wdrob Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (edited) This coin is raw so like my other requests there will not be any reveal but I would appreciate opinions on grade. Thanks Edited October 17, 2014 by wdrob Link to post Share on other sites
bsshog40 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 To me, it's kind of hard to grade these things. Looks like has some very nice details. Looks like a hit on the top of the cheek and a good scrape on the lower part of the cheek. Looks like a strong 65 from the pics. Jmo Link to post Share on other sites
Raisethis2 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 These tend to be lower grade when compared to most commems however, this one appears to be in very nice condition. I think it might well be an MS 65. I hope I'm right, it's a very nice coin. Link to post Share on other sites
Coindude Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I could be wrong but the cheek and the right most sail give me the impression that there's slight rub. Link to post Share on other sites
jpcienkus Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Nice Columbus Bill. I really like the little collection you purchased with the coin purse, etc... I happen to own one of these because I like the design. I can't judge the luster that well from your photo. I'd say 64-65. Link to post Share on other sites
coinman_23885 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55. Link to post Share on other sites
Coindude Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This could be what some might consider cabinet friction. Some of those coins make it into MS holders but it's a gamble. Link to post Share on other sites
MarkFeld Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55. You might be right about that. However, my experience has been that a large majority of this issue - even including examples graded as high as 65 and 66 - display what looks to be rub on the cheek. Look at the cheek on this MS64 and this MS65 Link to post Share on other sites
coinman_23885 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55. You might be right about that. However, my experience has been that a large majority of this issue - even including examples graded as high as 65 and 66 - display what looks to be rub on the cheek. Look at the cheek on this MS64 and this MS65 Do you think it is more an issue of striking considerations then? Also, what do you think about Sam's suggestion of so called "cabinet friction"? Link to post Share on other sites
MarkFeld Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) I hate to be a kill joy, but I agree with Sam. There is rub that sticks out on the cheek and hair that jumps out especially when the photo is moderately large. I'll go with AU55. You might be right about that. However, my experience has been that a large majority of this issue - even including examples graded as high as 65 and 66 - display what looks to be rub on the cheek. Look at the cheek on this MS64 and this MS65 Do you think it is more an issue of striking considerations then? Also, what do you think about Sam's suggestion of so called "cabinet friction"? Without specifically addressing the coin in this thread (since I haven't seen it in hand) I think it - the frequently seen flatness on the cheek - must be a striking issue. To me, "cabinet friction" refers to a coin with a trace of rub, but which hasn't seen actual circulation. However, the result is often the same with a coin that has seen light circulation - either way, there is a trace of rub/wear. I used the word "often", because, in addition to a trace of rub/wear, a coin which has seen actual circulation might also display contact marks. Compare that to a coin which has not seen actual circulation and might exhibit the same wear/rub pattern, but an absence of contact/circulation marks. Edited October 17, 2014 by MarkFeld Link to post Share on other sites
Coindude Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Thanks for your insights Mark. Link to post Share on other sites
wdrob Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 (edited) Although a grade guess of about 64 to 65 would have been my guess, Mark makes a very valid point on strike based on all the examples I looked at in the last couple of days. I, too, have seen numerous examples with similar strike issues even in MS66 and possibly MS67 holders. The grading guide on these states to look for wear to appear first on the eyebrow, the hair above the forehead, and the right globe on the reverse. Those areas look free of wear on the piece in hand and a much better lit photo may have made it easier to see these areas as well. I sought some advice from Brandon and he was most forthcoming, (thank you again Brandon) so hopefully I can apply his best practices to develop a much more consistent series of future photos. btw; this piece has a highly somewhat mirrored field and possibly I will take the time to photograph again in an attempt to show the mirrored fields. Thanks. Edited October 17, 2014 by wdrob Link to post Share on other sites
wdrob Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Here it is while trying to show the reflectivity of the mirrors. The toning hampers it in some areas though. Link to post Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 These Columbians are actually *very* common (relatively speaking) in prooflike condition. Its hard to judge if yours meets the criteria, but I wouldn't be surprised. I don't like the "rub" on the cheek, but if it is actually a striking issue then I would call it a 65. Link to post Share on other sites
Coindude Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Taking into account only the second image I would have called this a 65. Link to post Share on other sites
wdrob Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 Well I think I will call it a MS65 and since all I really wanted out of this deal was the leather coin purse and the watch fob, I think I came out pretty good on that since no one bid against me. Jason, after looking at it again while taking that second picture, although reflectivity is very good, I doubt this one is PL so it is what it is. Would have been nice to have received a stray proof. Link to post Share on other sites
coinman_23885 Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Here it is while trying to show the reflectivity of the mirrors. The toning hampers it in some areas though. This one makes the coin look mint state. Link to post Share on other sites
Afterword Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 MS64 Link to post Share on other sites
