agreed upon except metalman. The VAM-79 And now the VAM-80 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
Wow, I think they graded low,but that just my opinion. Bryan,are you set on only having NGC grade these two? Maybe resubmit out of the holder to ANACS.I can't believe those would come back MS63.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I cant go the ANACS route because they are in my registry set, it would have to be PCGS or NGC. I just wonder if I should crack them out or just send them in for review. If the VAM-80 is a PL then the dadgum VAM-79 definately is also, its actually more reflective then the VAM-80
Edited by Bryan1315
07/21/2006 5:16 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
I think it would be worth a try to go the PCGS route but it would be tought for me to pop them out of their holder. You would almost have to though,if you want a fair grade.
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
well then if I did that I would still be in the same boat as it will be a crossover and them not wanting to give a higher grade than the other company for the reasons I already mentioned. So I still have to ask, crackout or send in for review
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
welp guess I will break out the ball peen
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1703 Posts |
I was waiting for someone else to speak up. I think I also would take them out of the holders and send them to PCGS.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
7123 Posts |
Hi Bryan I do not always agree with the TPG's especially on grade, I think they may have undergraded both coins unless there is something about the coins that is not transfering well by photo? , but I'm pretty sure that they got the PL designation right. Of course this is coming from a novice on the Morgan dollar coins I'm the first to admit that ! Rick |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
I beleive they would have been MS-64's if they were sent in raw, but because they were both crossovers they didn't want to give it a higher grade
|
| |
Replies: 17 / Views: 2,478 |
Posted 07/21/2006 3:13 pm
