• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Is this coin overgraded by 2 points?

Started by Danye West,

20 posts in this topic

BillJones

BillJones

Posted
Posted

A really fussy conservative grader might say one point, but I'd say it meets the MS-65 grade with nothing to spare. MS-65 is not a super premium grade for coin like this, and you can't expect to get an MS-66 in a 65 holder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

With the marks on the face, I'd feel a lot better calling this one a 64 (it is better than a 63). The luster appears to be good, and PCGS really goes for the blast white blazers, so that is probably why they gave it the just-barely-there-65.

 

The coin does not appear to have FBL, but that shouldn't be surprising given the plastic its in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Walkerfan

Walkerfan

Posted
Posted

Franklin's face and base of bust are much too roughed up with abrasions for me. The bell lines don't appear completely full, either. Fields look really clean with great luster. I agree w/Jason that it is at best a 64.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman1794

coinman1794

Posted
Posted
I saw this on GC. It's a blazer, but look at it! Super low MS!

http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/287901/1956-Franklin-Half-Dollar-PCGS-MS-65-FL

 

No.

 

It has amazing luster and a few scattered tick marks. Much of what you see on the cheek is grease strike-through roughness. It looks like a B to C level MS65. One cannot judge bell lines accurately from a GC picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman1794

coinman1794

Posted
Posted

There are multiple large, long scrapes across the bell that limit the grade of the reverse to MS62-63 at best. The obverse looks smooth but has very dark spots, approaching black. I am comfortable enough with GC photos to call this piece over-graded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wheat'swheats

wheat'swheats

Posted
Posted

 

Conversely, the 1953-D is over-graded by at least 2 grades, and maybe three.

I know I'll tick off a bunch of you toner guys but that tone is butt ugly, and really shows every hit the coin has ever had

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

 

Conversely, the 1953-D is over-graded by at least 2 grades, and maybe three.

I know I'll tick off a bunch of you toner guys but that tone is butt ugly, and really shows every hit the coin has ever had

 

No; we think the same or at least I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Afterword

Afterword

Posted
Posted

It may appear more marked up on the reverse due to the dark toning. If so, I would call it boarder line MS 64 - MS 65.

 

I find the coin to be less than attractive, but butts, in general, I find to be less than ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

 

Conversely, the 1953-D is over-graded by at least 2 grades, and maybe three.

 

I would not make such a proclamation based upon those images.

 

No offense, but I would.

 

They eye appeal is significantly negative (and closely resembles a present the dog left for me yesterday), the strike is below average (even for a below average issue), and the luster is weak (based on what I know of GC images). The HUGE scrapes on the reverse almost want to make me call it damaged. Giving it 63 would be generous - giving it 65 is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted

 

Conversely, the 1953-D is over-graded by at least 2 grades, and maybe three.

 

I would not make such a proclamation based upon those images.

 

No offense, but I would.

 

They eye appeal is significantly negative (and closely resembles a present the dog left for me yesterday), the strike is below average (even for a below average issue), and the luster is weak (based on what I know of GC images). The HUGE scrapes on the reverse almost want to make me call it damaged. Giving it 63 would be generous - giving it 65 is ridiculous.

 

I had not seen the enlarged reverse image when I first posted. Now that I have, I have no choice but to disagree with my earlier post. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

 

Conversely, the 1953-D is over-graded by at least 2 grades, and maybe three.

 

I would not make such a proclamation based upon those images.

 

No offense, but I would.

 

They eye appeal is significantly negative (and closely resembles a present the dog left for me yesterday), the strike is below average (even for a below average issue), and the luster is weak (based on what I know of GC images). The HUGE scrapes on the reverse almost want to make me call it damaged. Giving it 63 would be generous - giving it 65 is ridiculous.

 

I had not seen the enlarged reverse image when I first posted. Now that I have, I have no choice but to disagree with my earlier post. :o

 

I wonder if Great Collections accidentally uploaded the wrong image of the reverse. The front is not beautiful either, but it would be a much more realistic possibility. Either that or a mechanical error at NGC. I think the coin should be in a UNC details slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing