Is there such thing as "close enough" for MS70?

[PocketArt]

I've been following this 2014-D enhanced finish Sacagawea with great interest. I'm curious to the price discovery on this particular piece as it has been relisted a few times. First time I saw it listed it was at a starting bid of $6,175.00; with a buy it now at $20,000.

 

Now, the starting bid is $4,185.00 with no buy it now option. I own a dozen examples in lesser grade compared to the listed coin, and have a box of 10 mint sealed.

 

My question- I see nicks on the outer rim of the obverse at around the 10-12 o'clock position and faint at the 6 o'clock position. On the reverse; it appears there are faint nicks at the 10-12 o'clock position as well. Is this still a MS70 coin when nicks on rim still can be seen with naked eye? Do nicks on outer rim not count since not in field of coin or on the devices? Is there such thing as labeling a coin as MS70 if it has superior surfaces to the majority of other examples even though there are noticeable nicks on the superior coin?

 

Thanks

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PCGS-2014-D-MS70-First-Strike-1-Native-American-Sacagawea-Enhanced-UNC-Coin-/131935310214?hash=item1eb7f51186:g:I2oAAOSwKfVXLouA

[coinman1794]

I've been following this 2014-D enhanced finish Sacagawea with great interest. I'm curious to the price discovery on this particular piece as it has been relisted a few times. First time I saw it listed it was at a starting bid of $6,175.00; with a buy it now at $20,000.

 

Now, the starting bid is $4,185.00 with no buy it now option. I own a dozen examples in lesser grade compared to the listed coin, and have a box of 10 mint sealed.

 

Is this still a MS70 coin when nicks on rim still can be seen with naked eye? Do nicks on outer rim not count since not in field of coin or on the devices? Is there such thing as labeling a coin as MS70 if it has superior surfaces to the majority of other examples even though there are noticeable nicks on the superior coin?

 

Thanks

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PCGS-2014-D-MS70-First-Strike-1-Native-American-Sacagawea-Enhanced-UNC-Coin-/131935310214?hash=item1eb7f51186:g:I2oAAOSwKfVXLouA

 

I would argue no, but I have seen examples of Sac dollars where the large, high rims were ignored during the grading process. Also, the images are not clear enough to tell whether or not those flecks are actually mint made imperfections.

 

No, there is no such thing as grading on a curve, at least not in the manner you suggest.

[RWB]

Why not go back to Sheldon's original description of "70," then decide if the present usage is consistent with it.

The 1970s ANA scale says (more of less):

 

"The perfect coin, as minted. Has no trace of wear, handling, scratches or contact with other coins from a (5x) magnification."

 

Money quickly corrupts ideals and "standards." (The original Sheldon system was all about money - establishing a monetary value originating with a "basal" condition and market value. The application was active and useful for one of two weeks after publication, after which market forces took over.)

[Conder101]

What is more amazing to me is someone spent over $4,000 on a coin you can't really see well just based on the label.

[EleMint Man]

 

Are you seeing rim nicks in the mentioned 2014 D MS70? I can only see some "Glitters" on the rims. In most cases, you'd be lucky to get a MS66 on a coin with minor rim nicks. As far as PR70's and MS70's go, some have better eye appeal than others. For example I bought two 2000 S PR70 Sacagaweas as a pair ($32!) and one has reliefs that are brighter than the other which makes it a better looking coin. $4,185 is a lot to ask for this coin which PCGS values at $2,500 especially if another TPG has graded one at MS70 too.

 

http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/Coin/Detail/535789/69

 

[RWB]

An entirely solid value at $12.00.

[PocketArt]

Thanks for input everyone, interesting that you've seen some Sacagawea examples where the rims appeared ignored through the grading process coinman1794. Agreed that the pictures aren't the greatest; but the nick above the "R" in liberty really stands out. Shouldn't this disqualify for a MS70? I'm surprised PCGS doesn't have their MS70 pictured as an example on coinfacts. Would be good to see this for comparison with their three MS69's pictured. I've yet to find a good picture of a MS70.

 

Some of the 2014-D examples that I have are comparable to the MS69's listed on PCGS coinfacts. The areas that appear to have more hits and nicks are even consistent with the examples pictured. On the reverse; Sacagawea's hand and lower forearm above the wrist, and bottom of bowl that she's holding all exhibit these faint nicks. For whatever reason, this area was more susceptible to damage. I wonder if it's because it's the highest area on the reverse? Most of the examples I have, in regards to the obverse, are clean as pictured on PCGS coinfacts. The obverse on all my examples are much more pristine when compared to the reverse.

 

In conclusion; I think the bar was set too low in what a MS69 should look like with the 2014-D Sacagawea's; which was why I asked if there was such a thing as labeling a coin MS70 if it has superior surfaces, even if it has noticeable nicks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

MS70 grade permits no marks.

[BillJones]

I would not buy that thing at the price on bet, even if I had an interest in it which I don't. We all know that the alloy in those coins is unstable. I think it is worse than red copper. All you need is one spot on this "MS-70", and the coin is dead.

 

As for the coin in question, the thing does not grade MS-70 because of the marks. It is a purchase for a registry player who is more interested in the grade on the label than the coin in the holder.

[Conder101]

An entirely solid value at $12.00.

I could probably go for that.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

It did not sell. Has it been relisted for less?

[PocketArt]

The Sacagawea has not been relisted. I'm curious if one of these has passed hands and for what amount? Would be good to see better pictures of these MS70's to see what would qualify.